Practice-Level Adoption of Conservative Management for Prostate Cancer

Urologist practice divestment from radiation vault ownership and treatment patterns for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Urologists practicing in single-specialty groups with ownership in radiation vaults are more likely to treat men with prostate cancer. The effect of divestment of vault ownership on treatment patterns is unclear.

METHODS

A 20% sample of national Medicare claims was used to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2019. Urology practices were categorized by radiation vault ownership as nonowners, continuous owners, and divested owners. The primary outcome was use of local treatment, and the secondary outcome was use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). A difference-in-differences framework was used to measure the effect of divestment on outcomes compared to continuous owners. Subgroup analyses assessed outcomes by noncancer mortality risk (high [>50%] vs. low [≤50%]).

RESULTS

Among 72 urology practices that owned radiation vaults, six divested during the study. Divestment led to a decrease in treatment compared with those managed at continuously owning practices (difference-in-differences estimate, -13%; p = .03). The use of IMRT decreased, but this was not statistically significant (difference-in-differences estimate, -10%; p = .13). In men with a high noncancer mortality risk, treatment (difference-in-differences estimate, -28%; p < .001) and use of IMRT (difference-in-differences estimate, -27%; p < .001) decreased after divestment.

CONCLUSIONS

Urology group divestment from radiation vault ownership led to a decrease in prostate cancer treatment. This decrease was most pronounced in men who had a high noncancer mortality risk. This has important implications for health care reform by suggesting that payment programs that encourage constraints on utilization, when appropriate, may be effective in reducing overtreatment.

Value-based payment models and management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of urologist participation in value-based payment models on the initial management of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

METHODS

Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2017 and 2019, with 1 year of follow-up, were assigned to their primary urologist, each of whom was then aligned to a value-based payment model (the merit-based incentive payment system [MIPS], accountable care organization [ACO] without financial risk, and ACO with risk). Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression was used to measure the association between payment model participation and treatment of prostate cancer. Additional models estimated the effects of payment model participation on use of treatment in men with very high risk (i.e., >75%) of non-cancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis (i.e., a group of men for whom treatment is generally not recommended) and price-standardized prostate cancer spending in the 12 months after diagnosis.

RESULTS

Treatment did not vary by payment model, both overall (MIPS-67% [95% CI 66%-68%], ACOs without risk-66% [95% CI 66%-68%], ACOs with risk-66% [95% CI 64%-68%]). Similarly, treatment did not vary among men with very high risk of non-cancer mortality by payment model (MIPS-52% [95% CI 50%-55%], ACOs without risk-52% [95% CI 50%-55%], ACOs with risk-51% [95% CI 45%-56%]). Adjusted spending was similar across payment models (MIPS-$16,501 [95% CI $16,222-$16,780], ACOs without risk-$16,140 [95% CI $15,852-$16,429], ACOs with risk-$16,117 [95% CI $15,585-$16,649]).

CONCLUSIONS

How urologists participate in value-based payment models is not associated with treatment, potential overtreatment, and prostate cancer spending in men with newly diagnosed disease.

Health care delivery system contributions to management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Despite clinical guidelines advocating for use of conservative management in specific clinical scenarios for men with prostate cancer, there continues to be tremendous variation in its uptake. This variation may be amplified among men with competing health risks, for whom treatment decisions are not straightforward. The degree to which characteristics of the health care delivery system explain this variation remains unclear.

METHODS

Using national Medicare data, men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer between 2014 and 2019 were identified. Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to assess the association between use of treatment and health care delivery system determinants operating at the practice level, which included measures of financial incentives (i.e., radiation vault ownership), practice organization (i.e., single specialty vs. multispecialty groups), and the health care market (i.e., competition). Variance was partitioned to estimate the relative influence of patient and practice characteristics on the variation in use of treatment within strata of noncancer mortality risk groups.

RESULTS

Among 62,507 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, the largest variation in the use of treatment between practices was observed for men with high and very high-risk of noncancer mortality (range of practice-level rates of treatment for high: 57%-71% and very high: 41%-61%). Addition of health care delivery system determinants measured at the practice level explained 13% and 15% of the variation in use of treatment among men with low and intermediate risk of noncancer mortality in 10 years, respectively. Conversely, these characteristics explained a larger share of the variation in use of treatment among men with high and very high-risk of noncancer mortality (26% and 40%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Variation among urology practices in use of treatment was highest for men with high and very high-risk noncancer mortality. Practice characteristics explained a large share of this variation.

In-office dispensing of oral targeted agents by urology practices in men with advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Management of men with advanced prostate cancer has evolved to include urologists, made possible by oral targeted agents (eg, abiraterone or enzalutamide) that can be dispensed directly to patients in the office. We sought to investigate whether this increasingly common model improves access to these agents, especially for Black men who are historically undertreated.

METHODS

We used 20% national Medicare data to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with advanced prostate cancer from 2011 through 2019, managed by urology practices with and without in-office dispensing. Using a difference-in-difference framework, generalized estimating equations were used to measure the effect of in-office dispensing on prescriptions for abiraterone and/or enzalutamide, adjusting for differences between patients, including race.

RESULTS

New prescription fills for oral targeted agents increased after the adoption of in-office dispensing (+4.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.4% to 5.4%) relative to that for men managed by practices without dispensing (+2.4%, 95% CI = 1.4% to 3.4%). The increase in the postintervention period (difference-in-difference estimate) was 2% higher (95% CI = 0.6% to 3.4%) for men managed by practices adopting dispensing relative to men managed by practices without dispensing. The effect was strongest for practices adopting dispensing in 2015 (difference-in-difference estimate: +4.2%, 95% CI = 2.3% to 6.2%). The effect of dispensing adoption did not differ by race.

CONCLUSION

Adoption of in-office dispensing by urology practices increased prescription fills for oral targeted agents in men with advanced prostate cancer. This model of delivery may improve access to this important class of medications.

Practice Competition and Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of urology practice market competition on use of treatment in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective national cohort study of 48,067 Medicare beneficiaries with newly diagnosed prostate cancer between 2014 and 2018. The primary exposure was urology practice-level market competition. Markets were established by the flow of patients to a practice using a variable radius approach. Practice level competition was measured annually using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. The primary outcome was use of treatment for prostate cancer (ie, surgery, radiation, or cryotherapy) stratified by 10-year risk of noncancer mortality.

RESULTS

Between 2014 and 2018, there was a decrease in the total percent of urologists practicing in small single-specialty groups (49%-41%) with an increase in multispecialty practices (38%-47%). After adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, a lower percentage of men underwent treatment in practices with low competition relative to those managed in practices with high competition (70% vs 67.0%, P < .001). Among men with the highest risk of noncancer mortality, those managed in practices in the least competitive markets were less likely to receive treatment relative to men managed by practices in the most competitive markets (48% vs 60%, P-value<.001).

CONCLUSION

Reduction in competition between urology practices is not associated with greater use of treatment in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, particularly in those with a high risk of noncancer mortality.

Understanding the Role of Urology Practice Organization and Racial Composition in Prostate Cancer Treatment Disparities

PURPOSE

Black men have a higher risk of prostate cancer diagnosis and mortality but are less likely to receive definitive treatment. The impact of structural aspects on treatment is unknown but may lead to actionable insights to mitigate disparities. We sought to examine the associations between urology practice organization and racial composition and treatment patterns for Medicare beneficiaries with incident prostate cancer.

METHODS

Using a 20% sample of national Medicare data, we identified beneficiaries diagnosed with prostate cancer between January 2010 and December 2015 and followed them through 2016. We linked urologists to their practices with tax identification numbers. We then linked patients to practices on the basis of their primary urologist. We grouped practices into quartiles on the basis of their proportion of Black patients. We used multilevel mixed-effects models to identify treatment associations.

RESULTS

We identified 54,443 patients with incident prostate cancer associated with 4,194 practices. Most patients were White (87%), and 9% were Black. We found wide variation in racial practice composition and practice segregation. Patients in practices with the highest proportion of Black patients had the lowest socioeconomic status (43.1%), highest comorbidity (9.9% with comorbidity score ≥ 3), and earlier age at prostate cancer diagnosis (33.5% age 66-69 years; P < .01). Black patients had lower odds of definitive therapy (adjusted odds ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.93) and underwent less treatment than White patients in every practice context. Black patients in practices with higher proportions of Black patients had higher treatment rates than Black patients in practices with lower proportions. Black patients had lower predicted probability of treatment (66%) than White patients (69%; P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Despite Medicare coverage, we found less definitive treatment among Black beneficiaries consistent with ongoing prostate cancer treatment disparities. Our findings are reflective of the adverse effects of practice segregation and structural racism, highlighting the need for multilevel interventions.

Differential adoption of castration-resistant prostate cancer treatment across facilities in a national healthcare system

BACKGROUND

Over the past decade, abiraterone and enzalutamide have largely replaced ketoconazole as oral treatments for castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). We investigated the differential adoption of abiraterone and enzalutamide across facilities in a national healthcare system to understand the impact a facility has on the receipt of these novel therapies.

METHODS

Using data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse, we identified a cohort of men with CRPC who received the most common first-line therapies: abiraterone, enzalutamide, docetaxel, or ketoconazole between 2010 and 2017. We described variability in the adoption of abiraterone and enzalutamide across facilities by time period (2010-2013 or 2014-2017). We categorized facilities depending on the timing of adoption of abiraterone and enzalutamide relative to other facilities and described facility characteristics associated with early and late adoption.

RESULTS

We identified 4998 men treated with ketoconazole, docetaxel, abiraterone, or enzalutamide as first-line CRPC therapy between 2010 and 2017 at 125 national facilities. When limiting the cohort to oral therapies, most patients treated earlier in the study period (2010-2013) received ketoconazole. A dramatic shift was seen by the second half of the study period (2014-2017) with most men treated with first-line abiraterone (61%). Despite this shift and a new standard of care, some facilities persisted in the widespread use of ketoconazole in the later period, so-called late adopting facilities. After multivariable adjustment, patients who received treatment at a late adopting facility were more likely receiving care at a lower complexity, rural facility, with less urology and hematology/oncology workforce (all p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Many facilities persisted in their use of ketoconazole as first-line CRPC therapy, even when other facilities had adopted the new standard of care abiraterone and enzalutamide. Further work is needed to identify the effect of this late adoption on outcomes important to patients.

Implications of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System for Urology Practices

OBJECTIVE

To determine the implications of the merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS) for urology practices. MIPS is a Medicare payment model that determines whether a physician is financially penalized or receives bonus payment based on performance in four categories: quality, practice improvement, promotion of interoperability, and spending.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of urologist performance in MIPS for 2017 and 2019 using Medicare data. Urologist practice organization was categorized as single-specialty (small, medium, large) or multispecialty groups. MIPS scores were estimated by practice organization. Logistic regression models were used to examine the association between urology practice characteristics, including proportion of dual eligible beneficiaries, and bonus payment adjustment as defined by Medicare methodology. Rates of consolidation (movement from smaller to larger practices) between 2017 and 2019 were compared between those who were and those who were not penalized in 2017.

RESULTS

Urologists in small practices performed worse in MIPS and had a significantly lower adjusted odds ratio of receiving bonus payments in both 2017 and 2019 compared to larger group practices (odds ratio [OR] 0.04, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.03-0.05 in 2017 and OR 0.37, 95%CI 0.30-0.47 in 2019). Increasing percent of dual eligible beneficiaries within a patient panel was associated with decreased odds of receiving bonus payment in both performance years. Urologists penalized in 2017 had higher rates of consolidation by 2019 compared to those who were not (14% vs 5%, P <.05).

CONCLUSION

Small urology practices and those caring for a higher proportion of dual eligible beneficiaries tended to perform worse in MIPS.

The Influence of Practice Structure on Urologists' Treatment of Men With Low-Risk Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Vertical and horizontal integration among health care providers has transformed the practice arrangements under which many physicians work.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the influence of type of practice structure, and by implication the financial incentives associated with each structure, on treatment received among men newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We compiled a unique database from cancer registry records from 4 large states, Medicare enrollment and claims for the years 2005-2014 and SK & A physician surveys corroborated by extensive internet searches. We estimated a multinomial logit model to examine the influence of urologist practice structure on type of initial treatment received.

RESULTS

The probability of being monitored with active surveillance was 7.4% and 4.2% points higher for men treated by health system and nonhealth system employed urologists ( P <0.01), respectively, in comparison to men treated by single specialty urology practices. Among multispecialty practices, the rate of active surveillance use was 3% points higher compared with single specialty urology practices( P <0.01). Use of intensity modulated radiation therapy among urologists with ownership in intensity modulated radiation therapy was 17.4% points higher compared with urologists working in small single specialty practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician practice structure attributes are significantly associated with type of treatment received but few studies control for such factors. Our findings-coupled with the observation that urologist practice structure shifted substantially over this time period due to mergers of small urology groups-provide one explanation for the limited uptake of active surveillance among men with low-risk disease in the US.

Impact of Advanced Practice Provider Integration into Multispecialty Group Practices on Outcomes Following Major Surgery

Background. While advanced practice providers (APPs) are increasingly integrated into care delivery models, little is known about their impact in surgical settings. Given that many patients undergo surgery in multispecialty group practice settings, we examined the impact of APP integration into such practices on outcomes after major surgery. Methods. We used a 20% sample of national Medicare claims to identify 190 101 patients who underwent 1 of 4 major surgeries (coronary artery bypass graft [CABG], colectomy, major joint replacement, and cystectomy) at multispecialty group practices from 2010 through 2016. The level of APP integration was measured as the ratio of APPs to physicians within each practice. Rates of mortality, major complications, and readmission within 30 days of discharge after the index surgery were compared between patients treated in practices with low, medium, and high levels of APP integration using multivariable regression analysis. Results. Relative to patients treated in practices with low APP integration, those treated in practices with medium or high APP integration had significantly lower rates of mortality (2.4% [low integration] vs 1.9% [medium integration] vs 2.0% [high integration]; P < .01), major complications (34.1% [low] vs 31.2% [medium] vs 30.2% [high]; P < .01), and readmission (11.7% [low] vs 10.6% [medium] vs 10.1% [high]; P < .01). This relationship was consistent for virtually all outcomes when considering each surgery type individually. Conclusions. Integration of APPs into multispecialty group practices was associated with improved postoperative outcomes after major surgery. Future research should identify the mechanisms by which APPs improve outcomes to inform optimal utilization.

Urology Workforce Changes and Implications for Prostate Cancer Care Among Medicare Enrollees

OBJECTIVE

To characterize national trends in urologist workforce, practice organization, and management of incident prostate cancer.

METHODS

Using Medicare claims data from 2010 to 2016, we identified all urologists billing Medicare and the practice with which they were affiliated. We characterized groups as solo, small single specialty, large single specialty, multispecialty, specialist, or hospital-owned practices. Using a 20% sample of national Medicare claims, we identified all patients with incident prostate cancer and identified their primary treatment.

RESULTS

The number of urologists increased from 9,305 in 2010 to 9,570 in 2016 (P = .03), while the number of practices decreased from 3,588 to 2,861 (P < .001). The proportion of urologists in multispecialty groups increased from 17.1% in 2010 to 28.2% in 2016, while those within solo practices declined from 26.2% to only 15.8% over the same time period. A higher proportion of patients at hospital-owned practices were treated with observation (P < .001) and surgery (P < .001), while a higher proportion of patients at large single specialty practices were treated with radiation therapy (P < .001).

CONCLUSION

We characterized shifts in urologist membership from smaller, independent groups to larger, multispecialty or hospital-owned practices. This trend coincides with higher utilization of observation and surgical treatment for prostate cancer.