Influence of Treating Facility, Provider Volume, and Patient-Sharing on Survival of Patients With Multiple Myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Population-based studies suggest that patients with multiple myeloma (MM) have better outcomes when treated at high-volume facilities, but the relative contribution of provider expertise and hospital resources to improved outcomes is unknown. This study explored how treating facility, individual provider volume, and patient-sharing between MM specialists and community providers influenced outcomes for patients with MM. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A state cancer registry linked to public and private insurance claims was used to identify a cohort of patients diagnosed with MM in 2006 through 2012. Three multivariable Cox models were used to examine how the following factors impacted overall survival: (1) evaluation at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCICCC), (2) the primary oncologist's volume of patients with MM, and (3) patient-sharing between MM specialists and community oncologists. RESULTS: A total of 1,029 patients diagnosed with MM in 2006 through 2012 were identified. Patients who were not evaluated at an NCICCC had an increased risk of mortality compared with those evaluated at an NCICCC (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% CI, 1.21-1.86; P<.001). Compared with patients treated by NCICCC MM specialists, those treated by both low-volume community providers (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.14-1.90; P<.01) and high-volume community providers (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.04-1.61; P<.05) had a higher risk of mortality. No difference in mortality was seen between patients treated by NCICCC MM specialists and those treated by the highest-volume community oncologists in the ninth and tenth deciles (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.84-1.37; P=.5591). Patients treated by community oncologists had a higher risk of mortality regardless of patient-sharing compared with patients treated by MM specialists (eg, community oncologist with a history of sharing vs NCICCC MM specialist: HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.10-2.02; P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this study add to the accumulating evidence showing that patients with MM benefit from care at high-volume facilities, and suggest that similar outcomes can be achieved by the highest-volume providers in the community.

Medicaid service use and program costs for pregnant teens.

Teen pregnancy is an important public health issue for all teens, but particularly for low-income teens who rely on the public health safety net for services. Medicaid pays for more than two-thirds of deliveries among teenagers in the USA. To discern how this public program serves pregnant teens (aged 11-19 years), the authors used Medicaid enrollment and claims data for Florida, Georgia and New Jersey in 1995 to examine teens' enrollment duration, service use and average payments relative to 20-24-year-olds on Medicaid. Teens were more likely than the older women to have been enrolled in Medicaid before pregnancy and to have maintained coverage through the third month following delivery. If not enrolled prepregnancy, teens were more likely than older women to enroll later in pregnancy. Teens were less likely to receive early prenatal care and more likely to be hospitalized during pregnancy, usually for preterm labor. While total Medicaid payments for routine prenatal and delivery-related care were equivalent between teens and older women, payments for nonroutine care during pregnancy were modestly higher for teens in Florida and Georgia. Thus, only modest cost savings can accrue from lower average costs per pregnancy and delivery among teens who delay pregnancy. Additional and larger cost savings to the Medicaid program from preventing teen pregnancy would accrue from the expected lower enrollment in Medicaid among the teens as they age.