Dataset Information

Comparison of the use of the top-ranked cancer hospitals between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare the use of top-ranked cancer hospitals for complex cancer surgery between Medicare Advantage (MA) and traditional Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) enrollees.

Study design

Cross-sectional analysis of Medicare claims and enrollment data.

Methods

The study used Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files to compare differences in use of top-ranked cancer hospitals for complex cancer surgery (lobectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, colectomy, and the Whipple procedure [pancreaticoduodenectomy]) between MA and FFS enrollees 65 years and older who underwent the surgery in 2015 to 2017.

Results

After adjusting for demographic characteristics and county fixed effects, MA enrollees were less likely to use top-ranked cancer hospitals than FFS enrollees by 6.0 percentage points (95% CI, 4.7-7.2) overall; the difference varied from 3.5 percentage points (95% CI, 2.5-4.6) for colectomy to 14.3 percentage points (95% CI, 10.9-17.8) for the Whipple procedure. The difference in cancer surgery rate at a top-ranked cancer hospital between MA and FFS enrollees was larger for MA plans without out-of-network (OON) benefits (-7.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -9.1 to -5.9) than for MA plans with OON benefits (-2.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.9 to -1.7).

Conclusions

MA enrollees were less likely to use top-ranked cancer hospitals for complex cancer surgery than FFS enrollees. This difference was larger for MA plans with more restrictive OON policies. These findings suggest that MA enrollees, particularly those with lower OON benefits, may have restricted access to top-ranked hospitals for cancer care compared with FFS enrollees.

SUBMITTER: Kim D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8979370 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of the use of the top-ranked cancer hospitals between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare.

Kim Daeho D Meyers David J DJ Rahman Momotazur M Trivedi Amal N AN

The American journal of managed care 20211001 10

<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare the use of top-ranked cancer hospitals for complex cancer surgery between Medicare Advantage (MA) and traditional Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) enrollees.<h4>Study design</h4>Cross-sectional analysis of Medicare claims and enrollment data.<h4>Methods</h4>The study used Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files to compare differences in use of top-ranked cancer hospitals for complex cancer surgery (lobectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, colectomy, and the Whipple ...[more]

PMID: 34668678

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHospital networks formed around top-ranked cancer hospitals represent an opportunity to optimize complex cancer care in the community.ObjectiveTo compare the short- and long-term survival after complex cancer treatment at top-ranked cancer hospitals and the affiliates of top-ranked hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study was conducted using data from the unabridged version of the National Cancer Database. Included patients were individuals 18 years or older who underwent surgical treatment for esophageal, gastric, lung, pancreatic, colorectal, or bladder cancer diagnosed between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2016. Patient outcomes after complex surgical procedures for cancer at top-ranked cancer hospitals (as ranked in top 50 by US News and World Report) were compared with outcomes at affiliates of top-ranked cancer hospitals (affiliation listed in American Hospitals Association survey and confirmed by search of internet presence). Data were analyzed from July through December 2019.ExposuresUndergoing complex cancer treatment at a top-ranked cancer hospital or an affiliated hospital.Main outcomes and measuresThe association of affiliate status with short-term survival (ie, 90-day mortality) was compared using logistic regression, and the association of affiliate status with long-term survival was compared using time-to-event models, adjusting for patient demographic, payer, clinical, and treatment factors.ResultsAmong 119 834 patients who underwent surgical treatment for cancer, 79 981 patients (66.7%) were treated at top-ranked cancer hospitals (median [interquartile range] age, 66 [58-74] years; 40 910 [54.9%] men) and 39 853 patients (33.3%) were treated at affiliate hospitals (median [interquartile range] age, 69 [60-77] years; 19 004 [50.0%] men). In a pooled analysis of all cancer types, adjusted perioperative mortality within 90 days of surgical treatment was higher at affiliate hospitals compared with top-ranked hospitals (odds ratio, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.49-1.89]; P < .001). Adjusted long-term survival following cancer treatment at affiliate hospitals was only 77% that of top-ranked hospitals (time ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.72-0.83]; P < .001). The survival advantage was not fully explained by differences in annual surgical volume, with both long- and short-term survival remaining superior at top-ranked hospitals even after models were adjusted for volume.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that short- and long-term survival after complex cancer treatment were superior at top-ranked hospitals compared with affiliates of top-ranked hospitals. Further study of cancer care within top-ranked cancer networks could reveal collaborative opportunities to improve survival across a broad contingent of the US population.

Project description:Importance:In the Medicare Advantage (MA) program, Medicare enrollees may be steered by their health plan to specific hospitals. Little is known about the quality of hospitals that serve MA enrollees. Objective:To compare the quality of hospitals that admit MA enrollees with the quality of those that admit traditional Medicare enrollees. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study used data from the 2012 to 2016 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review to compare quality of care, as measured by the star rating given by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and readmission rates, in hospitals that serve MA enrollees and traditional Medicare enrollees using multinomial logit models. Participants were 7 130 610 Medicare beneficiaries admitted to 2994 acute care hospitals across the United States in 2016. Data were analyzed between August 2018 and August 2019. Exposures:The exposure was MA enrollment. Adjusters included demographic and clinical characteristics and zip code fixed effects. Main Outcomes and Measures:Hospital Compare star ratings and quintiles of performance in 30-day readmission rates. Results:The sample included 7 130 610 Medicare beneficiaries in 2016 (54.3% female; mean [SD] age, 72.7 [13.2] years). Of 12 190 270 total hospitalizations, 1 211 293 traditional Medicare and 494 352 MA patients were admitted to 718 low-readmission hospitals and 1 205 586 traditional Medicare and 526 955 MA patients were admitted to 597 high-readmission hospitals. Accounting for observed patient characteristics, MA enrollees less often entered either low- or high-quality hospitals and were more often admitted to average-quality hospitals. For nonemergent hospitalizations, MA enrollees were 1.9 percentage points (95% CI, 1.5-2.2 percentage points) less likely to enter a low-readmissions hospital, 5.1 percentage points (95% CI, 4.6-5.6 percentage points) more likely to enter an average-readmissions hospital, and 3.2 percentage points (95% CI, 2.9-3.5 percentage points) less likely to enter a high-readmissions hospital compared with traditional Medicare enrollees. Patients with MA were also 2.6 percentage points (95% CI, 2.2-2.9 percentage points) less likely to enter a 1- to 2-star hospital, 5.5 percentage points (95% CI, 4.9-5.9 percentage points) more likely to enter a 3-star hospital, and 2.8 percentage points (95% CI, 2.5-3.2 percentage points) less likely to enter a 4- to 5-star hospital compared with traditional Medicare enrollees. The differences were less pronounced for emergency admissions. Conclusions and Relevance:This study found that enrollees in MA plans were more likely to be admitted to average-quality hospitals instead of either high- or low-quality hospitals, suggesting that MA plans may be steering their enrollees to specific hospitals.

Project description:ImportanceOlder adults in Medicare Advantage (MA) enroll in hospice at higher rates than those in traditional Medicare (TM), but it is unclear whether the pathway of care prior to hospice use differs between MA and TM.ObjectiveTo examine the site of care prior to hospice enrollment for MA beneficiaries compared with those in TM.Design, setting, and participantsThis population-based, retrospective cross-sectional study used Medicare claims data for decedents in calendar years 2011, 2013, 2016, and 2018 who enrolled in hospice in the last 90 days of life. Data were analyzed from February 11, 2022, to October 24, 2022.ExposuresEnrollment in MA or TM in the last month of life.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was the site of care prior to hospice enrollment, defined as hospital, nursing home, and home with or without home health, dichotomized as community vs hospital in a logistic regression model. Covariates included decedent demographics, hospice primary diagnosis, and county-level MA penetration. Differences in hospice length of stay between MA beneficiaries and TM beneficiaries were assessed using linear and logistic regression models.ResultsIn this study of 3 164 959 decedents, mean (SD) age was 83.1 (8.6) years, 55.8% were female, and 28.8% were enrolled in MA. Decedents in MA were more likely to enroll in hospice from a community setting than were those in TM, although the gap narrowed over time from an unadjusted 11.1% higher rate of community enrollment in MA vs TM in 2011 (50.1% vs 39.0%) to 8.1% in 2018 (46.4% vs 38.3%). In the primary adjusted analysis over the entire study period, MA enrollment was associated with an 8.09-percentage point (95% CI, 7.96-8.21 percentage points) higher rate of hospice enrollment from the community vs all other sites. This association remained in multiple sensitivity analyses to account for potential differences in the populations enrolled in MA vs TM. The mean overall hospice length of stay was 0.29 days (95% CI, 0.24-0.34 days) longer for MA decedents compared with TM decedents.Conclusions and relevanceCompared with TM beneficiaries, those in MA were more likely to enroll in hospice from community settings vs following inpatient stays. However, hospice length of stay was not substantially different between MA and TM. Further research is needed to understand how MA plans influence hospice use and the direct association with quality of end-of-life care as reported by older adults and their families.

Project description:ImportanceLeading cancer hospitals have increasingly shared their brands with other hospitals through growing networks of affiliations. However, the brand of top-ranked cancer hospitals may evoke distinct reputations for safety and quality that do not extend to all hospitals within these networks.ObjectiveTo assess perioperative mortality of Medicare beneficiaries after complex cancer surgery across hospitals participating in networks with top-ranked cancer hospitals.Design, setting, and participantsA cross-sectional study was performed of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 100% Medicare Provider and Analysis Review file from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2016, for top-ranked cancer hospitals (as assessed by U.S. News and World Report) and affiliated hospitals that share their brand. Participants were 29 228 Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 years who underwent complex cancer surgery (lobectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, colectomy, and pancreaticoduodenectomy [Whipple procedure]) between January 1, 2013, and October 1, 2016.ExposuresUndergoing complex cancer surgery at a top-ranked cancer hospital vs an affiliated hospital.Main outcomes and measuresRisk-adjusted 90-day mortality estimated using hierarchical logistic regression and comparison of the relative safety of hospitals within each cancer network estimated using standardized mortality ratios.ResultsA total of 17 300 patients (59.2%; 8612 women and 8688 men; mean [SD] age, 74.7 [6.2] years) underwent complex cancer surgery at 59 top-ranked hospitals and 11 928 patients (40.8%; 6287 women and 5641 men; mean [SD] age, 76.2 [6.9] years) underwent complex cancer surgery at 343 affiliated hospitals. Overall, surgery performed at affiliated hospitals was associated with higher 90-day mortality (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.23-1.59; P < .001), with odds ratios that ranged from 1.32 (95% CI, 1.12-1.56; P = .001) for colectomy to 2.04 (95% CI, 1.41-2.95; P < .001) for gastrectomy. When the relative safety of each top-ranked cancer hospital was compared with its collective affiliates, the top-ranked hospital was safer than the affiliates in 41 of 49 studied networks (83.7%; 95% CI, 73.1%-93.3%).Conclusions and relevanceThe likelihood of surviving complex cancer surgery appears to be greater at top-ranked cancer hospitals compared with the affiliated hospitals that share their brand. Further investigation of performance across trusted cancer networks could enhance informed decision making for complex cancer care.

Dataset Information

Comparison of the use of the top-ranked cancer hospitals between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare.

Objectives

Study design

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparison of the use of the top-ranked cancer hospitals between Medicare Advantage and traditional Medicare.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets