Dataset Information

Locoregional prostate cancer treatment pattern variation in independent cancer centers: policy effect, patient preference, or physician incentive?

ABSTRACT: Surveillance, Epidemiologic, and End Results (SEER) registry data abstracted from a priority 2 or higher reporting source from 2006 to 2008 were used to compare treatment patterns in 45-64-year old men diagnosed with locoregional prostate cancer (LRPC) across states with or without radiation therapy-directed certificate of need (CON) laws and across independent cancer centers (ICCs) compared to large multi-specialty groups (LMSGs). Adjusted treatment percentages for the five most common LRPC treatments (surgery, external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), combination brachytherapy with EBRT, brachytherapy, and observation) were compared using cross-sectional logistic regression between CON-unregulated and -regulated states and between LMSGs and ICCs. LRPC EBRT rates were no different across CON regions, but are increased in ICCs compared to LMSGs (37.00% vs. 13.23%, P < 0.001). Variation in LRPC treatment patterns by reporting source merits further scrutiny under the Affordable Care Act of 2010, considering the intent of incentivized accountable care organizations (ACOs) established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA) and the implications of early descriptions of these new healthcare provider organizations on prostate cancer treatment patterns.

SUBMITTER: Camarata AS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4401240 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Locoregional prostate cancer treatment pattern variation in independent cancer centers: policy effect, patient preference, or physician incentive?

Camarata Andrew S AS Nickleach Dana C DC Jani Ashesh B AB Rossi Peter J PJ

Health services insights 20150415

Surveillance, Epidemiologic, and End Results (SEER) registry data abstracted from a priority 2 or higher reporting source from 2006 to 2008 were used to compare treatment patterns in 45-64-year old men diagnosed with locoregional prostate cancer (LRPC) across states with or without radiation therapy-directed certificate of need (CON) laws and across independent cancer centers (ICCs) compared to large multi-specialty groups (LMSGs). Adjusted treatment percentages for the five most common LRPC tre ...[more]

PMID: 25922580

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Nearly 1.5 million clinicians in the United States will be affected by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) new payment program, the Merit-based Incentive Program (MIPS), where clinicians will be penalized or rewarded based on the health care expenditures of their patients. We therefore examined expenditures for major cancer surgery to understand physician-specific variation in episode payments. METHODS:We used Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data to identify patients aged 66-99 y who underwent a prostatectomy, nephrectomy, lung, or colorectal resection for cancer from 2008 to 2012. We calculated 90-d episode payments, attributed each episode to a physician, and evaluated physician-level payment variation. Next, we determined which component (index admission, readmission, physician services, postacute care, hospice) drove differences in payments. Finally, we evaluated payments by geographic region, number of comorbidities, and cancer stage. RESULTS:We identified 39,109 patients who underwent surgery by 1 of 7182 providers. There was wide variation in payments for each procedure (prostatectomy: $7046-$40,687; nephrectomy: $8855-$82,489; lung resection: $11,167-$223,467; colorectal resection: $9711-$199,480). The largest component difference in episode payments varied by condition: physician payments for prostatectomy (29%), postacute care for nephrectomy (38%) and colorectal resections (38%), and index hospital admission for lung resections (43%) but were fairly stable across region, comorbidity number, and cancer stage. CONCLUSIONS:For patients undergoing major cancer surgery, 90-d episode payments vary widely across surgeons. The components driving such variation differ by condition but remain stable across region, number of comorbidities, and cancer stage. These data suggest that programs to reduce specific component payments may have advantages over those targeting individual physicians for decreasing health care expenditures.

Project description:BackgroundMedicare's Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is a major value-based purchasing program. Little is known about how physician practice leaders view the program and its benefits and challenges.ObjectiveTo understand practice leaders' perceptions of MIPS.Design and participantsInterviews were conducted from December 12, 2019, to June 23, 2020, with leaders of 30 physician practices of various sizes and specialties across the USA. Practices were randomly selected using the Medical Group Management Association's membership database. Practices included small primary care and general surgery practices (1-9 physicians); medium primary care and general surgery practices (10-25 physicians); and large multispecialty practices (50 or more physicians). Participants were asked about their perceptions of MIPS measures; the program's effect on patient care; administrative burden; and rationale for participation.Main measuresMajor themes related to practice participation in MIPS.Key resultsInterviews were conducted with 30 practices representing all US census regions. Six major themes emerged: (1) MIPS is understood as a continuation of previous value-based payment programs and a precursor to future programs; (2) measures are more relevant to primary care practices than other specialties; (3) leaders are conflicted on whether the program improves patient care; (4) MIPS creates a substantial administrative burden, exacerbated by annual programmatic changes; (5) incentives are small relative to the effort needed to participate; and (6) external support for participation can be helpful. Many participants indicated that their practice only participated in MIPS to avoid financial penalties; some reported that physicians cared for fewer patients due to the program's administrative burden.ConclusionsPractice leaders reported several challenges related to MIPS, including irrelevant measures, administrative burden, frequent programmatic changes, and small incentives. They held mixed views on whether the program improves patient care. These findings may be useful to policymakers hoping to improve MIPS.

Project description:ImportanceInterventions to address overuse of health care services may help reduce costs and improve care. Understanding physician-level variation and behavior patterns can inform such interventions.ObjectiveTo assess patterns of physician ordering of services that tend to be overused in the treatment of patients with cancer. We hypothesized that physicians exhibit consistent behavior.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective study of patients 66 years and older diagnosed with cancer between 2004 and 2011, using population-based Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data to assess physician-level variation in 5 nonrecommended services. Services included imaging for staging and surveillance in low-risk disease, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) after breast-conserving surgery, and extended fractionation schemes for palliation of bone metastases.Main outcome and measuresTo assess variation in service use between physicians, we used a random effects model and a logistic regression model with a lag variable to assess whether a physician's use of a service for a prior patient predicts subsequent service use.ResultsCohorts ranged from 3464 to 89 006 patients. The total proportion of patients receiving each service varied from 14% for imaging in staging early breast cancer to 41% in early prostate cancer. From the random effects analysis, we found significant unexplained variation in service use between physicians (P < .001 for each service; ICC, 0.04-0.59). Controlling for case mix, whether a physician ordered a service for the prior patient was highly predictive of service use, with adjusted odds ratios (aORs) ranging from 1.12 (95% CI, 1.07-1.18) for surveillance imaging for patients with breast cancer (28% service use if prior patient had imaging vs 25% if not), to 24.91 (95% CI, 22.86-27.15) for IMRT for whole breast radiotherapy (69% vs 7%, respectively).Conclusions and relevancePhysicians' utilization of nonrecommended services that tend to be overused exhibit patterns that suggest consistent behavior more than personalized patient care decisions. Reducing overuse may require understanding cognitive drivers of repetitive inappropriate decisions.

Dataset Information

Locoregional prostate cancer treatment pattern variation in independent cancer centers: policy effect, patient preference, or physician incentive?

Publications

Locoregional prostate cancer treatment pattern variation in independent cancer centers: policy effect, patient preference, or physician incentive?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets