OBJECTIVES: To compare cancer care spending and utilization by site of provider-administered chemotherapy in Medicare. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis using 2010-2013 Medicare claims. METHODS: The study population was a random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with cancer who initiated provider-administered chemotherapy in a hospital outpatient department (HOPD) or physician office (PO). We assessed the following outcomes during the 6-month follow-up period: (1) spending on cancer-related outpatient services excluding chemotherapy, (2) spending on cancer-related inpatient services, (3) utilization of select cancer-related outpatient services (evaluation and management, commonly used expensive billing codes, and radiation therapy sessions), and (4) the number of cancer-related hospitalizations. We used regression analyses to adjust for patient health risk factors and market characteristics. RESULTS: During the 6-month follow-up period, risk-adjusted spending on nonchemotherapy outpatient services was slightly lower among patients receiving chemotherapy in HOPDs than in POs ($12,183 [95% CI, $12,008-$12,358] vs $12,444 [95% CI, $12,313-$12,575]; P <.05). Risk-adjusted cancer-related inpatient spending was higher in the HOPD group than in the PO group ($3996 [95% CI, $3837-$4156] vs $3168 [95% CI, $3067-$3268]; P <.01). The HOPD group had fewer visits in all select outpatient services but had a higher number of hospitalizations than the PO group. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in cancer care spending by site of chemotherapy (HOPDs vs POs) vary by service type. Those differences are partially driven by utilization differences. As the site of chemotherapy shifts from POs to HOPDs, spending and utilization patterns in both settings need to be monitored.
OBJECTIVES: To compare cancer care spending and utilization by site of provider-administered chemotherapy in Medicare. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis using 2010-2013 Medicare claims. METHODS: The study population was a random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with cancer who initiated provider-administered chemotherapy in a hospital outpatient department (HOPD) or physician office (PO). We assessed the following outcomes during the 6-month follow-up period: (1) spending on cancer-related outpatient services excluding chemotherapy, (2) spending on cancer-related inpatient services, (3) utilization of select cancer-related outpatient services (evaluation and management, commonly used expensive billing codes, and radiation therapy sessions), and (4) the number of cancer-related hospitalizations. We used regression analyses to adjust for patient health risk factors and market characteristics. RESULTS: During the 6-month follow-up period, risk-adjusted spending on nonchemotherapy outpatient services was slightly lower among patients receiving chemotherapy in HOPDs than in POs ($12,183 [95% CI, $12,008-$12,358] vs $12,444 [95% CI, $12,313-$12,575]; P <.05). Risk-adjusted cancer-related inpatient spending was higher in the HOPD group than in the PO group ($3996 [95% CI, $3837-$4156] vs $3168 [95% CI, $3067-$3268]; P <.01). The HOPD group had fewer visits in all select outpatient services but had a higher number of hospitalizations than the PO group. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in cancer care spending by site of chemotherapy (HOPDs vs POs) vary by service type. Those differences are partially driven by utilization differences. As the site of chemotherapy shifts from POs to HOPDs, spending and utilization patterns in both settings need to be monitored.
Authors: Mireille Jacobson; A James O'Malley; Craig C Earle; Juliana Pakes; Peter Gaccione; Joseph P Newhouse Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Maxine D Fisher; Rajeshwari Punekar; Yeun Mi Yim; Arthur Small; Joseph R Singer; Jay Schukman; Barbara L McAneny; Rakesh Luthra; Jennifer Malin Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 3.840
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: Jad Hayes; Russell J Hoverman; Matthew E Brow; Dana C Dilbeck; Diana K Verrilli; Jody Garey; Janet L Espirito; Jorge Cardona; Roy Beveridge Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2015-03-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Dana P Goldman; Anupam B Jena; Darius N Lakdawalla; Jennifer L Malin; Jesse D Malkin; Eric Sun Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2009-10-29 Impact factor: 3.402