Purpose

In 2002, pegfilgrastim was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration and the benefits of dose-dense breast cancer chemotherapy, especially for hormone receptor (HR) –negative tumors, were reported. We examined first-cycle colony-stimulating factor use (FC-CSF) before and after 2002 and estimated US expenditures for dose-dense chemotherapy.

Methods

We identified patients in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare greater than 65 years old with stages I to III breast cancer who had greater than one chemotherapy claim within 6 months of diagnosis(1998 to 2005) and classified patients with an average cycle length less than 21 days as having received dose-dense chemotherapy. The associations of patient, tumor, and physician-related factors with the receipt of any colony-stimulating factor (CSF) and FC-CSF use were analyzed by using generalized estimating equations. CSF costs were estimated for patients who were undergoing dose-dense chemotherapy.

Results

Among the 10,773 patients identified, 5,266 patients (48.9%) had a CSF claim. CSF use was stable between 1998 and 2002 and increased from 36.8% to 73.7% between 2002 and 2005, FC-CSF use increased from 13.2% to 67.9%, and pegfilgrastim use increased from 4.1% to 83.6%. In a multivariable analysis, CSF use was associated with age and chemotherapy type and negatively associated with black/Hispanic race, rural residence, and shorter chemotherapy duration. FC-CSF use was associated with high socioeconomic status but not with age or race/ethnicity. The US annual CSF expenditure for women with HR-positive tumors treated with dose-dense chemotherapy is estimated to be $38.8 million.

Conclusion

A rapid increase in FC-CSF use occurred over a short period of time, which was likely a result of the reported benefits of dose-dense chemotherapy and the ease of pegfilgrastim administration. Because of the increasing evidence that elderly HR-positive patients do not benefit from dose-dense chemotherapy, limiting pegfilgrastim use would combat the increasing costs of cancer care.

Myeloid colony-stimulating factors (CSFs) decrease the risk of febrile neutropenia (FN) from high-risk chemotherapy regimens administered to patients at 20% or greater risk of FN, but little is known about their use in clinical practice. We evaluated CSF use in a multiregional population-based cohort of lung and colorectal cancer patients (N = 1849). Only 17% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 8% to 26%) patients treated with high-risk chemotherapy regimens received CSFs, compared with 18% (95% CI = 16% to 20%) and 10% (95% CI = 8% to 12%) of patients treated with intermediate- (10%–20% risk of FN) and low-risk (<10% risk of FN) chemotherapy regimens, respectively. Using a generalized estimating equation model, we found that enrollment in a health maintenance organization (HMO) was strongly associated with a lower adjusted odds of discretionary CSF use, compared with non-HMO patients (odds ratio = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.32 to 0.60, P < .001). All statistical tests were two-sided. Overall, 96% (95% CI = 93% to 98%) of CSFs were administered in scenarios where CSF therapy is not recommended by evidence-based guidelines. This finding suggests that policies to decrease CSF use in patients at lower or intermediate risk of FN may yield substantial cost savings without compromising patient outcomes.

Providers may need help identifying patients for appropriate palliative care services earlier in their trajectory.

Purpose:

We sought to describe the documentation, frequency, and timing of discussions about patient preferences for care and to examine patterns of palliative care and hospice use among patients with advanced cancer.

Methods:

We prospectively abstracted the medical records of 118 patients receiving care at a Veterans Administration (VA) facility from diagnosis of stage IV disease to 12 months postdiagnosis or death. We used univariate statistics to describe the type and frequency of documentation of patient preferences and palliative care/hospice referral. We calculated the time from diagnosis to the first documentation of preferences and the time from first documentation to death. We compared documentation of patient preferences between decedents and nondecedents using χ2 tests.

Results:

The majority of patients (81%) had some documentation of their care preferences recorded, although decedents were significantly more likely to have had their preferences documented than nondecedents (96% v 60%; P < .000). Most (53%) patients did not have a formal advance directive documented in the medical record. The mean time from diagnosis to the first documentation of preferences was approximately 2 months. More than half of all patients (53%) and almost three-quarters of decedents (73%) had a palliative care consultation.

Conclusion:

Despite high rates of preference documentation, there remains room for improvement. Providers may need to be helped to identify patients earlier in their trajectory for appropriate palliative care services, and future work should focus on developing useful alternatives to advance directives for adequately documenting patient preferences.

Objective

To estimate patients' elasticity of demand, willingness to pay, and consumer surplus for five high-cost specialty medications treating metastatic disease or hematologic malignancies.

Data Source/Study Setting

Claims data from 71 private health plans from 1997 to 2005.

Study Design

This is a revealed preference analysis of the demand for specialty drugs among cancer patients. We exploit differences in plan generosity to examine how utilization of specialty oncology drugs varies with patient out-of-pocket costs.

Data Collection/Extraction Methods

We extracted key variables from administrative health insurance claims records.

Principal Findings

A 25 percent reduction in out-of-pocket costs leads to a 5 percent increase in the probability that a patient initiates specialty cancer drug therapy. Among patients who initiate, a 25 percent reduction in out-of-pocket costs reduces the number of treatments (claims) by 1–3 percent, depending on the drug. On average, the value of these drugs to patients who use them is about four times the total cost paid by the patient and his or her insurer, although this ratio may be lower for oral specialty therapies.

Conclusions

The decision to initiate therapy with specialty oncology drugs is responsive to price, but not highly so. Among patients who initiate therapy, the amount of treatment is equally responsive. The drugs we examine are highly valued by patients in excess of their total costs, although oral agents warrant further scrutiny as copayments increase.

Objective

Little is known about how cancer physicians communicate with limited English proficient (LEP) patients. We studied physician-reported use and availability of interpreters.

Data Sources

A 2004 survey was fielded among physicians identified by a population-based sample of breast cancer patients. Three hundred and forty-eight physicians completed mailed surveys (response rate: 77 percent) regarding the structure and organization of care.

Study Design and Settings

We used logistic regression to analyze use and availability of interpreters.

Principal Findings

Most physicians reported treating LEP patients. Among physicians using interpreters within the last 12 months, 42 percent reported using trained medical interpreters, 21 percent telephone interpreter services, and 75 percent reported using untrained interpreters to communicate with LEP patients. Only one-third of physicians reported good availability of trained medical interpreters or telephone interpreter services when needed. Compared with HMO physicians, physicians in solo practice and single-specialty medical groups were less likely to report using trained medical interpreters or telephone interpreter services, and they were less likely to report good availability of these services.

Conclusions

There were important practice setting differences predicting use and availability of trained medical interpreters and telephone interpretation services. These findings may have troubling implications for effective physician–patient communication critically needed during cancer treatment.

Purpose

Patients with more active roles in decisions are more satisfied and may have better health outcomes. Younger and better educated patients have more active roles in decisions, but whether patients' roles in decisions differ by characteristics of the decision itself is unknown.

Patients and Methods

We surveyed a large, population-based cohort of patients with recently diagnosed lung or colorectal cancer about their roles in decisions regarding surgery, radiation therapy, and/or chemotherapy. We used multinomial logistic regression to assess whether characteristics of the decision, including evidence about the treatment's benefit, whether the decision was likely preference-sensitive (palliative therapy for metastatic cancer), and treatment modality, influenced patients' roles in that decision.

Results

Of 10,939 decisions made by 5,383 patients, 38.9% were patient controlled, 43.6% were shared, and 17.5% were physician controlled. When there was good evidence to support a treatment, shared control was greatest; when evidence was uncertain, patient control was greatest; and when there was no evidence for or evidence against a treatment, physician control was greatest (overall P < .001). Decisions about treatments for metastatic cancers tended to be more physician controlled than other decisions (P < .001).

Conclusion

Patients making decisions about treatments for which no evidence supports benefit and decisions about noncurative treatments reported more physician control, which suggests that patients may not want the responsibility of deciding on treatments that will not cure them. Better strategies for shared decision making may be needed when there is no evidence to support benefit of a treatment or when patients have terminal illnesses that cannot be cured.

Purpose

To assess patients' experiences with cancer care, ratings of their quality of care, and correlates of these assessments.

Patients and Methods

For 4,093 patients with lung cancer and 3,685 patients with colorectal cancer in multiple US regions and health care delivery systems, we conducted telephone surveys of patients or their surrogates in English, Spanish, or Chinese at 4 to 7 months after diagnosis. The surveys assessed ratings of the overall quality of cancer care and experiences with three domains of interpersonal care (physician communication, nursing care, and coordination and responsiveness of care).

Results

English-speaking Asian/Pacific Islander patients and Chinese-speaking patients and those in worse health reported significantly worse adjusted experiences with all three domains of interpersonal care, whereas white, black, and Hispanic patients reported generally similar experiences with interpersonal care. The overall quality of cancer care was rated as excellent by 44.4% of patients with lung cancer and 53.0% of patients with colorectal cancer, and these ratings were most strongly correlated with positive experiences with coordination and responsiveness of care (Spearman rank coefficients of 0.49 and 0.42 for lung and colorectal cancer, respectively). After multivariate adjustment, excellent ratings were less common for each cancer among black patients, English-speaking Asian/Pacific Islander patients, Chinese-speaking patients, and patients reporting worse health status (all P ≤ .05).

Conclusion

Patients' reports and ratings of care differed significantly by race, language, and health status. Efforts to improve patients' experiences with cancer care should focus on problems affecting Asian and Pacific Islander patients and those in worse health.

Background

We describe early dissemination patterns for first-line bevacizumab given for metastatic colorectal cancer treatment.

Methods

We analyzed patient surveys and medical records for a population-based cohort with metastatic colorectal cancer treated in multiple regions and health systems in the United States (US). Eligible patients were diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer and initiated first-line chemotherapy after US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) bevacizumab approval in February 2004. First-line bevacizumab therapy was defined as receiving bevacizumab within 8 weeks of starting chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. We evaluated factors associated with first-line bevacizumab treatment using logistic regression.

Results

Among 355 patients, 31% received first-line bevacizumab in the two years after FDA approval, including 26% of men, 41% of women, and 16% of those ≥ 75 years. Use rose sharply within 6 months after FDA approval, then plateaued. 20% of patients received bevacizumab in combination with irinotecan; 53% received it with oxaliplatin. Men were less likely than women to receive bevacizumab (adjusted OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.32-0.93; p = 0.026). Patients ≥ 75 years were less likely to receive bevacizumab than patients < 55 years (adjusted OR 0.13; 95% CI 0.04-0.46; p = 0.001).

Conclusions

One-third of eligible metastatic colorectal cancer patients received first-line bevacizumab shortly after FDA approval. Most patients did not receive bevacizumab as part of the regimen used in the pivotal study leading to FDA approval.

Purpose

The objective of this study was to evaluate the quality of care provided to uninsured women with breast cancer who received treatment through the Breast and Cervical Cancer Prevention Treatment Program (BCCTP).

Methods

Participants included women with stage I to III breast cancer (n = 658) from a consecutive sample of women 18 years or older who received coverage through the California BCCTP between February 2003 and September 2005 who consented to a survey and medical record review (61% response rate). Quality of breast cancer care was evaluated using 29 evidence-based quality measures developed for the National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality (NICCQ). NICCQ, a largely insured cohort of women diagnosed with stage I to III breast cancer in 1998, was used to benchmark the results.

Results

Twenty-three percent of women presented with stage III disease compared with fewer than 10% nationally. Patients received 93% of recommended care (95% CI, 92% to 93%). Adherence to recommended care within domains ranged from 87% for post-treatment surveillance (95% CI, 84% to 90%) to 97% for diagnostic evaluation (95% CI, 96% to 97%). Compared to the NICCQ cohort, adherence to quality measures was as good or better for the BCCPT cohort in all domains except post-treatment surveillance.

Conclusion

The BCCTP has made important inroads in providing poor, uninsured women with access to high quality care when faced with the diagnosis of breast cancer; however, many present at an advanced stage, which is associated with worse outcomes.

Multidisciplinary approaches to cancer care have shown improvements in the quality of care. The tumor board treatment planning approach provides a structure for engaging providers in discussions of cancer cases that are designed to enhance the quality of care.

Background:

Coordination of care has grown in importance with the advent of new modalities of treatment that require specialized expertise. In cancer care, multidisciplinary approaches have shown improvements in quality of care. Tumor boards may provide a mechanism for improving coordination of care. We evaluated physician and practice characteristics that predict frequency of tumor board attendance.

Materials and Methods:

This cross-sectional study used data obtained by surveying physicians of a population-based sample of women with incident breast cancer. Physicians were queried regarding tumor board attendance, specialty [medical oncologist (MO), radiation oncologist (RO), surgeon at a hospital with American College of Surgeons accreditation (ACOSSg) and surgeon without such affiliation (non-ACOSSg)], physician characteristics (gender, race/ethnicity, teaching involvement, patient volume, ownership interest) and practice setting (type, size, reimbursement method). Univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analyses were performed for the dependent variable characterizing provider report of frequency of tumor board attendance.

Results:

Most surveyed physicians (83%) report attending tumor board weekly (58%) or monthly (25%). Specialty and higher patient volumes are significant predictors of more frequent attendance. Compared with the most prevalent specialty category (low-volume ACOSSgs), high-volume MOs attend more frequently (P = .01) and low volume non-ACOSSgs attend less frequently (P = .00).

Conclusions:

Tumor board provides a structure for engaging providers in discussion of cancer cases that is designed to enhance quality of care. Tumor board agendas and formalized institution-wide policies could be designed to engage low-frequency attendees as a means to improve quality measures, promote multidisciplinary care, and potentially improve health outcomes.

Context

Many terminally-ill patients enroll in hospice only in the final days before death or not at all. Discussing hospice with a provider could increase awareness of hospice and possibly result in earlier use.

Methods

We used data on 1517 patients diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer from a multi-regional study. We estimated logistic regression models for the probability that a patient discussed hospice with a physician or other health-care provider before an interview 4−7 months after diagnosis as reported by either the patient or surrogate or documented in the medical record.

Results

Half (53%) of patients had discussed hospice with a provider. Patients who were black, Hispanic, non-English speaking, married or living with a partner, Medicaid beneficiaries, or had received chemotherapy were less likely to have discussed hospice. Only 53% of individuals who died within two months after the interview had discussed hospice, and rates were lower among those who lived longer. Patients who reported that they expected to live less than two years had much higher rates of discussion than those expecting to live longer. Patients reporting the most severe pain or dyspnea were no more likely to have discussed hospice than those reporting less severe or no symptoms. A third of patients who reported discussing do-not-resuscitate (DNR) preferences with a doctor had also discussed hospice.

Conclusions

Many patients diagnosed with metastatic lung cancer had not discussed hospice with a provider within 4−7 months of diagnosis. Increased communication with physicians could address patients’ lack of awareness about hospice and misunderstandings about prognosis.

Objective

Little is known about how cancer physicians communicate with limited English proficient (LEP) patients. We studied physician-reported use and availability of interpreters.

Data Sources

A 2004 survey was fielded among physicians identified by a population-based sample of breast cancer patients. Three hundred and forty-eight physicians completed mailed surveys (response rate: 77 percent) regarding the structure and organization of care.

Study Design and Settings

We used logistic regression to analyze use and availability of interpreters.

Principal Findings

Most physicians reported treating LEP patients. Among physicians using interpreters within the last 12 months, 42 percent reported using trained medical interpreters, 21 percent telephone interpreter services, and 75 percent reported using untrained interpreters to communicate with LEP patients. Only one-third of physicians reported good availability of trained medical interpreters or telephone interpreter services when needed. Compared with HMO physicians, physicians in solo practice and single-specialty medical groups were less likely to report using trained medical interpreters or telephone interpreter services, and they were less likely to report good availability of these services.

Conclusions

There were important practice setting differences predicting use and availability of trained medical interpreters and telephone interpretation services. These findings may have troubling implications for effective physician–patient communication critically needed during cancer treatment.

Objectives

To examine the use of financial incentives related to performance on quality measures reported by oncologists and surgeons associated with a population-based cohort of patients with breast cancer in Los Angeles County, California, and to explore the physician and practice characteristics associated with the use of these incentives among breast cancer care providers.

Study Design

Cross-sectional observational study.

Methods

Physician self-reported financial arrangements from a survey of 348 medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons caring for patients with breast cancer in Los Angeles County (response rate, 76%). Physicians were asked whether they were subject to financial incentives for quality (ie, patient satisfaction surveys and adherence to practice guidelines). We examined the prevalence and correlates of incentives and performed multivariate logistic regression analyses to assess predictors of incentives, controlling for other covariates.

Results

Twenty percent of respondents reported incentives based on patient satisfaction, and 15% reported incentives based on guideline adherence. The use of incentives for quality in this cohort of oncologists and surgeons was modest and was primarily associated with staff- or group-model health maintenance organization (HMO) settings. In other settings, important predictors were partial physician ownership interest, large practice size, and capitation.

Conclusions

Most cancer care providers in Los Angeles County outside of staff- or group-model HMOs are not subject to explicit financial incentives based on quality-of-care measures. Those who are, seem more likely to be associated with large practice settings. New approaches are needed to direct financial incentives for quality toward specialists outside of staff- or group-model HMOs if pay-for-performance programs are to succeed in influencing care.

The structure of health care has been rapidly evolving in response to financial pressures and demands to improve quality. Little work has documented the structure of care and its impact in the context of breast cancer care. We conducted a survey to characterize Los Angeles physicians caring for breast cancer patients and the structural landscape of the healthcare system in which they practice. Cross-sectional survey of physicians who treated a population-based cohort of breast cancer patients. We surveyed 477 physicians, targeting all Los Angeles County medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons reported by patients participating in the Los Angeles Women’s Health Study (77% response rate). Specialty-specific questionnaires were developed. Items were based on the structure and quality of care literature, cognitive interviews with cancer care specialists, and existing physician survey instruments. Breast cancer care providers in Los Angeles are diverse, with one-third non-white and 46% speaking a non-English language. Group practice is most common, (37% single specialty, 16% group-model HMO, 8% multi-specialty group). Minimal teaching involvement predominates. Mean new breast cancer patient volumes are relatively high (8 per month overall; six for surgeons), representing 46% of new cancer patients. Physicians reported high career satisfaction levels (83–92%). Physicians were least satisfied with the amount of time spent with patients (82%). Data from this study represent important building blocks for further analyses to determine the impact of structural characteristics on the quality of care that breast cancer patient’s experience.