Cancer medicine · 2025
Spillover Effects of Medicare Advantage on Traditional Medicare Beneficiaries With Prostate Cancer.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Srivastava Arnav, Kaufman Samuel R, Liu Xiu, Maganty Avinash, Shay Addison, Oerline Mary, Dall Christopher, Faraj Kassem S, Guro Paula, Hill Dawson, Nguyen Thuy, Herrel Lindsey A, Hollenbeck Brent K, Shahinian Vahakn B
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Medicare Advantage (MA) managed care plans, now chosen by 51% of Medicare beneficiaries, are incentivized to constrain healthcare spending and utilization, a shift in financial incentives compared to Traditional Medicare's fee-for-service payment model. Beyond its primary beneficiaries, MA's mechanisms to constrain utilization may impact Traditional Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer through "spillover" effects on physician behavior.
METHODS: From a 20% sample of Medicare claims, we identified patients diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2016 to 2019. We calculated MA penetration [MA beneficiaries/(Traditional Medicare and MA beneficiaries)] at the practice-level. We assessed the relationship between practice-level MA penetration and two measures of quality-potential overtreatment (i.e., treatment among those with > 75% noncancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis) and confirmatory testing (repeat prostate biopsy, MRI, or genomic test)-using a multilevel logistic regression. We also assessed two measures of utilization, price standardized spending (i.e., global utilization) and overall treatment.
RESULTS: We identified 41,092 patients. Median practice-level MA penetration was 33% (IQR 23%-43%). Increasing practice-level MA penetration was associated with increased odds of overall treatment among all Traditional Medicare beneficiaries (adjusted OR 1.03 (95% CI 1.01-1.05), p = 0.01, per 10% increase in MA penetration). However, MA penetration was not associated with our quality measures, potential overtreatment and confirmatory testing, or price-standardized spending.
CONCLUSIONS: MA penetration at the urology practice-level varies considerably. In men with prostate cancer, greater practice-level MA penetration was associated with increased odds of treatment, but not overall utilization-even where it might influence quality.
METHODS: From a 20% sample of Medicare claims, we identified patients diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2016 to 2019. We calculated MA penetration [MA beneficiaries/(Traditional Medicare and MA beneficiaries)] at the practice-level. We assessed the relationship between practice-level MA penetration and two measures of quality-potential overtreatment (i.e., treatment among those with > 75% noncancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis) and confirmatory testing (repeat prostate biopsy, MRI, or genomic test)-using a multilevel logistic regression. We also assessed two measures of utilization, price standardized spending (i.e., global utilization) and overall treatment.
RESULTS: We identified 41,092 patients. Median practice-level MA penetration was 33% (IQR 23%-43%). Increasing practice-level MA penetration was associated with increased odds of overall treatment among all Traditional Medicare beneficiaries (adjusted OR 1.03 (95% CI 1.01-1.05), p = 0.01, per 10% increase in MA penetration). However, MA penetration was not associated with our quality measures, potential overtreatment and confirmatory testing, or price-standardized spending.
CONCLUSIONS: MA penetration at the urology practice-level varies considerably. In men with prostate cancer, greater practice-level MA penetration was associated with increased odds of treatment, but not overall utilization-even where it might influence quality.