Impact of urologists' ownership of radiation equipment in the treatment of prostate cancer

Surgeon, and Institution Characteristics Associated Surgical Preferences in the Pediatric KIDney Stone Care Improvement Network

OBJECTIVE

To reveal barriers and opportunities to implement evidence for the management of pediatric kidney stone disease, we determined surgeon and institutional factors associated with preferences for the type of surgical intervention for kidney and ureteral stones.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study of urologists participating in the Pediatric KIDney Stone Care Improvement Network (PKIDS) trial. Questionnaires ascertained strengths of urologists' preferences for types of surgery as well as characteristics of participating urologists and institutions. The outcome was the strength of preferences for ureteroscopy, shockwave lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for four scenarios for which two alternative procedures are recommended by the AUA guidelines: (1) 2 cm kidney stone, (2) 9 mm proximal ureteral stone, (3) 1.5 cm lower pole kidney stone, (4) 1 cm nonlower pole kidney stone. Principal component analysis was performed to identify unique clusters of factors that explain surgical preferences.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-eight urologists at 29 sites completed surveys. Stated preferences were highly skewed except for the choice between ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for a 1.5 cm kidney stone. Shockwave lithotripsy ownership and local practice patterns most frequently associated with the strength of surgeons' preferences for the type of surgery. Principal component analysis revealed that three clusters of stone, patient, and heterogenous characteristics explained 30% of the variance in preferences.

CONCLUSION

There is wide variation in the strengths of preferences for surgical interventions supported by current guidelines that are partially explained by surgeon and institutional characteristics. These results reveal opportunities to develop strategies for guidelines that consider real-world drivers of care.

Association Between Reimbursement Incentives and Physician Practice in Oncology: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Significant controversy exists regarding whether physicians factor personal financial considerations into their clinical decision making. Within oncology, several reimbursement policies may incentivize physicians to increase health care use.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the financial incentives presented by oncology reimbursement policies affect physician practice patterns.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Studies evaluating an association between reimbursement incentives and changes in reimbursement policy on oncology care delivery were reviewed. Articles were identified systematically by searching PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Proquest Health Management, Econlit, and Business Source Premier. English-language articles focused on the US health care system that made empirical estimates of the association between a measurement of physician reimbursement/compensation and a measurement of delivery of cancer treatment services were included. The Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool was used to assess risk of bias. There were no date restrictions on the publications, and literature searches were finalized on February 14, 2018.

FINDINGS

Eighteen studies were included. All were observational cohort studies, and most had a moderate risk of bias. Heterogeneity of reimbursement policies and outcomes precluded meta-analysis; therefore, a qualitative synthesis was performed. Most studies (15 of 18 [83%]) reported an association between reimbursement and care delivery consistent with physician responsiveness to financial incentives, although such an association was not identified in all studies. Findings consistently suggested that self-referral arrangements may increase use of radiotherapy and that profitability of systemic anticancer agents may affect physicians' choice of drug. Findings were less conclusive as to whether profitability of systemic anticancer therapy affects the decision of whether to use any systemic therapy.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

To date, this study is the first systematic review of reimbursement policy and clinical care delivery in oncology. The findings suggest that some oncologists may, in certain circumstances, alter treatment recommendations based on personal revenue considerations. An implication of this finding is that value-based reimbursement policies may be a useful tool to better align physician incentives with patient need and increase the value of oncology care.