Association of the Oncology Care Model With Value-Based Changes in Use of Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Radiation utilization for breast cancer and metastatic bone disease varies in modality, fractionation, and cost, despite evidence demonstrating equal effectiveness and consensus recommendations such as Choosing Wisely that advocate for higher value care. We assessed whether the Oncology Care Model (OCM), an alternative payment model for practices providing chemotherapy to patients with cancer, affected the overall use and value of radiation therapy in terms of Choosing Wisely recommendations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrative data to identify beneficiaries enrolled in traditional fee-for-service Medicare who initiated chemotherapy episodes at OCM and propensity-matched comparison practices. Difference-in-difference (DID) analyses evaluated the effect of OCM on overall use of postoperative radiation for breast cancer, use of intensity modulated radiation therapy and hypofractionation for breast cancer, and fractionation patterns for treatment of metastatic bone disease from breast or prostate cancer. We performed additional analyses stratified by the presence or absence of a radiation oncologist in the practice. RESULTS: Among 27,859 postoperative breast cancer episodes, OCM had no effect on overall use of radiation therapy after breast surgery (DID percentage point difference = 0.4%; 90% confidence interval [CI], -1.7%, 2.4%) or on use of intensity modulated radiation therapy in this setting (DID = -0.6; 90% CI, -3.1, 2.0). Among 19,366 metastatic bone disease episodes, OCM had no effect on fractionation patterns for palliation of bone metastases (DID for ≤10 fractions = -1.1%; 90% CI, -2.6%, 0.4% and DID for single fraction = -0.2%; 90% CI, -1.9%, 1.6%). Results were similar for practices with and without a radiation oncologist. We did not evaluate the effect of OCM on hypofractionated radiation after breast-conserving surgery owing to evidence of differential baseline trends. CONCLUSIONS: OCM had no effect on use of radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer or on fractionation patterns for metastatic bone disease. Future payment models directly focused on radiation oncology providers may be better poised to improve the value of radiation oncology care.

The Oncology Care Model and Adherence to Oral Cancer Drugs: A Difference-in-Differences Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to oral cancer drugs is suboptimal. The Oncology Care Model (OCM) offers oncology practices financial incentives to improve the value of cancer care. We assessed the impact of OCM on adherence to oral cancer therapy for chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML), prostate cancer, and breast cancer. METHODS: Using 2014-2019 Medicare data, we studied chemotherapy episodes for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries prescribed tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for CML, antiandrogens (ie, enzalutamide, abiraterone) for prostate cancer, or hormonal therapies for breast cancer in OCM-participating and propensity-matched comparison practices. We measured adherence as the proportion of days covered and used difference-in-difference (DID) models to detect changes in adherence over time, adjusting for patient, practice, and market-level characteristics. RESULTS: There was no overall impact of OCM on improved adherence to TKIs for CML (DID = -0.3%, 90% confidence interval [CI] = -1.2% to 0.6%), antiandrogens for prostate cancer (DID = 0.4%, 90% CI = -0.3% to 1.2%), or hormonal therapy for breast cancer (DID = 0.0%, 90% CI = -0.2% to 0.2%). Among episodes for Black beneficiaries in OCM practices, for whom adherence was lower than for White beneficiaries at baseline, we observed small improvements in adherence to high cost TKIs (DID = 3.0%, 90% CI = 0.2% to 5.8%) and antiandrogens (DID = 2.2%, 90% CI = 0.2% to 4.3%). CONCLUSIONS: OCM did not impact adherence to oral cancer therapies for Medicare beneficiaries with CML, prostate cancer, or breast cancer overall but modestly improved adherence to high-cost TKIs and antiandrogens for Black beneficiaries, who had somewhat lower adherence than White beneficiaries at baseline. Patient navigation and financial counseling are potential mechanisms for improvement among Black beneficiaries.

Association of Participation in the Oncology Care Model With Medicare Payments, Utilization, Care Delivery, and Quality Outcomes.

IMPORTANCE: In 2016, the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services initiated the Oncology Care Model (OCM), an alternative payment model designed to improve the value of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries with cancer. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of the OCM with changes in Medicare spending, utilization, quality, and patient experience during the OCM's first 3 years. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Exploratory difference-in-differences study comparing care during 6-month chemotherapy episodes in OCM participating practices and propensity-matched comparison practices initiated before (January 2014 through June 2015) and after (July 2016 through December 2018) the start of the OCM. Participants included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with cancer treated at these practices through June 2019. EXPOSURES: OCM participation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total episode payments (Medicare spending for Parts A, B, and D, not including monthly payments for enhanced oncology services); utilization and payments for hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, office visits, chemotherapy, supportive care, and imaging; quality (chemotherapy-associated hospitalizations and ED visits, timely chemotherapy, end-of-life care, and survival); and patient experiences. RESULTS: Among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, 483 319 beneficiaries (mean age, 73.0 [SD, 8.7] years; 60.1% women; 987 332 episodes) were treated at 201 OCM participating practices, and 557 354 beneficiaries (mean age, 72.9 [SD, 9.0] years; 57.4% women; 1 122 597 episodes) were treated at 534 comparison practices. From the baseline period, total episode payments increased from $28 681 for OCM episodes and $28 421 for comparison episodes to $33 211 for OCM episodes and $33 249 for comparison episodes during the intervention period (difference in differences, -$297; 90% CI, -$504 to -$91), less than the mean $704 Monthly Enhanced Oncology Services payments. Relative decreases in total episode payments were primarily for Part B nonchemotherapy drug payments (difference in differences, -$145; 90% CI, -$218 to -$72), especially supportive care drugs (difference in differences, -$150; 90% CI, -$216 to -$84). The OCM was associated with statistically significant relative reductions in total episode payments among higher-risk episodes (difference in differences, -$503; 90% CI, -$802 to -$204) and statistically significant relative increases in total episode payments among lower-risk episodes (difference in differences, $151; 90% CI, $39-$264). The OCM was not significantly associated with differences in hospitalizations, ED visits, or survival. Of 22 measures of utilization, 10 measures of quality, and 7 measures of care experiences, only 5 were significantly different. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this exploratory analysis, the OCM was significantly associated with modest payment reductions during 6-month episodes for Medicare beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy for cancer in the first 3 years of the OCM that did not offset the monthly payments for enhanced oncology services. There were no statistically significant differences for most utilization, quality, and patient experience outcomes.

Early Findings From the Oncology Care Model Evaluation.

PURPOSE: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is an alternative payment model administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that is structured around 6-month chemotherapy treatment episodes. This report describes the CMS-sponsored OCM evaluation and summarizes early evaluation findings. METHODS: The OCM evaluation examines health care spending and use, quality of care, and patient experience during chemotherapy treatment episodes. Because OCM participation is voluntary, the evaluation compares participating physician practices with a propensity-matched group of nonparticipating practices by using a difference-in-differences approach. This report examines 6-month episodes initiated during the first OCM performance period (July 1, 2016, through January 1, 2017). RESULTS: During the first OCM performance period, there was no statistically significant impact of OCM on total episode payments. There were small declines in intensive care unit (ICU) admissions (7 per 1,000 episodes) and emergency department visits (15 per 1,000 episodes); there was no statistically significant impact on hospitalizations or 30-day readmissions. Analyses of care quality and end-of-life care showed statistically significant impacts of OCM on the proportion of patients with inpatient hospitalizations in the last 30 days of life (1.5% absolute decrease) and ICU admissions in the last 30 days of life (2.1% decrease). There was no significant OCM impact on measures of hospice use. CONCLUSION: Early findings from the OCM evaluation demonstrate modest program-related impacts on some acute care services and no change in total episode payments. Early findings may not reflect practice redesign efforts that were phased in after the beginning of OCM.