BACKGROUND: Medicare spending varies substantially across the United States. We evaluated the association between mean regional spending and survival in advanced cancer. METHODS: We identified 116 523 subjects with advanced cancer from 2002 to 2007, using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data. Subjects were aged 65 years and older with non-small cell lung, colon, breast, prostate, or pancreas cancer. Of these subjects, 61 083 had incident advanced-stage cancer (incident cohort) and 98 935 had death from cancer (decedent cohort); 37% of subjects were included in both cohorts. Subjects were linked to one of 80 hospital referral regions within SEER areas. We estimated mean regional spending in both cohorts. We assessed the primary outcome, survival, in the incident cohort; the exposure measure was the quintile of regional spending in the decedent cohort. Survival in quintiles 2 through 5 was compared with that in quintile 1 (lowest spending quintile) using Cox regression models. RESULTS: From quintile 1 to 5, mean regional spending increased by 32% and 41% in the incident and decedent cohorts (incident cohort: $28 854 to $37 971; decedent cohort: $27 446 to $38 630). The association between spending and survival varied by cancer site and quintile; hazard ratios ranged from 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82 to 1.04, pancreas cancer quintile 5) to 1.24 (95% CI = 1.11 to 1.39, breast cancer quintile 3). In most cases, differences in survival between quintile 1 and quintiles 2 through 5 were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: There is substantial regional variation in Medicare spending for advanced cancer, yet no consistent association between mean regional spending and survival.
BACKGROUND: Medicare spending varies substantially across the United States. We evaluated the association between mean regional spending and survival in advanced cancer. METHODS: We identified 116 523 subjects with advanced cancer from 2002 to 2007, using Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data. Subjects were aged 65 years and older with non-small cell lung, colon, breast, prostate, or pancreas cancer. Of these subjects, 61 083 had incident advanced-stage cancer (incident cohort) and 98 935 had death from cancer (decedent cohort); 37% of subjects were included in both cohorts. Subjects were linked to one of 80 hospital referral regions within SEER areas. We estimated mean regional spending in both cohorts. We assessed the primary outcome, survival, in the incident cohort; the exposure measure was the quintile of regional spending in the decedent cohort. Survival in quintiles 2 through 5 was compared with that in quintile 1 (lowest spending quintile) using Cox regression models. RESULTS: From quintile 1 to 5, mean regional spending increased by 32% and 41% in the incident and decedent cohorts (incident cohort: $28 854 to $37 971; decedent cohort: $27 446 to $38 630). The association between spending and survival varied by cancer site and quintile; hazard ratios ranged from 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82 to 1.04, pancreas cancer quintile 5) to 1.24 (95% CI = 1.11 to 1.39, breast cancer quintile 3). In most cases, differences in survival between quintile 1 and quintiles 2 through 5 were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: There is substantial regional variation in Medicare spending for advanced cancer, yet no consistent association between mean regional spending and survival.
Authors: Amber E Barnato; M Brooke Herndon; Denise L Anthony; Patricia M Gallagher; Jonathan S Skinner; Julie P W Bynum; Elliott S Fisher Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jennifer S Temel; Joseph A Greer; Alona Muzikansky; Emily R Gallagher; Sonal Admane; Vicki A Jackson; Constance M Dahlin; Craig D Blinderman; Juliet Jacobsen; William F Pirl; J Andrew Billings; Thomas J Lynch Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-08-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elliott S Fisher; David E Wennberg; Thérèse A Stukel; Daniel J Gottlieb; F L Lucas; Etoile L Pinder Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2003-02-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Alan Sandler; Robert Gray; Michael C Perry; Julie Brahmer; Joan H Schiller; Afshin Dowlati; Rogerio Lilenbaum; David H Johnson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-12-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Richard Brumley; Susan Enguidanos; Paula Jamison; Rae Seitz; Nora Morgenstern; Sherry Saito; Jan McIlwane; Kristine Hillary; Jorge Gonzalez Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Amy S Kelley; Evan Bollens-Lund; Kenneth E Covinsky; Jonathan S Skinner; R Sean Morrison Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Cathy J Bradley; K Robin Yabroff; Angela B Mariotto; Christopher Zeruto; Quyen Tran; Joan L Warren Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mark C Hornbrook; Jennifer Malin; Jane C Weeks; Solomon B Makgoeng; Nancy L Keating; Arnold L Potosky Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bobby Daly; Andrew Hantel; Kristen Wroblewski; Jay S Balachandran; Selina Chow; Rebecca DeBoer; Gini F Fleming; Olwen M Hahn; Justin Kline; Hongtao Liu; Bhakti K Patel; Anshu Verma; Leah J Witt; Mayumi Fukui; Aditi Kumar; Michael D Howell; Blase N Polite Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Gabriel A Brooks; Thomas A Abrams; Jeffrey A Meyerhardt; Peter C Enzinger; Karen Sommer; Carole K Dalby; Hajime Uno; Joseph O Jacobson; Charles S Fuchs; Deborah Schrag Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Zhiyuan Zheng; Xuesong Han; Gery P Guy; Amy J Davidoff; Chunyu Li; Matthew P Banegas; Donatus U Ekwueme; K Robin Yabroff; Ahmedin Jemal Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-02-20 Impact factor: 6.860