Regional variation in spending and survival for older adults with advanced cancer.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Medicare spending varies substantially across the United States. We evaluated the association between mean regional spending and survival in advanced cancer.Methods
We identified 116 523 subjects with advanced cancer from 2002 to 2007, using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data. Subjects were aged 65 years and older with non-small cell lung, colon, breast, prostate, or pancreas cancer. Of these subjects, 61 083 had incident advanced-stage cancer (incident cohort) and 98 935 had death from cancer (decedent cohort); 37% of subjects were included in both cohorts. Subjects were linked to one of 80 hospital referral regions within SEER areas. We estimated mean regional spending in both cohorts. We assessed the primary outcome, survival, in the incident cohort; the exposure measure was the quintile of regional spending in the decedent cohort. Survival in quintiles 2 through 5 was compared with that in quintile 1 (lowest spending quintile) using Cox regression models.Results
From quintile 1 to 5, mean regional spending increased by 32% and 41% in the incident and decedent cohorts (incident cohort: $28 854 to $37 971; decedent cohort: $27 446 to $38 630). The association between spending and survival varied by cancer site and quintile; hazard ratios ranged from 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82 to 1.04, pancreas cancer quintile 5) to 1.24 (95% CI = 1.11 to 1.39, breast cancer quintile 3). In most cases, differences in survival between quintile 1 and quintiles 2 through 5 were not statistically significant.Conclusion
There is substantial regional variation in Medicare spending for advanced cancer, yet no consistent association between mean regional spending and survival.
SUBMITTER: Brooks GA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3691948 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The root causes of regional variation in medical spending are poorly understood and vary by clinical condition. To identify drivers of regional spending variation for Medicare patients with advanced cancer, we used linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program (SEER)-Medicare data from the period 2004-10. We broke down Medicare spending into thirteen cancer-relevant service categories. We then calculated the contribution of each category to spending and regional spending variation. Acute hospital care was the largest component of spending and the chief driver of regional spending variation, accounting for 48 percent of spending and 67 percent of variation. In contrast, chemotherapy accounted for 16 percent of spending and 10 percent of variation. Hospice care constituted 5 percent of spending. However, variation in hospice spending was fully offset by opposing variation in other categories. Our analysis suggests that the strategy with the greatest potential to improve the value of care for patients with advanced cancer is to reduce reliance on acute hospital care for this patient population.
| S-EPMC4203442 | biostudies-other
Project description:Wide geographic variation in health care spending has generated both concern about inefficiency and policy debate about geographic-based payment reform. Evidence regarding variation has focused on hospital referral regions (HRRs), which incorporate numerous local hospital service areas (HSAs). If there is substantial variation across local areas within HRRs, then policies focusing on HRRs may be poorly targeted.Using prescription drug and medical claims data from a 5% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2006 through 2009, we compared variation in health care spending and utilization among 306 HRRs and 3436 HSAs. We adjusted for beneficiary-level demographic characteristics, insurance status, and clinical characteristics.There was substantial local variation in health care (drug and nondrug) utilization and spending. Furthermore, many of the low-spending HSAs were located in high-spending HRRs, and many of the high-spending HSAs were in low-spending HRRs. For drug spending, only 50.7% of the HSAs located within the borders of the highest-spending quintile of HRRs were in the highest-spending quintile of HSAs; conversely, only 51.5% of the highest-spending HSAs were located within the borders of the highest-spending HRRs. Similar patterns were observed for nondrug spending.The effectiveness of payment reforms in reducing overutilization while maintaining access to high-quality care depends on the effectiveness of targeting. Our analysis suggests that HRR-based policies may be too crudely targeted to promote the best use of health care resources. (Funded by the Institute of Medicine and others.).
| S-EPMC3490218 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sources of regional variation in spending for prescription drugs under Medicare Part D are poorly understood, and such variation may reflect differences in health status, use of effective treatments, or selection of branded drugs over lower-cost generics.We analyzed 2008 Medicare data for 4.7 million beneficiaries for prescription-drug use and expenditures overall and in three drug categories: angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs), 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins), and selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). Differences in per capita expenditures across hospital-referral regions (HRRs) were decomposed into annual prescription volume and cost per prescription. The ratio of prescriptions filled as branded drugs to all prescriptions filled was calculated. We adjusted all measures for demographic, socioeconomic, and health-status differences.Mean adjusted per capita pharmaceutical spending ranged from $2,413 in the lowest to $3,008 in the highest quintile of HRRs. Most (75.9%) of that difference was attributable to the cost per prescription ($53 vs. $63). Regional differences in cost per prescription explained 87.5% of expenditure variation for ACE inhibitors and ARBs and 56.3% for statins but only 36.1% for SSRIs and SNRIs. The ratio of branded-drug to total prescriptions, which correlated highly with cost per prescription, ranged across HRRs from 0.24 to 0.45 overall and from 0.24 to 0.55 for ACE inhibitors and ARBs, 0.29 to 0.60 for statins, and 0.15 to 0.51 for SSRIs and SNRIs.Regional variation in Medicare Part D spending results largely from differences in the cost of drugs selected rather than prescription volume. A reduction in branded-drug use in some regions through modification of Part D plan benefits might lower costs without reducing quality of care. (Funded by the National Institute on Aging and others.).
| S-EPMC3285245 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo forecast out-of-pocket health care spending among older adults. Long-term forecasts allow policy makers to explore potential impacts of policy scenarios, but existing microsimulations do not incorporate details of supplemental insurance coverage and income effects on health care spending.Data sourcesDynamic microsimulation calibrated to survey and administrative data.Study designWe augment Urban Institute's Dynamic Simulation of Income Model (DYNASIM) with modules that incorporate demand responses and economic equilibria, with dynamics driven by exogenous technological change. A lengthy technical appendix provides details of the microsimulation model and economic assumptions for readers interested in applying these techniques.Principal findingsThe model projects total out-of-pocket spending (point of care plus premiums) as a share of income for adults aged 65 and older. People with lower incomes and poor health fare worse, despite protections of Medicaid. Spending rises 40 percent from 2012 to 2035 (from 10 to 14 percent of income) for the median beneficiary, but it increases from 5 to 25 percent of income for low-income beneficiaries and from 23 to 29 percent for the near poor who are in fair/poor health.ConclusionsDespite Medicare coverage, near-poor seniors will face out-of-pocket spending that would render them, in practical terms, underinsured.
| S-EPMC5785322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study assessed the extent to which differences in patients' preferences across geographic areas explained differences in traditional fee-for-service Medicare spending across Dartmouth Atlas of Health Care Hospital Referral Regions (HRRs). Preference measures were based on results of a survey that asked patients questions about their physicians, their own health status, and the care they would want in their last six months of life. We found that patients' preferences explained 5 percent of the variation across HRRs in total Medicare spending. In comparison, supply factors, such as the number of physicians, specialists, and hospital beds, explained 23 percent, and patients' health and income explained 12 percent. We also explored the relative importance of preferences in determining three components of total spending: spending at the end of life, inpatient spending, and spending on physician services. Relative to supply factors, health, and income, patients' preferences explained the largest share of variation in end-of-life spending and the smallest share of variation in spending on physician services. We conclude that variation in preferences contributes to differences across areas in Medicare spending. Medicare policy must consider both supply factors and patients' preferences in deciding how much to accommodate area variation in spending and the extent to which that variation should be subsidized by taxpayers.
| S-EPMC4212899 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:To indicate inefficiencies in health systems, previous studies examined regional variation in healthcare spending by analyzing the entire population. As a result, population heterogeneity is taken into account to a limited extent only. Furthermore, it clouds a detailed interpretation which could be used to inform regional budget allocation decisions to improve quality of care of one chronic disease over another. Therefore, we aimed to gain insight into the drivers of regional variation in healthcare spending by studying prevalent chronic diseases. METHODS:We used 2012 secondary health survey data linked with claims data, healthcare supply data and demographics at the individual level for 18 Dutch regions. We studied patients with diabetes (n =?10,767) and depression (n =?3,735), in addition to the general population (n =?44,694). For all samples, we estimated the cross-sectional relationship between spending, supply and demand variables and region effects using linear mixed models. RESULTS:Regions with above (below) average spending for the general population mostly showed above (below) average spending for diabetes and depression as well. Less than 1% of the a-priori total variation in spending was attributed to the regions. For all samples, we found that individual-level demand variables explained 62-63% of the total variance. Self-reported health status was the most prominent predictor (28%) of healthcare spending. Supply variables also explained, although a small part, of regional variation in spending in the general population and depression. Demand variables explained nearly 100% of regional variation in spending for depression and 88% for diabetes, leaving 12% of the regional variation left unexplained indicating differences between regions due to inefficiencies. CONCLUSIONS:The extent to which regional variation in healthcare spending can be considered as inefficiency may differ between regions and disease-groups. Therefore, analyzing chronic diseases, in addition to the traditional approach where the general population is studied, provides more insight into the causes of regional variation in healthcare spending, and identifies potential areas for efficiency improvement and budget allocation decisions.
| S-EPMC5934839 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite evidence on large variation in breast cancer expenditures across geographic regions, there is little understanding about the association between expenditures and patient outcomes.To examine whether Medicare beneficiaries with nonmetastatic breast cancer living in regions with higher cancer-related expenditures had better survival.A retrospective cohort study of women with localized breast cancer from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database. Hospital referral regions (HRR) were categorized into quintiles based on risk-standardized per patient Medicare expenditures on initial phase of breast cancer care. Hierarchical generalized linear models were estimated to examine the association between patients' HRR quintile and survival.In total, 12,610 Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with stage II-III breast cancer during 2005-2008 who underwent surgery.Outcome measures for our analysis were 3- and 5-year overall survival.Risk-standardized per patient Medicare expenditures on initial phase of breast cancer care ranged from $13,338 to $26,831 across the HRRs. Unadjusted 3- and 5-year survival varied from 66.7% to 92.2% and 50.0% to 84.0%, respectively, across the HRRs, but there was no significant association between HRR quintile and survival in bivariate analysis (P=0.08 and 0.28, respectively). After adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, quintiles of regional cancer expenditures remained unassociated with patients' 3-year (P=0.35) and 5-year survival (P=0.20). Further analysis adjusting for treatment factors (surgery type and receipt of radiation and systemic therapy) and stratifying by cancer stage showed similar results.For Medicare beneficiaries with nonmetastatic breast cancer, residence in regions with higher breast cancer-related expenditures was not associated with better survival. More attention to value in breast cancer care is warranted.
| S-EPMC5863278 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceFinancial toxicity (FT), unintended and unanticipated financial burden experienced by cancer patients undergoing cancer care, is associated with negative consequences and increased risk of mortality. Older patients (≥70 years) with cancer are at risk for FT, yet data are limited on FT and whether oncologists discuss FT with their patients.ObjectiveTo examine the prevalence of FT in older adults with advanced cancer, its association with health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and cost conversations between oncologists and patients.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional secondary analysis was performed on baseline data from the Improving Communication in Older Cancer Patients and Their Caregivers study, a cluster randomized trial from 31 community oncology practices across the US that was conducted from October 29, 2014, to April 28, 2017. Participants included 536 patients with advanced cancer who answered 3 questions regarding financial toxicity. Data were analyzed from September 1, 2019, to May 1, 2020.ExposureOlder patients undergoing cancer care treatments.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome looked at FT and its association with HRQoL. Three questions were used to identify patients 70 years or older experiencing FT. Multivariable linear regression models were used to assess the independent associations of FT with HRQoL. A single audio-recorded clinic transcript was analyzed within 4 weeks of enrollment for patients with FT. The framework method was used to identify frequency and themes related to cost conversations.ResultsThis study evaluated 536 patients 70 years or older with advanced cancer. Ninety-eight patients (18.3%) reported FT; mean (SD) age was 76.4 (5.4) years; 59 (60.2%) were female, 14 (14.3%) were Black/African American, 91 (92.9%) were not employed, and 29 (29.6%) had Medicare as their sole insurance coverage. On multivariate regression analyses, FT was associated with higher levels of depression (β = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.15-1.48), anxiety (β = 1.67; 95% CI, 0.74-2.61), and distress (β = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.08-1.39) and lower HRQoL (β = -5.30; 95% CI, -8.92 to -1.69). Among those who reported FT, 49% had a conversation with their health care professional about costs. Most conversations (79%) were initiated by oncologists or patients. Four themes were generated from cost conversations: statements regarding cost of care, ability to afford medical prescriptions, indirect consequences associated with inability to work and provide for family, and cost burden in nontreatment domains.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, among older adults with advanced cancer, FT is associated with worse HRQoL. Almost half of conversations among patients reporting FT demonstrated costs are being actively discussed. Resources and interventions are needed to manage FT.
| S-EPMC8184122 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCentralisation of specialist surgical services requires that patients are referred to a regional centre for surgery. This process may disadvantage patients who live far from the regional centre or are referred from other hospitals by making referral less likely and by delaying treatment, thereby allowing tumour progression. The aim of this study is to explore the outcome of surgery for peri-ampullary cancer (PC) with respect to referring hospital and travel distance for treatment within a network served by five hospitals.MethodsReview of a unit database was undertaken of patients undergoing surgery for PC between January 2006 and May 2014.Results394 patients were studied. Although both the median travel distance for patients from the five hospitals (10.8, 86, 78.8, 54.7 and 89.2 km) (p < 0.05), and the annual operation rate for PC (2.99, 3.29, 2.13, 3.32 and 3.07 per 100,000) (p = 0.044) were significantly different, no correlation was noted between patient travel distance and population operation rate at each hospital. No difference was noted between patients from each hospital in terms of resection completion rate or pathological stage of the resected tumours. The median survival after diagnosis for patients referred from different hospitals ranged from 1.2 to 1.7 years and regression analysis revealed that increased travel distance to the regional centre was associated with a small survival advantage.ConclusionAlthough variation in the provision and outcome of surgery for PC between regional hospitals is noted, this is not adversely affected by geographical isolation from the regional centre.Trial registrationThis study is part of post-graduate research degree project. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (unique identifier NCT02296736 ) November 18, 2014.
| S-EPMC5341358 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesOutcomes of older patients with ESRD undergoing RRT or conservative management (CM) are uncertain. Adequate survival data, specifically of older patients, are needed for proper counseling. We compared survival of older renal patients choosing either CM or RRT.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsA retrospective survival analysis was performed of a single-center cohort in a nonacademic teaching hospital in The Netherlands from 2004 to 2014. Patients with ESRD ages ?70 years old at the time that they opted for CM or RRT were included. Patients with acute on chronic renal failure needing immediate start of dialysis were excluded.ResultsIn total, 107 patients chose CM, and 204 chose RRT. Patients choosing CM were older (mean±SD: 83±4.5 versus 76±4.4 years; P<0.001). The Davies comorbidity scores did not differ significantly between both groups. Median survival of those choosing RRT was higher than those choosing CM from time of modality choice (median; 75th to 25th percentiles: 3.1, 1.5-6.9 versus 1.5, 0.7-3.0 years; log-rank test: P<0.001) and all other starting points (P<0.001 in all patients). However, the survival advantage of patients choosing RRT was no longer observed in patients ages ?80 years old (median; 75th to 25th percentiles: 2.1, 1.5-3.4 versus 1.4, 0.7-3.0 years; log-rank test: P=0.08). The survival advantage was also substantially reduced in patients ages ?70 years old with Davies comorbidity scores of ?3, particularly with cardiovascular comorbidity, although the RRT group maintained its survival advantage at the 5% significance level (median; 75th to 25th percentiles: 1.8, 0.7-4.1 versus 1.0, 0.6-1.4 years; log-rank test: P=0.02).ConclusionsIn this single-center observational study, there was no statistically significant survival advantage among patients ages ?80 years old choosing RRT over CM. Comorbidity was associated with a lower survival advantage. This provides important information for decision making in older patients with ESRD. CM could be a reasonable alternative to RRT in selected patients.
| S-EPMC4822664 | biostudies-literature