Public Health and General Preventive Medicine Training: A National Survey.

Little is known about the current experiences of Public Health/General Preventive Medicine (PH/GPM) residents and graduates in the United States. This cross-sectional study of PH/GPM residents and graduates examined their knowledge of the field and career choices after graduation. We developed a questionnaire to address medical education, graduate medical training prior to Preventive Medicine (PM), current PM training, and post-graduation goals. Data was stratified by residency status (resident vs graduate), and board-eligibility (dual-eligible vs solely PH/GPM). Bivariate analysis of quantitative data was performed using Fisher's test. Qualitative data were organized into themes and analyzed quantitatively. Of those invited to participate, a total of 153 (18.25%) PH/GPM residents and graduates responded to the survey. We found diversity in prior medical education/training among respondents. Overall, debt burden at the start of training was low compared to national trends. Compared to residents, a higher proportion of graduates were board-eligible in another specialty (p<0.001). Most respondents felt that their programs provided them with opportunities to acquire skills essential for a career in PM. Ninety-one percent of graduates were board-certified in PH/GPM. Respondents expressed a wide range of career interests, including government work and academia. Difficulty with marketing themselves as PM physicians was frequently cited as a reason for the difficulty in securing a PM job. The results inform the PM community with current trends in PH/GPM training and career obstacles faced by PM graduates.

Opportunities for Cancer Health Care Disparities and Care Delivery Research: An Analysis of the NCI Health Care Delivery Research Program Portfolio.

Cancer health care disparities are complex, involve patient, clinician and health care system factors, and are defined as adverse differences in cancer outcomes. This analysis describes NCI's Healthcare Delivery Research Program's (HDRP) portfolio of disparities-focused research and identifies future research opportunities. Grants through HDRP (fiscal years 2012 to 2016) focused on detecting, understanding, and/or intervening on disparities in or among health disparity populations were reviewed by co-authors. Forty-eight funded grants were identified, coded, and characterized. Descriptive analyses are reported. Most studies focused on racial/ethnic minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. Colorectal, breast, and cervical cancers were most frequently examined. Almost 40% of studies addressed the intervening phase of the disparities research continuum. Few studies focused on clinician-level factors or involved the community in the research design. A sustained disparities research emphasis is essential to addressing the determinants of and cancer burden among health disparity populations across the cancer care continuum.

Receipt of guideline-concordant care among young adult women with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the real-world care of young adult (YA) females (aged 20-39 years) with breast cancer. This study describes factors associated with the receipt of guideline-concordant care (GCC) among YAs. METHODS: The authors identified 1259 YA women with invasive breast cancer diagnosed in 2013 in the National Cancer Institute's Patterns of Care study. Hospital records were re-abstracted, and treatment was verified. Using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's 2013 breast cancer guidelines, the authors assessed the receipt of GCC by cancer subtype among a subset of YAs (n = 952). Associations between sociodemographic and clinical factors and GCC receipt were examined. RESULTS: Most YAs were 35 to 39 years old (51.2%) and partnered (56.4%); half had hormone receptor-positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) tumors. GCC was found for 81.7% of YAs. Relationships between sociodemographic and clinical factors and GCC receipt differed by subtype. Stage was the only significant predictor of GCC receipt for all subtypes (stage II vs III: odds ratio [OR] for HR+/HER2+, 0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.50; OR for HR-/HER2+, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.07-0.25; OR for HR-/HER2-, 3.86; 95% CI, 1.55-9.62; OR for HR+/HER2-, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.63-5.80). CONCLUSIONS: GCC is high among YAs with breast cancer. The effects of sociodemographic factors and treatment facility size on GCC differ by subtype. Consistent with recommendations, tumor biology, not age, is associated with GCC for all subtypes. Future studies should assess the effect of GCC on survival among YAs.

Preventive Medicine Physicians' Role in Health Care Organizations' Pursuit of the Triple Aim.

CONTEXT: The Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Triple Aim is rooted in improving population health and therefore requires a focus on prevention as well as management of disease. Preventive medicine (PM) physicians are uniquely trained in clinical medicine as well as health care delivery and systems-based practice, thus potentially positioning them to lead population health and contribute to the Triple Aim. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to (1) describe PM physicians' contributions related to the Triple Aim and (2) describe PM physician satisfaction with these activities. DESIGN: A survey was administered to physicians graduating from a single Preventive Medicine Residency program between 1975 and 2015. Physicians were asked about work in 3 specific emerging areas that relate to the Triple Aim's focus on population health improvement: population health; health system transformation; and integration between primary care and public health. PM physicians were also asked about their job, career, and specialty satisfaction. RESULTS: Most respondents (74%) practiced population health, with the majority (63%) defining this as improving the health of the population at large versus for a defined clinical population (37%). Approximately half (59%) of PM physicians are involved in health system transformation leadership. Most respondents practice both public health and primary care, but only 32% report having had positions that involve integration of these activities. PM physicians reported high specialty satisfaction levels, particularly among those involved in population health and health care transformation. CONCLUSION: PM physicians already make substantial contributions to population health and lead work related to the Triple Aim. High satisfaction among PM physicians suggests that they can contribute to a stable and sustainable population health workforce.

Estimating Chemotherapy Use Among Patients With a Prior Primary Cancer Diagnosis Using SEER-Medicare Data.

Cancer treatment studies commonly exclude patients with prior primary cancers due to difficulties in ascertaining for which site treatment is intended. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare patients 65 years and older diagnosed with an index colon or rectal cancer (CRC) or female breast cancer (BC) between 2004 and 2013 were included. Chemotherapy, defined as "any chemotherapy" and more restrictively as "chemotherapy with confirmatory diagnoses," was ascertained based on claims data within 6 months of index cancer diagnosis by prior cancer history. Any chemotherapy use was slightly lower among patients with a prior cancer (CRC: no prior = 17.4%, prior = 16.1%; BC: no prior = 12.9%, prior = 12.0%). With confirmatory diagnoses required, estimates were lower, especially among patients with a prior cancer (CRC: no prior = 16.8%, prior = 13.6%; BC: no prior = 12.6%, prior = 11.0%). These findings suggest that patients with prior cancers can be included in studies of chemotherapy use; requiring confirmatory diagnoses can increase treatment assignment confidence.

Home Health Use Following a Cancer Diagnosis Among Patients Enrolled in Medicare Advantage and Traditional Medicare: Findings From the Newly Linked SEER-Medicare and Home Health OASIS Data.

BACKGROUND: This article describes characteristics of patients receiving home health following an initial cancer diagnosis, comparing those enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) and Traditional Medicare (TM), using the newly linked 2010-2014 National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare and home health Outcome and Assessment Information Set (OASIS) data. METHODS: We identified SEER-Medicare beneficiaries with at least one OASIS assessment within 3 months of cancer diagnosis in 2010-2014, and summarized their demographic and clinical characteristics. Demographic and diagnostic data were obtained from the SEER-Medicare data, while further details about cognitive status, mood, function, and medical history were obtained from OASIS. We assessed differences between MA and TM beneficiaries using chi-square tests for independence, t-tests, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. RESUTLS: We identified 104 023 patients who received home health within 3 months of cancer diagnosis: 81 587 enrolled in TM and 22 436 enrolled in MA. TM cancer patients had higher unadjusted rates of home health use than MA patients (16.3% vs 10.3%, P < .001). TM cancer patients receiving home health had more limitations in their cognitive function than their MA counterparts and longer lengths of service (mean = 42.2 days vs 39.4 days, P < .001; median = 27 vs 26 days, interquartile range = 42). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the large number of cancer patients in the SEER-Medicare-OASIS data and describes characteristics for TM and MA patients. These newly linked data can be used to assess home health care among older patients with cancer.

Comparison of Physician Data in Two Data Files Available for Cancer Health Services Research.

INTRODUCTION: Physicians are vital to health-care delivery, but assessing their impact on care can be challenging given limited data. Historically, health services researchers have obtained physician characteristics data from the American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty (MD-PPAS) file was assessed, as an alternative source of physician data, particularly in the context of cancer health services research. METHODS: We used physician National Provider Identifiers in the MD-PPAS data (2008-2014) to identify physicians in the AMA data current as of July 18, 2016. Within each source, we grouped physicians into six broad specialty groups. Percent agreement and Cohen's kappa coefficient (k) were calculated for age, sex, specialty, and practice state. RESULTS: Among the 698 202 included physicians, there was excellent agreement for age (percent agreement = 97.7%, k = 0.97) and sex (99.4%, k = 0.99) and good agreement for specialty (86.1%, k = 0.80). Within specialty, using AMA as the reference, agreement was lowest for oncologists (77%). Approximately 85.9% of physicians reported the same practice state in both data sets. CONCLUSION: Although AMA data have been commonly used to account for physician-level factors in health services research, MD-PPAS data provide researchers with an alternative option depending on study needs. MD-PPAS data may be optimal if nonphysicians, provider utilization, practice characteristics, and/or temporal changes are of interest. In contrast, the AMA data may be optimal if more granular specialty, physician training, and/or a broader inclusion of physicians is of interest.

Sensitivity of Medicare Data to Identify Oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Health services researchers have studied how care from oncologists impacts treatment and outcomes for cancer patients. These studies frequently identify physician specialty using files from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) or the American Medical Association (AMA). The completeness of the CMS data resources, individually or combined, to identify oncologists is unknown. This study assessed the sensitivity of CMS data to capture oncologists included in the AMA Physician Masterfile. METHODS: Oncologists were identified from three CMS data resources: physician claims, the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System Registry, and the Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty file. CMS files and AMA data were linked using a unique physician identifier. Sensitivity to identify any oncologists, radiation oncologists (ROs), surgical oncologists (SOs), and medical oncologists (MOs) was calculated for individual and combined CMS files. For oncologists in the AMA data not identified as oncologists in the CMS data, their CMS specialty was assessed. RESULTS: Individual CMS files each captured approximately 83% of the 17 934 oncologists in the AMA Masterfile; combined CMS files captured 90.4%. By specialty, combined CMS data captured 98.2% of ROs, 89.3% of MOs, and 70.1% of SOs. For ROs and SOs in the AMA data not identified as oncologists in the CMS data, their CMS specialty was usually similar to the AMA subspecialty; ROs were radiologists and SOs were surgeons. CONCLUSION: Using combined files from CMS identified most ROs and MOs found in the AMA, but not most SOs. Determining whether to use the AMA data or CMS files for a particular research project will depend on the specific research question and the type of oncologist included in the study.

Development and Utility of the Observational Research in Oncology Toolbox: Cancer Medications Enquiry Database-Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS).

PURPOSE: Health-care claims are of increasing utility as a rich, real-world data resource for conducting treatment-related cancer research. However, multiple dynamic coding nomenclatures exist, leading to study variability. To promote increased standardization and reproducibility, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) developed the Cancer Medications Enquiry Database (CanMED)-Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) within the Observational Research in Oncology Toolbox. METHODS: The CanMED-HCPCS includes codes for oncology medications that a) have a US Food and Drug Administration-approved indication for cancer treatment or treatment-related symptom management; b) are present in National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines; or c) carry an orphan drug designation for treatment or management of cancer. Included medications and their HCPCS codes were primarily identified based on Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services annual HCPCS Indices (2012-2018). To demonstrate the utility of the CanMED-HCPCS, use of systemic treatment for stage II-IV colorectal cancer patients included in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data (2007-2013) was assessed. RESULTS: The CanMED-HCPCS (v2018) includes 332 HCPCS codes for cancer-related medications: chemotherapy (156), immunotherapy (74), hormonal therapy (54), and ancillary therapy (48). Observed treatment trends within the NCI Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data were as expected; utilization of each treatment type increased with stage, and immunotherapy was largely confined to use among stage IV patients. CONCLUSION: The CanMED-HCPCS provides a comprehensive resource that can be used by the research community to facilitate systematic identification of medications within claims or electronic health data using the HCPCS nomenclature and greater reproducibility of cancer surveillance and health services research.