Jean M Mitchell1, Carole Roan Gresenz2. 1. McCourt School of Public Policy, Georgetown University. 2. Bette Jacobs Endowed Professor, Department of Health Systems Administration, Georgetown University, Washington DC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vertical and horizontal integration among health care providers has transformed the practice arrangements under which many physicians work. OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of type of practice structure, and by implication the financial incentives associated with each structure, on treatment received among men newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. RESEARCH DESIGN: We compiled a unique database from cancer registry records from 4 large states, Medicare enrollment and claims for the years 2005-2014 and SK & A physician surveys corroborated by extensive internet searches. We estimated a multinomial logit model to examine the influence of urologist practice structure on type of initial treatment received. RESULTS: The probability of being monitored with active surveillance was 7.4% and 4.2% points higher for men treated by health system and nonhealth system employed urologists ( P <0.01), respectively, in comparison to men treated by single specialty urology practices. Among multispecialty practices, the rate of active surveillance use was 3% points higher compared with single specialty urology practices( P <0.01). Use of intensity modulated radiation therapy among urologists with ownership in intensity modulated radiation therapy was 17.4% points higher compared with urologists working in small single specialty practices. CONCLUSIONS: Physician practice structure attributes are significantly associated with type of treatment received but few studies control for such factors. Our findings-coupled with the observation that urologist practice structure shifted substantially over this time period due to mergers of small urology groups-provide one explanation for the limited uptake of active surveillance among men with low-risk disease in the US.
BACKGROUND: Vertical and horizontal integration among health care providers has transformed the practice arrangements under which many physicians work. OBJECTIVE: To examine the influence of type of practice structure, and by implication the financial incentives associated with each structure, on treatment received among men newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. RESEARCH DESIGN: We compiled a unique database from cancer registry records from 4 large states, Medicare enrollment and claims for the years 2005-2014 and SK & A physician surveys corroborated by extensive internet searches. We estimated a multinomial logit model to examine the influence of urologist practice structure on type of initial treatment received. RESULTS: The probability of being monitored with active surveillance was 7.4% and 4.2% points higher for men treated by health system and nonhealth system employed urologists ( P <0.01), respectively, in comparison to men treated by single specialty urology practices. Among multispecialty practices, the rate of active surveillance use was 3% points higher compared with single specialty urology practices( P <0.01). Use of intensity modulated radiation therapy among urologists with ownership in intensity modulated radiation therapy was 17.4% points higher compared with urologists working in small single specialty practices. CONCLUSIONS: Physician practice structure attributes are significantly associated with type of treatment received but few studies control for such factors. Our findings-coupled with the observation that urologist practice structure shifted substantially over this time period due to mergers of small urology groups-provide one explanation for the limited uptake of active surveillance among men with low-risk disease in the US.
Authors: Catherine M DesRoches; Kirsten A Barrett; Bonnie E Harvey; Rachel Kogan; James D Reschovsky; Bruce E Landon; Lawrence P Casalino; Stephen M Shortell; Eugene C Rich Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Björn Löppenberg; David F Friedlander; Anna Krasnova; Andrew Tam; Jeffrey J Leow; Paul L Nguyen; Hawa Barry; Stuart R Lipsitz; Mani Menon; Firas Abdollah; Jesse D Sammon; Maxine Sun; Toni K Choueiri; Adam S Kibel; Quoc-Dien Trinh Journal: Cancer Date: 2017-09-13 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Freddie C Hamdy; Jenny L Donovan; J Athene Lane; Malcolm Mason; Chris Metcalfe; Peter Holding; Michael Davis; Tim J Peters; Emma L Turner; Richard M Martin; Jon Oxley; Mary Robinson; John Staffurth; Eleanor Walsh; Prasad Bollina; James Catto; Andrew Doble; Alan Doherty; David Gillatt; Roger Kockelbergh; Howard Kynaston; Alan Paul; Philip Powell; Stephen Prescott; Derek J Rosario; Edward Rowe; David E Neal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Benjamin D Sommers; Clair J Beard; Anthony V D'Amico; Irving Kaplan; Jerome P Richie; Richard J Zeckhauser Journal: Cancer Date: 2008-10-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Hannah T Neprash; Michael E Chernew; Andrew L Hicks; Teresa Gibson; J Michael McWilliams Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Martin G Sanda; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Erin Kirkby; Ronald C Chen; Tony Crispino; Joann Fontanarosa; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Greene; Laurence H Klotz; Danil V Makarov; Joel B Nelson; George Rodrigues; Howard M Sandler; Mary Ellen Taplin; Jonathan R Treadwell Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 7.450