Urologist Participation in Medicare Shared Savings Program Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs)

The Growth of Integrated Care Models in Urology

With heightened awareness of health care outcomes and efficiencies and reimbursement-based metrics, it is ever more important that urologists consider the effects of integrated care models on physicians/staff/clinics fulfillment and patient outcomes, and whether and how to optimally implement these models within their unique practice settings. Despite growing evidence that integrating care improves outcomes, uncertainty persists regarding which approach is most efficient and achievable in terms of specialty considerations and financial resources. In this article, we discuss strategies for integrating urologic care and its impact on current and future health care delivery.

The Development and Validation of Prostate Cancer-specific Physician-Hospital Networks

OBJECTIVE

To develop prostate cancer-specific physician-hospital networks to define hospital-based units that more accurately group hospitals, providers, and the patients they serve.

METHODS

Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare, we identified men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2007 and 2011. We created physician-hospital networks by assigning each patient to a physician and each physician to a hospital based on treatment patterns. We assessed content validity by examining characteristics of hospitals anchoring the physician-hospital networks and of the patients associated with these hospitals.

RESULTS

We identified 42,963 patients associated with 344 physician-hospital networks. Networks anchored by a teaching hospital (compared to a nonteaching hospital) had higher median numbers of prostate cancer patients (117 [interquartile range {71-189} vs 82 {50-126}]) and treating physicians (7 [4-11] vs 4 [3-6]) (both P <0.001). On average, patients traveled farther to networks anchored by a teaching hospital (49 miles [standard deviation] [207] vs 41 [183]; P <.001). Hospitals known as high-volume centers for robotic prostatectomies, proton-beam therapy, and active surveillance had network rates for these procedures well above the mean. Hospitals known as safety net providers served higher proportions of minorities.

CONCLUSION

We empirically developed prostate-cancer specific physician-hospital networks that exhibit content validity and are relevant from a clinical and policy perspective. They have the potential to become targets for policy interventions focused on improving the delivery of prostate cancer care.

The Accountable Care Organization for Surgical Care

Rising health care costs superimposed on uncertainty surrounding the relationship between health care spending and quality have resulted in an urgent need to develop strategies to better align health care payment with value. Such approaches, at least in theory, work to achieve the dual aims of reducing growth in health care spending and improving population health. To date, surgery has not been prioritized in accountable care organizations (ACOs). Nonetheless, it is critically important to begin to consider strategic and impactful mechanisms through which surgery can be seamlessly woven into innovative population health models.

Variation in prostate cancer treatment and spending among Medicare shared savings program accountable care organizations

BACKGROUND

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) have been shown to reduce prostate cancer treatment among men unlikely to benefit because of competing risks (ie, potential overtreatment). This study assessed whether the level of engagement in ACOs by urologists affected rates of treatment, overtreatment, and spending.

METHODS

A 20% sample of national Medicare data was used to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2012 and 2014. The extent of urologist engagement in an ACO, as measured by the proportion of patients in an ACO managed by an ACO-participating urologist, served as the exposure. The use of treatment, potential overtreatment (ie, treatment in men with a ≥75% risk of 10-year noncancer mortality), and average payments in the year after diagnosis for each ACO were modeled.

RESULTS

Among 2822 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, the median rates of treatment and potential overtreatment by an ACO were 71.3% (range, 23.6%-79.5%) and 53.6% (range, 12.4%-76.9%), respectively. Average Medicare payments among ACOs in the year after diagnosis ranged from $16,523.52 to $34,766.33. Stronger urologist-ACO engagement was not associated with treatment (odds ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.2; P = .4) or spending (9.7% decrease in spending; P = .08). However, urologist engagement was associated with a lower likelihood of potential overtreatment (odds ratio, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.1-0.86; P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

ACOs vary widely in treatment, potential overtreatment, and spending for prostate cancer. ACOs with stronger urologist engagement are less likely to treat men with a high risk of noncancer mortality, and this suggests that organizations that better engage specialists may be able to improve the value of specialty care. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Impact of Accountable Care Organizations on Diagnostic Testing for Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To determine if Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) have the potential to accelerate the impact of prostate cancer screening recommendations.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study using Medicare data evaluating the rates of PSA testing and prostate biopsy among men without prostate cancer between 2011 and 2014. We assessed PSA testing and biopsy rates before and after policy implementation among patients of ACO and non-ACO-aligned physicians. To control for secular trends, difference-in-differences methods were used to determine the effects of ACO implementation.

RESULTS

We identified 1.1 million eligible men without prostate cancer. From 2011 to 2014, the rates of PSA testing and biopsy declined by 22.3% and 7.0%, respectively. PSA testing declined similarly regardless of ACO participation-from 618 to 530 tests per 1000 beneficiaries among ACO-aligned physicians and from 607 to 516 tests per 1000 beneficiaries among non-ACO-aligned physicians (difference-in-differences P = .11). Whereas rates of prostate biopsy remained constant for patients of non-ACO-aligned physicians at 12 biopsies per 1000 beneficiaries, these rates increased from 11.6 to 12.5 biopsies per 1000 beneficiaries of patients of ACO-aligned physicians (difference-in-differences P = .03).

CONCLUSION

PSA testing and prostate biopsy rates decreased significantly between 2011 and 2014. The rate of PSA testing was not differentially affected by ACO participation. Conversely, there was an increase in the rate of prostate biopsy among patients of ACO-aligned physicians. ACOs did not accelerate deimplementation of PSA testing for eligible Medicare beneficiaries without prostate cancer.

Association of Delivery System Integration and Outcomes for Major Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

Integrated delivery systems (IDSs) are postulated to reduce spending and improve outcomes through successful coordination of care across multiple providers. Nonetheless, the actual impact of IDSs on outcomes for complex multidisciplinary care such as major cancer surgery is largely unknown.

METHODS

Using 2011-2013 Medicare data, this study identified patients who underwent surgical resection for prostate, bladder, esophageal, pancreatic, lung, liver, kidney, colorectal, or ovarian cancer. Rates of readmission, 30-day mortality, surgical complications, failure to rescue, and prolonged hospital stay for cancer surgery were compared between patients receiving care at IDS hospitals and those receiving care at non-IDS hospitals. Generalized estimating equations were used to adjust results by cancer type and patient- and hospital-level characteristics while accounting for clustering of patients within hospitals.

RESULTS

The study identified 380,053 patients who underwent major resection of cancer, with 38% receiving care at an IDS. Outcomes did not differ between IDS and non-IDS hospitals regarding readmission and surgical complication rates, whereas only minor differences were observed for 30-day mortality (3.5% vs 3.2% for IDS; p < 0.001) and prolonged hospital stay (9.9% vs 9.2% for IDS; p < 0.001). However, after adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics, the frequencies of adverse perioperative outcomes were not significantly associated with IDS status.

CONCLUSIONS

The collective findings suggest that local delivery system integration alone does not necessarily have an impact on perioperative outcomes in surgical oncology. Moving forward, stakeholders may need to focus on surgical and oncology-specific methods of care coordination and quality improvement initiatives to improve outcomes for patients undergoing cancer surgery.

Early effect of Medicare Shared Savings Program accountable care organization participation on prostate cancer care

BACKGROUND

Accountable care organizations (ACOs) can improve prostate cancer care by decreasing treatment variations (ie, avoidance of treatment in low-value settings). Herein, the authors performed a study to understand the effect of Medicare Shared Savings Program ACOs on prostate cancer care.

METHODS

Using a 20% Medicare sample, the authors identified men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer from 2010 through 2013. Rates of treatment, potential overtreatment (ie, treatment in men with a ≥75% chance of 10-year mortality from competing risks), and Medicare payments were measured using regression models. The impact of ACO participation was assessed using difference-in-differences analyses.

RESULTS

Before implementation of ACOs, the treatment rate was 71.8% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 70.2%-73.3%) for ACO-aligned beneficiaries and 72.3% (95% CI, 71.7%-73.0% [P = .51]) for non-ACO-aligned beneficiaries. After implementation, this rate declined to 68.4% (95% CI, 66.1%-70.7% [P = .017]) for ACO-aligned beneficiaries and 69.3% (95% CI, 68.5%-70.1% [P<.001]) for non-ACO-aligned beneficiaries. There was no differential effect noted for ACO participation. The rate of potential overtreatment decreased from 48.2% (95% CI, 43.1%-53.3%) to 40.2% (95% CI, 32.4%-48.0% [P = .087]) for ACO-aligned beneficiaries and increased from 44.3% (95% CI, 42.1%-46.5%) to 47.0% (95% CI, 44.5%-49.5% [P = .11]) for non-ACO-aligned beneficiaries. These changes resulted in a significant relative decrease in overtreatment of 17% for ACO-aligned beneficiaries (difference-in-differences, 10.8%; P = .031). Payments were not found to be differentially affected by ACO alignment.

CONCLUSIONS

The treatment of prostate cancer and annual payments decreased significantly between 2010 and 2013, but ACO participation did not appear to impact these trends. Among men least likely to benefit, Medicare Shared Savings Program ACO alignment was associated with a significant decline in prostate cancer treatment. Cancer 2018;124:563-70. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Alternative payment models and urology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) is a historic bill that was recently passed that establishes how quality measurement and practice patterns will affect physician reimbursement. Alternative payment models (APMs) are an essential component of MACRA and Medicare's vision of paying for high-value care. This review describes APMs in the context of MACRA and their impact on urology.

RECENT FINDINGS

The majority of urologists will be affected by MACRA. Both APMs and bundled payments are considered APMs under MACRA. Although most urologists do not currently participate in Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) and Bundled Payments, both models are considered APMs under MACRA and are likely going to gain increasing attention in the coming years.

SUMMARY

APMs will likely become more relevant to urologists' practices in the future, as both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and private payers are transitioning away from fee-for-service towards value-based payment.

Healthcare policy and urologic practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Healthcare policy is currently a topic of national debate, with numerous implications for the practice of urology.

RECENT FINDINGS

Healthcare policy has broad reaching effects, both predicted and unforeseen. The effects of healthcare policy are manifested through clinical practice guidelines, payment reform and the overall structure of the healthcare system. This review describes each of these topics and their impact on clinical practice, with a specific focus on urology and urologic practice.

SUMMARY

Guidelines are useful for guiding and determining what is considered appropriate clinical practice, but there are drawbacks including poor implementation and overabundance. Payment reform is constantly evolving, with multiple efforts being implemented to move away from a fee-for-service model of reimbursement. The structure of healthcare delivery is moving toward more outpatient procedures, with varying amount of physician ownership of facilities and equipment, which is itself a controversial topic.