Comparing a medical records-based and a claims-based index for measuring comorbidity in patients with lung or colon cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Ascertaining comorbid conditions in cancer patients is important for research and clinical quality measurement, and is particularly important for understanding care and outcomes for older patients and those with multi-morbidity. We compared the medical records-based ACE-27 index and the claims-based Charlson index in predicting receipt of therapy and survival for lung and colon cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We calculated the Charlson index using administrative data and the ACE-27 score using medical records for Veterans Affairs patients diagnosed with stage I/II non-small cell lung or stage III colon cancer from January 2003 to December 2004. We compared the proportion of patients identified by each index as having any comorbidity. We used multivariable logistic regression to ascertain the predictive power of each index regarding delivery of guideline-recommended therapies and two-year survival, comparing the c-statistic and the Akaike information criterion (AIC). RESULTS: Overall, 97.2% of lung and 90.9% of colon cancer patients had any comorbidity according to the ACE-27 index, versus 59.5% and 49.7%, respectively, according to the Charlson. Multivariable models including the ACE-27 index outperformed Charlson-based models when assessing receipt of guideline-recommended therapies, with higher c-statistics and lower AICs. Neither index was clearly superior in prediction of two-year survival. CONCLUSIONS: The ACE-27 index measured using medical records captured more comorbidity and outperformed the Charlson index measured using administrative data for predicting receipt of guideline-recommended therapies, demonstrating the potential value of more detailed comorbidity data. However, the two indices had relatively similar performance when predicting survival.

Using Health Care Utilization and Publication Patterns to Characterize the Research Portfolio and to Plan Future Research Investments.

OBJECTIVE: Government funders of biomedical research are under increasing pressure to demonstrate societal benefits of their investments. A number of published studies attempted to correlate research funding levels with the societal burden for various diseases, with mixed results. We examined whether research funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is well aligned with current and projected veterans' health needs. The organizational structure of the VA makes it a particularly suitable setting for examining these questions. METHODS: We used the publication patterns and dollar expenditures of VA-funded researchers to characterize the VA research portfolio by disease. We used health care utilization data from the VA for the same diseases to define veterans' health needs. We then measured the level of correlation between the two and identified disease groups that were under- or over-represented in the research portfolio relative to disease expenditures. Finally, we used historic health care utilization trends combined with demographic projections to identify diseases and conditions that are increasing in costs and/or patient volume and consequently represent potential targets for future research investments. RESULTS: We found a significant correlation between research volume/expenditures and health utilization. Some disease groups were slightly under- or over-represented, but these deviations were relatively small. Diseases and conditions with the increasing utilization trend at the VA included hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, hearing loss, sleeping disorders, complications of pregnancy, and several mental disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Research investments at the VA are well aligned with veteran health needs. The VA can continue to meet these needs by supporting research on the diseases and conditions with a growing number of patients, costs of care, or both. Our approach can be used by other funders of disease research to characterize their portfolios and to plan research investments.

Racial disparities in cancer care in the Veterans Affairs health care system and the role of site of care.

OBJECTIVES: We assessed cancer care disparities within the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system and whether between-hospital differences explained disparities. METHODS: We linked VA cancer registry data with VA and Medicare administrative data and examined 20 cancer-related quality measures among Black and White veterans diagnosed with colorectal (n = 12,897), lung (n = 25,608), or prostate (n = 38,202) cancer from 2001 to 2004. We used logistic regression to assess racial disparities for each measure and hospital fixed-effects models to determine whether disparities were attributable to between- or within-hospital differences. RESULTS: Compared with Whites, Blacks had lower rates of early-stage colon cancer diagnosis (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.72, 0.90), curative surgery for stage I, II, or III rectal cancer (AOR = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.41, 0.78), 3-year survival for colon cancer (AOR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.62, 0.89) and rectal cancer (AOR = 0.61; 95% CI = 0.42, 0.87), curative surgery for early-stage lung cancer (AOR = 0.50; 95% CI = 0.41, 0.60), 3-dimensional conformal or intensity-modulated radiation (3-D CRT/IMRT; AOR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.47, 0.59), and potent antiemetics for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (AOR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.78, 0.98). Adjustment for hospital fixed-effects minimally influenced racial gaps except for 3-D CRT/IMRT (AOR = 0.75; 95% CI = 0.65, 0.87) and potent antiemetics (AOR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.82, 1.10). CONCLUSIONS: Disparities in VA cancer care were observed for 7 of 20 measures and were primarily attributable to within-hospital differences.

Tumor boards and the quality of cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread use of tumor boards, few data on their effects on cancer care exist. We assessed whether the presence of a tumor board, either general or cancer specific, was associated with recommended cancer care, outcomes, or use in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health system. METHODS: We surveyed 138 VA medical centers about the presence of tumor boards and linked cancer registry and administrative data to assess receipt of stage-specific recommended care, survival, or use for patients with colorectal, lung, prostate, hematologic, and breast cancers diagnosed in the period from 2001 to 2004 and followed through 2005. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess associations of tumor boards with the measures, adjusting for patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Most facilities (75%) had at least one tumor board, and many had several cancer-specific tumor boards. Presence of a tumor board was associated with only seven of 27 measures assessed (all P < .05), and several associations were not in expected directions. Rates of some recommended care (eg, white blood cell growth factors with cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, vincristine, and prednisone in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma) were lower in centers with hematologic-specialized tumor boards (39.4%) than in centers with general tumor boards (61.3%) or no tumor boards (56.4%; P = .002). Only one of 27 measures was statistically significantly associated with tumor boards after applying a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: We observed little association of multidisciplinary tumor boards with measures of use, quality, or survival. This may reflect no effect or an effect that varies by structural and functional components and participants' expertise.

Predicting waist circumference from body mass index.

BACKGROUND: Being overweight or obese increases risk for cardiometabolic disorders. Although both body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference (WC) measure the level of overweight and obesity, WC may be more important because of its closer relationship to total body fat. Because WC is typically not assessed in clinical practice, this study sought to develop and verify a model to predict WC from BMI and demographic data, and to use the predicted WC to assess cardiometabolic risk. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study (ARIC). We developed linear regression models for men and women using NHANES data, fitting waist circumference as a function of BMI. For validation, those regressions were applied to ARIC data, assigning a predicted WC to each individual. We used the predicted WC to assess abdominal obesity and cardiometabolic risk. RESULTS: The model correctly classified 88.4% of NHANES subjects with respect to abdominal obesity. Median differences between actual and predicted WC were -0.07 cm for men and 0.11 cm for women. In ARIC, the model closely estimated the observed WC (median difference: -0.34 cm for men, +3.94 cm for women), correctly classifying 86.1% of ARIC subjects with respect to abdominal obesity and 91.5% to 99.5% as to cardiometabolic risk.The model is generalizable to Caucasian and African-American adult populations because it was constructed from data on a large, population-based sample of men and women in the United States, and then validated in a population with a larger representation of African-Americans. CONCLUSIONS: The model accurately estimates WC and identifies cardiometabolic risk. It should be useful for health care practitioners and public health officials who wish to identify individuals and populations at risk for cardiometabolic disease when WC data are unavailable.

Area-level variations in cancer care and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: : Substantial regional variations in health-care spending exist across the United States; yet, care and outcomes are not better in higher-spending areas. Most studies have focused on care in fee-for-service Medicare; whether spillover effects exist in settings without financial incentives for more care is unknown. OBJECTIVE: : We studied care for cancer patients in fee-for-service Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration (VA) to understand whether processes and outcomes of care vary with area-level Medicare spending. DESIGN: : An observational study using logistic regression to assess care by area-level measures of Medicare spending. SUBJECTS: : Patients with lung, colorectal, or prostate cancers diagnosed during 2001-2004 in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) areas or the VA. The SEER cohort included fee-for-service Medicare patients aged older than 65 years. MEASURES: : Recommended and preference-sensitive cancer care and mortality. RESULTS: : In fee-for-service Medicare, higher-spending areas had higher rates of recommended care (curative surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer and chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer) and preference-sensitive care (chemotherapy for stage IV lung and colon cancer and primary treatment of local/regional prostate cancer) and had lower lung cancer mortality. In the VA, we observed minimal variation in care by area-level Medicare spending. DISCUSSION: : Our findings suggest that intensity of care for Medicare beneficiaries is not driving variations in VA care, despite some overlap in physician networks. Although the Dartmouth Atlas work has been of unprecedented importance in demonstrating variations in Medicare spending, new measures may be needed to better understand variations in other populations.

Survival of older patients with cancer in the Veterans Health Administration versus fee-for-service Medicare.

PURPOSE: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides high-quality preventive chronic care and cancer care, but few studies have documented improved patient outcomes that result from this high-quality care. We compared the survival rates of older patients with cancer in the VHA and fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare and examined whether differences in the stage at diagnosis, receipt of guideline-recommended therapies, and unmeasured characteristics explain survival differences. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used propensity-score methods to compare all-cause and cancer-specific survival rates for men older than age 65 years who were diagnosed or received their first course of treatment for colorectal, lung, lymphoma, or multiple myeloma in VHA hospitals from 2001 to 2004 to similar FFS-Medicare enrollees diagnosed in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) areas in the same time frame. We examined the role of unmeasured factors by using sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: VHA patients versus similar FFS SEER-Medicare patients had higher survival rates of colon cancer (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.93) and non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC; HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.88 to 0.95) and similar survival rates of rectal cancer (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.16), small-cell lung cancer (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.05), diffuse large-B-cell lymphoma (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.18), and multiple myeloma (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.03). The diagnosis of VHA patients at earlier stages explained much of the survival advantages for colon cancer and NSCLC. Sensitivity analyses suggested that additional adjustment for the severity of comorbid disease or performance status could have substantial effects on estimated differences. CONCLUSION: The survival rate for older men with cancer in the VHA was better than or equivalent to the survival rate for similar FFS-Medicare beneficiaries. The VHA provision of high-quality care, particularly preventive care, can result in improved patient outcomes.

Understanding variation in primary prostate cancer treatment within the Veterans Health Administration.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the variation in prostate cancer treatment in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)--a national, integrated delivery system. We also compared the care for older men in the VHA with that in fee-for-service Medicare. METHODS: We used data from the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry linked with administrative data and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare data to identify men with local or regional prostate cancer diagnosed during 2001 to 2004. We used multinomial logistic and hierarchical regression models to examine the patient, tumor, and facility characteristics associated with treatment in the VHA and, among older patients, used propensity score methods to compare primary therapy between the VHA and fee-for-service Medicare. RESULTS: The rates of radical prostatectomy and radiotherapy varied substantially across VHA facilities. Among the VHA patients, older age, black race/ethnicity, and greater comorbidity were associated with receiving neither radical prostatectomy nor radiotherapy. Facilities with more black patients with prostate cancer had lower rates of radical prostatectomy, and those with less availability of external beam radiotherapy had lower radiotherapy rates. The adjusted rates of radiotherapy (39.7% vs 52.0%) and radical prostatectomy (12.1% vs 15.8%) were lower and the rates of receiving neither treatment greater (48.2% vs 32.2%) in the VHA versus fee-for-service Medicare (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In the VHA, the treatment rates varied substantially across facilities, and black men received less aggressive prostate cancer treatment than white men, suggesting factors other than patient preferences influence the treatment decisions. Also, primary prostate cancer therapy for older men is less aggressive in the VHA than in fee-for-service Medicare.

Reasons for underuse of recommended therapies for colorectal and lung cancer in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have documented low rates of effective cancer therapies, particularly in older or minority populations. However, little is known about why effective therapies are underused in these populations. METHODS: The authors examined medical records of 584 patients with cancer diagnosed or treated in Department of Veterans Affairs facilities to assess reasons for lack of 1) surgery for stage I/II nonsmall cell lung cancer, 2) surgery for stage I/II/III rectal cancer, 3) adjuvant radiation therapy for stage II/III rectal cancer, and 4) adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer. They also assessed differences in reasons for underuse by patient age and race. RESULTS: Across the 4 guideline-recommended treatments, 92% to 99% of eligible patients were referred to the appropriate cancer specialist; however, therapy was recommended in only 74% to 92% of eligible cases. Poor health was cited in the medical record as the reason for lack of therapy in 15% to 61% of underuse cases; patient refusal explained 26% to 58% of underuse cases. African American patients were more likely to refuse surgery. Older patients were more likely to refuse treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendation against therapy was a primary factor in underuse of effective therapies in older and sicker patients. Patients' refusal of therapy contributed to age and racial disparities in care. Improved data on the effectiveness of cancer therapies in community populations and interventions aimed at improved communication of known risks and benefits of therapy to cancer patients could be effective tools to reduce underuse and lingering disparities in care.

Quality of care for older patients with cancer in the Veterans Health Administration versus the private sector: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is the largest integrated health care system in the United States. Studies suggest that the VHA provides better preventive care and care for some chronic illnesses than does the private sector. OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of cancer care for older patients provided by the VHA versus fee-for-service Medicare. DESIGN: Observational study of patients with cancer that was diagnosed between 2001 and 2004 who were followed through 2005. SETTING: VHA and non-VHA hospitals and office-based practices. PATIENTS: Men older than 65 years with incident colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer; lymphoma; or multiple myeloma. MEASUREMENTS: Rates of processes of care for colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer; lymphoma; or multiple myeloma. Rates were adjusted by using propensity score weighting. RESULTS: Compared with the fee-for-service Medicare population, the VHA population received diagnoses of colon (P < 0.001) and rectal (P = 0.007) cancer at earlier stages and had higher adjusted rates of curative surgery for colon cancer (92.7% vs. 90.5%; P < 0.010), standard chemotherapy for diffuse large B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (71.1% vs. 59.3%; P < 0.001), and bisphosphonate therapy for multiple myeloma (62.1% vs. 50.4%; P < 0.001). The VHA population had lower adjusted rates of 3-dimensional conformal or intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer treated with external-beam radiation therapy (61.6% vs. 86.0%; P < 0.001). Adjusted rates were similar for 9 other measures. Sensitivity analyses suggest that if patients with cancer in the VHA system have more severe comorbid illness than other patients, rates for most indicators would be higher in the VHA population than in the fee-for-service Medicare population. LIMITATION: This study included only older men and did not include information about performance status, severity of comorbid illness, or patient preferences. CONCLUSION: Care for older men with cancer in the VHA system was generally similar to or better than care for fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, although adoption of some expensive new technologies may be delayed in the VHA system. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Department of Veterans Affairs.

End-of-life care for older cancer patients in the Veterans Health Administration versus the private sector.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of older cancer patients at the end of life has become increasingly aggressive, despite the absence of evidence for better outcomes. We compared aggressiveness of end-of-life care of older metastatic cancer patients treated in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and those under fee-for-service Medicare arrangements. METHODS: Using propensity score methods, we matched 2913 male veterans who were diagnosed with stage IV lung or colorectal cancer in 2001-2002 and died before 2006 with 2913 similar men enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare living in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result (SEER) areas. We assessed chemotherapy within 14 days of death, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions within 30 days of death, and >1 emergency room visit within 30 days of death. RESULTS: Among matched cohorts, men treated in the VHA were less likely than men in the private sector to receive chemotherapy within 14 days of death (4.6% vs 7.5%, P<.001), be admitted to an ICU within 30 days of death (12.5% vs 19.7%, P<.001), or have >1 emergency room visit within 30 days of death (13.1 vs 14.7, P=.09). CONCLUSIONS: Older men with metastatic lung or colorectal cancer treated in the VHA healthcare system received less aggressive end-of-life care than similar men in fee-for-service Medicare. This may result from the absence of financial incentives for more intensive care in the VHA or because this integrated delivery system is better structured to limit potentially overly aggressive care. Additional studies are needed to assess whether men undergoing less aggressive end-of-life care also experience better outcomes.

Prediction of first events of coronary heart disease and stroke with consideration of adiposity.

BACKGROUND: Prediction of coronary heart disease (CHD) and cerebrovascular disease (CeVD) can aid healthcare providers and prevention programs. Previous reports have focused on traditional cardiovascular risk factors; less information has been available on the role of overweight and obesity. METHODS AND RESULTS: Baseline data from 4780 Framingham Offspring Study adults with up to 24 years of follow-up were used to assess risk for a first CHD event (angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, or cardiac death) alone, first CeVD event (acute brain infarction, transient ischemic attack, and stroke-related death) alone, and CHD and CeVD events combined. Accelerated failure time models were developed for the time of first event to age, sex, cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, diabetes mellitus (DM), systolic blood pressure, smoking status, and body mass index (BMI). Likelihood-ratio tests of statistical significance were used to identify the best-fitting predictive functions. Age, sex, smoking status, systolic blood pressure, ratio of cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and presence of DM were highly related (P<0.01 for all) to the development of first CHD events, and all of the above except sex and DM were highly related to the first CeVD event. BMI also significantly predicted the occurrence of CHD (P=0.05) and CeVD (P=0.03) in multivariable models adjusting for traditional risk factors. The magnitude of the BMI effect was reduced but remained statistically significant when traditional variables were included in the prediction models. CONCLUSIONS: Greater BMI, higher systolic blood pressure, higher ratio of cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and presence of DM were all predictive of first CHD events, and all but the presence of DM were predictive of first CeVD events. These results suggest that common pathophysiological mechanisms underlie the roles of BMI, DM, and systolic blood pressure as predictors for first CHD and CeVD events.