Dataset Information

Opportunities for Savings in Risk Arrangements for Oncologic Care.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

As the US accelerates adoption of alternative payment through global payment models such as Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) or Medicare Advantage (MA), high spending for cancer care is a potential target for savings.

Objective

To quantify the extent to which ACOs and other risk-bearing organizations operating in a specific geographic area (hospital referral region [HRR]) could achieve savings by steering patients to efficient medical oncology practices.

Design, setting, and participants

This observational study included serial cross-sections of Medicare beneficiaries with cancer from 2010 to 2018. Data were analyzed from August 2021 to March 2023.

Main outcomes and measures

Total spending and spending by category in the 1-year period following an index visit for a patient with newly diagnosed (incident) or poor-prognosis cancer.

Results

The incident cohort included 1 309 825 patients with a mean age of 74.0 years; the most common cancer types were breast (21.4%), lung (16.7%), and colorectal cancer (10.0%). The poor prognosis cohort included 1 429 973 (mean age, 72.7 years); the most common cancer types were lung (26.6%), lymphoma (11.7%), and leukemia (7.3%). Options for steering varied across markets; the top quartile market had 10 or more oncology practices, but the bottom quartile had 3 or fewer oncology practices. Total spending (including Medicare Part D) in the incident cohort increased from a mean of $57 314 in 2009 to 2010 to $66 028 in 2016 to 2017. Within markets, total spending for practices in the highest spending quartile was 19% higher than in the lowest quartile. Hospital spending was the single largest component of spending in both time periods ($20 390 and $19 718, respectively) followed by Part B (infused) chemotherapy ($8022 and $11 699). Correlations in practice-level spending between the first-year (2009) and second-year (2010) spending were high (>0.90 in all categories with most >0.98), but these attenuated over time.

Conclusions and relevance

These results suggest there may be opportunities for ACOs and other risk-bearing organizations to select or drive referrals to lower-spending oncology practices in many local markets.

SUBMITTER: Landon BE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10504611 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Opportunities for Savings in Risk Arrangements for Oncologic Care.

Landon Bruce E BE Lam Miranda B MB Landrum Mary Beth MB McWilliams J Michael JM Meneades Laurie L Wright Alexi A AA Keating Nancy L NL

JAMA health forum 20230901 9

<h4>Importance</h4>As the US accelerates adoption of alternative payment through global payment models such as Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) or Medicare Advantage (MA), high spending for cancer care is a potential target for savings.<h4>Objective</h4>To quantify the extent to which ACOs and other risk-bearing organizations operating in a specific geographic area (hospital referral region [HRR]) could achieve savings by steering patients to efficient medical oncology practices.<h4>Design, ...[more]

PMID: 37713209

Similar Datasets

Project description:In the United States (US), the lifetime incidence of incarceration is 6.6%, exceeding that of any other nation. Compared to the general US population, incarcerated individuals are disproportionally affected by chronic health conditions, mental illness, and substance use disorders. Barriers to accessing medical care are common in correctional facilities. We sought to characterize the local incarcerated patient population and explore barriers to medical care in these patients. We conducted a retrospective, observational cohort study by reviewing the medical records of incarcerated patients presenting to the adult emergency department (ED) of a single academic, tertiary care facility with medical or psychiatric (med/psych) and trauma-related emergencies between January 2012 and December 2014. Data on demographics, medical complexity, trauma intentionality, and barriers to medical care were analyzed using descriptive statistics, unpaired student's t-test or one-way analysis of variance for continuous variables, and chi-square analysis or Fisher's exact test as appropriate. Trauma patients were younger with fewer medical comorbidities and were less likely to be admitted to the hospital than med/psych patients. 47.8% of injuries resulted from violence or were self-inflicted. Most trauma-related complaints were managed by the emergency medicine physician in the ED. While barriers to medical care were not correlated with hospital admission, 5.4% of med/psych and 2.9% of trauma patients reported barriers as a contributing factor to the ED encounter. Med/psych patients commonly reported a lack of access to medications, while trauma patients reported a delay in medical care. Trauma-related presentations were less medically complex than med/psych-related complaints. Medical management of most injuries required no hospital resources outside of the ED, indicating a potential role for outpatient management of trauma-related complaints. Additional opportunities for health care improvement and cost savings include the implementation of programs that target violence, prevent injuries, and promote the continuity of medical care while incarcerated.

Project description:ImportanceAllowing the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to negotiate prescription drug prices for Medicare may improve drug affordability.ObjectiveTo estimate savings from Medicare price negotiation under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and examine opportunities to increase savings.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional, population-based study used data from 2020 Medicare prescription drug claims. The study was conducted and data were analyzed in 2022.ExposuresEligibility for Medicare price negotiation under the IRA and alternative criteria.Main outcomes and measuresMinimum savings under the IRA's eligibility criteria were estimated and compared with savings within alternative scenarios, including (1) selecting drugs for negotiation based on net spending after rebates rather than gross spending; (2) extending eligibility to drugs with biosimilar or generic competitors; (3) reducing the minimum years since US Food and Drug Administration approval for eligibility; and (4) changing 2 or 3 of these factors. Estimated savings were calculated at different levels of scale-up of price negotiation under the IRA, from 10 Part D drugs in 2026 to 60 Part B and D drugs in 2029. Gross spending was calculated using the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2020 Medicare drug spending dashboard. Rebates were estimated using SSR Health data. Information on FDA approvals, generics, and biosimilars was obtained from FDA websites.ResultsUnder IRA rules, estimated minimum savings from price negotiation in 2026 for 10 Part D drugs would be $3.2 billion. For 2029 for 60 Part D and B drugs, estimated savings were $16.0 billion. Selecting drugs for negotiation based on net rather than gross spending would be associated with estimated savings of $4.6 billion (a 45% increase) in 2026 and $18.9 billion (an 18% increase) in 2029. Including drugs with generic competitors or biosimilars would be associated with an estimated savings of $6.6 billion (a 109% increase) in 2026 and $24.9 billion (a 56% increase) in 2029. Making both changes would be associated with savings of $9.5 billion (a 200% increase) in 2026 and $28.3 billion (a 77% increase) in 2029. A sensitivity analysis suggested that reducing the required number of years since marketing approval by 2 years would be associated with increased estimated savings of 4% when 10 Part D drugs are negotiated and 12% when 60 Part D and B drugs are negotiated. Changing all 3 criteria would be associated with the greatest increase in estimated savings in 2029 (119% increase when 10 Part D drugs are negotiated and 93% increase for 60 Part D and B drugs).Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this cross-sectional study suggest that adjusting the eligibility criteria for Medicare prescription drug price negotiation to permit inclusion of drugs with biosimilar or generic competitors and selecting drugs based on net rather than gross spending may be a promising approach to substantially increase estimated savings.

Project description:ImportanceUse of generics is generally understood as a cost-saving practice. However, pharmacy benefit managers have an incentive to place higher-priced generic drugs on insurers' drug formularies to profit by creating a large difference between the price negotiated with pharmacies and the price paid by insurers (what is known as spread pricing).ObjectiveTo examine price differentials and savings potential between high-cost generics and corresponding therapeutic alternatives of same clinical value and lower cost.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional analysis examined the top 1000 generics in Colorado's all-payer claims database (CO-APCD) in 2019. High-cost generics and lower-cost generic therapeutic alternatives of same clinical value constituted the study sample. Data were analyzed from January 2019 to December 2019.ExposuresGeneric drug prices measured by transaction prices, average wholesale price (AWP), and national drug acquisition average cost (NADAC).Main outcomes and measuresPrice differentials between the high-cost generics and the corresponding therapeutic alternatives. Levels of discounts and savings that could be achieved if the high-cost generics had been substituted by their therapeutic alternatives.ResultsThis cross-sectional study of the top 1000 CO-APCD generics identified 45 high-cost products that had lower-cost therapeutic alternatives of same clinical value. Overall, high-cost generics were 15.6 times more expensive than their therapeutic alternatives (median values). If the lower-cost alternatives had been used, total spending would have been reduced from $7.5 million to $873 711, resulting in 88.3% savings. Most substitutions (28 of 45 [62.2]%) involved different dosage forms or different strengths of the same drug and provided mean (SD) discounts of 94.9% (3.8%) and 77.1% (19.9%), respectively.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, replacing high-cost generics with lower-cost alternatives of same clinical value would produce savings of nearly 90%. Plan sponsors should be aware that some generics are associated with higher spending and should periodically review the specific products driving their generic drug spending. Substitution of high-cost generics may provide a simple pathway to offer the same therapeutic benefit at lower cost to patients and insurers.

Project description:ImportanceApproximately 30% of US families with employer-sponsored health insurance, disproportionately drawn from high-income groups, benefit from flexible spending accounts (FSAs) or health savings accounts (HSAs). The combined association through both out-of-pocket spending and premiums of these tax-favored accounts with health care expenditures and tax expenditures remain uncertain.ObjectiveTo compare the health care and health-related tax expenditures among families holding FSAs, HSAs, or neither type of account.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used family-level data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2019, and conducted regression models, controlling for demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, chronic conditions, prior health care expenditures, and marginal tax rates to analyze how holding tax-favored accounts is associated with families' health care spending and tax expenditures. The sample was restricted to families included in the survey for 2 years, with no members 65 years or older, and with at least 1 policyholder covered (only) by full-year employer-sponsored insurance. Data were analyzed from December 1, 2023, to April 30, 2024.ExposuresHolding FSAs or HSAs.Main outcomes and measuresOut-of-pocket and insurance-paid health expenditures overall and by service were measured. Health-related tax expenditures were based on tax-excluded insurance premiums and tax-sheltered out-of-pocket expenses.ResultsOf the 17 038 families included in the study sample, 2628 held FSAs (weighted 17%) and 1845 (weighted 13%) held HSAs. In regression-adjusted models, families with FSAs spent a mean of 20% or $2033 (95% CI, $789-$3276) more on health care annually than non-account holding families, largely due to increased insurer-paid expenses. Families with HSAs spent a mean of 44% or $697 (95% CI, $521-$873) more on out-of-pocket expenditures and had insignificantly higher insurance-paid expenditures than families without accounts, resulting in overall expenditures comparable to those of non-account holders. The additional tax expenditures associated with FSAs were a mean of $1306 (95% CI, $536-$2076) annually per family. Both types of funds were associated with significant increases in tax expenditures from additional office-based visits ($445 [95% CI, $244-$645] for FSAs and $174 [95% CI, $11-$336] for HSAs), outpatient visits ($330 [95% CI, $132-$528] for FSAs and $250 [95% CI, $15-$485] for HSAs), dental visits ($180 [95% CI, $126-$233] for FSAs and $165 [95% CI, $104-$226] for HSAs), and vision care ($36 [95% CI, $28-$45] for FSAs and $52 [95% CI, $40-$64] for HSAs).Conclusions and relevanceParticipation in FSAs is associated with higher health care expenditures and tax expenditures, while HSAs are not associated with reduced expenditures. Tax policy could be better targeted to enhance insurance coverage and health care accessibility.

Project description:ImportancePostacute care is thought to be a major source of wasteful spending. The extent to which accountable care organizations (ACOs) can limit postacute care spending has implications for the importance and design of other payment models that include postacute care.ObjectiveTo assess changes in postacute care spending and use of postacute care associated with provider participation as ACOs in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) and the pathways by which they occurred.Design, setting, and participantsWith the use of fee-for-service Medicare claims from a random 20% sample of beneficiaries with 25 544 650 patient-years, 8 395 426 hospital admissions, and 1 595 352 stays in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2014, difference-in-difference comparisons of beneficiaries served by ACOs with beneficiaries served by local non-ACO health care professionals (control group) were performed before vs after entry into the MSSP. Differential changes were estimated separately for cohorts of ACOs entering the MSSP in 2012, 2013, and 2014.ExposuresPatient attribution to an ACO in the MSSP.Main outcomes and measuresPostacute spending, discharge to a facility, length of SNF stays, readmissions, use of highly rated SNFs, and mortality, adjusted for patient characteristics.ResultsFor the 2012 cohort of 114 ACOs, participation in the MSSP was associated with an overall reduction in postacute spending (differential change in 2014 for ACOs vs control group, -$106 per beneficiary [95% CI, -$176 to -$35], or -9.0% of the precontract unadjusted mean of $1172; P = .003) that was driven by differential reductions in acute inpatient care, discharges to facilities rather than home (-0.6 percentage points [95% CI, -1.1 to 0.0], or -2.7% of the unadjusted precontract mean of 22.6%; P = .03), and length of SNF stays (-0.60 days per stay [95% CI, -0.99 to -0.22], or -2.2% of the precontract unadjusted mean of 27.07 days; P = .002). Reductions in use of SNFs and length of stay were largely due to within-hospital or within-SNF changes in care specifically for ACO patients. Participation in the MSSP was associated with smaller significant reductions in SNF spending in 2014 for the 2013 ACO cohort (-$27 per beneficiary [95% CI, -$49 to -$6], or -3.3% of the precontract unadjusted mean of $813; P = .01) but not in the 2013 or 2014 cohort's first year of participation (-$13 per beneficiary [95% CI, -$33 to $6]; P = .19; and $4 per beneficiary [95% CI, -$15 to $24]; P = .66). Estimates were similar for ACOs with and without financial ties to hospitals. Participation in the MSSP was not associated with significant changes in 30-day readmissions, use of highly rated SNFs, or mortality.Conclusions and relevanceParticipation in the MSSP has been associated with significant reductions in postacute spending without ostensible deterioration in quality of care. Spending reductions were more consistent with clinicians working within hospitals and SNFs to influence care for ACO patients than with hospital-wide initiatives by ACOs or use of preferred SNFs.

Dataset Information

Opportunities for Savings in Risk Arrangements for Oncologic Care.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Opportunities for Savings in Risk Arrangements for Oncologic Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets