Dataset Information

Comparison of Hospitals Affiliated With PPS-Exempt Cancer Centers, Other Hospitals Affiliated With NCI-Designated Cancer Centers, and Other Hospitals That Provide Cancer Care.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Congress has exempted 11 specialized cancer centers in the United States from the Prospective Payment System (PPS). These centers are also exempt from reporting many of the process-of-care and outcome measures to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that are required for hospitals in the PPS. It is not known how hospitals affiliated with PPS-exempt cancer centers differ from other hospitals affiliated with National Cancer Institute cancer centers (NCI-CCs) or other US hospitals that provide cancer care.

Objective

To examine differences between hospitals affiliated with PPS-exempt cancer centers, other hospitals affiliated with NCI-CCs, and other hospitals that provide cancer care on metrics that could be used in public reporting.

Design, setting, and participants

This retrospective cohort study compared hospital characteristics and cancer-related services using data from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey and US News Best Hospitals rankings. With a 100% sample of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent 1 of 9 cancer operations (brain tumor resection, colorectal resection, cystectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, liver resection, lung resection, pancreatic resection, prostatectomy) from January 1, 2011, to May 31, 2015, we used hierarchical logistic regression methods to compare differences in 18 postoperative outcomes. Data analysis was conducted from February 2018 to August 2018.

Main outcomes and measures

This study evaluated hospital characteristics, including cancer-specific services, patient comorbidity burden, and cancer surgery postoperative outcomes, from PPS-exempt cancer centers, NCI-affiliated cancer centers, and other US hospitals that provide cancer care.

Results

Hospitals affiliated with PPS-exempt cancer centers (n = 15) and NCI-CCs (n = 54) were similar in hospital characteristics, basic cancer-related services, and patient comorbidity burden. Compared with NCI-CCs, PPS-exempt cancer centers had significantly higher US News reputation scores (mean [SD], 17.5 [24.0] vs 2.6 [4.8]; P < .001) but no differences in oncology patient volume, patient safety ratings, comorbidity burden, nurse staffing, US News total cancer scores, or US News survival scores. Hospitals affiliated with PPS-exempt cancer centers and NCI-CCs had similar adjusted postoperative outcomes for 15 of 18 measures, including mortality, readmission, and surgical site infections. Compared with hospitals affiliated with PPS-exempt cancer centers, patients treated at NCI-CCs were more likely to have postoperative sepsis (3.1% vs 1.7%; P = .002), acute renal failure (6.2% vs 3.9%; P = .01), and urinary tract infection (6.4% vs 4.0%; P = .002). Compared with the other hospitals that provide cancer care (n = 3578), PPS-exempt cancer center status was associated with improved outcomes for 7 of 18 measures, including mortality, sepsis, acute renal failure, pulmonary failure, and failure to rescue.

Conclusions and relevance

Hospitals affiliated with PPS-exempt cancer centers and NCI-CCs had generally similar hospital characteristics, patient comorbidity burden, and cancer surgery outcomes. These findings raise questions about why some cancer centers are designated as PPS-exempt and why most hospitals are not required to publicly report cancer-specific quality metrics.

SUBMITTER: Merkow RP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6580440 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe legal climate for cannabis use has dramatically changed with an increasing number of states passing legislation legalizing access for medical and recreational use. Among cancer patients, cannabis is often used to ameliorate adverse effects of cancer treatment. Data are limited on the extent and type of use among cancer patients during treatment and the perceived benefits and harms. This multicenter survey was conducted to assess the use of cannabis among cancer patients residing in states with varied legal access to cannabis.MethodsA total of 12 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers, across states with varied cannabis-access legal status, conducted surveys with a core questionnaire to assess cannabis use among recently diagnosed cancer patients. Data were collected between September 2021 and August 2023 and pooled across 12 cancer centers. Frequencies and 95% confidence intervals for core survey measures were calculated, and weighted estimates are presented for the 10 sites that drew probability samples.ResultsOverall reported cannabis use since cancer diagnosis among survey respondents was 32.9% (weighted), which varied slightly by state legalization status. The most common perceived benefits of use were for pain, sleep, stress and anxiety, and treatment side effects. Reported perceived risks were less common and included inability to drive, difficulty concentrating, lung damage, addiction, and impact on employment. A majority reported feeling comfortable speaking to health-care providers though, overall, only 21.5% reported having done so. Among those who used cannabis since diagnosis, the most common modes were eating in food, smoking, and pills or tinctures, and the most common reasons were for sleep disturbance, followed by pain and stress and anxiety with 60%-68% reporting improved symptoms with use.ConclusionThis geographically diverse survey demonstrates that patients use cannabis regardless of its legal status. Addressing knowledge gaps concerning benefits and harms of cannabis use during cancer treatment is critical to enhance patient-provider communication.

Project description:IntroductionThe COVID-19 pandemic disrupted cancer screening and treatment delivery, but COVID-19's impact on tobacco cessation treatment for cancer patients who smoke has not been widely explored.MethodsWe conducted a sequential cross-sectional analysis of data collected from 34 NCI-designated cancer centers participating in NCI's Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I), across three reporting periods: one prior to COVID-19 (January-June 2019) and two during the pandemic (January-June 2020, January-June 2021). Using McNemar's Test of Homogeneity, we assessed changes in services offered and implementation activities over time.ResultsThe proportion of centers offering remote treatment services increased each year for Quitline referrals (56%, 68%, and 91%; p=.000), telephone counseling (59%, 79%, and 94%; p=.002), and referrals to Smokefree TXT (27%, 47%, and 56%; p=.006). Centers offering video-based counseling increased from 2020 to 2021 (18% to 59%; p=.006), Fewer than 10% of centers reported laying off tobacco treatment staff. Compared to early 2020, in 2021 C3I centers reported improvements in their ability to maintain staff and clinician morale, refer to external treatment services, train providers to deliver tobacco treatment, and modify clinical workflows.DiscussionThe COVID-19 pandemic necessitated rapid transition to new telehealth program delivery of tobacco treatment for patients with cancer. C3I cancer centers adjusted rapidly to challenges presented by the pandemic, with improvements reported in staff morale and ability to train providers, refer patients to tobacco treatment, and modify clinical workflows. These factors enabled C3I centers to sustain evidence-based tobacco treatment implementation during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.ImplicationsThis work describes how NCI-designated cancer centers participating in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) adapted to challenges to sustain evidence-based tobacco use treatment programs during the COVID-19 pandemic. This work offers a model for resilience and rapid transition to remote tobacco treatment services delivery and proposes a policy and research agenda for telehealth services as an approach to sustaining evidence-based tobacco treatment programs.

Project description:IntroductionEarly access to specialty palliative care is associated with better quality of life, less intensive end-of-life treatment and improved outcomes for patients with advanced cancer. However, significant variation exists in implementation and integration of palliative care. This study compares the organizational, sociocultural, and clinical factors that support or hinder palliative care integration across three U.S. cancer centers using an in-depth mixed methods case study design and proposes a middle range theory to further characterize specialty palliative care integration.MethodsMixed methods data collection included document review, semi-structured interviews, direct clinical observation, and context data related to site characteristics and patient demographics. A mixed inductive and deductive approach and triangulation was used to analyze and compare sites' palliative care delivery models, organizational structures, social norms, and clinician beliefs and practices.ResultsSites included an urban center in the Midwest and two in the Southeast. Data included 62 clinician and 27 leader interviews, observations of 410 inpatient and outpatient encounters and seven non-encounter-based meetings, and multiple documents. Two sites had high levels of "favorable" organizational influences for specialty palliative care integration, including screening, policies, and other structures facilitating integration of specialty palliative care into advanced cancer care. The third site lacked formal organizational policies and structures for specialty palliative care, had a small specialty palliative care team, espoused an organizational identity linked to treatment innovation, and demonstrated strong social norms for oncologist primacy in decision making. This combination led to low levels of specialty palliative care integration and greater reliance on individual clinicians to initiate palliative care.ConclusionIntegration of specialty palliative care services in advanced cancer care was associated with a complex interaction of organization-level factors, social norms, and individual clinician orientation. The resulting middle range theory suggests that formal structures and policies for specialty palliative care combined with supportive social norms are associated with greater palliative care integration in advanced cancer care, and less influence of individual clinician preferences or tendencies to continue treatment. These results suggest multi-faceted efforts at different levels, including social norms, may be needed to improve specialty palliative care integration for advanced cancer patients.

Project description:Tobacco cessation after cancer diagnosis leads to better patient outcomes. However, tobacco treatment services are frequently unavailable in cancer care settings, and multilevel implementation challenges can impede uptake of new programs. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) dedicated Cancer Moonshot funding through the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I) for NCI-Designated Cancer Centers to implement or enhance the implementation of tobacco treatment services. We examined a pragmatic application of the RE-AIM framework (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) to evaluate tobacco treatment programs implemented within Cancer Centers funded through C3I. Using three C3I-funded Centers as examples, we describe how each RE-AIM construct was operationalized to evaluate the implementation of a wide range of cessation services (e.g., tobacco use screening, counseling, Quitline referral, pharmacotherapy) in this heterogeneous group of cancer care settings. We discuss the practical challenges encountered in assessing RE-AIM constructs in real world situations, including using the electronic health record (EHR) to aid in assessment. Reach and effectiveness evaluation required that Centers define the setting(s) where cessation services were implemented (to determine the "denominator"), enumerate the patient population, report current patient tobacco use, patient engagement in tobacco treatment, and 6-month cessation outcomes. To reduce site heterogeneity, increase data accuracy, and reduce burden, reach was frequently captured via standardized EHR enhancements that improved the identification of current smokers and tobacco treatment referrals. Effectiveness was determined by cessation outcomes (30-day point prevalence abstinence at 6-months post-engagement) assessed through a variety of data collection approaches. Adoption was measured by the characteristics and proportion of targeted cancer care settings and clinicians engaged in cessation service delivery. Implementation was assessed by examining the delivery of tobacco screening assessments and intervention components across sites, and provider-level implementation consistency. Maintenance assessments identified whether tobacco treatment services continued in the setting after implementation and documented the sustainability plan and organizational commitment to continued delivery. In sum, this paper demonstrates a pragmatic approach to using RE-AIM as an evaluation framework that yields relevant outcomes on common implementation metrics across widely differing tobacco treatment approaches and settings.