Telehealth Availability for Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth was an important strategy for maintaining continuity of cancer care during the coronavirus pandemic and has continued to play a role in outpatient care; however, it is unknown whether services are equally available across cancer hospitals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with common cancers to contextualize the impact of access barriers to technology on overall access to health care. METHODS: We conducted a national cross-sectional secret shopper study from June to November 2020 to assess telehealth availability at cancer hospitals for new and established patients with colorectal, breast, and skin (melanoma) cancer. We examined facility-level factors to determine predictors of telehealth availability. RESULTS: Of the 312 investigated facilities, 97.1% (n=303) provided telehealth services for at least 1 cancer site. Telehealth was less available to new compared to established patients (n=226, 72% vs n=301, 97.1%). The surveyed cancer hospitals more commonly offered telehealth visits for breast cancer care (n=266, 85%) and provided lower access to telehealth for skin (melanoma) cancer care (n=231, 74%). Most hospitals (n=163, 52%) offered telehealth for all 3 cancer types. Telehealth availability was weakly correlated across cancer types within a given facility for new (r=0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.23) and established (r=0.14, 95% CI 0.08-0.21) patients. Telehealth was more commonly available for new patients at National Cancer Institute-designated facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, and major teaching sites, with high total admissions and below-average timeliness of care. Telehealth availability for established patients was highest at Academic Comprehensive Cancer Programs, nongovernment and nonprofit facilities, medical school-affiliated facilities, Accountable Care Organizations, and facilities with a high number of total admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite an increase in telehealth services for patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic, we identified differences in access across cancer hospitals, which may relate to measures of clinical volume, affiliation, and infrastructure.

Access to urologic cancer care for Medicaid-insured patients.

BACKGROUND: The expansion of state Medicaid programs associated with the Affordable Care Act has led to significant increases in insurance coverage for economically vulnerable patients, however barriers to accessing cancer care still exist. To develop strategies to improve healthcare access, we characterized access to new urologic cancer care for patients with Medicaid insurance in the United States. METHODS: Using a secret shopper approach, we contacted a representative sample of facilities designated for cancer care in United States. Trained volunteers posed as a family member seeking urologic cancer care using a simulated scenario of a parent with a new diagnosis of a localized kidney tumor. The primary study outcome was acceptance of Medicaid. In addition, we assessed facility characteristics associated with Medicaid acceptance relating to state Medicaid expansion status, Medicare reimbursement rates, and teaching hospital status using data from the Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital General Information data file, the American Hospital Directory, and the American Medical Association of Colleges Organizational Characteristics Database. RESULTS: We sampled a total of 389 facilities, of which 14.4% did not accept new Medicaid patients. Medicaid acceptance was higher in facilities located in states that elected to expand Medicaid through the ACA vs. non-expansion states (90.1% vs. 77.4% respectively, P < 0.001). Facilities accepting patients with Medicaid were located in states with higher mean Medicaid-to-Medicare fee indexes (0.70 for Medicaid-accepting vs. 0.65 for non-accepting facilities, P < 0.001). In addition, Medicaid acceptance was higher in teaching hospitals vs. non-teaching facilities (93.8% vs. 83.4% P = 0.02), and medical school affiliated facilities (89.2% vs. 79.7% P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: We identified access disparities for patients with Medicaid insurance seeking urologic cancer care at centers. These findings highlight opportunities to improve the quality and timeliness of cancer care.

Acceptance of Simulated Adult Patients With Medicaid Insurance Seeking Care in a Cancer Hospital for a New Cancer Diagnosis.

Importance: Although there have been significant increases in the number of US residents insured through Medicaid, the ability of patients with Medicaid to access cancer care services is less well known. Objective: To assess facility-level acceptance of Medicaid insurance among patients diagnosed with common cancers. Design, Setting, and Participants: This national cross-sectional secret shopper study was conducted in 2020 in a random sample of Commission on Cancer-accredited facilities in the United States using a simulated cohort of Medicaid-insured adult patients with colorectal, breast, kidney, and melanoma skin cancer. Exposures: Telephone call requesting an appointment for a patient with Medicaid with a new cancer diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Acceptance of Medicaid insurance for cancer care. Descriptive statistics, χ2 tests, and multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with Medicaid acceptance for colorectal, breast, kidney, and skin cancer. High access hospitals were defined as those offering care across all 4 cancer types surveyed. Explanatory measures included facility-level factors from the 2016 American Hospital Association Annual Survey and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services General Information database. Results: A nationally representative sample of 334 facilities was created, of which 226 (67.7%) provided high access to patients with Medicaid seeking cancer care. Medicaid acceptance differed by cancer site, with 319 facilities (95.5%) accepting Medicaid insurance for breast cancer care; 302 (90.4%), colorectal; 290 (86.8%), kidney; and 266 (79.6%), skin. Comprehensive community cancer programs (OR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7; P = .007) were significantly less likely to provide high access to care for patients with Medicaid. Facilities with nongovernment, nonprofit (vs for-profit: OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 1.1-10.8; P = .03) and government (vs for-profit: OR, 6.6; 95% CI, 1.6-27.2; P = .01) ownership, integrated salary models (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.5-4.5; P = .001), and average (vs above-average: OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.4-29.6; P = .02) or below-average (vs above-average: OR, 8.4; 95% CI, 1.5-47.5; P = .02) effectiveness of care were associated with high access to Medicaid. State Medicaid expansion status was not significantly associated with high access. Conclusions and Relevance: This study identified access disparities for patients with Medicaid insurance at centers designated for high-quality care. These findings highlight gaps in cancer care for the expanding population of patients receiving Medicaid.

Access to telehealth services for colorectal cancer patients in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic yielded rapid telehealth deployment to improve healthcare access, including for surgical patients. METHODS: We conducted a secret shopper study to assess telehealth availability for new patient and follow-up colorectal cancer care visits in a random national sample of Commission on Cancer accredited hospitals and investigated predictive facility-level factors. RESULTS: Of 397 hospitals, 302 (76%) offered telehealth for colorectal cancer patients (75% for follow-up, 42% for new patients). For new patients, NCI-designated Cancer Programs offered telehealth more frequently than Integrated Network (OR: 0.20, p = 0.01), Academic Comprehensive (OR: 0.18, p = 0.001), Comprehensive Community (OR: 0.10, p < 0.001), and Community (OR: 0.11, p < 0.001) Cancer Programs. For follow-up, above average timeliness of care hospitals offered telehealth more frequently than average hospitals (OR: 2.87, p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: We identified access disparities and predictive factors for telehealth availability for colorectal cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. These factors should be considered when constructing telehealth policies.

Access to Urological Care for Medicaid-Insured Patients at Urology Practices Acquired by Private Equity Firms.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize appointment access for Medicaid-insured patients seeking care at urology practices affiliated with private equity firms in light of the recent national trends in practice consolidation. METHODS: We identified 214 urology offices affiliated with private equity firms that were geographically matched with 231 non-private equity affiliated urology offices. Using a standardized script, researchers posed as an adult patient with either Medicaid or commercial insurance in the clinical setting of new onset, painless hematuria. The primary outcome was whether the patient's insurance was accepted for an appointment. The secondary outcome was appointment wait time. RESULTS: We conducted 815 appointment inquiry calls to 214 private equity (PE) and 231 non-PE-affiliated urology offices across 12 states. Appointment availability was higher for commercially-insured patients (99.0%; 95% CI: 98.1%-99.9%) vs Medicaid-insured patients (59.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 55.0%-64.6%) (P < .0001). Medicaid acceptance was higher at non-PE affiliated (66.8%; CI 60.4%-73.2%) than PE-affiliated practices (52.1%; 95% CI 45.0%-59.2%) (P = .003). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, state Medicaid expansion status (odds ratio [OR] 2.20; CI 1.14-4.28; P = .020) was independently associated with Medicaid appointment availability, whereas PE-affiliation (OR 0.55; CI 0.37-0.83; P = .004) was independently associated with lower Medicaid access. Appointment wait times did not differ significantly for commercially-insured vs Medicaid patients (19.2 vs 20.1 days; p = .59), but PE-affiliated practices offered shorter mean wait times than non-PE offices (17.5 vs 21.4 days; P = .017). CONCLUSION: Access disparities for urologic evaluation in patients with Medicaid insurance at urology practices and were more pronounced at private equity acquired practices.

Urology Practice Acquisitions by Private Equity Firms from 2011-2021.

INTRODUCTION: Private equity firms have recently acquired several large urology practices in the United States. As little is known about these acquisitions, we sought to characterize trends in urology practice consolidation. METHODS: We compiled urology practice acquisition data via financial databases, news outlets, practice websites, and Internet keyword search for the time period January 1, 2011 through March 15, 2021. For each acquisition, we determined the acquiring group, number of employed urologists, practice locations, and status of ancillary services (pathology, radiology, or surgery centers). We estimated workforce effects based on the 2019 American Urological Association workforce census. RESULTS: We identified 69 independent practice acquisitions in the study period, including 19 (28.4%) by hospital systems, 7 (10.4%) by multispecialty physician groups, 23 (34.3%) by urology practices, and 20 (29.9%) by private equity-backed platforms. Private equity firms initially targeted large urology practices (mean of 60.8±32.6 urologists) with ownership of ancillary services and consolidated local market share through acquisitions of smaller practices (mean of 15.9±14.5 urologists). As of March 2021, we estimate that 7.2% of private practice urologists in the U.S. were employed by one of 5 private equity-backed platforms; over 25% of all urologists practicing in New Jersey and Maryland are employed by a private equity-backed platform. CONCLUSIONS: Private equity acquisitions have accelerated to become a dominant form of urology practice consolidation in recent years and have achieved significant market influence in certain regions. Future research should assess the impact of private equity investment on practice patterns, health outcomes, and expenditures.