Literature DB >> 34751709

Association of Participation in the Oncology Care Model With Medicare Payments, Utilization, Care Delivery, and Quality Outcomes.

Nancy L Keating1,2, Shalini Jhatakia3, Gabriel A Brooks4, Amanda S Tripp3, Inna Cintina3, Mary Beth Landrum1, Qing Zheng5, Thomas J Christian5, Roberta Glass5, Van Doren Hsu6, Colleen M Kummet6, Susannah Woodman7, Carol Simon3, Andrea Hassol5.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: In 2016, the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services initiated the Oncology Care Model (OCM), an alternative payment model designed to improve the value of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries with cancer.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of the OCM with changes in Medicare spending, utilization, quality, and patient experience during the OCM's first 3 years. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Exploratory difference-in-differences study comparing care during 6-month chemotherapy episodes in OCM participating practices and propensity-matched comparison practices initiated before (January 2014 through June 2015) and after (July 2016 through December 2018) the start of the OCM. Participants included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with cancer treated at these practices through June 2019. EXPOSURES: OCM participation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total episode payments (Medicare spending for Parts A, B, and D, not including monthly payments for enhanced oncology services); utilization and payments for hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, office visits, chemotherapy, supportive care, and imaging; quality (chemotherapy-associated hospitalizations and ED visits, timely chemotherapy, end-of-life care, and survival); and patient experiences.
RESULTS: Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, 483 319 beneficiaries (mean age, 73.0 [SD, 8.7] years; 60.1% women; 987 332 episodes) were treated at 201 OCM participating practices, and 557 354 beneficiaries (mean age, 72.9 [SD, 9.0] years; 57.4% women; 1 122 597 episodes) were treated at 534 comparison practices. From the baseline period, total episode payments increased from $28 681 for OCM episodes and $28 421 for comparison episodes to $33 211 for OCM episodes and $33 249 for comparison episodes during the intervention period (difference in differences, -$297; 90% CI, -$504 to -$91), less than the mean $704 Monthly Enhanced Oncology Services payments. Relative decreases in total episode payments were primarily for Part B nonchemotherapy drug payments (difference in differences, -$145; 90% CI, -$218 to -$72), especially supportive care drugs (difference in differences, -$150; 90% CI, -$216 to -$84). The OCM was associated with statistically significant relative reductions in total episode payments among higher-risk episodes (difference in differences, -$503; 90% CI, -$802 to -$204) and statistically significant relative increases in total episode payments among lower-risk episodes (difference in differences, $151; 90% CI, $39-$264). The OCM was not significantly associated with differences in hospitalizations, ED visits, or survival. Of 22 measures of utilization, 10 measures of quality, and 7 measures of care experiences, only 5 were significantly different. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this exploratory analysis, the OCM was significantly associated with modest payment reductions during 6-month episodes for Medicare beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy for cancer in the first 3 years of the OCM that did not offset the monthly payments for enhanced oncology services. There were no statistically significant differences for most utilization, quality, and patient experience outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34751709      PMCID: PMC8579232          DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.17642

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  15 in total

1.  Aggressive Care near the End of Life for Cancer Patients in Medicare Accountable Care Organizations.

Authors:  Hyosin Kim; Nancy L Keating; Jennifer N Perloff; Dominic Hodgkin; Xiaodong Liu; Christine E Bishop
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2019-04-10       Impact factor: 5.562

2.  Methods for evaluating changes in health care policy: the difference-in-differences approach.

Authors:  Justin B Dimick; Andrew M Ryan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Design Challenges of an Episode-Based Payment Model in Oncology: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Oncology Care Model.

Authors:  Ronald M Kline; L Daniel Muldoon; Heidi K Schumacher; Larisa M Strawbridge; Andrew W York; Laura K Mortimer; Alison F Falb; Katherine J Cox; Carol Bazell; Ellen W Lukens; Mary C Kapp; Rahul Rajkumar; Amy Bassano; Patrick H Conway
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 3.840

4.  Diffusion of Bevacizumab Across Oncology Practices: An Observational Study.

Authors:  Nancy L Keating; Haiden A Huskamp; Deborah Schrag; John M McWilliams; Barbara J McNeil; Bruce E Landon; Michael E Chernew; Sharon-Lise T Normand
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2018-01       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Changing physician incentives for affordable, quality cancer care: results of an episode payment model.

Authors:  Lee N Newcomer; Bruce Gould; Ray D Page; Sheila A Donelan; Monica Perkins
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2014-07-08       Impact factor: 3.840

6.  Town and Gown Differences Among the 100 Largest Medical Groups in the United States.

Authors:  W Pete Welch; Andrew B Bindman
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 6.893

7.  Early Accountable Care Organization Results in End-of-Life Spending Among Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Miranda B Lam; Jie Zheng; E John Orav; Ashish K Jha
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2019-12-01       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  Alternative payment and care-delivery models in oncology: A systematic review.

Authors:  Emeline M Aviki; Stephen M Schleicher; Samyukta Mullangi; Konstantina Matsoukas; Deborah Korenstein
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-04-06       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Interpretability of Cancer Clinical Trial Results Using Restricted Mean Survival Time as an Alternative to the Hazard Ratio.

Authors:  Kyongsun Pak; Hajime Uno; Dae Hyun Kim; Lu Tian; Robert C Kane; Masahiro Takeuchi; Haoda Fu; Brian Claggett; Lee-Jen Wei
Journal:  JAMA Oncol       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 31.777

10.  Medical Care Costs Associated with Cancer Survivorship in the United States.

Authors:  Angela B Mariotto; Lindsey Enewold; Jingxuan Zhao; Christopher A Zeruto; K Robin Yabroff
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2020-06-10       Impact factor: 4.090

View more
  4 in total

1.  The Oncology Care Model and Adherence to Oral Cancer Drugs: A Difference-in-Differences Analysis.

Authors:  Nancy L Keating; Gabriel A Brooks; Mary Beth Landrum; Pang-Hsiang Liu; Robert Wolf; Lauren E Riedel; Nirav S Kapadia; Shalini Jhatakia; Amanda Tripp; Carol Simon; Van Doren Hsu; Colleen M Kummet; Andrea Hassol
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2022-06-13       Impact factor: 11.816

2.  Hospice-Palliative Medicine as a Model of Value-Based Healthcare.

Authors:  Dae Seog Heo; Shin Hye Yoo; Bhumsuk Keam; Keunjoo Yoo; Insun Choi; Min-Jeong Kim
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2022-04-18       Impact factor: 2.153

3.  Uncertainty in lung cancer stage for survival estimation via set-valued classification.

Authors:  Savannah Bergquist; Gabriel A Brooks; Mary Beth Landrum; Nancy L Keating; Sherri Rose
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2022-06-08       Impact factor: 2.497

4.  Association of Oncologist Participation in Medicare's Oncology Care Model With Patient Receipt of Novel Cancer Therapies.

Authors:  Christopher R Manz; Angela C Tramontano; Hajime Uno; Ravi B Parikh; Justin E Bekelman; Deborah Schrag
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-09-01
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.