OBJECTIVES: Prostate cancer treatment is a significant source of morbidity and healthcare spending. Evolving clinical data have supported expanding surveillance as a means to "right-size" treatment. Integrated delivery systems afford the possibility of hastening this objective. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: We used a 20% sample of national Medicare claims to assess the impact of healthcare integration on rates of treatment and potential overtreatment in men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2007 and 2011. Rates were measured according to the extent of integration within a market (ie, none, low, intermediate, and high). Generalized estimating equations were used to assess the relationship between integration and utilization, adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: Rates of treatment declined across all markets (P <.01 for overall time trend), but the rate of decline was similar for the 4 market types (P = .27). In the most integrated markets, the rate decreased by 28.8%, or from 55.5 per 10,000 population in 2007 to 39.5 per 10,000 in 2011. After adjusting for confounders, men residing in the most integrated markets were 2.1% less likely to be treated with curative intent compared with those living in areas without integrated delivery systems (P = .04). However, rates of potential overtreatment were similar across all markets regardless of the level of integration (P = .21). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare integration was associated with small declines in prostate cancer treatment in newly diagnosed men, but not with potential overtreatment. Integrated care alone may be insufficient to curtail potential overtreatment of prostate cancer.
OBJECTIVES:Prostate cancer treatment is a significant source of morbidity and healthcare spending. Evolving clinical data have supported expanding surveillance as a means to "right-size" treatment. Integrated delivery systems afford the possibility of hastening this objective. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: We used a 20% sample of national Medicare claims to assess the impact of healthcare integration on rates of treatment and potential overtreatment in men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2007 and 2011. Rates were measured according to the extent of integration within a market (ie, none, low, intermediate, and high). Generalized estimating equations were used to assess the relationship between integration and utilization, adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: Rates of treatment declined across all markets (P <.01 for overall time trend), but the rate of decline was similar for the 4 market types (P = .27). In the most integrated markets, the rate decreased by 28.8%, or from 55.5 per 10,000 population in 2007 to 39.5 per 10,000 in 2011. After adjusting for confounders, men residing in the most integrated markets were 2.1% less likely to be treated with curative intent compared with those living in areas without integrated delivery systems (P = .04). However, rates of potential overtreatment were similar across all markets regardless of the level of integration (P = .21). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare integration was associated with small declines in prostate cancer treatment in newly diagnosed men, but not with potential overtreatment. Integrated care alone may be insufficient to curtail potential overtreatment of prostate cancer.
Authors: Shi-Yi Wang; Rong Wang; James B Yu; Xiaomei Ma; Xiao Xu; Simon P Kim; Pamela R Soulos; Avantika Saraf; Cary P Gross Journal: Med Care Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: James Mohler; Robert R Bahnson; Barry Boston; J Erik Busby; Anthony D'Amico; James A Eastham; Charles A Enke; Daniel George; Eric Mark Horwitz; Robert P Huben; Philip Kantoff; Mark Kawachi; Michael Kuettel; Paul H Lange; Gary Macvicar; Elizabeth R Plimack; Julio M Pow-Sang; Mack Roach; Eric Rohren; Bruce J Roth; Dennis C Shrieve; Matthew R Smith; Sandy Srinivas; Przemyslaw Twardowski; Patrick C Walsh Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Axel Heidenreich; Joaquim Bellmunt; Michel Bolla; Steven Joniau; Malcolm Mason; Vsevolod Matveev; Nicolas Mottet; Hans-Peter Schmid; Theo van der Kwast; Thomas Wiegel; Filliberto Zattoni Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2010-10-28 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Leif I Solberg; Stephen E Asche; Stephen M Shortell; Robin R Gillies; Nancy Taylor; L Gregory Pawlson; Sarah Hudson Scholle; M Rashell Young Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Brent K Hollenbeck; Samuel R Kaufman; Phyllis Yan; Lindsey A Herrel; Tudor Borza; Florian R Schroeck; Bruce L Jacobs; Ted A Skolarus; Vahakn B Shahinian Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-08-18 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Parth K Modi; Lindsey A Herrel; Samuel R Kaufman; Phyllis Yan; Tudor Borza; Ted A Skolarus; Florian R Schroeck; Brent K Hollenbeck; Vahakn B Shahinian Journal: Urology Date: 2019-04-25 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Jonathan Li; Zaojun Ye; James M Dupree; Brent K Hollenbeck; Hye Sung Min; Deborah Kaye; Lindsey A Herrel; David C Miller; Chad Ellimoottil Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2017-12-29 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Deborah R Kaye; Hye Sung Min; Edward C Norton; Zaojun Ye; Jonathan Li; James M Dupree; Chad Ellimoottil; David C Miller; Lindsey A Herrel Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2018-02-13 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Chad Tang; Xiudong Lei; Grace L Smith; Hubert Y Pan; Kenneth Hess; Aileen Chen; Karen E Hoffman; Brian F Chapin; Deborah A Kuban; Mitchell Anscher; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Steven J Frank; Benjamin D Smith Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2020-04-13
Authors: Parth K Modi; Samuel R Kaufman; Tudor Borza; Phyllis Yan; David C Miller; Ted A Skolarus; John M Hollingsworth; Edward C Norton; Vahakn B Shahinian; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Amy N Luckenbaugh; Brent K Hollenbeck; Samuel R Kaufman; Phyllis Yan; Lindsey A Herrel; Ted A Skolarus; Edward C Norton; Florian R Schroeck; Bruce L Jacobs; David C Miller; John M Hollingsworth; Vahakn B Shahinian; Tudor Borza Journal: Urology Date: 2018-04-06 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Brent K Hollenbeck; Samuel R Kaufman; Tudor Borza; Phyllis Yan; Lindsey A Herrel; David C Miller; Amy N Luckenbaugh; Ted A Skolarus; Vahakn B Shahinian Journal: Urol Pract Date: 2016-11-10