Differences in spending on provider-administered chemotherapy by site of care in Medicare.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kalidindi Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6346993 | biostudies-other | 2018 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Publications
Differences in spending on provider-administered chemotherapy by site of care in Medicare.
Kalidindi Yamini Y Jung Jeah J Feldman Roger R
The American journal of managed care 20180701 7
<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare Medicare spending on provider-administered chemotherapy in hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) and physician offices after controlling for cancer type.<h4>Study design</h4>Secondary data analysis.<h4>Methods</h4>We used 2010-2013 claims data for a random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who had cancer and received chemotherapy services either in physician offices or in HOPDs. We constructed 2 spending measures: (1) spending on chemotherapy drugs ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceMedicare Part B drug expenditures have increased in recent years. This trend is likely to persist given the increased use and availability of biologics.ObjectivesTo assess the extent to which Medicare Part B spending growth was associated with changes in price vs quantity, and how these trends interacted with entry of new drugs into the marketplace.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study quantified the degree of spending concentration and the association between price and use of Part B drugs among fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries. Data on use and spending for separately payable Part B drugs were included. Source data were aggregated to the drug-year level and reported from 2016 to 2020. Descriptive decomposition and index analyses quantified the relative association of price and use changes separately for existing single-source drugs, existing drugs that faced competition, and new drugs that entered the market. Data analysis was performed from June to December 2022.Main outcomes and measuresPart B drug spending by the fee-for-service Medicare program and beneficiaries, as well as use, defined as dosage units and beneficiaries using the drugs.ResultsThe study included 535 unique Part B drug products. From 2016 to 2020, 15 or fewer products comprised half of all Part B drug expenditures. The set of 7 drugs that comprised the top 25% of spending was very consistent over time, and all were biologics. Part B drug products that cost $1.85 or less per administration accounted for more than half of the doses administered in 2020. Spending on Part B drugs increased by $15 billion from 2016 to 2020. The entry of new, nonbiosimilar drugs during this period accounted for $12 billion of this increased spending (80%), while shifts in use and price increases among existing single-source brand drugs accounted for the remaining increase in spending. Part B spending decreased among the subset of existing drugs facing generic or biosimilar competition. Among single-source drugs on the market in 2016, the index that varied dosage units exceeded the index that varied price in all years, confirming that changes in use were associated more with spending growth for those drugs.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of Medicare Part B drug expenditures, spending was found to be concentrated among a small number of drugs. The entry of new products was a key factor associated with recent increases in Part B drug spending. These findings suggest that policies targeting top-selling drugs may have greater potential to curb Part B drug spending than those targeting price growth.
| S-EPMC10492179 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To examine the impact of the 340B drug discount program on the site of cancer drug administration and cancer care spending in Medicare. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING:2010-2013 Medicare claims data for a random sample of Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries with cancer. STUDY DESIGN:We identified the 340B effect using variation in the availability of 340B hospitals across markets. We considered beneficiaries from markets that newly gained a 340B hospital during the study period (new 340B markets) as the treatment group. Beneficiaries in markets with no 340B hospital were the control group. We used a difference-in-differences approach with market fixed effects. DATA COLLECTION:Secondary data analysis. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:The probability of a patient receiving cancer drug administration in hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) versus physician offices increased 7.8 percentage points more in new 340B markets than in markets with no 340B hospital. Per-patient spending on other cancer care increased $1,162 more in new 340B markets than in markets with no 340B hospital. CONCLUSIONS:The 340B program shifted the site of cancer drug administration to HOPDs and increased spending on other cancer care. As the program expands, continuing assessment of its impact on service utilization and spending would be needed.
| S-EPMC6153182 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSurgical care among older adults is costly. While Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs) are designed around primary care, there are reasons to believe that participation may also affect spending on surgery. This study examines the impact that Medicare ACO alignment has on spending for inpatient and outpatient surgical care.Study designWe conducted a retrospective cohort study using national Medicare claims (2008 through 2015). Among a 20% random sample of beneficiaries, we identified adults 65 years of age and older enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare, distinguishing between those aligned and unaligned with a Medicare ACO. We then measured payments for surgical services made on their behalf. Finally, we fit multivariable regression models to evaluate the association between ACO alignment and spending for inpatient and outpatient surgical care.ResultsWe identified 37,249,845 beneficiary-year observations, of which 2,950,188 (7.9%) were aligned with a Medicare ACO. After adjustment for patient factors, ACO alignment was associated with $181 [95% confidence interval (CI), -$243 to -$118; P <0.001] lower spending per beneficiary-year. ACO alignment was associated with 2.9% fewer inpatient surgical episodes per year [incidence rate ratio (IRR), 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96 to 0.98; P <0.001] but 2.3% more outpatient episodes per year (IRR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.03; P <0.001). Among inpatient surgical episodes, average payments were $956 lower for ACO aligned beneficiaries (95%CI -$1218 to -$694, P <0.001).Conclusions and relevanceACO alignment was associated with savings on surgical care. These savings resulted from increased outpatient surgery and reduced use of inpatient surgery as well as reduced spending per inpatient surgical episode. Greater focus on surgical care may improve the ability of ACOs to control healthcare spending.
| S-EPMC7561039 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextThe Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently launched accountable care organization (ACO) programs designed to improve quality and slow cost growth. The ACOs resemble an earlier pilot, the Medicare Physician Group Practice Demonstration (PGPD), in which participating physician groups received bonus payments if they achieved lower cost growth than local controls and met quality targets. Although evidence indicates the PGPD improved quality, uncertainty remains about its effect on costs.ObjectiveTo estimate cost savings associated with the PGPD overall and for beneficiaries dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.DesignQuasi-experimental analyses comparing preintervention (2001-2004) and postintervention (2005-2009) trends in spending of PGPD participants to local control groups. We compared estimates using several alternative approaches to adjust for case mix.SettingTen physician groups from across the United States.Patients and participantsThe intervention group was composed of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries (n = 990,177) receiving care primarily from the physicians in the participating medical groups. Controls were Medicare beneficiaries (n = 7,514,453) from the same regions who received care largely from non-PGPD physicians. Overall, 15% of beneficiaries were dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.Main outcome measureAnnual spending per Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary.ResultsAnnual savings per beneficiary were modest overall (adjusted mean $114, 95% CI, $12-$216). Annual savings were significant in dually eligible beneficiaries (adjusted mean $532, 95% CI, $277-$786), but were not significant among nondually eligible beneficiaries (adjusted mean $59, 95% CI, $166 in savings to $47 in additional spending). The adjusted mean spending reductions were concentrated in acute care (overall, $118, 95% CI, $65-$170; dually eligible: $381, 95% CI, $247-$515; nondually eligible: $85, 95% CI, $32-$138). There was significant variation in savings across practice groups, ranging from an overall mean per-capita annual saving of $866 (95% CI, $815-$918) to an increase in expenditures of $749 (95% CI, $698-$799). Thirty-day medical readmissions decreased overall (-0.67%, 95% CI, -1.11% to -0.23%) and in the dually eligible (-1.07%, 95% CI, -1.73% to -0.41%), while surgical readmissions decreased only for the dually eligible (-2.21%, 95% CI, -3.07% to -1.34%). Estimates were sensitive to the risk-adjustment method.ConclusionsSubstantial PGPD savings achieved by some participating institutions were offset by a lack of saving at other participating institutions. Most of the savings were concentrated among dually eligible beneficiaries.
| S-EPMC3484377 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe 2 primary efforts of Medicare to advance value-based care are Medicare Advantage (MA) and the fee-for-service-based Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). It is unknown how spending differs between the 2 programs after accounting for differences in patient clinical risk.ObjectiveTo examine how spending and utilization differ between MA and MSSP beneficiaries after accounting for differences in clinical risk using data from administrative claims and electronic health records.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective economic evaluation used data from 15 763 propensity score-matched beneficiaries who were continuously enrolled in MA or MSSP from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018, with diabetes, congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or hypertension. Participants received care at a large nonprofit academic health system in the southern United States that bears risk for Medicare beneficiaries through both the MA and MSSP programs. Differences in beneficiary risk were mitigated by propensity score matching using validated clinical criteria based on data from administrative claims and electronic health records. Data were analyzed from January 2019 to May 2022.ExposuresEnrollment in MA or attribution to an accountable care organization in the MSSP program.Main outcomes and measuresPer-beneficiary annual total spending and subcomponents, including inpatient hospital, outpatient hospital, skilled nursing facility, emergency department, primary care, and specialist spending.ResultsThe sample of 15 763 participants included 12 720 (81%) MA and 3043 (19%) MSSP beneficiaries. MA beneficiaries, compared with MSSP beneficiaries, were more likely to be older (median [IQR] age, 75.0 [69.9-81.8] years vs 73.1 [68.3-79.8] years), male (5515 [43%] vs 1119 [37%]), and White (9644 [76%] vs 2046 [69%]) and less likely to live in low-income zip codes (2338 [19%] vs 750 [25%]). The mean unadjusted per-member per-year spending difference between MSSP and MA disease-specific subcohorts was $2159 in diabetes, $4074 in CHF, $2560 in CKD, and $2330 in hypertension. After matching on clinical risk and demographic factors, MSSP spending was higher for patients with diabetes (mean per-member per-year spending difference in 2015: $2454; 95% CI, $1431-$3574), CHF ($3699; 95% CI, $1235-$6523), CKD ($2478; 95% CI, $1172-$3920), and hypertension ($2258; 95% CI, $1616-2,939). Higher MSSP spending among matched beneficiaries was consistent over time. In the matched cohort in 2018, MSSP total spending ranged from 23% (CHF) to 30% (CKD) higher than MA. Adjusting for differential trends in coding intensity did not affect these results. Higher outpatient hospital spending among MSSP beneficiaries contributed most to spending differences between MSSP and MA, representing 49% to 62% of spending differences across disease cohorts.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, utilization and spending were consistently higher for MSSP than MA beneficiaries within the same health system even after adjusting for granular metrics of clinical risk. Nonclinical factors likely contribute to the large differences in MA vs MSSP spending, which may create challenges for health systems participating in MSSP relative to their participation in MA.
| S-EPMC9399862 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We compare healthcare spending in public and private Medicare using newly available claims data from Medicare Advantage (MA) insurers. MA insurer revenues are 30 percent higher than their healthcare spending. Adjusting for enrollee mix, healthcare spending per enrollee in MA is 9 to 30 percent lower than in traditional Medicare (TM), depending on the way we define "comparable" enrollees. Spending differences primarily reflect differences in healthcare utilization, with similar reductions for "high value" and "low value" care, rather than healthcare prices. We present evidence consistent with MA plans encouraging substitution to less expensive care and engaging in utilization management. (JEL H11, H42, H51, I11, I13).
| S-EPMC6532061 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Medicare accountable care organization (ACO) programs rely on delivery system integration and health care provider risk sharing to lower spending while improving quality of care.To compare spending and quality between larger and smaller provider groups and examine how size-related differences vary by 2 factors considered central to ACO performance: group primary care orientation and financial risk sharing by health care providers.Using 2009 Medicare claims and linked American Medical Association Group Practice data, we assigned 4.29 million beneficiaries to health care provider groups based on primary care use. We categorized group size according to eligibility thresholds for the Shared Savings (?5000 assigned beneficiaries) and Pioneer (?15,000) ACO programs and distinguished hospital-based from independent groups. We assessed the primary care orientation of larger groups' specialty mix and used health maintenance organization market penetration and data from the Community Tracking Study to measure the extent of financial risk accepted by different types of provider groups in different areas for managed care patients. We estimated linear regression models comparing spending and quality between larger and smaller health care provider groups, allowing size-related differences to vary by measures of group primary care orientation and risk sharing. Spending and quality measures included total medical spending, spending by type of service, 5 process measures of quality, and 30-day readmissions, all adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.Compared with smaller groups, larger hospital-based groups had higher total per-beneficiary spending in 2009 (mean difference, +$849), higher 30-day readmission rates (+1.3 percentage points), and similar performance on 4 of 5 process measures of quality. In contrast, larger independent physician groups performed better than smaller groups on all process measures and exhibited significantly lower per-beneficiary spending in counties where risk sharing by these groups was more common (-$426). Among all groups sufficiently large to participate in ACO programs, a strong primary care orientation was associated with lower spending, fewer readmissions, and better quality of diabetes care.Spending was lower and quality of care better for Medicare beneficiaries served by larger independent physician groups with strong primary care orientations in environments where health care providers accepted greater risk.
| S-EPMC3800215 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore the relationship between commercial health care prices and Medicare spending/utilization across U.S. regions.Data sourcesClaims from large employers and Medicare Parts A/B/D over 2007-2009.Study designWe compared prices paid by commercial health plans to Medicare spending and utilization, adjusted for beneficiary health and the cost of care, across 301 hospital referral regions.Principal findingsA 10 percent lower commercial price (around the average level) is associated with 3.0 percent higher Medicare spending per member per year, and 4.3 percent more specialist visits (p < .01).ConclusionsCommercial health care prices are negatively associated with Medicare spending across regions. Providers may respond to low commercial prices by shifting service volume into Medicare. Further investigation is needed to establish causality.
| S-EPMC4450935 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe benefits of public payment policy may extend to private populations through "spillover" effects. If cost-saving efforts in Medicare also reduce costs among commercially insured patients, Medicare payment systems could be a versatile policy tool in future reform efforts.ObjectivesTo determine whether physicians who participated in a Medicare Accountable Care Organization (ACO) reduced spending among their commercial patients.DesignThis was a retrospective, longitudinal study which was conducted using Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) claims data from 2010 to 2015. We compared patients seen by physicians who participated in a Medicare ACO to patients whose physicians were not part of an ACO. We used a difference-in-differences (DIDs) design to test whether physician participation in an ACO was associated with reduced spending among their commercially insured patients. We also tested for heterogeneous effects: we assessed whether spillovers were larger among patients with clinical conditions (acute myocardial infarction, pneumonia, congestive heart failure) that have previously been targeted by Medicare payment programs.SettingThis was a population-based study of commercially insured patients in Michigan.ParticipantsPatients who experienced a significant clinical episode (eg, labor and delivery, acute myocardial infarction) between 2010 and 2015.ExposureOur patient-level exposure is treatment by a Medicare ACO-affiliated physician.Main outcomes and measuresMedical spending of 0-90 days and 91-365 days after a clinical episode.ResultsPatients in the exposure group (n=54,750) and in the control group (n=137,883) were similar in demographic characteristics of age, sex, and type of clinical episodes. Adjusted mean 90-day spending in the preexposure period was $21,292 among the exposure group and $21,157 among the comparison group; these means declined to $21,250 and $20,995 in the postperiod, yielding a DIDs estimate of $119 [95% confidence interval (CI), -$170 to $408]. Adjusted means for 91-365 days spending in the preperiod were $4258 among the exposure group and $4251 among the comparison group; these means rose to $4338 and $4421 in the postperiod, yielding a DIDs estimate of -$90 (95% CI, -$312 to $132). We also separately examined patients with conditions that have been targeted by other Medicare payment programs. Among these patients, 90-day spending did not differ between exposure and comparison groups (DIDs, -$223; 95% CI, -$2037 to $1591), although 91-365 days spending decreased among the exposure group with marginal statistical significance (DIDs, -$1160; 95% CI, -$2459 to $140).Conclusions and relevancePhysicians who participated in Medicare ACOs did not reduce spending among most of their commercially insured patients. Medicare policy is unlikely to confer significant spillover benefits to the commercially insured population.
| S-EPMC6417956 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:The degree to which the presence of mental health disorders is associated with additional medical spending on non-mental health conditions is largely unknown. Objective:To determine the proportion and degree of total spending directly associated with mental health conditions vs spending on other non-mental health conditions. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective cohort study of 4 358 975 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries in the US in 2015 compared spending and health care utilization among Medicare patients with serious mental illness (SMI; defined as bipolar disease, schizophrenia or related psychotic disorders, and major depressive disorder), patients with other common mental health disorders (defined as anxiety disorders, personality disorders, and posttraumatic stress disorder), and patients with no known mental health disorders. Data analysis was conducted from February to October 2019. Exposure:Diagnosis of an SMI or other common mental health disorder. Main Outcomes and Measures:Risk-adjusted, standardized spending and health care utilization. Multivariable linear regression models were used to adjust for patient characteristics, including demographic characteristics and other medical comorbidities, using hospital referral region fixed effects. Results:Of 4 358 975 Medicare beneficiaries, 987 379 (22.7%) had an SMI, 326 991 (7.5%) had another common mental health disorder, and 3 044 587 (69.8%) had no known mental illness. Compared with patients with no known mental illness, patients with an SMI were younger (mean [SD] age, 72.3 [11.6] years vs 67.4 [15.7] years; P < .001) and more likely to have dual eligibility (633 274 [20.8%] vs 434 447 [44.0%]; P < .001). Patients with an SMI incurred more mean (SE) spending on mental health services than those with other common mental health disorders or no known mental illness ($2024 [3.9] vs $343 [6.2] vs $189 [2.1], respectively; P < .001). Patients with an SMI also had substantially higher mean (SE) spending on medical services for physical conditions than those with other common mental health disorders or no known mental illness ($17 651 [23.6] vs $15 253 [38.2] vs $12 883 [12.8], respectively; P < .001), reflecting $4768 (95% CI, $4713-$4823; 37% increase) more in costs for patients with an SMI and $2370 (95% CI, $2290-$2449; 18.4% increase) more in costs for patients with other common mental health disorders. Among Medicare beneficiaries, $2 686 016 110 of $64 326 262 104 total Medicare spending (4.2%) went to mental health services and an additional $5 482 791 747 (8.5%) went to additional medical spending associated with mental illness, representing a total of 12.7% of spending associated with mental health disorders. Conclusions and Relevance:In this study, having a mental health disorder was associated with spending substantially more on other medical conditions. These findings quantify the extent of additional spending in the Medicare fee-for-service population associated with a diagnosis of a mental health disorder.
| S-EPMC7082719 | biostudies-literature