Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024
Quality of Treatment Selection for Medicare Beneficiaries With Cancer.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Mitchell Aaron P, Persaud Sonia, Mishra Meza Akriti, Fuchs Hannah E, De Prabal, Tabatabai Sara, Chakraborty Nirjhar, Dey Pranam, Trivedi Niti U, Mailankody Sham, Blinder Victoria, Green Angela, Epstein Andrew S, Daly Bobby, Roeker Lindsey, Bach Peter B, Gönen Mithat
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The Medicare part D Low-Income Subsidy (LIS) improves access to oral cancer drugs, but provides no assistance for clinician-administered/part B drugs. This analysis assessed the association between LIS participation and receipt of optimal cancer treatment.
METHODS: We investigated initial systemic therapy using SEER-Medicare data (2015-2017) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Evidence Blocks (EB) as the standard for treatment recommendations. We included cancer clinical scenarios wherein (1) ≥one treatment was optimal (higher efficacy and safety scores) versus other treatments; (2) identifiable in SEER-Medicare (eg, not defined by clinical data unavailable in registry data or claims); and (3) both EB and ASCO Value Framework agreed regarding optimal treatment. We fit logistic regression models to assess the association between receipt of systemic therapy (v no therapy) and patient and provider characteristics. Contingent on receipt of treatment, we modeled the likelihood of receiving a treatment ranked (by EB scores) within the highest or lowest quartile for that cancer type.
RESULTS: Nine thousand two hundred and ninety patients were included across 11 clinical scenarios. Fifty-seven percent (5,336) of patients received any systemic therapy and 43% (3,954) received no systemic therapy. Compared with non-LIS participants, LIS participants were less likely to receive any systemic therapy versus no systemic therapy (odds ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.72]). Contingent on receiving systemic therapy, LIS participants received treatment ranked within the worst quartile 24.8% of the time, compared with 21.9% of non-LIS patients (adjusted prevalence difference, 4.3% [95% CI, 0.5 to 8.2]).
CONCLUSION: LIS participants were less likely to receive systemic therapy at all and were more likely to receive treatments that receive low NCCN EB scores.
METHODS: We investigated initial systemic therapy using SEER-Medicare data (2015-2017) and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Evidence Blocks (EB) as the standard for treatment recommendations. We included cancer clinical scenarios wherein (1) ≥one treatment was optimal (higher efficacy and safety scores) versus other treatments; (2) identifiable in SEER-Medicare (eg, not defined by clinical data unavailable in registry data or claims); and (3) both EB and ASCO Value Framework agreed regarding optimal treatment. We fit logistic regression models to assess the association between receipt of systemic therapy (v no therapy) and patient and provider characteristics. Contingent on receipt of treatment, we modeled the likelihood of receiving a treatment ranked (by EB scores) within the highest or lowest quartile for that cancer type.
RESULTS: Nine thousand two hundred and ninety patients were included across 11 clinical scenarios. Fifty-seven percent (5,336) of patients received any systemic therapy and 43% (3,954) received no systemic therapy. Compared with non-LIS participants, LIS participants were less likely to receive any systemic therapy versus no systemic therapy (odds ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.72]). Contingent on receiving systemic therapy, LIS participants received treatment ranked within the worst quartile 24.8% of the time, compared with 21.9% of non-LIS patients (adjusted prevalence difference, 4.3% [95% CI, 0.5 to 8.2]).
CONCLUSION: LIS participants were less likely to receive systemic therapy at all and were more likely to receive treatments that receive low NCCN EB scores.