Literature DB >> 24152262

Urologists' use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

Jean M Mitchell1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Some urology groups have integrated intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), a radiation treatment with a high reimbursement rate, into their practice. This is permitted by the exception for in-office ancillary services in the federal prohibition against self-referral. I examined the association between ownership of IMRT services and use of IMRT to treat prostate cancer.
METHODS: Using Medicare claims from 2005 through 2010, I constructed two samples: one comprising 35 self-referring urology groups in private practice and a matched control group comprising 35 non-self-referring urology groups in private practice, and the other comprising non-self-referring urologists employed at 11 National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers matched with 11 self-referring urology groups in private practice. I compared the use of IMRT in the periods before and during ownership and used a difference-in-differences analysis to evaluate changes in IMRT use according to self-referral status.
RESULTS: The rate of IMRT use by self-referring urologists in private practice increased from 13.1 to 32.3%, an increase of 19.2 percentage points (P<0.001). Among non-self-referring urologists, the rate of IMRT use increased from 14.3 to 15.6%, an increase of 1.3 percentage points (P=0.05). The unadjusted difference-in-differences effect was 17.9 percentage points (P<0.001). The regression-adjusted increase in IMRT use associated with self-referral was 16.4 percentage points (P<0.001). The rate of IMRT use by urologists working at National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers remained stable at 8.0% but increased by 33.0 percentage points among the 11 matched self-referring urology groups. The regression-adjusted difference-in-differences effect was 29.3 percentage points (P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Urologists who acquired ownership of IMRT services increased their use of IMRT substantially more than urologists who did not own such services. Allowing urologists to self-refer for IMRT may contribute to increased use of this expensive therapy. (Funded by the American Society for Radiation Oncology.).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24152262     DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa1201141

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  N Engl J Med        ISSN: 0028-4793            Impact factor:   91.245


  48 in total

1.  Prostate cancer: IMRT treatment rates increase with urologist self-referral.

Authors:  Robert Phillips
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2013-11-12       Impact factor: 14.432

2.  Low detectable prostate specific antigen after radical prostatectomy--treat or watch?

Authors:  Dmitry Koulikov; Maura C Mohler; Diana C Mehedint; Kristopher Attwood; Gregory E Wilding; James L Mohler
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Use of Physical Therapy Following Total Knee Replacement Surgery: Implications of Orthopedic Surgeons' Ownership of Physical Therapy Services.

Authors:  Jean M Mitchell; James D Reschovsky; Elizabeth Anne Reicherter
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 3.402

4.  Defining the value framework for prostate brachytherapy using patient-centered outcome metrics and time-driven activity-based costing.

Authors:  Nikhil G Thaker; Thomas J Pugh; Usama Mahmood; Seungtaek Choi; Tracy E Spinks; Neil E Martin; Terence T Sio; Rajat J Kudchadker; Robert S Kaplan; Deborah A Kuban; David A Swanson; Peter F Orio; Michael J Zelefsky; Brett W Cox; Louis Potters; Thomas A Buchholz; Thomas W Feeley; Steven J Frank
Journal:  Brachytherapy       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 2.362

5.  Brachytherapy: where has it gone?

Authors:  Daniel G Petereit; Steven J Frank; Akila N Viswanathan; Beth Erickson; Patricia Eifel; Paul L Nguyen; David E Wazer
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-02-09       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  RO Model: The Work Continues to Get it Right.

Authors:  Thomas J Eichler
Journal:  Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys       Date:  2020-10-14       Impact factor: 7.038

7.  Variation in clinical practice: forests and trees revisited.

Authors:  Christopher J D Wallis; C David Naylor; Allan S Detsky
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 8.  Value: a framework for radiation oncology.

Authors:  Sewit Teckie; Susan A McCloskey; Michael L Steinberg
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-08-11       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 9.  A perverse quality incentive in surgery: implications of reimbursing surgeons less for doing laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Amanda N Fader; Tim Xu; Brian J Dunkin; Martin A Makary
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Financial burden among US households affected by cancer at the end of life.

Authors:  John G Cagle; Dawn C Carr; Seokho Hong; Sheryl Zimmerman
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2015-08-17       Impact factor: 3.894

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.