Intensity of end-of-life care for dual-eligible beneficiaries with cancer and the impact of delivery system affiliation

Quality of care for dual eligible beneficiaries in the oncology care model

INTRODUCTION

Dual eligible beneficiaries are a vulnerable population who often experience inferior access to care and outcomes compared to non-dual eligible beneficiaries. The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is an alternative payment model that aims to improve coordination and quality of care in beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy and thus may improve care for dual eligible beneficiaries with cancer.

METHODS

We used 100% Medicare claims data from 2014 through 2019 and included beneficiaries with bladder, breast, esophageal, colorectal, kidney, lung, pancreatic, or prostate cancer receiving chemotherapy. We constructed multivariable difference-in-differences regression models to evaluate the effect of OCM participation on healthcare utilization and quality of care at the end-of-life among dual eligible beneficiaries. We also compared healthcare utilization and quality of care outcomes to non-dual eligible beneficiaries.

RESULTS

We identified 3,043,944 episodes of care among 1,260,892 unique Medicare beneficiaries. Ten percent of all beneficiaries (n = 126,758) were dual eligible and 64,087 (22%) of episodes among dual eligible patients were in an OCM participating practice. We noted no effect of OCM participation on healthcare utilization or end-of-life quality of care for dual eligible beneficiaries. However, we observed higher rates of hospitalization, emergency department visits, intensive care unit stays, and a lower number of office visits among dual eligible beneficiaries compared to non-dual eligible beneficiaries.

CONCLUSIONS

Participation in OCM was not associated with improvements in quality of care or healthcare utilization for dual eligible beneficiaries. Dual eligible beneficiaries experience lower quality of care across several measures compared to non-dual eligible beneficiaries. Focused policies and incentives may be necessary to address disparities within emerging health reforms.

End-of-Life Care for Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma in the Era of Oral Anticancer Therapy

PURPOSE

New therapies including oral anticancer agents (OAAs) have improved outcomes for patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). However, little is known about the quality of end-of-life (EOL) care and systemic therapy use at EOL in patients receiving OAAs or with mRCC.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed EOL care for decedents with mRCC in two parallel cohorts: (1) patients (RCC diagnosed 2004-2015) from the University of North Carolina's Cancer Information and Population Health Resource (CIPHR) and (2) patients (diagnosed 2007-2015) from SEER-Medicare. We assessed hospice use in the last 30 days of life and existing measures of poor-quality EOL care: systemic therapy, hospital admission, intensive care unit admission, and > 1 ED visit in the last 30 days of life; hospice initiation in the last 3 days of life; and in-hospital death. Associations between OAA use, patient and provider characteristics, and EOL care were examined using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

We identified 410 decedents in the CIPHR cohort (53.4% received OAA) and 1,508 in SEER-Medicare (43.5% received OAA). Prior OAA use was associated with increased systemic therapy in the last 30 days of life in both cohorts (CIPHR: 26.5% v 11.0%; P < .001; SEER-Medicare: 23.4% v 11.7%; P < .001), increased in-hospital death in CIPHR, and increased hospice in the last 30 days in SEER-Medicare. Older patients were less likely to receive systemic therapy or be admitted in the last 30 days or die in hospital.

CONCLUSION

Patients with mRCC who received OAAs and younger patients experienced more aggressive EOL care, suggesting opportunities to optimize high-quality EOL care in these groups.