System-Level Health-Care Integration and the Costs of Cancer Care Across the Disease Continuum.

PURPOSE: Policy reforms in the Affordable Care Act encourage health care integration to improve quality and lower costs. We examined the association between system-level integration and longitudinal costs of cancer care. METHODS: We used linked SEER-Medicare data to identify patients age 66 to 99 years diagnosed with prostate, bladder, esophageal, pancreatic, lung, liver, kidney, colorectal, breast, or ovarian cancer from 2007 to 2012. We attributed each patient to one or more phases of care (ie, initial, continuing, and end of life) according to time from diagnosis until death or end of study interval. For each phase, we aggregated all claims with the primary cancer diagnosis and identified patients treated in an integrated delivery network (IDN), as defined by the Becker Hospital Review list of the top 100 most integrated health delivery systems. We then determined if care provided in an IDN was associated with decreased payments across cancers and for each individual cancer by phase and across phases. RESULTS: We identified 428,300 patients diagnosed with one of 10 common cancers. Overall, there were no differences in phase-based payments between IDNs and non-IDNs. Average adjusted annual payments by phase for IDN versus non-IDNs were as follows: initial, $14,194 versus $14,421, respectively ( P = .672); continuing, $2,051 versus $2,099 ( P = .566); and end of life, $16,257 versus $16,232 ( P = .948). However, in select cancers, we observed lower payments in IDNs. For bladder cancer, payments at the end of life were lower for IDNs ($11,041 v $12,331; P = .008). Of the four cancers with the lowest 5-year survival rates (ie, pancreatic, lung, esophageal, and liver), average expenditures during the initial and continuing-care phases were lower for patients with liver cancer treated in IDNs. CONCLUSION: For patients with one of 10 common malignancies, treatment in an IDN generally is not associated with lower costs during any phase of cancer care.

Association of Delivery System Integration and Outcomes for Major Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Integrated delivery systems (IDSs) are postulated to reduce spending and improve outcomes through successful coordination of care across multiple providers. Nonetheless, the actual impact of IDSs on outcomes for complex multidisciplinary care such as major cancer surgery is largely unknown. METHODS: Using 2011-2013 Medicare data, this study identified patients who underwent surgical resection for prostate, bladder, esophageal, pancreatic, lung, liver, kidney, colorectal, or ovarian cancer. Rates of readmission, 30-day mortality, surgical complications, failure to rescue, and prolonged hospital stay for cancer surgery were compared between patients receiving care at IDS hospitals and those receiving care at non-IDS hospitals. Generalized estimating equations were used to adjust results by cancer type and patient- and hospital-level characteristics while accounting for clustering of patients within hospitals. RESULTS: The study identified 380,053 patients who underwent major resection of cancer, with 38% receiving care at an IDS. Outcomes did not differ between IDS and non-IDS hospitals regarding readmission and surgical complication rates, whereas only minor differences were observed for 30-day mortality (3.5% vs 3.2% for IDS; p < 0.001) and prolonged hospital stay (9.9% vs 9.2% for IDS; p < 0.001). However, after adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics, the frequencies of adverse perioperative outcomes were not significantly associated with IDS status. CONCLUSIONS: The collective findings suggest that local delivery system integration alone does not necessarily have an impact on perioperative outcomes in surgical oncology. Moving forward, stakeholders may need to focus on surgical and oncology-specific methods of care coordination and quality improvement initiatives to improve outcomes for patients undergoing cancer surgery.

The State of Men's Health Services in the Veterans Health Administration.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: For many diseases that place a large burden on our health care system, men often have worse health outcomes than women. As the largest single provider of health care to men in the USA, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) has the potential to serve as leader in the delivery of improved men's health care to address these disparities. RECENT FINDINGS: The VA system has made recent strides in improving benefits for aspects of men's health that are traditionally poorly covered, such as treatment for male factor infertility. Despite this, review of Quality Enhancement Research Initiatives (QUERIs) within the VA system reveals few efforts to integrate disparate areas of care into a holistic men's health program. Policies to unify currently disparate aspects of men's health care will ensure that the VA remains a progressive model for other health care systems in the USA.