Search

Purpose: Medicare claims provide a rich data source for large-scale quality assessment because data are available for all beneficiaries nationally. For cancer surgery, the absence of information regarding site of cancer and date of diagnosis on an administrative claim necessitates testing to ensure accurate quality assessment and public reporting. Methods: Using the SEER Medicare–linked database as the gold standard, we developed and tested an approach to identify cancer-directed surgeries from Medicare fee-for-service claims alone. Our analysis evaluated two questions: (1) Can we identify a large percentage of patients who underwent a cancer-directed surgery using only Medicare claims? (2) Of all patients identified as having undergone a cancer-directed surgery, what percentage had cancer? We evaluated this approach for 17 primary cancer sites. Results: The number of Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with their first cancer during the years 2011 to 2013 and who underwent cancer-directed surgery ranged from 45 patients (bones and joints) to 20,163 patients (breast). The percentage of cancer-directed surgeries identified using Medicare claims alone ranged from 62% (skin melanoma) to 94% (prostate). For all but three cancer sites (skin melanoma, thyroid, and urinary bladder), more than 80% of cancer-directed surgeries were identified using our approach. Of all surgeries identified, more than 90% were for patients with cancer. Conclusion: Identifying patients who underwent a cancer-directed surgery from Medicare claims is feasible for many cancer sites, although careful consideration needs to be given to the validity of each site. Our findings support the use of Medicare claims for large-scale quality assessment of cancer surgery by disease site. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors discuss the different methods to improve outpatient oncology practice. They outline the findings of the United pilot project published in the "Journal of Oncology Practice" They emphasize the significance of a coordinated definition of patient classifications in the quality improvement efforts for cancer care.

The author discusses the differences between the prices for cancer in a physician's office and he hospital outpatient setting in the U.S. Topics include the efforts to consolidate physician's offices into hospitals, the impact of the 340B drug discount program on the prices of drugs charged by hospitals, and the Part B pilot proposal of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Purpose: Access to comparative information on hospitals’ quality of cancer care is limited. Patients’ interest in using this information when selecting a hospital for cancer surgery and the specific data they would desire are unknown. This study gauges patients’ demand for comparative information on hospitals’ quality of cancer surgery. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, national survey of 3,334 US residents who had received cancer surgery. The outcomes were patients’ reported likelihood of using a list of best hospitals for cancer surgery and patients’ reported interest in information about specific clinical outcomes, including 4-year survival after surgery, 30-day mortality after surgery, and rate of complications from surgery. Results: Two thirds of patients (68%) reported being actively involved in selecting a hospital for their surgery, and two thirds (65%) reported that their physician was involved in or made this decision. When asked what information might have helped them to choose a hospital, participants identified the hospital’s reputation (55%), patient satisfaction (44%), and the number of cancer surgeries performed at the hospital (36%). Approximately three quarters (73%) reported being likely to use a list of best hospitals for cancer surgery when selecting a hospital. Approximately 40% expressed interest in having information on at least one clinical outcome. Conclusion: Widespread interest exists among patients with cancer for comparative information on hospital quality as well as on clinical outcomes and hospitals’ reputation for cancer surgery. Policy reforms and additional research should address the unmet need for transparent, comprehensive data on the quality of hospitals’ cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: A shift in outpatient oncology care from the physician's office to hospital outpatient settings has generated interest in the effect of practice setting on outcomes. Our objective was to examine whether medical oncologists' prescribing of drugs and services for older adult patients with advanced cancer is used more in physicians' offices compared with hospital outpatient departments. METHODS: This was a retrospective comparative study. SEER-Medicare data (2004 to 2011) were used to identify Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with advanced breast, colon, esophagus, non–small-cell lung, pancreatic, or stomach cancer. Between physicians' offices and hospital outpatient departments, we compared use of selected likely low-value supportive drugs, low-value therapeutic drugs, chemotherapy-related hospitalizations, and hospice. We used hierarchical modeling to assess differences between settings to account for correlation within physicians. RESULTS: Compared with patients treated in a hospital outpatient department, those treated in a physician's office setting were more likely to receive erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (odds ratio, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.53 to 1.94) and granulocyte colony–stimulating factors (odds ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.38). For combination chemotherapy and nanoparticle albumin-bound–paclitaxel in patients with breast cancer, there was a trend toward higher use in physicians' offices, although this was not statistically significant. Chemotherapy-related hospitalizations and hospice did not vary by setting. CONCLUSION: We found somewhat higher use of several drugs for patients with advanced cancer in physicians' office settings compared with hospital outpatient departments. Findings support research to dissect the mechanisms through which setting might influence physicians' behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose In older patients with metastatic cancer, hospitalization for treatment toxicity may reduce the quality of an already limited life expectancy. We evaluated the association between chemotherapy for metastatic cancer and risk of hospitalization. Methods In the population-based SEER-Medicare dataset, we identified patients 66 years or older diagnosed with metastatic cancer of the bladder, breast, prostate, colon or rectum, esophagus, pancreas, stomach, ovaries, or lung in 2001 to 2009 who died by December 31, 2010. Chemotherapy recipients were matched to nonrecipients by age, sex, race, geographic region, comorbidity, and survival duration. We identified hospitalizations for any cause and for likely chemotherapy-related toxicity, comparing chemotherapy recipients with their matched peers. Results Of 18,486 patients who received chemotherapy for metastatic cancer, 92% were hospitalized at least once for any reason, including 51% hospitalized for a likely toxicity. The corresponding rates among matched nonrecipients were 83% and 34%. Chemotherapy was associated with a significantly increased risk of likely toxicity-related hospitalization in nearly all cancers, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and other treatment. The association was greatest in patients with metastatic esophageal cancer (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.11 to 3.60) and smallest in patients with metastatic prostate cancer (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.47). Conclusion Hospitalizations are common in patients with incurable advanced malignancies and more likely among those who receive chemotherapy. Understanding common reasons for these events may help reduce adverse effects of chemotherapy for metastatic cancer and help patients and their families make informed treatment decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on a 2015 study on the variation in use of long-term central venous catheters (CVC) in insured women with breast cancer and on its complication risks. Results show that two-thirds of cohorts had a long-term CVC, with varied rates across regions, health plans, and insurance coverage. The article states that the benefits of long-term CVCs is offset by its association with increased morbidity, and that some of their use are provider- or institution-driven.

Purpose: Hospital readmissions are often cited as a marker of poor quality of care. Limited data suggest some readmissions may be preventable depending upon definitions and available outpatient support., Methods: General criteria to define preventable and not preventable admissions were developed before data collection began. The records of sequential nonsurgical oncology readmissions were reviewed independently by two reviewers. When the reviewers disagreed about assigning admissions as preventable or not preventable, a third reviewer was the tie breaker. The reasons for assigning admissions as preventable or not preventable were analyzed., Results: Seventy-two readmissions occurring among 69 patients were analyzed. The first two reviewers agreed that 18 (25%) of 72 were preventable and that 29 (40%) of 72 were not. A third reviewer found four of the split 25 cases to be preventable; therefore, the consensus preventability rate was 22 (31%) of 72. The most common causes of preventability were overwhelming symptoms in patients who qualified for hospice but were not participating in hospice and insufficient communication between patients and the care team about symptom burden. The most common reason for assignment of a not preventable admission was a high symptom burden among patients without strong indications for hospice or for whom aggressive outpatient management was inadequate. The median survival after readmission was 72 days., Conclusion: A substantial proportion of oncology readmissions could be prevented with better anticipation of symptoms in high-risk ambulatory patients and enhanced communication about symptom burden between patients and physicians before an escalation that leads to an emergency department visit. Managing symptoms in patients who are appropriate for hospice is challenging. Readmission is a marker of poor prognosis., (Copyright © 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)