Dataset Information

Location and Types of Treatment for Prostate Cancer After the Veterans Choice Program Implementation.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The Veterans Choice Program (VCP) was implemented in 2014 to help veterans gain broader access to specialized care outside of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities by providing them with purchased community care (CC).

Objective

To describe the prevalence and patterns in VCP-funded purchased CC after the implementation of the VCP among veterans with prostate cancer.

Design, setting, and participants

This cohort study used VHA administrative data on veterans with prostate cancer diagnosed between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. These veterans were regular VHA primary care users. Analyses were performed from March to July 2023.

Exposures

Driving distance (in miles) from residence to nearest VHA tertiary care facility. The location (VHA or purchased CC) in which treatment decisions were made was ascertained by considering 3 factors: (1) location of the diagnostic biopsy, (2) location of most of the postdiagnostic prostate-specific antigen laboratory testing, and (3) location of most of the postdiagnostic urological care encounters.

Main outcomes and measures

The main outcome was receipt of definitive treatment and proportion of purchased CC by treatment type (radical prostatectomy [RP], radiotherapy [RT], or active surveillance) and by distance to nearest VHA tertiary care facility. Quality was evaluated based on receipt of definitive treatment for Gleason grade group 1 prostate cancer (low risk/limited treatment benefit by guidelines).

Results

The cohort included 45 029 veterans (mean [SD] age, 67.1 [6.9] years) with newly diagnosed prostate cancer; of these patients, 28 866 (64.1%) underwent definitive treatment. Overall, 56.8% of patients received definitive treatment from the purchased CC setting, representing 37.5% of all RP care and 66.7% of all RT care received during the study period. Most patients who received active surveillance management (92.5%) remained within the VHA. Receipt of definitive treatment increased over the study period (from 5830 patients in 2015 to 9304 in 2018), with increased purchased CC for patients living farthest from VHA tertiary care facilities. The likelihood of receiving definitive treatment of Gleason grade group 1 prostate cancer was higher in the purchased CC setting (adjusted relative risk ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.65-1.93).

Conclusions and relevance

This cohort study found that the percentage of veterans receiving definitive treatment in VCP-funded purchased CC settings increased significantly over the study period. Increased access, however, may come at the cost of low care quality (overtreatment) for low-risk prostate cancer.

SUBMITTER: Erickson BA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10587787 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Location and Types of Treatment for Prostate Cancer After the Veterans Choice Program Implementation.

Erickson Bradley A BA Hoffman Richard M RM Wachsmuth Jason J Packiam Vignesh T VT Vaughan-Sarrazin Mary S MS

JAMA network open 20231002 10

<h4>Importance</h4>The Veterans Choice Program (VCP) was implemented in 2014 to help veterans gain broader access to specialized care outside of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities by providing them with purchased community care (CC).<h4>Objective</h4>To describe the prevalence and patterns in VCP-funded purchased CC after the implementation of the VCP among veterans with prostate cancer.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This cohort study used VHA administrative data on v ...[more]

PMID: 37856123

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo address concerns about Veterans' access to care at US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare facilities, the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act was enacted to facilitate Veterans' access to care in non-VA settings, resulting in the "Veterans Choice Program" (VCP).ObjectivesTo assess the characteristics of Veterans who used or planned to use the VCP, reasons for using or planning to use the VCP, and experiences with the VCP.DesignMixed-methods.SubjectsAfter sampling Veterans in the Midwest census region receiving care at VA healthcare facilities, we included 4521 Veterans in the analyses. Of these, 60 Veterans participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews.ApproachQuantitative data were derived from VA's administrative and clinical data and a survey of Veterans including Veteran characteristics and self-reported use of VCP. Associations between Veterans' characteristics and use or planned use of the VCP were assessed using logistic regression analysis. Interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis.Key resultsVeterans with a higher odds of reporting use or intended use of the VCP were women, lived further distances from VA facilities, or had worse health status than other Veterans (P ≤ 0.01). Key themes included positive experiences with the VCP (timeliness of care, location of care, access to services, scheduling improvements, and coverage of services), and negative experiences with the VCP (complicated scheduling processes, inconveniently located appointments, delays securing appointments, billing confusion, and communication breakdowns).DiscussionOur findings suggest that Veterans value access to care close to their home and care that addresses the needs of women and Veterans with poor health status. The Mission Act was passed in June 2018 to restructure the VCP and consolidate community care into a single program, continuing VA's commitment to support access to community care into the future.

Project description:IntroductionThe Veterans Choice Program expanded Veteran access to community care. The Veterans Choice Program may negatively impact the receipt of preventive care services owing to care fragmentation. This study assesses 10 measures of preventive care in Veterans with the Department of Veterans Affairs coverage before and after the Veterans Choice Program.MethodsThe study population included Veterans who responded to the National Health Interview Survey during the 2 time periods before and after Veterans Choice Program implementation: January 2011-October 2014 and November 2015-December 2018. Outcomes were preventive care services categorized as cardiovascular risk reduction (cholesterol monitoring, blood pressure monitoring, aspirin use), infectious disease prevention (influenza vaccination and HIV testing), and diabetes care (fasting blood glucose monitoring, podiatry visits, ophthalmology visits, influenza vaccination, and pneumonia vaccination). Two different analyses were conducted: (1) unadjusted and multivariable-adjusted pre-post analysis and (2) difference-in-differences analyses. Analyses were conducted in 2019.ResultsMeasures of cardiovascular risk reduction and influenza vaccination were not statistically different before and after Veterans Choice Program implementation using the 2 different analytic approaches. In unadjusted pre-post analysis, after Veterans Choice Program implementation, Veterans with Veterans Affairs coverage had increased HIV testing (66.1%‒75.4%, p=0.008), podiatry visits (22.4%‒38.3%, p=0.01), and ophthalmology visits (62.2%‒77.2%, p=0.02). Using multivariable adjustment for participant sociodemographic factors, Veterans Choice Program implementation was associated with higher odds of podiatry visits (AOR=2.28, 95% CI=1.24, 4.20, p=0.009) and ophthalmology visits (AOR=2.11, 95% CI=1.13, 3.94, p=0.02) among Veterans with diabetes. In difference-in-differences analyses, Veterans Choice Program implementation was associated with increased podiatry visits (AOR=2.95, 95% CI=1.49, 5.83, p=0.002) among Veterans with diabetes and Veterans Affairs coverage compared with that among those with other coverage types, but no statistically significant effect was observed for ophthalmology visits.ConclusionsVeterans with Veterans Affairs coverage and diabetes had an increase in podiatry visits after Veterans Choice Program implementation. There was no evidence that Veterans Choice Program implementation had a negative impact on the receipt of preventive care services among Veterans with Veterans Affairs coverage.

Project description:BackgroundTreatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) differ in toxicity, administration, and evidence. In this study, clinical and nonclinical factors associated with the first-line treatment for CRPC in a national delivery system were evaluated.MethodsNational electronic laboratory and clinical data from the Veterans Health Administration were used to identify patients with CRPC (ie, rising prostate-specific antigen [PSA] on androgen deprivation) who received abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, or ketoconazole from 2010 through 2017. It was determined whether clinical (eg, PSA) and nonclinical factors (eg, race, facility) were associated with the first-line treatment selection using multilevel, multinomial logistic regression. The average marginal effects (AMEs) were calculated of patient, disease, and facility characteristics on ketoconazole versus more appropriate CRPC therapy.ResultsThere were 4998 patients identified with CRPC who received first-line ketoconazole, docetaxel, abiraterone, or enzalutamide. After adjustment, increasing age was associated with receipt of abiraterone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.07; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.06-1.09) or enzalutamide (aOR, 1.10; 95% CrI, 1.08-1.11) versus docetaxel. Greater preexisting comorbidity was associated with enzalutamide versus abiraterone (aOR, 1.53; 95% CrI, 1.23-1.91). Patients with higher PSA values at the start of treatment were more likely to receive docetaxel than oral agents and less likely to receive ketoconazole than other oral agents. African American men were more likely to receive ketoconazole than abiraterone, enzalutamide, or docetaxel (AME, 2.8%; 95% CI, 0.7%-4.9%). This effect was attenuated when adjusting for facility characteristics (AME, 1.9%; 95% CI, -0.4% to 4.1%).ConclusionsClinical factors had an expected effect on the first-line treatment selection. Race may be associated with the receipt of a guideline-discordant first-line treatment.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act (hereafter, Choice Program) seeks to improve access to care by enabling eligible Veterans to receive care from community providers. Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care providers (PCPs) play a key role in making referrals to community specialists, but their frontline experiences with referrals are not well understood. OBJECTIVE:To understand VA PCPs' experiences referring patients to community specialists while VA works to expand and refine the implementation of the Choice Program. DESIGN:Qualitative study using interview methods. PARTICIPANTS:Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with VA primary care providers (N = 72 out of 599 contacted) recruited nationally. APPROACH:Open-ended interview questions elicited PCP perceptions and experiences with referrals to community specialists via the Choice Program. Keywords were identified using automated coding features in ATLAS.ti and evaluated using conventional content analysis to inductively describe the qualitative data. KEY RESULTS:VA PCPs emphasized problems with care coordination and continuity between the VA and community specialists (e.g., "It is extremely difficult for us to obtain and continue continuity of care because there's not much communication with the community specialist"). They described difficulties with tracking the initial referral, coordinating care after receiving community specialty care, accessing community medical records, and aligning community specialists' prescriptions with the VA formulary. CONCLUSIONS:The VA Choice Program provides access to community specialists for VA patients; however, VA primary care providers face challenges tracking referrals to community specialists and in coordinating care. Strategies to improve care coordination between the VA and community providers should focus on providing PCPs with information to follow Veterans throughout the Choice referral process and follow-up.

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to describe changes in patient-reported functional outcome measures (PROMs) comparing pre-treatment and 12 months after radical prostatectomy (RP), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), brachytherapy and active surveillance (AS).MethodsMen enrolled from 2010 to 2019 in the South Australian Prostate Cancer Clinical Outcomes Collaborative registry a prospective clinical registry were studied. Urinary, bowel, and sexual functions were measured using Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) at baseline and 12 months post-treatment. Higher scores on the EPIC-26 indicate better function. Multivariable regression models were applied to compare differences in function and extent of bother by treatment.ResultsOf the 4926 eligible men, 57.0% underwent RP, 20.5% EBRT, 7.0% brachytherapy and 15.5% AS. While baseline urinary and bowel function varied little across treatment groups, sexual function differed greatly (adjusted mean scores: RP = 56.3, EBRT = 45.8, brachytherapy = 61.4, AS = 52.8; p < 0.001). Post-treatment urinary continence and sexual function declined in all treatment groups, with the greatest decline for sexual function after RP (adjusted mean score change - 28.9). After adjustment for baseline differences, post-treatment sexual function scores after EBRT (6.4; 95%CI, 0.9-12.0) and brachytherapy (17.4; 95%CI, 9.4-25.5) were higher than after RP. Likewise, urinary continence after EBRT (13.6; 95%CI, 9.0-18.2), brachytherapy (10.6; 95%CI, 3.9-17.3) and AS (10.6; 95%CI, 5.9-15.3) were higher than after RP. Conversely, EBRT was associated with lower bowel function (- 7.9; 95%CI, - 12.4 to - 3.5) than RP. EBRT and AS were associated with lower odds of sexual bother (OR 0.51; 95%CI, 0.29-0.89 and OR 0.60; 95%CI, 0.38-0.96, respectively), and EBRT with higher odds of bowel bother (OR 2.01; 95%CI, 1.23-3.29) compared with RP.ConclusionThe four common treatment approaches for prostate cancer were associated with different patterns of patient-reported functional outcomes, both pre- and 12 months post-treatment. However, after adjustment, RP was associated with a greater decline in urinary continence and sexual function than other treatments. This study underscores the importance of collecting baseline PROMs to interpret post-treatment functional outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThe burden of obesity is high among US veterans, yet many face barriers to engaging in in-person, facility-based treatment programs. To improve access to weight-management services, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) developed TeleMOVE, a home-based, 82-day curriculum that utilizes in-home messaging devices to promote weight loss in VHA patients facing barriers to accessing facility-based services.ObjectiveThe primary aim was to establish preliminary evidence for the program by comparing outcomes for TeleMOVE with standard, facility-based MOVE weight-management services (group, individual modalities) over the evaluation period based on the number of patients enrolled per site and the program's clinical effectiveness, as demonstrated by average weight lost per patient. The secondary aim was to understand factors influencing TeleMOVE implementation variability across demonstration sites to develop recommendations to improve national program dissemination.MethodsWe employed a formative mixed-methods design to evaluate the phased implementation of TeleMOVE at 9 demonstration sites and compare patient- and site-level measures of program uptake. Data were collected between October 1, 2009 and September 30, 2011. Patient-level program outcomes were extracted from VHA patient care databases to evaluate program enrollment rates and clinical outcomes. To assess preliminary clinical effectiveness, weight loss outcomes for veterans who enrolled in TeleMOVE were compared with outcomes for veterans enrolled in standard MOVE! at each demonstration site, as well as with national averages during the first 2 years of program implementation. For the secondary aim, we invited program stakeholders to participate in 2 rounds of semistructured interviews about aspects of TeleMOVE implementation processes, site-level contextual factors, and program delivery. Twenty-eight stakeholders participated in audio-recorded interviews.ResultsAlthough stakeholders at 3 sites declined to be interviewed, objective program uptake was high at 2 sites, delayed-high at 2 sites, and low at 5 sites. At 6 months post enrollment, the mean weight loss was comparable for TeleMOVE (n=417) and MOVE! (n=1543) participants at -5.2 lb (SD 14.4) and -5.1 lb (SD 12.2), respectively (P=.91). All sites reported high program complexity because TeleMOVE required more staff time per participant than MOVE! due to logistical and technical assistance issues related to the devices. High-uptake sites overcame implementation challenges by leveraging communication networks with stakeholders, adapting the program to patient needs whenever possible, setting programmatic goals and monitoring feedback of results, and taking time to reflect and evaluate on delivery to foster incremental delivery improvements, whereas low-uptake sites reported less leadership support and effective communication among stakeholders.ConclusionsThis implementation evaluation of a clinical telehealth program demonstrated the value of partnership-based research in which researchers not only provided operational leaders with feedback regarding the effectiveness of a new program but also relevant feedback into contextual factors related to program implementation to enable adaptations for national deployment efforts.

Project description:IntroductionTo assess healthcare professionals' perceptions of rural barriers and facilitators of lung cancer screening program implementation in a Veterans Health Administration (VHA) setting through a series of one-on-one interviews with healthcare team members.MethodsBased on measures developed using Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM), we conducted a cross-sectional qualitative study consisting of one-on-one semi-structured telephone interviews with VHA healthcare team members at 10 Veterans Affairs medical centers (VAMCs) between December 2020 and September 2021. An iterative inductive and deductive approach was used for qualitative analysis of interview data, resulting in the development of a conceptual model to depict rural barriers and facilitators of lung cancer screening program implementation.ResultsA total of 30 interviews were completed among staff, providers, and lung cancer screening program directors and a conceptual model of rural barriers and facilitators of lung cancer screening program implementation was developed. Major themes were categorized within institutional and patient environments. Within the institutional environment, participants identified systems-level (patient communication, resource availability, workload), provider-level (attitudes and beliefs, knowledge, skills and capabilities), and external (regional and national networks, incentives) barriers to and facilitators of lung cancer screening program implementation. Within the patient environment, participants revealed patient-level (modifiable vulnerabilities) barriers and facilitators as well as ecological modifiers (community) that influence screening behavior.DiscussionUnderstanding rural barriers to and facilitators of lung cancer screening program implementation as perceived by healthcare team members points to opportunities and approaches for improving lung cancer screening reach, implementation and effectiveness in VHA rural settings.

Dataset Information

Location and Types of Treatment for Prostate Cancer After the Veterans Choice Program Implementation.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Exposures

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Location and Types of Treatment for Prostate Cancer After the Veterans Choice Program Implementation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets