Dataset Information

Survival of older patients with cancer in the Veterans Health Administration versus fee-for-service Medicare.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides high-quality preventive chronic care and cancer care, but few studies have documented improved patient outcomes that result from this high-quality care. We compared the survival rates of older patients with cancer in the VHA and fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare and examined whether differences in the stage at diagnosis, receipt of guideline-recommended therapies, and unmeasured characteristics explain survival differences.

Patients and methods

We used propensity-score methods to compare all-cause and cancer-specific survival rates for men older than age 65 years who were diagnosed or received their first course of treatment for colorectal, lung, lymphoma, or multiple myeloma in VHA hospitals from 2001 to 2004 to similar FFS-Medicare enrollees diagnosed in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) areas in the same time frame. We examined the role of unmeasured factors by using sensitivity analyses.

Results

VHA patients versus similar FFS SEER-Medicare patients had higher survival rates of colon cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.93) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC; HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88 to 0.95) and similar survival rates of rectal cancer (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.16), small-cell lung cancer (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.05), diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.18), and multiple myeloma (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.03). The diagnosis of VHA patients at earlier stages explained much of the survival advantages for colon cancer and NSCLC. Sensitivity analyses suggested that additional adjustment for the severity of comorbid disease or performance status could have substantial effects on estimated differences.

Conclusion

The survival rate for older men with cancer in the VHA was better than or equivalent to the survival rate for similar FFS-Medicare beneficiaries. The VHA provision of high-quality care, particularly preventive care, can result in improved patient outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Landrum MB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3341151 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Poor continuity of care may contribute to high health care spending and adverse patient outcomes in dementia.To examine the association between medical clinician continuity and health care utilization, testing, and spending in older adults with dementia.This was a study of an observational retrospective cohort from the 2012 national sample in fee-for-service Medicare, conducted from July to December 2015, using inverse probability weighted analysis. A total of 1?416?369 continuously enrolled, community-dwelling, fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries 65 years or older with a claims-based dementia diagnosis and at least 4 ambulatory visits in 2012 were included.Continuity of care score measured on patient visits across physicians over 12 months. A higher continuity score is assigned to visit patterns in which a larger share of the patient's total visits are with fewer clinicians. Score range from 0 to 1 was examined in low-, medium-, and high-continuity tertiles.Outcomes include all-cause hospitalization, ambulatory care sensitive condition hospitalization, emergency department visit, imaging, and laboratory testing (computed tomographic [CT] scan of the head, chest radiography, urinalysis, and urine culture), and health care spending (overall, hospital and skilled nursing facility, and physician).Beneficiaries with dementia who had lower levels of continuity of care were younger, had a higher income, and had more comorbid medical conditions. Almost 50% of patients had at least 1 hospitalization and emergency department visit during the year. Utilization was lower with increasing level of continuity. Specifically comparing the highest- vs lowest-continuity groups, annual rates per beneficiary of hospitalization (0.83 vs 0.88), emergency department visits (0.84 vs 0.99), CT scan of the head (0.71 vs 0.83), urinalysis (0.72 vs 1.09), and health care spending (total spending, $22?004 vs $24?371) were higher with lower continuity even after accounting for sociodemographic factors and comorbidity burden (P?<?.001 for all comparisons). The rate of ambulatory care sensitive condition hospitalization was similar across continuity groups.Among older fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with a dementia diagnosis, lower continuity of care is associated with higher rates of hospitalization, emergency department visits, testing, and health care spending. Further research into these relationships, including potentially relevant clinical, clinician, and systems factors, can inform whether improving continuity of care in this population may benefit patients and the wider health system.

Project description:ImportancePrescription drug spending is a topic of increased interest to the public and policymakers. However, prior assessments have been limited by focusing on retail spending (Part D-covered drugs), omitting clinician-administered (Part B-covered) drug spending, or focusing on all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of their enrollment into prescription drug coverage.ObjectiveTo estimate the proportion of health care spending contributed by prescription drugs and to assess spending for retail and clinician-administered prescriptions.Design, setting, and participantsDescriptive, serial, cross-sectional analysis of a 20% random sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the United States from 2008 to 2019 who were continuously enrolled in Parts A (hospital), B (medical), and D (prescription drug) benefits, and not in Medicare Advantage.ExposureCalendar year.Main outcomes and measuresNet spending on retail (Part D-covered) and clinician-administered (Part B-covered) prescription drugs; prescription drug spending (spending on Part B-covered and Part D-covered drugs) as a percentage of total per-capita health care spending. Measures were adjusted for inflation and for postsale rebates (for Part D-covered drugs).ResultsThere were 3 201 284 beneficiaries enrolled in Parts A, B, and D in 2008 and 4 502 718 in 2019. In 2019, beneficiaries had a mean (SD) age of 71.7 (12.0) years, documented sex was female for 57.7%, and 69.5% had no low-income subsidies. Total per-capita spending was $16 345 in 2008 and $20 117 in 2019. Comparing 2008 with 2019, per-capita Part A spending was $7106 (95% CI, $7084-$7128) vs $7120 (95% CI, $7098-$7141), Part B drug spending was $720 (95% CI, $713-$728) vs $1641 (95% CI, $1629-$1653), Part B nondrug spending was $5113 (95% CI, $5105-$5122) vs $6702 (95% CI, $6692-$6712), and Part D net spending was $3122 (95% CI, $3117-$3127) vs $3477 (95% CI, $3466-$3489). The proportion of total annual spending attributed to prescription drugs increased from 24.0% in 2008 to 27.2% in 2019, net of estimated rebates and discounts.Conclusions and relevanceIn 2019, spending on prescription drugs represented approximately 27% of total spending among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in Part D, even after accounting for postsale rebates.

Project description:ImportanceMedicare Advantage (MA), a private insurance plan option, now covers one-third of all Medicare beneficiaries. Although patients with cardiovascular disease enrolled in MA have been reported to receive higher quality of care in the ambulatory setting than patients enrolled in fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare, it is unclear whether MA is associated with higher quality in patients hospitalized with heart failure, or alternatively, if incentives to reduce utilization under MA plans may be associated with worse care.ObjectiveTo determine whether there are differences in quality of care received and in-hospital outcomes among patients enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare.Design, setting, and participantsObservational, retrospective cohort study of patients hospitalized with heart failure in hospitals participating in the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure registry.ExposuresMedicare Advantage enrollment.Main outcomes and measuresIn-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, length of stay, and 4 heart failure achievement measures.ResultsOf 262 626 patients hospitalized with heart failure, 93 549 (35.6%) were enrolled in MA and 169 077 (64.4%) in FFS Medicare. The median (interquartile range) age was 78 (70-85) years for patients enrolled in MA and 78 (69-86) years for patients enrolled in FFS Medicare. Standard mean differences in age, sex, prevalence of comorbidities, or objective measures on admission, including vital signs and laboratory values, were less than 10%. After adjustment, there were no statistically significant differences in receipt of evidence-based β-blockers when indicated; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, angiotensin II receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors at discharge; measurement of left ventricular function; and postdischarge appointments by Medicare insurance type. Patients enrolled in MA, however, had higher odds of being discharged directly home (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.19; P < .001) relative to patients enrolled in FFS Medicare and lower odds of being discharged within 4 days (AOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.93-1.00; P = .04). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between patients with MA and patients with FFS Medicare (AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.03; P = .42).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients hospitalized with heart failure, no observable benefit was noted in quality of care or in-hospital mortality between those enrolled in MA vs FFS Medicare, except lower use of post-acute care facilities. As MA continues to grow, it will be important to ensure that participating private plans provide an added value to the patients they cover to justify the higher administrative costs compared with traditional FFS Medicare.

Project description:ImportanceLow-value care, defined as care offering no net benefit in specific clinical scenarios, is associated with harmful outcomes in patients and wasteful spending. Despite a national education campaign and increasing attention on reducing health care waste, recent trends in low-value care delivery remain unknown.ObjectiveTo assess national trends in low-value care use and spending.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, analyses of low-value care use and spending from 2014 to 2018 were conducted using 100% Medicare fee-for-service enrollment and claims data. Included individuals were aged 65 years or older and continuously enrolled in Medicare parts A, B, and D during each measurement year and the previous year. Data were analyzed from September 2019 through December 2020.ExposureBeing enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare for a period of time, in years.Main outcomes and measuresThe Milliman MedInsight Health Waste Calculator was used to assess 32 claims-based measures of low-value care associated with Choosing Wisely recommendations and other professional guidelines. The calculator designates services as wasteful, likely wasteful, or not wasteful based on an absence of indication of appropriate use in the claims history; calculator-designated wasteful services were defined as low-value care. Spending was calculated as claim-line level (ie, spending on the low-value service) and claim level (ie, spending on the low-value service plus associated services), adjusting for inflation.ResultsAmong 21 045 759 individuals with fee-for-service Medicare (mean [SD] age, 77.4 [7.9] years; 12 515 915 [59.5%] women), the percentage receiving any of 32 low-value services decreased from 36.3% (95% CI, 36.3%-36.4%) to 33.6% (95% CI, 33.6%-33.6%) from 2014 to 2018. Uses of low-value services per 1000 individuals decreased from 677.8 (95% CI, 676.2-679.5) to 632.7 (95% CI, 632.6-632.8) from 2014 to 2018. Three services comprised approximately two-thirds of uses among 32 low-value services per 1000 individuals: preoperative laboratory testing decreased from 213.8 (95% CI, 213.4-214.2) to 166.2 (95% CI, 166.2-166.2), while opioids for back pain increased from 154.4 (95% CI, 153.6-155.2) to 182.1 (95% CI, 182.1-182.1) and antibiotics for upper respiratory infections increased from 75.0 (95% CI, 75.0-75.1) to 82 (95% CI, 82.0-82.0). Spending per 1000 individuals on low-value care also decreased, from $52 765.5 (95% CI, $51 952.3-$53 578.6) to $46 921.7 (95% CI, $46 593.7-$47 249.7) at the claim-line level and from $160 070.4 (95% CI, $158 999.8-$161 141.0) to $144 741.1 (95% CI, $144 287.5-$145 194.7) at the claim level.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that among individuals with fee-for-service Medicare receiving any of 32 measured services, low-value care use and spending decreased marginally from 2014 to 2018, despite a national education campaign in collaboration with clinician specialty societies and increased attention on low-value care. While most use of low-value care came from 3 services, 1 of these was opioid prescriptions, which increased over time despite the harms associated with their use. These findings may represent several opportunities to prevent patient harm and lower spending.

Project description:BackgroundThe amount of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures performed in the United States has been increasing steadily and is projected to reach 3 million procedures annually by 2030 in patients aged ≥65 years. A rise in TKA procedures will increase spending on osteoarthritis treatments, which is currently the second highest category of spending for Medicare patients. Because TKA procedures account for a substantial amount of total osteoarthritis spending, payers and providers are examining methods to reduce spending on the procedure while improving clinical outcomes. Customized individually made implants have been shown to improve clinical outcomes, such as physical function and limb alignment, compared with off-the-shelf implants; however, the economic impact of customized implants has yet to be established.ObjectiveTo analyze TKA episode expenditures among Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) members who received a customized or an off-the-shelf implant.MethodsMembers undergoing a TKA procedure using the customized implant technology were identified in the Medicare FFS database and were propensity matched (1:5) to a cohort of members who received off-the-shelf implants. Reimbursement for the initial procedure (ie, customized and off-the-shelf procedure), a preoperative computed tomography scan, and 12-month postoperative healthcare utilization were analyzed. The overall episode expenditures were used to construct a budget impact model to calculate the per-member per-month (PMPM) spending for Medicare FFS beneficiaries.ResultsThe average total episode spending was significantly lower among the customized implant cohort ($18,585) compared with the off-the-shelf implant cohort ($20,280; a $1695 difference; P <.0001). This savings resulted in $0.08 PMPM savings for the Medicare FFS program when a portion (10%) of eligible members received the customized implant technology. A sensitivity analysis, which varied with the customized implant market penetration and the percent of customized implant-eligible procedures, indicated that the savings could be as great as $0.28 PMPM.ConclusionThe results of this analysis demonstrate that the use of customized implants in TKA procedures can achieve substantial savings versus off-the-shelf procedures for the Medicare FFS program, and this savings is primarily driven by a lower average initial procedure cost and lower postoperative spendings for inpatient services and skilled-nursing facility costs.

Project description:ImportanceThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services recently identified 30-day readmission after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation facilities as a national quality indicator. Research is needed to determine the rates and factors related to readmission in this patient population.ObjectiveTo determine 30-day readmission rates and factors related to readmission for patients receiving postacute inpatient rehabilitation.Design, setting, and patientsRetrospective cohort study of records for 736,536 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries (mean age, 78.0 [SD, 7.3] years) discharged from 1365 inpatient rehabilitation facilities to the community in 2006 through 2011. Sixty-three percent of patients were women, and 85.1% were non-Hispanic white.Main outcomes and measuresThirty-day readmission rates for the 6 largest diagnostic impairment categories receiving inpatient rehabilitation. These included stroke, lower extremity fracture, lower extremity joint replacement, debility, neurologic disorders, and brain dysfunction.ResultsMean rehabilitation length of stay was 12.4 (SD, 5.3) days. The overall 30-day readmission rate was 11.8% (95% CI, 11.7%-11.8%). Rates ranged from 5.8% (95% CI, 5.8%-5.9%) for patients with lower extremity joint replacement to 18.8% (95% CI, 18.8%-18.9%). for patients with debility. Rates were highest in men (13.0% [ 95% CI, 12.8%-13.1%], vs 11.0% [95% CI, 11.0%-11.1%] in women), non-Hispanic blacks (13.8% [95% CI, 13.5%-14.1%], vs 11.5% [95% CI, 11.5%-11.6%] in whites, 12.5% [95% CI, 12.1%-12.8%] in Hispanics, and 11.9% [95% CI, 11.4%-12.4%] in other races/ethnicities), beneficiaries with dual eligibility (15.1% [95% CI, 14.9%-15.4%], vs 11.1% [95% CI, 11.0%-11.2%] for no dual eligibility), and in patients with tier 1 comorbidities (25.6% [95% CI, 24.9%-26.3%], vs 18.9% [95% CI, 18.5%-19.3%] for tier 2, 15.1% [95% CI, 14.9%-15.3%] for tier 3, and 9.9% [95% CI, 9.9%-10.0%] for no tier comorbidities). Higher motor and cognitive functional status were associated with lower hospital readmission rates across the 6 impairment categories. Adjusted readmission rates by state ranged from 9.2% to 13.6%. Approximately 50% of patients rehospitalized within the 30-day period were readmitted within 11 days of discharge. Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group codes for heart failure, urinary tract infection, pneumonia, septicemia, nutritional and metabolic disorders, esophagitis, gastroenteritis, and digestive disorders were common reasons for readmission.Conclusions and relevanceAmong postacute rehabilitation facilities providing services to Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, 30-day readmission rates ranged from 5.8% to 18.8% for selected impairment groups. Further research is needed to understand the causes of readmission.

Project description:ImportanceDecreasing use of low-value care is a major goal for Medicare given the potential to decrease costs and harms. Compared with traditional fee-for-service Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) is more strongly financially incentivized to decrease use of low-value care.ObjectivesTo compare use of low-value care among individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA overall and to examine trends in use of low-value care in both programs from 2006 to 2015.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzed individuals enrolled in TM and MA using data from the 2006 to 2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. To account for differences in characteristics between individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA, a propensity score-based approach was used. Data were analyzed from August 2020 through January 2021.ExposuresBeing enrolled in MA or TM.Main outcomes and measuresBinary measures of use were collected for 13 low-value services in 4 categories (ie, [1] cancer screening: cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening in older adults; [2] antibiotic use: antibiotic for acute upper respiratory infection and antibiotic for influenza; [3] medication: anxiolytic, sedative, or hypnotic in an adult older than 65 years; benzodiazepine for depression; opioid for headache; opioid for back pain; and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID] for hypertension, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease; and [4] imaging: magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or computed tomography [CT] for back pain, radiograph for back pain, and MRI or CT for headache) and 4 low-value composites corresponding to the categories (ie, cancer screening composite, antibiotic use composite, medication composite, and imaging composite).ResultsAmong 11 677 individuals enrolled in TM and 5164 individuals enrolled in MA, 9429 (56.0%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 74.5 (6.3) years. Of 13 low-value services and 4 low-value composites, statistically significant differences were found in 2 measures. For the low-value medication composite, 2054 of 11 636 eligible individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 17.6%; 95% CI, 16.8%-18.3%) received the care, and 981 of 5141 eligible individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 19.7%; 95% CI, 18.3%-21.2%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5-3.8 percentage points; P = .02). For the NSAID use for hypertension, heart failure, or kidney disease metric, 807 of 7832 individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 10.0%; 95% CI, 9.2%-10.8%) received the care, and 447 of 3566 individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 12.9%; 95% CI, 19.7%-27.1%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI, 1.3-4.6 percentage points; P = .001). Overall, there were no decreases in use of low-value care in TM or MA over time.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that use of low-value care was similarly prevalent in MA and TM, suggesting that MA enrollment was not associated with decreased provision of low-value care compared with TM.