Association of Maryland Global Budget Revenue With Spending and Outcomes Related to Surgical Care for Medicare Beneficiaries With Cancer

Importance

In 2014, Maryland initiated the global budget revenue (GBR) model, placing caps on total hospital expenditures across all care sites. The GBR program aims to reduce unnecessary utilization while maintaining or improving care quality. To date, there has been limited examination of program effects on cancer care.

Objective

To compare changes in spending, clinical outcomes, and acute care utilization through 4 years of the GBR program among Medicare beneficiaries who undergo cancer-directed surgery in Maryland vs matched control states.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Drawing from a matched pool of hospitals in Maryland (n = 35) and 24 control states with a similar timing of Medicaid expansion (n = 101), we identified Medicare beneficiaries from Maryland and control states who underwent any cancer-directed surgery from 2011 through 2018. Using difference-in-differences analysis, we compared changes in outcomes from before (2011-2013) to after (2015-2018) GBR implementation between patients treated in Maryland and control states. We also performed a subgroup analysis among patients who underwent major surgical procedures that are usually performed in the inpatient setting (cystectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, colorectal resection, nephrectomy, pancreatectomy, and lung resection).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Thirty-day episode spending, mortality, readmissions, and emergency department (ED) visits.

Results

Relative to Medicare beneficiaries undergoing cancer surgery in control states (n = 4737; 3323 [70.1%] female; 571 [12.1%] dual-eligible; mean [SD] age 74.9 [6.5] years), patients in Maryland (n = 20 320; 14 068 [69.2%] female; 1705 [8.4%] dual-eligible; mean [SD] age 74.9 [6.5] years) had a statistically significant reduction of 2.2 percentage points (95% CI, -4.3 to -0.1) in the 30-day readmission rate. We found no statistically significant changes in 30-day spending, mortality, or ED visits. We report no significant results in the subgroup analysis of patients undergoing major surgical procedures.

Conclusions and Relevance

Global budget revenue was not associated with changes in expenditures, ED utilization, or clinical outcomes after cancer-directed surgery through 4 years. There was a modest decline in 30-day readmissions. Specialty-specific definitions of care quality and better alignment across the entire care delivery value chain (ie, physician incentives) may be strategies that could improve delivery of high-value care for beneficiaries undergoing cancer surgery.

Measuring the Impact of Multidisciplinary Care on Quality for Pancreatic Surgery: Transition to a Focused, Very High-volume Program

Outcomes are superior for pancreatic resection at high-volume centers. To assess the impact of focused high-volume multidisciplinary care, a quality index (QI) was used to review our experience. Data from 1996 to July 2012 were analyzed in three groups: 1) early (1996 to 2007); 2) transition (2008 to 2009); and 3) mature (2010 to July 2012). A total of 239 patients were included with a mean age of 63.4 years and the majority were white (65.7%). The number of patients with Charlson comorbidity index greater than 2 and age older than 80 years increased comparing Group 1 with latter groups. Volume increased over time: Group 1 (n = 93) 7.75/year, Group 2 (n = 51) 25.5/year, and Group 3 (n = 95) 39/year. Overall mortality was 5.9 per cent: Group 1, 4.3 per cent; Group 2, 11.5 per cent; and Group 3, 3.9 per cent ( P = 0.0454). The QI score incorporates documentation, chemotherapy, resection for Stage I/II, time to treatment, margins, lymph nodes, mortality, and surgical volume with a maximum possible score 10. The QI increased over time: 3 in Group 1; 4 in Group 2; and 6 in Group 3. An improvement was noted for the quality indicators: surgical resection ( P = 0.0125) and use of palliative and adjuvant therapy ( P = 0.0144 and < 0.0001). Implementation of a focused multidisciplinary pancreatic surgery program increases quality.

Quality Improvement in Cystectomy Care with Enhanced Recovery (QUICCER) study

OBJECTIVES

To determine if patients managed with a cystectomy enhanced recovery pathway (CERP) have improved quality of care after radical cystectomy (RC), as defined by a decrease in length of hospital stay (LOS) without an increase in complications or readmissions compared with those not managed with CERP.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

The Quality Improvement in Cystectomy Care with Enhanced Recovery (QUICCER) study was a non-randomized quasi-experimental study. Data were collected between June 2011 and April 2015. The CERP was implemented in July 2013. The primary endpoint was LOS. Secondary endpoints were quality scores, complications and readmissions. Multivariable regression was performed. Propensity score matching was carried out to further simulate randomized clinical trial conditions. A CERP quality composite score was created and evaluated with regard to adherence to CERP elements.

RESULTS

The study included 79 patients managed with CERP and 121 who were not managed with CERP. After matching, there were 75 patients in the non-CERP group. The LOS was significantly different between the groups: the median LOS was 5 and 8 days for the CERP and non-CERP group, respectively (P < 0.001). Multivariable linear regression showed that any complication was the most significant predictor of total LOS at 90 days after RC. The higher the quality composite score the shorter the LOS (P < 0.001). There was no association between CERP and a greater number of complications or readmissions.

CONCLUSIONS

Audited quality measures in the CERP are associated with a reduction in LOS with no increase in readmissions or complications. The CERP is important for the future improvement of peri-operative care for RC and provides an opportunity to improve the quality of care provided.

Impact of central surgical review in a study of malignant germ cell tumors

BACKGROUND

Verification of surgical staging has received little attention in clinical oncology trials. Central surgical review was undertaken during a study of malignant pediatric germ cell tumors.

METHODS

Children's Oncology Group study AGCT0132 included central surgical review during the study. Completeness of submitted data and confirmation of assigned stage were assessed. Review responses were: assigned status confirmed, assignment withheld pending review of additional information requested, or institutional assignment of stage disputed with explanation given. Changes in stage assignment were at the discretion of the enrolling institution.

RESULTS

A total of 206 patients underwent central review. Failure to submit required data elements or need for clarification was noted in 40%. Disagreement with stage assignment occurred in 10% with 17/21 discordant patients reassigned to stage recommended by central review. Four ovarian tumor patients not meeting review criteria for Stage I remained in that stratum by institutional decision. Two-year event free survival in Stage I ovarian patients was 25% for discordant patients compared to 57% for those meeting Stage I criteria by central review.

CONCLUSIONS

Central review of stage assignment improved complete data collection and assignment of correct tumor stage at study entry, and allowed for prompt initiation of chemotherapy in patients determined not to have Stage I disease.

Cancer staging in outcomes assessment

The T N M staging system created by a surgeon in the 1950s continues to be a major benchmark for assessing long-term outcomes in adult solid tumors. Although several major changes have occurred in this anatomical staging system, the tenets of TNM staging remain constant. Recently molecular markers and biologic modifiers have been added to this anatomical staging system to create a more robust outcomes tool.

Quality assessment in oncology

The movement to improve healthcare quality has led to a need for carefully designed quality indicators that accurately reflect the quality of care. Many different measures have been proposed and continue to be developed by governmental agencies and accrediting bodies. However, given the inherent differences in the delivery of care among medical specialties, the same indicators will not be valid across all of them. Specifically, oncology is a field in which it can be difficult to develop quality indicators, because the effectiveness of an oncologic intervention is often not immediately apparent, and the multidisciplinary nature of the field necessarily involves many different specialties. Existing and emerging comparative effectiveness data are helping to guide evidence-based practice, and the increasing availability of these data provides the opportunity to identify key structure and process measures that predict for quality outcomes. The increasing emphasis on quality and efficiency will continue to compel the medical profession to identify appropriate quality measures to facilitate quality improvement efforts and to guide accreditation, credentialing, and reimbursement. Given the wide-reaching implications of quality metrics, it is essential that they be developed and implemented with scientific rigor. The aims of the present report were to review the current state of quality assessment in oncology, identify existing indicators with the best evidence to support their implementation, and propose a framework for identifying and refining measures most indicative of true quality in oncologic care.