PURPOSE: To determine whether the type of delivery system is associated with intensity of care at the end of life for Medicare beneficiaries with cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used SEER registry data linked with Medicare claims to evaluate intensity of end-of-life care for patients who died of one of ten common cancers diagnosed from 2009 through 2014. Patients were categorized as receiving the majority of their care in an integrated delivery system, designated cancer center, health system that was both integrated and a certified cancer center, or health system that was neither. We evaluated adherence to seven nationally endorsed end-of-life quality measures using generalized linear models across four delivery system types. RESULTS: Among 100,549 beneficiaries who died of cancer during the study interval, we identified only modest differences in intensity of end-of-life care across delivery system structures. Health systems with no cancer center or integrated affiliation demonstrated higher proportions of patients with multiple hospitalizations in the last 30 days of life (11.3%), death in an acute care setting (25.9%), and lack of hospice use in the last year of life (31.6%; all P < .001). Patients enrolled in hospice had lower intensity care across multiple end-of-life quality measures. CONCLUSION: Intensity of care at the end of life for patients with cancer was higher at delivery systems with no integration or cancer focus. Maximal supportive care delivered through hospice may be one avenue to reduce high-intensity care at the end of life and may impact quality of care for patients dying from cancer.
PURPOSE: To determine whether the type of delivery system is associated with intensity of care at the end of life for Medicare beneficiaries with cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used SEER registry data linked with Medicare claims to evaluate intensity of end-of-life care for patients who died of one of ten common cancers diagnosed from 2009 through 2014. Patients were categorized as receiving the majority of their care in an integrated delivery system, designated cancer center, health system that was both integrated and a certified cancer center, or health system that was neither. We evaluated adherence to seven nationally endorsed end-of-life quality measures using generalized linear models across four delivery system types. RESULTS: Among 100,549 beneficiaries who died of cancer during the study interval, we identified only modest differences in intensity of end-of-life care across delivery system structures. Health systems with no cancer center or integrated affiliation demonstrated higher proportions of patients with multiple hospitalizations in the last 30 days of life (11.3%), death in an acute care setting (25.9%), and lack of hospice use in the last year of life (31.6%; all P < .001). Patients enrolled in hospice had lower intensity care across multiple end-of-life quality measures. CONCLUSION: Intensity of care at the end of life for patients with cancer was higher at delivery systems with no integration or cancer focus. Maximal supportive care delivered through hospice may be one avenue to reduce high-intensity care at the end of life and may impact quality of care for patients dying from cancer.
Authors: R D Nipp; A El-Jawahri; M Ruddy; C Fuh; B Temel; S M D'Arpino; B J Cashavelly; V A Jackson; D P Ryan; E P Hochberg; J A Greer; J S Temel Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Craig C Earle; Bridget A Neville; Mary Beth Landrum; Jeffrey M Souza; Jane C Weeks; Susan D Block; Eva Grunfeld; John Z Ayanian Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2005-06-28 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: P Connor Johnson; Yian Xiao; Risa L Wong; Sara D'Arpino; Samantha M C Moran; Daniel E Lage; Brandon Temel; Margaret Ruddy; Lara N Traeger; Joseph A Greer; Ephraim P Hochberg; Jennifer S Temel; Areej El-Jawahri; Ryan D Nipp Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Gabrielle B Rocque; J Nicholas Dionne-Odom; Chao-Hui Sylvia Huang; Soumya J Niranjan; Courtney P Williams; Bradford E Jackson; Karina I Halilova; Kelly M Kenzik; Kerri S Bevis; Audrey S Wallace; Nedra Lisovicz; Richard A Taylor; Maria Pisu; Edward E Partridge; Thomas W Butler; Linda A Briggs; Elizabeth A Kvale Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Kelly M Trevino; Holly G Prigerson; Megan Johnson Shen; Daniel J Tancredi; Guibo Xing; Michael Hoerger; Ronald M Epstein; Paul R Duberstein Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-05-30 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Alexi A Wright; Nancy L Keating; Tracy A Balboni; Ursula A Matulonis; Susan D Block; Holly G Prigerson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-09-13 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Pallavi Kumar; Alexi A Wright; Laura A Hatfield; Jennifer S Temel; Nancy L Keating Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-12-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Paul R Duberstein; Richard L Kravitz; Joshua J Fenton; Guibo Xing; Daniel J Tancredi; Michael Hoerger; Supriya G Mohile; Sally A Norton; Holly G Prigerson; Ronald M Epstein Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2019-04-18 Impact factor: 3.612