Literature DB >> 21646556

Quality of care for older patients with cancer in the Veterans Health Administration versus the private sector: a cohort study.

Nancy L Keating1, Mary Beth Landrum, Elizabeth B Lamont, Samuel R Bozeman, Steven H Krasnow, Lawrence N Shulman, Jennifer R Brown, Craig C Earle, William K Oh, Michael Rabin, Barbara J McNeil.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the largest integrated health care system in the United States. Studies suggest that the VHA provides better preventive care and care for some chronic illnesses than does the private sector.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of cancer care for older patients provided by the VHA versus fee-for-service Medicare.
DESIGN: Observational study of patients with cancer that was diagnosed between 2001 and 2004 who were followed through 2005.
SETTING: VHA and non-VHA hospitals and office-based practices. PATIENTS: Men older than 65 years with incident colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer; lymphoma; or multiple myeloma. MEASUREMENTS: Rates of processes of care for colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer; lymphoma; or multiple myeloma. Rates were adjusted by using propensity score weighting.
RESULTS: Compared with the fee-for-service Medicare population, the VHA population received diagnoses of colon (P < 0.001) and rectal (P = 0.007) cancer at earlier stages and had higher adjusted rates of curative surgery for colon cancer (92.7% vs. 90.5%; P < 0.010), standard chemotherapy for diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (71.1% vs. 59.3%; P < 0.001), and bisphosphonate therapy for multiple myeloma (62.1% vs. 50.4%; P < 0.001). The VHA population had lower adjusted rates of 3-dimensional conformal or intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer treated with external-beam radiation therapy (61.6% vs. 86.0%; P < 0.001). Adjusted rates were similar for 9 other measures. Sensitivity analyses suggest that if patients with cancer in the VHA system have more severe comorbid illness than other patients, rates for most indicators would be higher in the VHA population than in the fee-for-service Medicare population. LIMITATION: This study included only older men and did not include information about performance status, severity of comorbid illness, or patient preferences.
CONCLUSION: Care for older men with cancer in the VHA system was generally similar to or better than care for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, although adoption of some expensive new technologies may be delayed in the VHA system. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Department of Veterans Affairs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21646556     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-154-11-201106070-00004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  46 in total

1.  The double edged sword of performance measurement.

Authors:  Kenneth W Kizer; Susan R Kirsh
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Cancer incidence among patients of the U.S. Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

Authors:  Leah L Zullig; George L Jackson; Raye Anne Dorn; Dawn T Provenzale; Rebecca McNeil; Catherine M Thomas; Michael J Kelley
Journal:  Mil Med       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 1.437

3.  Samuel and Keating respond.

Authors:  Cleo A Samuel; Nancy L Keating
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Payer Type and Low-Value Care: Comparing Choosing Wisely Services across Commercial and Medicare Populations.

Authors:  Carrie H Colla; Nancy E Morden; Thomas D Sequist; Alexander J Mainor; Zhonghe Li; Meredith B Rosenthal
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-02-19       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Veterans Affairs Health Care-It is the Local Market.

Authors:  Kyle H Sheetz; Carolyn M Clancy
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Variation in use of echocardiography among veterans who use the Veterans Health Administration vs Medicare.

Authors:  Vinay Kini; Fenton H McCarthy; Sheeva Rajaei; Andrew J Epstein; Paul A Heidenreich; Peter W Groeneveld
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2015-07-26       Impact factor: 4.749

7.  Time trends in glioblastoma multiforme survival: the role of temozolomide.

Authors:  Robert Dubrow; Amy S Darefsky; Daniel I Jacobs; Lesley S Park; Michal G Rose; Maxwell S H Laurans; Joseph T King
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 12.300

8.  Using NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology to measure the quality of colorectal cancer care in the veterans health administration.

Authors:  George L Jackson; Leah L Zullig; S Yousuf Zafar; Adam A Powell; Diana L Ordin; Ziad F Gellad; David Abbott; James M Schlosser; Janis Hersh; Dawn Provenzale
Journal:  J Natl Compr Canc Netw       Date:  2013-04-01       Impact factor: 11.908

9.  Five-year downstream outcomes following prostate-specific antigen screening in older men.

Authors:  Louise C Walter; Kathy Z Fung; Katharine A Kirby; Ying Shi; Roxanne Espaldon; Sarah O'Brien; Stephen J Freedland; Adam A Powell; Richard M Hoffman
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2013-05-27       Impact factor: 21.873

10.  Intended versus inferred management after PET for cancer restaging: analysis of Medicare claims linked to a coverage with evidence development registry.

Authors:  Bruce E Hillner; Tor D Tosteson; Anna N A Tosteson; Qianfei Wang; Yunjie Song; Tracy Onega; Lucy G Hanna; Barry A Siegel
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.983

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.