PURPOSE: Policy reforms in the Affordable Care Act encourage health care integration to improve quality and lower costs. We examined the association between system-level integration and longitudinal costs of cancer care. METHODS: We used linked SEER-Medicare data to identify patients age 66 to 99 years diagnosed with prostate, bladder, esophageal, pancreatic, lung, liver, kidney, colorectal, breast, or ovarian cancer from 2007 to 2012. We attributed each patient to one or more phases of care (ie, initial, continuing, and end of life) according to time from diagnosis until death or end of study interval. For each phase, we aggregated all claims with the primary cancer diagnosis and identified patients treated in an integrated delivery network (IDN), as defined by the Becker Hospital Review list of the top 100 most integrated health delivery systems. We then determined if care provided in an IDN was associated with decreased payments across cancers and for each individual cancer by phase and across phases. RESULTS: We identified 428,300 patients diagnosed with one of 10 common cancers. Overall, there were no differences in phase-based payments between IDNs and non-IDNs. Average adjusted annual payments by phase for IDN versus non-IDNs were as follows: initial, $14,194 versus $14,421, respectively ( P = .672); continuing, $2,051 versus $2,099 ( P = .566); and end of life, $16,257 versus $16,232 ( P = .948). However, in select cancers, we observed lower payments in IDNs. For bladder cancer, payments at the end of life were lower for IDNs ($11,041 v $12,331; P = .008). Of the four cancers with the lowest 5-year survival rates (ie, pancreatic, lung, esophageal, and liver), average expenditures during the initial and continuing-care phases were lower for patients with liver cancer treated in IDNs. CONCLUSION: For patients with one of 10 common malignancies, treatment in an IDN generally is not associated with lower costs during any phase of cancer care.
PURPOSE: Policy reforms in the Affordable Care Act encourage health care integration to improve quality and lower costs. We examined the association between system-level integration and longitudinal costs of cancer care. METHODS: We used linked SEER-Medicare data to identify patients age 66 to 99 years diagnosed with prostate, bladder, esophageal, pancreatic, lung, liver, kidney, colorectal, breast, or ovarian cancer from 2007 to 2012. We attributed each patient to one or more phases of care (ie, initial, continuing, and end of life) according to time from diagnosis until death or end of study interval. For each phase, we aggregated all claims with the primary cancer diagnosis and identified patients treated in an integrated delivery network (IDN), as defined by the Becker Hospital Review list of the top 100 most integrated health delivery systems. We then determined if care provided in an IDN was associated with decreased payments across cancers and for each individual cancer by phase and across phases. RESULTS: We identified 428,300 patients diagnosed with one of 10 common cancers. Overall, there were no differences in phase-based payments between IDNs and non-IDNs. Average adjusted annual payments by phase for IDN versus non-IDNs were as follows: initial, $14,194 versus $14,421, respectively ( P = .672); continuing, $2,051 versus $2,099 ( P = .566); and end of life, $16,257 versus $16,232 ( P = .948). However, in select cancers, we observed lower payments in IDNs. For bladder cancer, payments at the end of life were lower for IDNs ($11,041 v $12,331; P = .008). Of the four cancers with the lowest 5-year survival rates (ie, pancreatic, lung, esophageal, and liver), average expenditures during the initial and continuing-care phases were lower for patients with liver cancer treated in IDNs. CONCLUSION: For patients with one of 10 common malignancies, treatment in an IDN generally is not associated with lower costs during any phase of cancer care.
Authors: Brent K Hollenbeck; Maggie J Bierlein; Samuel R Kaufman; Lindsey Herrel; Ted A Skolarus; David C Miller; Vahakn B Shahinian Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: David J Nyweide; William B Weeks; Daniel J Gottlieb; Lawrence P Casalino; Elliott S Fisher Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-12-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Priscilla Hollander; David Nicewander; Carl Couch; David Winter; Jeph Herrin; Ziad Haydar; David J Ballard Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Daniel J Gottlieb; Weiping Zhou; Yunjie Song; Kathryn Gilman Andrews; Jonathan S Skinner; Jason M Sutherland Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Diane R Rittenhouse; Lawrence P Casalino; Stephen M Shortell; Sean R McClellan; Robin R Gillies; Jeffrey A Alexander; Melinda L Drum Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2011-06-30 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Nathan A Berger; Panos Savvides; Siran M Koroukian; Eva F Kahana; Gary T Deimling; Julia H Rose; Karen F Bowman; Robert H Miller Journal: Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc Date: 2006
Authors: Jessica Chubak; Leah Tuzzio; Clarissa Hsu; Catherine M Alfano; Borsika A Rabin; Mark C Hornbrook; Adele Spegman; Ann Von Worley; Andrew Williams; Larissa Nekhlyudov Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Michelle Doose; Janeth I Sanchez; Joel C Cantor; Jesse J Plascak; Michael B Steinberg; Chi-Chen Hong; Kitaw Demissie; Elisa V Bandera; Jennifer Tsui Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2021-05
Authors: Laura M Perry; Victoria Morken; John D Peipert; Betina Yanez; Sofia F Garcia; Cynthia Barnard; Lisa R Hirschhorn; Jeffrey A Linder; Neil Jordan; Ronald T Ackermann; Alexandra Harris; Sheetal Kircher; Nisha Mohindra; Vikram Aggarwal; Rebecca Frazier; Ava Coughlin; Katy Bedjeti; Melissa Weitzel; Eugene C Nelson; Glyn Elwyn; Aricca D Van Citters; Mary O'Connor; David Cella Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2022-09-21
Authors: Lindsey A Herrel; Ziwei Zhu; Jennifer J Griggs; Deborah R Kaye; James M Dupree; Chandy S Ellimoottil; David C Miller Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2020-02-18