Dataset Information

Provider Practice Competition and Adoption of Medicare's Oncology Care Model.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:There is a concern that the Oncology Care Model (OCM), a voluntary bundled payment program, may incentivize mergers and acquisitions among physician practices leading to reduced competition and price increases. These concerns are heightened if OCM is preferentially adopted in competitive health care markets because it could result in reduced competition, but little is known about the characteristics of markets where OCM is adopted. OBJECTIVE:To measure the association between regional market competition among medical oncologists with the initial adoption of OCM. RESEARCH DESIGN:The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), a measure of competition, was calculated for hospital referral regions (HRRs) using secondary data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The relationship between HHI and OCM adoption was assessed using a 2-part regression model adjusting for the market-level number of practices, physician density, average practice size, sociodemographic characteristics, and medical resources. A count model on all HRRs was also estimated to assess an overall effect. SUBJECTS:A total of 10,788 physicians in 3,537 practices who billed Medicare for oncology services in 2015. RESULTS:OCM was adopted in 114 (37%) of the 306 HRRs. We found that practices in competitive health care markets were more likely to adopt OCM than in noncompetitive markets. Two-part regression analysis indicated a nonlinear relationship between HHI and OCM adoption. Average practice size, number of practices in an HRR, and the hospital bed rate were positively associated with adoption, whereas the rate of full-time equivalent hospital employees to 1000 residents was negatively associated with adoption. CONCLUSIONS:OCM adoption was higher in HRRs with greater competition. Careful monitoring of market-level changes among OCM adopters should be undertaken to ensure that the benefits of the OCM outweigh the negative consequences of possible changes in competition.

SUBMITTER: Jalali A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7605512 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Provider Practice Competition and Adoption of Medicare's Oncology Care Model.

Jalali Ali A Martin Christopher C Nelson Richard E RE Vanneman Megan E ME Martin Brook I BI Cooney Kathleen A KA Waitzman Norman J NJ O'Neil Brock B

Medical care 20200201 2

<h4>Background</h4>There is a concern that the Oncology Care Model (OCM), a voluntary bundled payment program, may incentivize mergers and acquisitions among physician practices leading to reduced competition and price increases. These concerns are heightened if OCM is preferentially adopted in competitive health care markets because it could result in reduced competition, but little is known about the characteristics of markets where OCM is adopted.<h4>Objective</h4>To measure the association b ...[more]

PMID: 31688568

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Health insurers reimburse clinicians in many ways, including the ubiquitous fee-for-service model and the emergent shared-savings models. Evidence on the effects of these emergent models in oncological treatment remains limited. Objectives:To analyze the early use and cost associations of a recent Medicare payment program, the Oncology Care Model (OCM), which included a shared savings-like component. Design, Setting, and Participants:This nonrandomized controlled study used a difference-in-differences approach on 2 years of data, from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2017-1 year before and 1 year after launch of the OCM-to compare the differences between participating and nonparticipating practices, controlling for patient, clinician, and practice factors. Participation in the OCM began on July 1, 2016. Associations of participation with care use and cost were estimated for care directly managed by clinicians from a large network within their Medicare populations for breast, lung, colon, and prostate cancers. Data were analyzed from September 2019 to March 2020. Exposures:Participating practices were paid a monthly management fee of $160 per beneficiary and a potential risk-adjusted performance-based payment for eligible patients who received chemotherapy treatment, in addition to standard fee-for-service payments. Main Outcomes and Measures:Office visits, drug administrations, patient hydrations, drug costs, and total costs. Results:Monthly means data at the physician-level were evaluated for 11 869 physician-months for breast cancers, 11 135 physician-months for lung cancers, 8592 physician-months for colon cancers, and 9045 physician-months for prostate cancers. Patients at OCM practices had a mean (SD) age of 63.4 (3.1) years, and a mean (SD) of 59% (7 percentage points) of their patients were women. Participation in the OCM was associated with less physician-administered prostate cancer drug use (difference, 0.29 [95% CI, -0.47 to -0.11] percentage points, or 24.0%) translating to a mean of $706 (95% CI, -$1383 to -$29) less in drug costs per month. Monthly drug costs were also lower, at $558 (95% CI, -$1173 to $58) less for treatment for lung cancer. Total costs were lower by 9.7% or $233 (95% CI, -$495 to $30) for breast cancer, 9.9% or $337 (95% CI, -$618 to -$55) for lung cancer, 14.2% or $385 (95% CI, -$780 to $10) for colon cancer, and 29.2% or $610 (95% CI, -$1095 to -$125) for prostate cancer; however, these differences were largely offset by program costs. Clinician visits were also lower by 11.2% or 0.11 (95% CI, -0.20 to -0.01) percentage points among patients with breast cancer and by 14.4% or 0.19 (95% CI, -0.37 to -0.02) among patients with colon cancer. Conclusions and Relevance:These findings suggest that payment models with shared-savings components can be associated with fewer visits and lower costs in certain cancer settings in the first year, but the savings can be modest given the costs of program administration.

Project description:Introduction In order to provide baseline data on genetic testing as a key element of personalised medicine (PM), Canadian physicians were surveyed to determine roles, perceptions and experiences in this area. The survey measured attitudes, practice, observed benefits and impacts, and barriers to adoption. Methods A self-administered survey was provided to Canadian oncologists, cardiologists and family physicians and responses were obtained online, by mail or by fax. The survey was designed to be exploratory. Data were compared across specialties and geography. Results The overall response rate was 8.3%. Of the respondents, 43%, 30% and 27% were family physicians, cardiologists and oncologists, respectively. A strong majority of respondents agreed that genetic testing and PM can have a positive impact on their practice; however, only 51% agreed that there is sufficient evidence to order such tests. A low percentage of respondents felt that they were sufficiently informed and confident practicing in this area, although many reported that genetic tests they have ordered have benefited their patients. Half of the respondents agreed that genetic tests that would be useful in their practice are not readily available. A lack of practice guidelines, limited provider knowledge and lack of evidence-based clinical information were cited as the main barriers to practice. Differences across provinces were observed for measures relating to access to testing and the state of practice. Differences across specialties were observed for the state of practice, reported benefits and access to testing. Conclusions Canadian physicians recognise the benefits of genetic testing and PM; however, they lack the education, information and support needed to practice effectively in this area. Variability in practice and access to testing across specialties and across Canada was observed. These results support a need for national strategies and resources to facilitate physician knowledge, training and practice in PM.

Project description:BACKGROUND & AIMS:Low rates of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) surveillance are primarily due to provider-related process failures. However, few studies have evaluated primary care provider (PCP) practice patterns, attitudes, and barriers to HCC surveillance at academic tertiary care referral centers. METHODS:We conducted a web-based survey of PCPs at 2 tertiary care referral centers (133 providers) from June 2017 through December 2017. The survey was adapted from pretested surveys and included questions about practice patterns, attitudes, and barriers to HCC surveillance. We used the Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney rank-sum tests to identify factors associated with adherence to HCC surveillance recommendations, for categoric and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS:We obtained a provider-level response rate of 75% and clinic-level response rate of 100% (133 providers). Whereas most PCPs performed HCC surveillance themselves, one-third deferred surveillance to subspecialists and referred patients to a hepatology clinic. Providers believed the combination of ultrasound and ?-fetoprotein analysis to be highly effective for early stage tumor detection and reported using the combination for assessment of most patients. However, PCPs were more likely to use computed tomography- or magnetic resonance imaging-based surveillance for patients with nonalcoholic steatohepatitis or decompensated cirrhosis. Most providers believed HCC surveillance to be efficacious for early tumor detection and increasing survival. However, they desired increased high-quality evidence to characterize screening benefits and harms. Providers expressed notable misconceptions about HCC surveillance, including the role for measurement of liver enzyme levels in HCC surveillance and cost effectiveness of surveillance in patients without cirrhosis. They also reported barriers, including not being up to date on HCC surveillance recommendations, limited time in the clinic, and competing clinical concerns. CONCLUSIONS:In a web-based survey, PCPs reported misconceptions and barriers to HCC surveillance. This indicates the need for interventions, including provider education, to improve HCC surveillance effectiveness in clinical practice.

Dataset Information

Provider Practice Competition and Adoption of Medicare's Oncology Care Model.

Publications

Provider Practice Competition and Adoption of Medicare's Oncology Care Model.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets