Dataset Information

What drives variation in spending for breast cancer patients within geographic regions?

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To estimate and describe factors driving variation in spending for breast cancer patients within geographic region.

Data source

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database from 2009-2013.

Study design

The proportion of variation in monthly medical spending within geographic region attributed to patient and physician factors was estimated using multilevel regression models with individual patient and physician random effects. Using sequential models, we estimated the contribution of differences in patient and disease characteristics or use of cancer treatment modalities to patient-level and physician-level variance in spending. Services associated with high spending physicians were estimated using linear regression.

Data extraction method

A total of 20 818 women with a breast cancer diagnosis in 2010-2011.

Principal findings

We observed substantial between-patient and between-provider variation in spending following diagnosis and at the end-of-life. Immediately following diagnosis, 48% of between-patient and 31% of between-physician variation were driven by differences in delivery of cancer treatment modalities to similar patients. At the end-of-life, patients of high spending physicians had twice as many inpatient days, double the chemotherapy spending, and slightly more hospice days.

Conclusions

Similar patients receive very different treatments, which yield significant differences in spending. Efforts to reduce unwanted variation may need to target treatment choices within patient-doctor discussions.

SUBMITTER: Sinaiko AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6338302 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What drives variation in spending for breast cancer patients within geographic regions?

Sinaiko Anna D AD Chien Alyna T AT Hassett Michael J MJ Kakani Pragya P Rodin Danielle D Meyers David J DJ Fraile Belen B Rosenthal Meredith B MB Landrum Mary Beth MB

Health services research 20181014 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To estimate and describe factors driving variation in spending for breast cancer patients within geographic region.<h4>Data source</h4>Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database from 2009-2013.<h4>Study design</h4>The proportion of variation in monthly medical spending within geographic region attributed to patient and physician factors was estimated using multilevel regression models with individual patient and physician random effects. Using sequenti ...[more]

PMID: 30318592

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDespite substantial geographic variation in Medicare per beneficiary spending in the US, little is known about the extent to which social determinants of health (SDoH) are associated with this variation.ObjectiveTo determine the associations between SDoH and county-level price-adjusted Medicare per beneficiary spending.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used county-level data on 2017 Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) spending, patient demographic characteristics (eg, age and gender) and clinical risk score, supply of health care resources (eg, number of hospital beds), and SDoH measures (eg, median income and unemployment rate) from multiple sources. Multivariable regressions were used to estimate the association of the variation in spending across quintiles with SDoH.Main outcomes and measures2017 county-level price-adjusted Medicare Parts A and B spending per beneficiary. SDoH measures included socioeconomic position, race/ethnicity, social relationships, and residential and community context.ResultsAmong 3038 counties with 33 495 776 Medicare FFS beneficiaries (18 352 336 [54.8%] women; mean [SD] age, 72 [1.5] years), mean Medicare price-adjusted per beneficiary spending for counties in the highest spending quintile was $3785 (95% CI, $3706-$3862) higher, or 49% higher, than spending for bottom-quintile counties (mean [SD] spending per beneficiary, $11 464 [735] vs $7679 [522]; P < .001). The total contribution (including through both direct and indirect pathways) of SDoH was 37.7% ($1428 of $3785) of this variation, compared with 59.8% ($2265 of $3785) by patient clinical risk, 14.5% ($549 of $3785) by supply of health care resources, and 19.8% ($751 of $3785) by patient demographic characteristics. When all factors were included within the same model, the direct contribution of SDoH was associated with 5.8% of the variation, compared with 4.6% by supply, 4.7% by patient demographic characteristics, and 62.0% by patient clinical risk.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest social determinants of health are associated with considerable proportions of geographic variation in Medicare spending. Policies addressing SDoH for disadvantaged patients in certain regions have the potential to contain health care spending and improve the value of health care; patient SDoH may need to be accounted for in publicly reported physician performance, and in value-based purchasing incentive programs for health care professionals.

Project description:ImportanceNational guidelines balance risks and benefits of population-level cancer screening among adults with average risk. Older adults are not recommended to receive routine screening, but many continue to be screened (ie, are overscreened).ObjectiveTo assess the prevalence of overscreening for colorectal, cervical, and breast cancers among older adults as well as differences in overscreening by metropolitan status.Design, setting, and participantsThe cross-sectional study examined responses to a telephone survey of 176 348 community-dwelling adults. Participants were included if they met age and sex criteria, and they were excluded from each cancer-specific subsample if they had a history of that cancer. Data came from the 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, administered by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.ExposuresMetropolitan status, according to whether participants lived in a metropolitan statistical area.Main outcomes and measuresOverscreening was assessed using US Preventive Services Task Force definitions, ie, whether participants self-reported having a screening after the recommended upper age limit for colorectal (75 years), cervical (65 years), or breast (74 years) cancer.ResultsOf 176 348 participants (155 411 [88.1%] women; mean [SE] age, 75.0 [0.04] years; 150 871 [85.6%] non-Hispanic white; 60 456 [34.3%] with nonmetropolitan residence) the cancer-specific subsamples contained 20 937 [11.9%] men and 34 244 [19.4%] women for colorectal cancer, 82 811 [47.0%] women for cervical cancer, and 38 356 [21.8%] women for breast cancer. Overall, 9461 men (59.3%; 95% CI, 57.6%-61.1%) were overscreened for colorectal cancer; 14 463 women (56.2%; 95% CI, 54.7%-57.6%), for colorectal cancer; 31 988 women (45.8%; 95% CI, 44.9%-46.7%), for cervical cancer; and 26 198 women (74.1%; 95% CI, 73.0%-75.3%), for breast cancer. Overscreening was more common in metropolitan than nonmetropolitan areas for colorectal cancer among women (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.08-1.39), cervical cancer (aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.11-1.29), and breast cancer (aOR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.17-1.57). Overscreening for cervical and breast cancers was also associated with having a usual source of care compared with not (eg, cervical cancer: aOR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.56-2.25; breast cancer: aOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.58-2.76), good, very good, or excellent self-reported health compared with fair or poor self-reported health (eg, cervical cancer: aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.32; breast cancer: aOR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.28-1.69), an educational attainment greater than a high school diploma compared with a high school diploma or less (eg, cervical cancer: aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.06-1.23; breast cancer: aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16-1.46), and being married or living as married compared with other marital status (eg, cervical cancer: OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.26-1.46; breast cancer: OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.34-1.77).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, overscreening for cancer among older adults was high, particularly for women living in metropolitan areas. Overscreening could be associated with health care access and patient-clinician relationships. Additional research on why overscreening persists and how to reduce overscreening is needed to minimize risks associated with cancer screening among older adults.

Dataset Information

What drives variation in spending for breast cancer patients within geographic regions?

Objective

Data source

Study design

Data extraction method

Principal findings

Conclusions

Publications

What drives variation in spending for breast cancer patients within geographic regions?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets