Literature DB >> 30694769

Variation in Physician-Specific Episode Payments for Major Cancer Surgery and Implications for the Merit-Based Incentive Program.

Deborah R Kaye1, Rodney L Dunn2, Jonathan Li2, Lindsey A Herrel2, James M Dupree2, David C Miller2, Chad Ellimoottil2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Nearly 1.5 million clinicians in the United States will be affected by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) new payment program, the Merit-based Incentive Program (MIPS), where clinicians will be penalized or rewarded based on the health care expenditures of their patients. We therefore examined expenditures for major cancer surgery to understand physician-specific variation in episode payments.
METHODS: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare data to identify patients aged 66-99 y who underwent a prostatectomy, nephrectomy, lung, or colorectal resection for cancer from 2008 to 2012. We calculated 90-d episode payments, attributed each episode to a physician, and evaluated physician-level payment variation. Next, we determined which component (index admission, readmission, physician services, postacute care, hospice) drove differences in payments. Finally, we evaluated payments by geographic region, number of comorbidities, and cancer stage.
RESULTS: We identified 39,109 patients who underwent surgery by 1 of 7182 providers. There was wide variation in payments for each procedure (prostatectomy: $7046-$40,687; nephrectomy: $8855-$82,489; lung resection: $11,167-$223,467; colorectal resection: $9711-$199,480). The largest component difference in episode payments varied by condition: physician payments for prostatectomy (29%), postacute care for nephrectomy (38%) and colorectal resections (38%), and index hospital admission for lung resections (43%) but were fairly stable across region, comorbidity number, and cancer stage.
CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing major cancer surgery, 90-d episode payments vary widely across surgeons. The components driving such variation differ by condition but remain stable across region, number of comorbidities, and cancer stage. These data suggest that programs to reduce specific component payments may have advantages over those targeting individual physicians for decreasing health care expenditures.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer surgery; Cost; Merit-based Incentive Program; Payment

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30694769      PMCID: PMC6377848          DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.09.073

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Surg Res        ISSN: 0022-4804            Impact factor:   2.192


  15 in total

1.  Surgeon-Level Variability in Outcomes, Cost, and Comorbidity Adjusted-Cost for Elective Lumbar Decompression and Fusion.

Authors:  Silky Chotai; Ahilan Sivaganesan; John A Sielatycki; Kristin R Archer; Richard Call; Matthew J McGirt; Clinton J Devin
Journal:  Neurosurgery       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 4.654

2.  Medicare Program; Advancing Care Coordination Through Episode Payment Models (EPMs); Cardiac Rehabilitation Incentive Payment Model; and Changes to the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model (CJR). Final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2017-01-03

3.  Medicare Program; Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and Alternative Payment Model (APM) Incentive Under the Physician Fee Schedule, and Criteria for Physician-Focused Payment Models. Final rule with comment period.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2016-11-04

4.  Influence of surgeon and hospital volume on radical prostatectomy costs.

Authors:  Stephen B Williams; Channa A Amarasekera; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Paul L Nguyen; Nathanael D Hevelone; Keith J Kowalczyk; Jim C Hu
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2012-10-22       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Surgeon and Hospital Level Variation in the Costs of Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy.

Authors:  Alexander P Cole; Jeffrey J Leow; Steven L Chang; Benjamin I Chung; Christian P Meyer; Adam S Kibel; Mani Menon; Paul L Nguyen; Toni K Choueiri; Gally Reznor; Stuart R Lipsitz; Jesse D Sammon; Maxine Sun; Quoc-Dien Trinh
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2016-05-06       Impact factor: 7.450

6.  Prices don't drive regional Medicare spending variations.

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

7.  Variation in inpatient hospital and physician payments among patients undergoing general versus orthopedic operations.

Authors:  Aslam Ejaz; Faiz Gani; Yuhree Kim; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2016-08-21       Impact factor: 3.982

8.  Do claims-based comorbidities adequately capture case mix for surgical site infections?

Authors:  Hilal Maradit Kremers; Laura W Lewallen; Brian D Lahr; Tad M Mabry; James M Steckelberg; Daniel J Berry; Arlen D Hanssen; Elie F Berbari; Douglas R Osmon
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-12-06       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Reliability of readmission rates as a hospital quality measure in cardiac surgery.

Authors:  Terry Shih; Justin B Dimick
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 4.330

10.  Variations in the Costs of Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer in the USA.

Authors:  Jeffrey J Leow; Alexander P Cole; Thomas Seisen; Joaquim Bellmunt; Matthew Mossanen; Mani Menon; Mark A Preston; Toni K Choueiri; Adam S Kibel; Benjamin I Chung; Maxine Sun; Steven L Chang; Quoc-Dien Trinh
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2017-08-10       Impact factor: 20.096

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.