Parth K Modi1,2, Samuel R Kaufman2, Tudor Borza1,2, Phyllis Yan2, David C Miller1,2, Ted A Skolarus1,2,3, John M Hollingsworth1,2, Edward C Norton4,5,6, Vahakn B Shahinian7, Brent K Hollenbeck1,2. 1. Division of Oncology, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Division of Health Services Research, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Center for Clinical Management and Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. Department of Economics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 6. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 7. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) have been shown to reduce prostate cancer treatment among men unlikely to benefit because of competing risks (ie, potential overtreatment). This study assessed whether the level of engagement in ACOs by urologists affected rates of treatment, overtreatment, and spending. METHODS: A 20% sample of national Medicare data was used to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2012 and 2014. The extent of urologist engagement in an ACO, as measured by the proportion of patients in an ACO managed by an ACO-participating urologist, served as the exposure. The use of treatment, potential overtreatment (ie, treatment in men with a ≥75% risk of 10-year noncancer mortality), and average payments in the year after diagnosis for each ACO were modeled. RESULTS: Among 2822 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, the median rates of treatment and potential overtreatment by an ACO were 71.3% (range, 23.6%-79.5%) and 53.6% (range, 12.4%-76.9%), respectively. Average Medicare payments among ACOs in the year after diagnosis ranged from $16,523.52 to $34,766.33. Stronger urologist-ACO engagement was not associated with treatment (odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.2; P = .4) or spending (9.7% decrease in spending; P = .08). However, urologist engagement was associated with a lower likelihood of potential overtreatment (odds ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.86; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: ACOs vary widely in treatment, potential overtreatment, and spending for prostate cancer. ACOs with stronger urologist engagement are less likely to treat men with a high risk of noncancer mortality, and this suggests that organizations that better engage specialists may be able to improve the value of specialty care. Cancer 2018.
BACKGROUND: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) have been shown to reduce prostate cancer treatment among men unlikely to benefit because of competing risks (ie, potential overtreatment). This study assessed whether the level of engagement in ACOs by urologists affected rates of treatment, overtreatment, and spending. METHODS: A 20% sample of national Medicare data was used to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2012 and 2014. The extent of urologist engagement in an ACO, as measured by the proportion of patients in an ACO managed by an ACO-participating urologist, served as the exposure. The use of treatment, potential overtreatment (ie, treatment in men with a ≥75% risk of 10-year noncancer mortality), and average payments in the year after diagnosis for each ACO were modeled. RESULTS: Among 2822 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, the median rates of treatment and potential overtreatment by an ACO were 71.3% (range, 23.6%-79.5%) and 53.6% (range, 12.4%-76.9%), respectively. Average Medicare payments among ACOs in the year after diagnosis ranged from $16,523.52 to $34,766.33. Stronger urologist-ACO engagement was not associated with treatment (odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.2; P = .4) or spending (9.7% decrease in spending; P = .08). However, urologist engagement was associated with a lower likelihood of potential overtreatment (odds ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.86; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: ACOs vary widely in treatment, potential overtreatment, and spending for prostate cancer. ACOs with stronger urologist engagement are less likely to treat men with a high risk of noncancer mortality, and this suggests that organizations that better engage specialists may be able to improve the value of specialty care. Cancer 2018.
Authors: Michael E Zavaski; Christian P Meyer; Jesse D Sammon; Julian Hanske; Soham Gupta; Maxine Sun; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Tudor Borza; Samuel R Kaufman; Vahakn B Shahinian; Phyllis Yan; David C Miller; Ted A Skolarus; Brent K Hollenbeck Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 6.301
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: Angela B Mariotto; K Robin Yabroff; Yongwu Shao; Eric J Feuer; Martin L Brown Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: A V Diez Roux; S S Merkin; D Arnett; L Chambless; M Massing; F J Nieto; P Sorlie; M Szklo; H A Tyroler; R L Watson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-07-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elliott S Fisher; Mark B McClellan; John Bertko; Steven M Lieberman; Julie J Lee; Julie L Lewis; Jonathan S Skinner Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2009-01-27 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; Malcolm Mason; Chris Metcalfe; Peter Holding; Michael Davis; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Richard M Martin; Jon Oxley; Mary Robinson; John Staffurth; Eleanor Walsh; Prasad Bollina; James Catto; Andrew Doble; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Alan Paul; Philip Powell; Stephen Prescott; Derek J Rosario; Edward Rowe; David E Neal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Chad R Ritch; Amy J Graves; Kirk A Keegan; Shenghua Ni; Jeffrey C Bassett; Sam S Chang; Matthew J Resnick; David F Penson; Daniel A Barocas Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-09-06 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Michael E Stokes; Jack Ishak; Irina Proskorovsky; Libby K Black; Yijian Huang Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2011-12-28 Impact factor: 2.655