Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist overuse: urologists' response to reimbursement and characteristics associated with persistent overuse

Geographic differences in community oncology provider and practice location characteristics in the central United States

PURPOSE

How care delivery influences urban-rural disparities in cancer outcomes is unclear. We sought to understand community oncologists' practice settings to inform cancer care delivery interventions.

METHODS

We conducted secondary analysis of a national dataset of providers billing Medicare from June 1, 2019 to May 31, 2020 in 13 states in the central United States. We used Kruskal-Wallis rank and Fisher's exact tests to compare physician characteristics and practice settings among rural and urban community oncologists.

FINDINGS

We identified 1,963 oncologists practicing in 1,492 community locations; 67.5% practiced in exclusively urban locations, 11.3% in exclusively rural locations, and 21.1% in both rural and urban locations. Rural-only, urban-only, and urban-rural spanning oncologists practice in an average of 1.6, 2.4, and 5.1 different locations, respectively. A higher proportion of rural community sites were solo practices (11.7% vs 4.0%, P<.001) or single specialty practices (16.4% vs 9.4%, P<.001); and had less diversity in training environments (86.5% vs 67.8% with <2 medical schools represented, P<.001) than urban community sites. Rural multispecialty group sites were less likely to include other cancer specialists.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified 2 potentially distinct styles of care delivery in rural communities, which may require distinct interventions: (1) innovation-isolated rural oncologists, who are more likely to be solo providers, provide care at few locations, and practice with doctors with similar training experiences; and (2) urban-rural spanning oncologists who provide care at a high number of locations and have potential to spread innovation, but may face high complexity and limited opportunity for care standardization.

Physicians' clinical experience and its association with healthcare quality: a systematised review

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There is conflicting evidence regarding whether physicians' clinical experience affects healthcare quality. Knowing whether an association exists and which dimensions of quality might be affected can help healthcare services close quality gaps by tailoring improvement initiatives according to physicians' clinical experience. Here, we present a systematised review that aims to assess the potential association between physicians' clinical experience and different dimensions of healthcare quality.

METHODS

We conducted a systematised literature review, including the databases MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and PubMed. The search strategy involved combining predefined terms that describe physicians' clinical experience with terms that describe different dimensions of healthcare quality (ie, safety, clinical effectiveness, patient-centredness, timeliness, efficiency and equity). We included relevant, original research published from June 2004 to November 2020.

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies reporting 63 evaluations of the association between physicians' clinical experience and healthcare quality were included in the final analysis. Overall, 27 (43%) evaluations found a positive or partially positive association between physicians' clinical experience and healthcare quality; 22 (35%) found no association; and 14 (22%) evaluations reported a negative or partially negative association. We found a proportional association between physicians' clinical experience and quality regarding outcome measures that reflect safety, particularly in the surgical fields. For other dimensions of quality, no firm evidence was found.

CONCLUSION

We found no clear evidence of an association between measures of physicians' clinical experience and overall healthcare quality. For outcome measures related to safety, we found that physicians' clinical experience was proportional with safer care, particularly in surgical fields. Our findings support efforts to secure adequate training and supervision for early-career physicians regarding safety outcomes. Further research is needed to reveal the potential subgroups in which gaps in quality due to physicians' clinical experience might exist.

Perceived barriers to the adoption of active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer: a qualitative analysis of community and academic urologists

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines recommend active surveillance as the preferred treatment option for low-risk prostate cancer, but only a minority of eligible men receive active surveillance, and practice variation is substantial. The aim of this study is to describe barriers to urologists' recommendation of active surveillance in low-risk prostate cancer and explore variation of barriers by setting.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews among 22 practicing urologists, evenly distributed between academic and community practice. We coded barriers to active surveillance according to a conceptual model of determinants of treatment quality to identify potential opportunities for intervention.

RESULTS

Community and academic urologists were generally in agreement on factors influencing active surveillance. Urologists perceived patient-level factors to have the greatest influence on recommendations, particularly tumor pathology, patient age, and judgements about the patient's ability to adhere to follow-up protocols. They also noted cross-cutting clinical barriers, including concerns about the adequacy of biopsy samples, inconsistent protocols to guide active surveillance, and side effects of biopsy procedures. Urologists had differing opinions on the impact of environmental factors, such as financial disincentives and fear of litigation.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite national and international recommendations, both academic and community urologists note a variety of barriers to implementing active surveillance in low risk prostate cancer. These barriers will need to be specifically addressed in efforts to help urologists offer active surveillance more consistently.

Determinants for the use and de-implementation of low-value care in health care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

A considerable proportion of interventions provided to patients lack evidence of their effectiveness. This implies that patients may receive ineffective, unnecessary or even harmful care. However, despite some empirical studies in the field, there has been no synthesis of determinants impacting the use of low-value care (LVC) and the process of de-implementing LVC.

AIM

The aim was to identify determinants influencing the use of LVC, as well as determinants for de-implementation of LVC practices in health care.

METHODS

A scoping review was performed based on the framework by Arksey and O'Malley. We searched four scientific databases, conducted snowball searches of relevant articles and hand searched the journal Implementation Science for peer-reviewed journal articles in English. Articles were included if they were empirical studies reporting on determinants for the use of LVC or de-implementation of LVC. The abstract review and the full-text review were conducted in duplicate and conflicting decisions were discussed until consensus was reached. Data were charted using a piloted data charting form and the determinants were inductively coded and categorised in an iterative process conducted by the project group.

RESULTS

In total, 101 citations were included in the review. Of these, 92 reported on determinants for the use of LVC and nine on determinants for de-implementation. The studies were conducted in a range of health care settings and investigated a variety of LVC practices with LVC medication prescriptions, imaging and screening procedures being the most common. The identified determinants for the use of LVC as well as for de-implementation of LVC practices broadly concerned: patients, professionals, outer context, inner context, process and evidence and LVC practice. The results were discussed in relation to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

CONCLUSION

The identified determinants largely overlap with existing implementation frameworks, although patient expectations and professionals' fear of malpractice appear to be more prominent determinants for the use and de-implementation of LVC. Thus, existing implementation determinant frameworks may require adaptation to be transferable to de-implementation. Strategies to reduce the use of LVC should specifically consider determinants for the use and de-implementation of LVC.

REGISTRATION

The review has not been registered.

Sensitivity of Medicare Data to Identify Oncologists

BACKGROUND

Health services researchers have studied how care from oncologists impacts treatment and outcomes for cancer patients. These studies frequently identify physician specialty using files from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) or the American Medical Association (AMA). The completeness of the CMS data resources, individually or combined, to identify oncologists is unknown. This study assessed the sensitivity of CMS data to capture oncologists included in the AMA Physician Masterfile.

METHODS

Oncologists were identified from three CMS data resources: physician claims, the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System Registry, and the Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty file. CMS files and AMA data were linked using a unique physician identifier. Sensitivity to identify any oncologists, radiation oncologists (ROs), surgical oncologists (SOs), and medical oncologists (MOs) was calculated for individual and combined CMS files. For oncologists in the AMA data not identified as oncologists in the CMS data, their CMS specialty was assessed.

RESULTS

Individual CMS files each captured approximately 83% of the 17 934 oncologists in the AMA Masterfile; combined CMS files captured 90.4%. By specialty, combined CMS data captured 98.2% of ROs, 89.3% of MOs, and 70.1% of SOs. For ROs and SOs in the AMA data not identified as oncologists in the CMS data, their CMS specialty was usually similar to the AMA subspecialty; ROs were radiologists and SOs were surgeons.

CONCLUSION

Using combined files from CMS identified most ROs and MOs found in the AMA, but not most SOs. Determining whether to use the AMA data or CMS files for a particular research project will depend on the specific research question and the type of oncologist included in the study.

Association Between Reimbursement Incentives and Physician Practice in Oncology: A Systematic Review

Importance

Significant controversy exists regarding whether physicians factor personal financial considerations into their clinical decision making. Within oncology, several reimbursement policies may incentivize physicians to increase health care use.

Objective

To evaluate whether the financial incentives presented by oncology reimbursement policies affect physician practice patterns.

Evidence Review

Studies evaluating an association between reimbursement incentives and changes in reimbursement policy on oncology care delivery were reviewed. Articles were identified systematically by searching PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Proquest Health Management, Econlit, and Business Source Premier. English-language articles focused on the US health care system that made empirical estimates of the association between a measurement of physician reimbursement/compensation and a measurement of delivery of cancer treatment services were included. The Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool was used to assess risk of bias. There were no date restrictions on the publications, and literature searches were finalized on February 14, 2018.

Findings

Eighteen studies were included. All were observational cohort studies, and most had a moderate risk of bias. Heterogeneity of reimbursement policies and outcomes precluded meta-analysis; therefore, a qualitative synthesis was performed. Most studies (15 of 18 [83%]) reported an association between reimbursement and care delivery consistent with physician responsiveness to financial incentives, although such an association was not identified in all studies. Findings consistently suggested that self-referral arrangements may increase use of radiotherapy and that profitability of systemic anticancer agents may affect physicians' choice of drug. Findings were less conclusive as to whether profitability of systemic anticancer therapy affects the decision of whether to use any systemic therapy.

Conclusions and Relevance

To date, this study is the first systematic review of reimbursement policy and clinical care delivery in oncology. The findings suggest that some oncologists may, in certain circumstances, alter treatment recommendations based on personal revenue considerations. An implication of this finding is that value-based reimbursement policies may be a useful tool to better align physician incentives with patient need and increase the value of oncology care.

Medication overuse in oncology: current trends and future implications for patients and society

The high cost of cancer care worldwide is largely attributable to rising drugs prices. Despite their high costs and potential toxic effects, anticancer treatments could be subject to overuse, which is defined as the provision of medical services that are more likely to harm than to benefit a patient. We found 30 studies documenting medication overuse in cancer, which included 16 examples of supportive medication overuse and 17 examples of antineoplastic medication overuse in oncology. Few specific agents have been assessed, and no studies investigated overuse of the most toxic or expensive medications currently used in cancer treatment. Although financial, psychological, or physical harms of medication overuse in cancer could be substantial, there is little published evidence addressing these harms, so their magnitude is unclear. Further research is needed to better quantify medication overuse, understand its implications, and help protect patients and the health-care system from overuse.

Four Needles in a Haystack: A Systematic Review Assessing Quality of Health Care in Specialty Practice by Practice Type

Specialists, who represent 60% of physicians in the United States, are consolidating into large group practices, but the degree to which group practice type facilitates the delivery of high quality of care in specialty settings is unknown. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify the impact of group practice type on the quality of care among specialty providers. The search resulted in 913 articles, of which only 4 met inclusion criteria. Studies were of moderate methodological quality. From the limited evidence available, we hypothesize that solo specialists deliver care that is inferior to their peers in group practice, whether measured by patient satisfaction ratings or adherence to guideline-based care. However, solo specialists and multidisciplinary group specialists may be more likely to provide some specialized services compared with their single-specialty group peers. Insufficient research compares quality of care among different practice types in specialty care. Substantial opportunity exists to test the degree to which organizational factors, whether size of practice or the mix of providers within the practice, influence quality of care in specialty settings.

Overuse of Health Care Services in the Management of Cancer: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Overuse, the provision of health services for which harms outweigh the benefits, results in suboptimal patient care and may contribute to the rising costs of cancer care. We performed a systematic review of the evidence on overuse in oncology.

METHODS

We searched Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SCOPUS databases, and 2 grey literature sources, for articles published between December 1, 2011 and March 10, 2017. We included publications from December 2011 to evaluate the literature since the inception of the ABIM Foundation's Choosing Wisely initiative in 2012. We included original research articles quantifying overuse of any medical service in patients with a cancer diagnosis when utilizing an acceptable standard to define care appropriateness, excluding studies of cancer screening. One of 4 investigator reviewed titles and abstracts and 2 of 4 reviewed each full-text article and extracted data. Methodology used PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

We identified 59 articles measuring overuse of 154 services related to imaging, procedures, and therapeutics in cancer management. The majority of studies addressed adult or geriatric patients (98%) and focused on US populations (76%); the most studied services were diagnostic imaging in low-risk prostate and breast cancer. Few studies evaluated active cancer therapeutics or interventions aimed at reducing overuse. Rates of overuse varied widely among services and among studies of the same service.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recent attention to overuse in cancer, evidence identifying areas of overuse remains limited. Broader investigation, including assessment of active cancer treatment, is critical for identifying improvement targets to optimize value in cancer care.

Are Small Reimbursement Changes Enough to Change Cancer Care? Reimbursement Variation in Prostate Cancer Treatment

PURPOSE

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services recently initiated small reimbursement adjustments to improve the value of care delivered under fee-for-service. To estimate the degree to which reimbursement influences physician decision making, we examined utilization of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists among urologists as Part B drug reimbursement varied in a fee-for-service environment.

METHODS

We analyzed treatment patterns of urologists treating 15,128 men included in SEER-linked Medicare claims who were diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2003. We calculated a reimbursement generosity index to measure differences in GnRH agonist reimbursement among regional Medicare carriers and over time. We used multilevel analysis to control for patient and provider characteristics.

RESULTS

Among urologists treating early-stage and lower grade prostate cancer, variation in reimbursement was not associated with overuse of GnRH agonists from 2000 to 2003, a period of guideline stability (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.00).

CONCLUSION

Small differences in androgen-deprivation therapy reimbursement generosity were not associated with differential use. Fee-for-service reimbursement changes currently being implemented to improve quality in fee-for-service Medicare may not affect patterns of cancer care.