Competitive bidding in Medicare Advantage: effect of benchmark changes on plan bids

Bidding has been proposed to replace or complement the administered prices that Medicare pays to hospitals and health plans. In 2006, the Medicare Advantage program implemented a competitive bidding system to determine plan payments. In perfectly competitive models, plans bid their costs and thus bids are insensitive to the benchmark. Under many other models of competition, bids respond to changes in the benchmark. We conceptualize the bidding system and use an instrumental variable approach to study the effect of benchmark changes on bids. We use 2006-2010 plan payment data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, published county benchmarks, actual realized fee-for-service costs, and Medicare Advantage enrollment. We find that a $1 increase in the benchmark leads to about a $0.53 increase in bids, suggesting that plans in the Medicare Advantage market have meaningful market power.

Propensity score weighting with multilevel data

Propensity score methods are being increasingly used as a less parametric alternative to traditional regression to balance observed differences across groups in both descriptive and causal comparisons. Data collected in many disciplines often have analytically relevant multilevel or clustered structure. The propensity score, however, was developed and has been used primarily with unstructured data. We present and compare several propensity-score-weighted estimators for clustered data, including marginal, cluster-weighted, and doubly robust estimators. Using both analytical derivations and Monte Carlo simulations, we illustrate bias arising when the usual assumptions of propensity score analysis do not hold for multilevel data. We show that exploiting the multilevel structure, either parametrically or nonparametrically, in at least one stage of the propensity score analysis can greatly reduce these biases. We applied these methods to a study of racial disparities in breast cancer screening among beneficiaries of Medicare health plans.

Adverse clinical events among medicare beneficiaries using antipsychotic drugs: linking health insurance benefits and clinical needs

OBJECTIVE

Medicare Part D provides formulary protections for antipsychotics but does not exempt these drugs from cost-sharing. We investigated the impact of Part D coverage on antipsychotic drug spending, adherence, and clinical outcomes among beneficiaries with varying indications for use.

METHODS

We conducted a historical cohort study of Medicare Advantage beneficiaries who received antipsychotic drugs, with diagnoses of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder or with no mental health diagnoses (N=10,190). Half had a coverage gap; half had no gap because of low-income subsidies. Using fixed effects regression models, we examined changes in spending and adherence as beneficiaries experienced cost-sharing increases after reaching the gap. We examined changes in hospitalizations and emergency department visits using proportional hazard models.

RESULTS

Across all diagnostic groups, total monthly expenditure on antipsychotic drugs decreased with cost-sharing increases in the gap compared with those with no gap (eg, schizophrenia: -$123 95% confidence interval [-$138, -$108]), and out-of-pocket spending increased (eg, schizophrenia: $104 [$98, $110]). Adherence similarly decreased, with the largest declines among those with schizophrenia (-20.6 percentage points [-22.3, -18.9] in proportion of days covered). Among beneficiaries with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, hospitalizations and emergency department visit rates increased with cost-sharing increases (eg, schizophrenia: hazard ratio=1.32 [1.06, 1.65] for all hospitalizations), but did not among subjects without mental health diagnoses. Clinical event rates did not change among beneficiaries with low-income subsidies without gaps.

CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence of interruptions in antipsychotic use attributable to Part D cost-sharing. Adverse events increased among beneficiaries with approved indications for use, but not among beneficiaries without such indications.

The role of families in decisions about cancer treatments

6528

Background: Shared decision-making is an important component of patient-centered care and is associated with improved health outcomes. Little is known about patients’ involvement of family members in decisions about cancer treatments or whether family involvement varies by patient demographic or clinical characteristics. Methods: Data for this study were collected as part of the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) study, a large multi-regional prospective cohort study of cancer care and outcomes of lung and colorectal cancer patients. Patients were surveyed about the roles of their families in decisions about surgery, radiation, and/or chemotherapy. We used multinomial logistic regression to identify patient factors independently associated with family roles in decisions. Results: Among 5284 patients, 28.5% reported little or no family input in decisions, 22.1% reported making decisions after considering the family’s opinion, 47.9% reported the patient and family made decisions together, and 1.5% reported the family made decisions. In adjusted analyses, married, female, older, and insured patients were more likely to report making decisions with their family (all P<.001). Family involvement varied substantially by race/ethnicity and language, with Chinese-speaking Asian (63.5%) and Spanish-speaking Hispanic (56.8%) patients reporting making decisions with their family more often than English-speaking Hispanic patients (48.5%) and whites (48.3%). Patients from Veterans Affairs hospitals were least likely to report making decisions together with family (P<.001). Family involvement varied statistically by cancer type, stage, comorbidity, health status, and depression, but differences were minimal. Conclusions: Most patients with a new diagnosis of lung or colorectal cancer involve family members in treatment decisions. Certain groups, such as non-English speaking Hispanics and Asians rely significantly on family; for these groups, it is important that physicians inquire about patients’ preferences for family involvement and work to integrate family members in decisions accordingly. Further studies are needed to determine the impact of family involvement in treatment decisions on oncology outcomes.

Tumor boards and the quality of cancer care

BACKGROUND

Despite the widespread use of tumor boards, few data on their effects on cancer care exist. We assessed whether the presence of a tumor board, either general or cancer specific, was associated with recommended cancer care, outcomes, or use in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health system.

METHODS

We surveyed 138 VA medical centers about the presence of tumor boards and linked cancer registry and administrative data to assess receipt of stage-specific recommended care, survival, or use for patients with colorectal, lung, prostate, hematologic, and breast cancers diagnosed in the period from 2001 to 2004 and followed through 2005. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess associations of tumor boards with the measures, adjusting for patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Most facilities (75%) had at least one tumor board, and many had several cancer-specific tumor boards. Presence of a tumor board was associated with only seven of 27 measures assessed (all P < .05), and several associations were not in expected directions. Rates of some recommended care (eg, white blood cell growth factors with cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, vincristine, and prednisone in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) were lower in centers with hematologic-specialized tumor boards (39.4%) than in centers with general tumor boards (61.3%) or no tumor boards (56.4%; P = .002). Only one of 27 measures was statistically significantly associated with tumor boards after applying a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed little association of multidisciplinary tumor boards with measures of use, quality, or survival. This may reflect no effect or an effect that varies by structural and functional components and participants' expertise.

Competitive bidding in Medicare: who benefits from competition?

OBJECTIVES

To conduct the first empirical study of competitive bidding in Medicare.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We analyzed 2006-2010 Medicare Advantage data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services using longitudinal models adjusted for market and plan characteristics.

RESULTS

A $1 increase in Medicare's payment to health maintenance organization (HMO) plans led to a $0.49 (P <.001) increase in plan bids, with $0.34 (P <.001) going to beneficiaries in the form of extra benefits or lower cost sharing. With preferred provider organization and private fee-for-service plans included, higher Medicare payments increased bids less ($0.33 per dollar), suggesting more competition among these latter plans.

CONCLUSIONS

As a market-based alternative to cost control through administrative pricing, competitive bidding relies on private insurance plans proposing prices they are willing to accept for insuring a beneficiary. However, competition is imperfect in the Medicare bidding market. As much as half of every dollar in increased plan payment went to higher bids rather than to beneficiaries. While having more insurers in a market lowered bids, the design of any bidding system for Medicare should recognize this shortcoming of competition.

The 'Alternative Quality Contract,' based on a global budget, lowered medical spending and improved quality

Seven provider organizations in Massachusetts entered the Blue Cross Blue Shield Alternative Quality Contract in 2009, followed by four more organizations in 2010. This contract, based on a global budget and pay-for-performance for achieving certain quality benchmarks, places providers at risk for excessive spending and rewards them for quality, similar to the new Pioneer Accountable Care Organizations in Medicare. We analyzed changes in spending and quality associated with the Alternative Quality Contract and found that the rate of increase in spending slowed compared to control groups, more so in the second year than in the first. Overall, participation in the contract over two years led to savings of 2.8 percent (1.9 percent in year 1 and 3.3 percent in year 2) compared to spending in nonparticipating groups. Savings were accounted for by lower prices achieved through shifting procedures, imaging, and tests to facilities with lower fees, as well as reduced utilization among some groups. Quality of care also improved compared to control organizations, with chronic care management, adult preventive care, and pediatric care within the contracting groups improving more in year 2 than in year 1. These results suggest that global budgets with pay-for-performance can begin to slow underlying growth in medical spending while improving quality of care.

The impact of the Affordable Care Act on Medicare Advantage plan availability and enrollment

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's (ACA) changes in Medicare Advantage (MA) payment rates on the availability of and enrollment in MA plans.

DATA SOURCES

Secondary data on MA plan offerings, contract offerings, and enrollment by state and county, in 2010-2011.

STUDY DESIGN

We estimated regression models of the change in the number of plans, the number of contracts, and enrollment as a function of quartiles of FFS spending and pre-ACA MA payment generosity. Counties in the lowest quartile of spending are treated most generously by the ACA.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Relative to counties in the highest quartile of spending, the number of plans in counties in the first, second, and third quartiles rose by 12 percent, 7.6 percent, and 5.4 percent, respectively. Counties with more generous MA payment rates before the ACA lost significantly more plans. We did not find a similar impact on the change in contracts or enrollment.

CONCLUSIONS

The ACA-induced MA payment changes reduced the number of plan choices available for Medicare beneficiaries, but they have yet affected enrollment patterns.

Survival of older patients with cancer in the Veterans Health Administration versus fee-for-service Medicare

PURPOSE

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides high-quality preventive chronic care and cancer care, but few studies have documented improved patient outcomes that result from this high-quality care. We compared the survival rates of older patients with cancer in the VHA and fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare and examined whether differences in the stage at diagnosis, receipt of guideline-recommended therapies, and unmeasured characteristics explain survival differences.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used propensity-score methods to compare all-cause and cancer-specific survival rates for men older than age 65 years who were diagnosed or received their first course of treatment for colorectal, lung, lymphoma, or multiple myeloma in VHA hospitals from 2001 to 2004 to similar FFS-Medicare enrollees diagnosed in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) areas in the same time frame. We examined the role of unmeasured factors by using sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

VHA patients versus similar FFS SEER-Medicare patients had higher survival rates of colon cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.93) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC; HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88 to 0.95) and similar survival rates of rectal cancer (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.16), small-cell lung cancer (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.05), diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.18), and multiple myeloma (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.03). The diagnosis of VHA patients at earlier stages explained much of the survival advantages for colon cancer and NSCLC. Sensitivity analyses suggested that additional adjustment for the severity of comorbid disease or performance status could have substantial effects on estimated differences.

CONCLUSION

The survival rate for older men with cancer in the VHA was better than or equivalent to the survival rate for similar FFS-Medicare beneficiaries. The VHA provision of high-quality care, particularly preventive care, can result in improved patient outcomes.

Understanding variation in primary prostate cancer treatment within the Veterans Health Administration

OBJECTIVE

To examine the variation in prostate cancer treatment in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)--a national, integrated delivery system. We also compared the care for older men in the VHA with that in fee-for-service Medicare.

METHODS

We used data from the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry linked with administrative data and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data to identify men with local or regional prostate cancer diagnosed during 2001 to 2004. We used multinomial logistic and hierarchical regression models to examine the patient, tumor, and facility characteristics associated with treatment in the VHA and, among older patients, used propensity score methods to compare primary therapy between the VHA and fee-for-service Medicare.

RESULTS

The rates of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy varied substantially across VHA facilities. Among the VHA patients, older age, black race/ethnicity, and greater comorbidity were associated with receiving neither radical prostatectomy nor radiotherapy. Facilities with more black patients with prostate cancer had lower rates of radical prostatectomy, and those with less availability of external beam radiotherapy had lower radiotherapy rates. The adjusted rates of radiotherapy (39.7% vs 52.0%) and radical prostatectomy (12.1% vs 15.8%) were lower and the rates of receiving neither treatment greater (48.2% vs 32.2%) in the VHA versus fee-for-service Medicare (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In the VHA, the treatment rates varied substantially across facilities, and black men received less aggressive prostate cancer treatment than white men, suggesting factors other than patient preferences influence the treatment decisions. Also, primary prostate cancer therapy for older men is less aggressive in the VHA than in fee-for-service Medicare.

Reasons for underuse of recommended therapies for colorectal and lung cancer in the Veterans Health Administration

BACKGROUND

Many studies have documented low rates of effective cancer therapies, particularly in older or minority populations. However, little is known about why effective therapies are underused in these populations.

METHODS

The authors examined medical records of 584 patients with cancer diagnosed or treated in Department of Veterans Affairs facilities to assess reasons for lack of 1) surgery for stage I/II nonsmall cell lung cancer, 2) surgery for stage I/II/III rectal cancer, 3) adjuvant radiation therapy for stage II/III rectal cancer, and 4) adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer. They also assessed differences in reasons for underuse by patient age and race.

RESULTS

Across the 4 guideline-recommended treatments, 92% to 99% of eligible patients were referred to the appropriate cancer specialist; however, therapy was recommended in only 74% to 92% of eligible cases. Poor health was cited in the medical record as the reason for lack of therapy in 15% to 61% of underuse cases; patient refusal explained 26% to 58% of underuse cases. African American patients were more likely to refuse surgery. Older patients were more likely to refuse treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendation against therapy was a primary factor in underuse of effective therapies in older and sicker patients. Patients' refusal of therapy contributed to age and racial disparities in care. Improved data on the effectiveness of cancer therapies in community populations and interventions aimed at improved communication of known risks and benefits of therapy to cancer patients could be effective tools to reduce underuse and lingering disparities in care.

Location of cancer surgery for older veterans with cancer

OBJECTIVE

Many veterans undergo cancer surgery outside of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). We assessed to what extent these patients obtained care in the VHA before surgery.

DATA SOURCES

VHA-Medicare data, VHA administrative data, and Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry data.

STUDY DESIGN

We identified patients aged ≥65 years in the VHA-Medicare cohort who underwent lung or colon cancer resection outside the VHA and assessed VHA visits in the year before surgery.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Over 60% of patients in the VHA-Medicare cohort who received lung or colon cancer surgeries outside the VHA did not receive any care in VHA before surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Veterans' receipt of major cancer surgery outside the VHA probably reflects usual private sector care among veterans who are infrequent VHA users.

The effect on survival of continuing chemotherapy to near death

BACKGROUND

Overuse of anti-cancer therapy is an important quality-of-care issue. An aggressive approach to treatment can have negative effects on quality of life and cost, but its effect on survival is not well-defined.

METHODS

Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare database, we identified 7,879 Medicare-enrolled patients aged 65 or older who died after having survived at least 3 months after diagnosis of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) between 1991 and 1999. We used Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, propensity scores, and instrumental variable analysis (IVA) to compare survival among patients who never received chemotherapy (n = 4,345), those who received standard chemotherapy but not within two weeks prior to death (n = 3,235), and those who were still receiving chemotherapy within 14 days of death (n = 299). Geographic variation in the application of chemotherapy was used as the instrument for IVA.

RESULTS

Receipt of chemotherapy was associated with a 2-month improvement in overall survival. However, based on three different statistical approaches, no additional survival benefit was evident from continuing chemotherapy within 14 days of death. Moreover, patients receiving chemotherapy near the end of life were much less likely to enter hospice (81% versus 51% with no chemotherapy and 52% with standard chemotherapy, P < 0.001), or were more likely to be admitted within only 3 days of death.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuing chemotherapy for advanced NSCLC until very near death is associated with a decreased likelihood of receiving hospice care but not prolonged survival. Oncologists should strive to discontinue chemotherapy as death approaches and encourage patients to enroll in hospice for better end-of-life palliative care.

Improved outcomes associated with higher surgery rates for older patients with early stage nonsmall cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Although surgery offers the greatest chance of a cure for patients with early stage nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), older and sicker patients often fail to undergo resection. The benefits of surgery in older patients and patients with multiple comorbidities are uncertain.

METHODS

The authors identified a national cohort of 17,638 Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥66 years living in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) areas who were diagnosed with stage I or II NSCLC during 2001 to 2005. Areas with high and low rates of curative surgery for early stage lung cancer were compared to estimate the effectiveness of surgery in older and sicker patients. Logistic regression models were used to assess mortality according to the quintile of area-level surgery rates, adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Less than 63% of patients underwent surgery in low-surgery areas, whereas >79% underwent surgery in high-surgery areas. High-surgery areas operated on more patients of advanced age and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease than low-surgery areas. The adjusted all-cause 1 year mortality was 18% in high-surgery areas versus 22.8% in low-surgery areas (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86-0.93) for each 10% increase in the surgery rate).The 1-year lung-cancer-specific mortality similarly was lower in high-surgery areas (12%) versus low-surgery areas (16.9%; adjusted OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.82-0.91) for each 10% increase in the surgery rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher rates of surgery for stage I/II NSCLC were associated with improved survival, even when older patients and sicker patients underwent resection. The authors concluded that more work is needed to identify and reduce barriers to surgery for early stage NSCLC.

Hospice care and survival among elderly patients with lung cancer

BACKGROUND

Recently observed trends toward increasingly aggressive end-of-life care may reflect providers' concerns that hospice may hasten death.

METHODS

Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare linked database, we identified 7879 patients aged 65 years or older who died of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer from 1991 through 1999 after surviving for at least 3 months from their cancer diagnoses. Length of hospice admission post-cancer diagnosis and indicators of aggressive end-of-life care were ascertained based on claims data. We evaluated overall survival and care near death after controlling for baseline characteristics by using propensity score (PS) and instrumental variable analyses (IVA).

RESULTS

Hospice patients were older, more likely to be non-Hispanic white and female, more likely to reside in urban areas with high hospice availability and higher socioeconomic status, more likely to be treated in a teaching hospital, and received less aggressive end-of-life care compared to nonhospice patients. Among hospice patients, those experiencing short-term hospice admissions within 3 days of death were more likely to be male, reside in urban areas, be treated in a teaching hospital, and receive more aggressive end-of-life care. PS analysis found that survival favored hospice patients slightly relative to nonhospice patients by 5.0 percentage points (25.7% versus 20.7%) at 1 year and 1.4 percentage points (6.9% versus 5.5%) at 2 years postdiagnosis (p < 0.001), while there was no significant difference between those with short- and longer duration hospice stays (p = 1.00). IVA confirmed these findings.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospice enrollment did not compromise length of survival following advanced lung cancer diagnosis.

Quality of care for older patients with cancer in the Veterans Health Administration versus the private sector: a cohort study

BACKGROUND

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the largest integrated health care system in the United States. Studies suggest that the VHA provides better preventive care and care for some chronic illnesses than does the private sector.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quality of cancer care for older patients provided by the VHA versus fee-for-service Medicare.

DESIGN

Observational study of patients with cancer that was diagnosed between 2001 and 2004 who were followed through 2005.

SETTING

VHA and non-VHA hospitals and office-based practices.

PATIENTS

Men older than 65 years with incident colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer; lymphoma; or multiple myeloma.

MEASUREMENTS

Rates of processes of care for colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer; lymphoma; or multiple myeloma. Rates were adjusted by using propensity score weighting.

RESULTS

Compared with the fee-for-service Medicare population, the VHA population received diagnoses of colon (P < 0.001) and rectal (P = 0.007) cancer at earlier stages and had higher adjusted rates of curative surgery for colon cancer (92.7% vs. 90.5%; P < 0.010), standard chemotherapy for diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (71.1% vs. 59.3%; P < 0.001), and bisphosphonate therapy for multiple myeloma (62.1% vs. 50.4%; P < 0.001). The VHA population had lower adjusted rates of 3-dimensional conformal or intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer treated with external-beam radiation therapy (61.6% vs. 86.0%; P < 0.001). Adjusted rates were similar for 9 other measures. Sensitivity analyses suggest that if patients with cancer in the VHA system have more severe comorbid illness than other patients, rates for most indicators would be higher in the VHA population than in the fee-for-service Medicare population.

LIMITATION

This study included only older men and did not include information about performance status, severity of comorbid illness, or patient preferences.

CONCLUSION

Care for older men with cancer in the VHA system was generally similar to or better than care for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, although adoption of some expensive new technologies may be delayed in the VHA system.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Department of Veterans Affairs.

Outcomes following local therapy for early-stage breast cancer in non-trial populations

Recent studies suggest trends toward more mastectomies for primary breast cancer treatment. We assessed survival after mastectomy and breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with radiation for early-stage breast cancer among non-selected populations of women and among women similar to those in clinical trials. Using population-based data from Surveillance Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registries linked with Medicare administrative data from 1992 to 2005, we conducted propensity score analysis of survival following primary therapy for early-stage breast cancer, including BCS with radiation, BCS without radiation, mastectomy with radiation, and mastectomy without radiation. Adjusted survival was greatest among women who had BCS with radiation (median survival = 10.98 years). Compared with this group, mortality was higher among women who had mastectomy without radiation (median survival 10.04 years, adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.14-1.23), mastectomy with radiation (median survival 10.02 years, HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.14-1.27), and BCS without radiation (median survival 7.63 years, HR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.70-1.92). Among women representative of those eligible for clinical trials (age ≤70 years, Charlson comorbidity score = 0/1, and stage 1 tumors), there were no differences in survival for women who underwent BCS with radiation or mastectomy. In conclusion, after careful adjustment for differences in patient, physician, and hospital characteristics, we found better survival for BCS with radiation versus mastectomy among older early-stage breast cancer patients, with no difference in survival for BCS with radiation versus mastectomy among women representative of those in clinical trials. These findings are reassuring in light of recent trends towards more aggressive primary breast cancer therapy.

End-of-life care for older cancer patients in the Veterans Health Administration versus the private sector

BACKGROUND

Treatment of older cancer patients at the end of life has become increasingly aggressive, despite the absence of evidence for better outcomes. We compared aggressiveness of end-of-life care of older metastatic cancer patients treated in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and those under fee-for-service Medicare arrangements.

METHODS

Using propensity score methods, we matched 2913 male veterans who were diagnosed with stage IV lung or colorectal cancer in 2001-2002 and died before 2006 with 2913 similar men enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare living in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) areas. We assessed chemotherapy within 14 days of death, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions within 30 days of death, and >1 emergency room visit within 30 days of death.

RESULTS

Among matched cohorts, men treated in the VHA were less likely than men in the private sector to receive chemotherapy within 14 days of death (4.6% vs 7.5%, P<.001), be admitted to an ICU within 30 days of death (12.5% vs 19.7%, P<.001), or have >1 emergency room visit within 30 days of death (13.1 vs 14.7, P=.09).

CONCLUSIONS

Older men with metastatic lung or colorectal cancer treated in the VHA healthcare system received less aggressive end-of-life care than similar men in fee-for-service Medicare. This may result from the absence of financial incentives for more intensive care in the VHA or because this integrated delivery system is better structured to limit potentially overly aggressive care. Additional studies are needed to assess whether men undergoing less aggressive end-of-life care also experience better outcomes.

Cancer patients' roles in treatment decisions: do characteristics of the decision influence roles?

PURPOSE

Patients with more active roles in decisions are more satisfied and may have better health outcomes. Younger and better educated patients have more active roles in decisions, but whether patients' roles in decisions differ by characteristics of the decision itself is unknown.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We surveyed a large, population-based cohort of patients with recently diagnosed lung or colorectal cancer about their roles in decisions regarding surgery, radiation therapy, and/or chemotherapy. We used multinomial logistic regression to assess whether characteristics of the decision, including evidence about the treatment's benefit, whether the decision was likely preference-sensitive (palliative therapy for metastatic cancer), and treatment modality, influenced patients' roles in that decision.

RESULTS

Of 10,939 decisions made by 5,383 patients, 38.9% were patient controlled, 43.6% were shared, and 17.5% were physician controlled. When there was good evidence to support a treatment, shared control was greatest; when evidence was uncertain, patient control was greatest; and when there was no evidence for or evidence against a treatment, physician control was greatest (overall P < .001). Decisions about treatments for metastatic cancers tended to be more physician controlled than other decisions (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients making decisions about treatments for which no evidence supports benefit and decisions about noncurative treatments reported more physician control, which suggests that patients may not want the responsibility of deciding on treatments that will not cure them. Better strategies for shared decision making may be needed when there is no evidence to support benefit of a treatment or when patients have terminal illnesses that cannot be cured.

Variations in surgeon treatment recommendations for lobectomy in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer by patient age and comorbidity

BACKGROUND

Prior research suggests that older patients are less likely to undergo resection of early-stage non-small-cell lung carcinomas (NSCLCs). We surveyed surgeons to understand how their recommendations for lobectomy were influenced by age, the presence and severity of smoking-related lung disease, or by characteristics of the surgeons and their practices.

METHODS

We surveyed surgeons caring for NSCLC patients regarding whether they would recommend lobectomy for hypothetical patients with early-stage NSCLC who varied by age (55 vs. 80 years) and comorbid illness (none, moderate, severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD]). Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify the importance of patient, surgeon, and practice characteristics on surgery recommendations.

RESULTS

Surgeons recommended lobectomy for nearly all patients who were 55 years old with no comorbidity (adjusted proportion 98.6%), 55 years old with moderate COPD (adjusted proportion 97.8%), or 80 years old with no comorbidity (adjusted proportion 98.1%). Fewer recommended lobectomy for 80-year-old patients with moderate COPD (adjusted proportion 82.3%), and far fewer recommended lobectomy for severe COPD, irrespective of age (adjusted rate 18.7% for the 55-year-old patient and 6.1% for the 80-year-old patient) (P < 0.002). Surgeons who enroll patients onto clinical trials (P = 0.03) were more likely than others to recommend lobectomy, but no other surgeon characteristic predicted recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Lower rates of lobectomy among older patients do not seem to be explained by age-related biases among surgeons for otherwise healthy patients.

Physician factors associated with discussions about end-of-life care

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend advanced care planning for terminally ill patients with <1 year to live. Few data are available regarding when physicians and their terminally ill patients typically discuss end-of-life issues.

METHODS

A national survey was conducted of physicians caring for cancer patients about timing of discussions regarding prognosis, do not resuscitate (DNR) status, hospice, and preferred site of death with their terminally ill patients. Logistic regression was used to identify physician and practice characteristics associated with earlier discussions.

RESULTS

Among 4074 respondents, 65% would discuss prognosis "now" (defined as patient has 4 months to 6 months to live, asymptomatic). Fewer would discuss DNR status (44%), hospice (26%), or preferred site of death (21%) immediately, with most physicians waiting for patient symptoms or until there are no more treatments to offer. In multivariate analyses, younger physicians more often discussed prognosis, DNR status, hospice, and site of death "now" (all P < .05). Surgeons and oncologists were more likely than noncancer specialists to discuss prognosis "now" (P = .008), but noncancer specialists were more likely than cancer specialists to discuss DNR status, hospice, and preferred site of death "now" (all P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most physicians report they would not discuss end-of-life options with terminally ill patients who are feeling well, instead waiting for symptoms or until there are no more treatments to offer. More research is needed to understand physicians' reasons for timing of discussions and how their propensity to aggressively treat metastatic disease influences timing, as well as how the timing of discussions influences patient and family experiences at the end of life.

Differences in clinical trial patient attributes and outcomes according to enrollment setting

PURPOSE

During the last 25 years, National Cancer Institute (NCI) cooperative trial groups have extended trial networks from academic centers to include certain community and Veterans Health Administration (VHA) centers. We compared trial patients' attributes and outcomes by these enrollment settings.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Studying 2,708 patients on one of 10 cooperative group, randomized lung trials at 272 institutions, we compared patient attributes by enrollment setting (ie, academic, community, and VHA affiliates). We used adjusted Cox regression to evaluate for survival differences by setting.

RESULTS

Main member institutions enrolled 44% of patients; community affiliates enrolled 44%; and VHAs enrolled 12%. Patient attributes (ie, case-mix) of age, ethnicity, sex, and performance status varied by enrollment setting. After analysis was adjusted for patient case-mix, no mortality differences by enrollment setting were noted.

CONCLUSION

Although trial patients with primarily advanced-stage lung cancer from nonacademic centers were older and had worse performance statuses than those from academic centers, survival did not differ by enrollment setting after analysis accounted for patient heterogeneity. An answer for whether long-term outcomes for patients at community and VHA centers affiliated with cooperative trial groups are equivalent to those at academic centers when care is delivered through NCI trials requires additional research among patients with longer survival horizons.

Financial status, employment, and insurance among older cancer survivors

BACKGROUND

Few data are available about the socioeconomic impact of cancer for long-term cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate socioeconomic outcomes among older cancer survivors compared to non-cancer patients.

DATA SOURCE

2002 Health and Retirement Study.

STUDY DESIGN

We studied 964 cancer survivors of > 4 years and 14,333 control patients who had never had cancer from a population-based sample of Americans ages >or= 55 years responding to the 2002 Health and Retirement Study.

MEASURES

We compared household income, housing assets, net worth, insurance, employment, and future work expectations.

ANALYSES

Propensity score methods were used to control for baseline differences between cancer survivors and controls.

RESULTS

Female cancer survivors did not differ from non-cancer patients in terms of income, housing assets, net worth, or likelihood of current employment (all P > 0.20); but more were self-employed (25.0% vs. 17.7%; P = 0.03), and fewer were confident that if they lost their job they would find an equally good job in the next few months (38.4% vs. 45.9%; P = 0.03). Among men, cancer survivors and noncancer patients had similar income and housing assets (both P >or= 0.10) but differed somewhat in net worth (P = 0.04). Male cancer survivors were less likely than other men to be currently employed (25.2% vs. 29.7%) and more likely to be retired (66.9% vs. 62.2%), although the P value did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.06). Men were also less optimistic about finding an equally good job in the next few months if they lost their current job (33.5% vs. 46.9%), although this result was not significant (P = 0.11).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite generally similar socioeconomic outcomes for cancer survivors and noncancer patients ages >or=55 years, a better understanding of employment experience and pessimism regarding work prospects may help to shape policies to benefit cancer survivors.