Lindsey A Herrel1,2, Ziwei Zhu1,2, Andrew M Ryan2,3, Brent K Hollenbeck1,2, David C Miller1,2. 1. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dual-eligible beneficiaries, who qualify for Medicare and Medicaid, are a vulnerable population with much to gain from efforts to improve quality. Integrated delivery networks and cancer centers, with their emphasis on care coordination and communication, may improve quality of care for dual-eligible patients with cancer at the end of life. METHODS: This study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry data linked with Medicare claims to evaluate quality for beneficiaries who died of cancer and were diagnosed from 2009 to 2014. High-intensity care was evaluated with 7 end-of-life quality measures according to dual-eligible status with multivariable logistic regression models. Regression-based techniques were used to assess the effect of delivery system affiliation (ie, cancer center or integrated delivery network vs no affiliation). RESULTS: Among 100,549 beneficiaries who died during the study interval, 22% were dually eligible. Inferior outcomes were identified for dual-eligible beneficiaries in comparison with nondual beneficiaries across nearly every quality measure assessed, including >1 hospitalization in the last 30 days (12.6% vs 11.3%; P < .001) and a greater proportion of deaths occurring in a hospital setting (30.2% vs 26.2%; P < .001). Receipt of care in an affiliated delivery system was associated with reduced deaths in a hospital setting and increased hospice utilization for dual-eligible beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: Dual-eligible status is associated with higher intensity care at the end of life. Delivery system affiliation has a modest impact on quality at the end of life, and this suggests that targeted efforts may be needed to optimize quality for this group of vulnerable patients.
BACKGROUND: Dual-eligible beneficiaries, who qualify for Medicare and Medicaid, are a vulnerable population with much to gain from efforts to improve quality. Integrated delivery networks and cancer centers, with their emphasis on care coordination and communication, may improve quality of care for dual-eligible patients with cancer at the end of life. METHODS: This study used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry data linked with Medicare claims to evaluate quality for beneficiaries who died of cancer and were diagnosed from 2009 to 2014. High-intensity care was evaluated with 7 end-of-life quality measures according to dual-eligible status with multivariable logistic regression models. Regression-based techniques were used to assess the effect of delivery system affiliation (ie, cancer center or integrated delivery network vs no affiliation). RESULTS: Among 100,549 beneficiaries who died during the study interval, 22% were dually eligible. Inferior outcomes were identified for dual-eligible beneficiaries in comparison with nondual beneficiaries across nearly every quality measure assessed, including >1 hospitalization in the last 30 days (12.6% vs 11.3%; P < .001) and a greater proportion of deaths occurring in a hospital setting (30.2% vs 26.2%; P < .001). Receipt of care in an affiliated delivery system was associated with reduced deaths in a hospital setting and increased hospice utilization for dual-eligible beneficiaries. CONCLUSIONS: Dual-eligible status is associated with higher intensity care at the end of life. Delivery system affiliation has a modest impact on quality at the end of life, and this suggests that targeted efforts may be needed to optimize quality for this group of vulnerable patients.
Authors: Craig C Earle; Bridget A Neville; Mary Beth Landrum; John Z Ayanian; Susan D Block; Jane C Weeks Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-01-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K Robin Yabroff; Elizabeth B Lamont; Angela Mariotto; Joan L Warren; Marie Topor; Angela Meekins; Martin L Brown Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-04-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Avni Gupta; Ginger Jin; Amanda Reich; Holly G Prigerson; Keren Ladin; Dae Kim; Deepshikha Charan Ashana; Zara Cooper; Scott D Halpern; Joel S Weissman Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-08-27 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Sean O'Mahony; Janet McHenry; Daniel Snow; Carolyn Cassin; Donald Schumacher; Peter A Selwyn Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 3.671