Teaching Hospitals and Textbook Outcomes After Major Urologic Cancer Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess textbook outcomes by hospital teaching status following major surgery for urologic cancers. METHODS: We used 100% national Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files from 2017-2020 to assess rates of textbook outcomes in patients undergoing bladder (ie, radical cystectomy), kidney (ie, radical or partial nephrectomy), and prostate (ie, radical prostatectomy) surgery for genitourinary malignancies. The extent of integration of learners into each hospital's workforce-defined as major, minor, and non teaching hospitals-was the primary exposure. A textbook outcome, measured at the patient level, was defined as the absence of in-hospital mortality and mortality within 30days of surgery, no readmission 30days following discharge, no postoperative complication, and no prolonged length of stay. RESULTS: Textbook outcomes were achieved in 51% (8564/16,786) of patients after bladder cancer surgery, 70% (39,938/57,300) of patients after kidney cancer surgery, and 82% (50,408/61,385) of patients after prostate cancer surgery. After adjusting for patient- and hospital-level characteristics, teaching hospitals had higher rates of textbook outcomes in those undergoing bladder (50.7% vs 44.0%; P = .001), kidney (72.0% vs 69.7%; P = .02), and prostate (85.3% vs 81.0%; P <.001) surgery. This effect was attenuated, but not eliminated, by surgical volume in additional sensitivity analyses for bladder (OR: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.00-1.42; P = .04) and prostate (OR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.00-1.32; P = .04) surgery. There were no significant differences in kidney cancer surgery outcomes after adjusting for hospital volume (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.93-1.14; P = .6). CONCLUSION: Undergoing major cancer surgery at a teaching hospital was associated with an increased likelihood of achieving a textbook outcome. This effect was attenuated by volume but persisted for bladder and prostate surgery.

The 340B Program and oral specialty drugs for advanced prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Expensive oral specialty drugs for advanced prostate cancer can be associated with treatment disparities. The 340B program allows hospitals to purchase medications at discounts, generating savings that can improve care of the socioeconomically disadvantaged. This study assessed the effect of hospital 340B participation on advanced prostate cancer. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with advanced prostate cancer from 2012 to 2019. The primary outcome was use of an oral specialty drug. Secondary outcomes included monthly out-of-pocket costs and treatment adherence. We evaluated the effects of 1) hospital 340B participation, 2) a regional measure vulnerability, the social vulnerability index (SVI), and 3) the interaction between hospital 340B participation and SVI on outcomes. RESULTS: There were 2237 and 1100 men who received care at 340B and non-340B hospitals. There was no difference in specialty drug use between 340B and non-340B hospitals, whereas specialty drug use decreased with increased SVI (odds ratio, 0.95, p = .038). However, the interaction between hospital 340B participation and SVI on specialty drug use was not significant. Neither 340B participation, SVI, or their interaction were associated with out-of-pocket costs. Although hospital 340B participation and SVI were not associated with treatment adherence, their interaction was significant (p = .020). This demonstrated that 340B was associated with better adherence among socially vulnerable men. CONCLUSIONS: The 340B program was not associated with specialty drug use in men with advanced prostate cancer. However, among those who were started on therapy, 340B was associated with increased treatment adherence in more socially vulnerable men.

National Trends in Management of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Deciding whether to treat or conservatively manage patients with prostate cancer is challenging. Recent changes in guidelines, advances in treatment technologies, and policy can influence decision making surrounding management, particularly for those for whom the decision to treat is discretionary. Contemporary trends in management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer are unclear. METHODS: Using national Medicare data, men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were identified between 2014 and 2019. Patients were classified by 5- and 10-year noncancer mortality risk. Multinomial logistic regression models were fit to assess adjusted trends in management over time. The primary outcome was management of prostate cancer: local treatment (inclusive of surgery, radiation, brachytherapy, or cryotherapy), hormone therapy, or observation. RESULTS: Local treatment was the most common form of management and stable across years (68%). Use of observation increased (21%-23%, P < .001) and use of hormone therapy decreased (11%-8%, P < 0.001). After stratifying by 10-year non-cancer mortality risk, observation increased among men with low (22.3%-26.1%, P < .001) and moderate (19.9%-23.5%, P < .001) mortality risk. Conversely, use of treatment increased among those with high (62.8%-68.0%, P = .004) and very high (45.5%-54.1%, P < .001) risk of noncancer mortality. These trends were similar across groups when stratified by 5-year noncancer mortality risk. CONCLUSION: Nationally, use of local treatment remains common and was stable throughout the study period. However, while local treatment declined among men with a lower risk of noncancer mortality, it increased among men with a higher risk of non-cancer mortality.

Association Between Urologist Merit-Based Incentive Payment System Performance and Quality of Prostate Cancer Care.

INTRODUCTION: We performed a study to evaluate the association between urologist performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), and quality and spending for prostate cancer care. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2017 and 2019 were assigned to their primary urologist. Associated MIPS scores were identified and categorized based on thresholds for payment adjustment as low (worst), moderate, and high (best). Multivariable mixed effects models were used to measure the association between MIPS performance and adherence to quality measures and price standardized spending for prostate cancer. RESULTS: Adherence to quality measures did not vary across MIPS performance groups for pretreatment counselling by both a urologist and radiation oncologist (low-76%, [95% CI 73%-80%], moderate-77% [95% CI 74%-79%], and high-75% [95% CI 74%-76%]) and avoiding treatment in men with a high risk of noncancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis (low-40% [95% CI 35%-45%], moderate-39% [95% CI 36%-43%], high-38% [95% CI 36%-39%]). Men on active surveillance managed by high performers more likely received a confirmatory test (44% [95% CI 43%-46%]) compared to those managed by moderate (38% [95% CI 33%-42%]) performers, but not low performers (36% [95% CI 29%-44%]). There was no difference in adjusted spending across MIPS performance groups. CONCLUSIONS: Better performance in MIPS is associated with a higher rate of confirmatory testing in men initiating active surveillance for prostate cancer. However, performance was not associated with other dimensions of quality nor spending.

Urologist practice divestment from radiation vault ownership and treatment patterns for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Urologists practicing in single-specialty groups with ownership in radiation vaults are more likely to treat men with prostate cancer. The effect of divestment of vault ownership on treatment patterns is unclear. METHODS: A 20% sample of national Medicare claims was used to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2019. Urology practices were categorized by radiation vault ownership as nonowners, continuous owners, and divested owners. The primary outcome was use of local treatment, and the secondary outcome was use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). A difference-in-differences framework was used to measure the effect of divestment on outcomes compared to continuous owners. Subgroup analyses assessed outcomes by noncancer mortality risk (high [>50%] vs. low [≤50%]). RESULTS: Among 72 urology practices that owned radiation vaults, six divested during the study. Divestment led to a decrease in treatment compared with those managed at continuously owning practices (difference-in-differences estimate, -13%; p = .03). The use of IMRT decreased, but this was not statistically significant (difference-in-differences estimate, -10%; p = .13). In men with a high noncancer mortality risk, treatment (difference-in-differences estimate, -28%; p < .001) and use of IMRT (difference-in-differences estimate, -27%; p < .001) decreased after divestment. CONCLUSIONS: Urology group divestment from radiation vault ownership led to a decrease in prostate cancer treatment. This decrease was most pronounced in men who had a high noncancer mortality risk. This has important implications for health care reform by suggesting that payment programs that encourage constraints on utilization, when appropriate, may be effective in reducing overtreatment.

Value-based payment models and management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of urologist participation in value-based payment models on the initial management of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2017 and 2019, with 1 year of follow-up, were assigned to their primary urologist, each of whom was then aligned to a value-based payment model (the merit-based incentive payment system [MIPS], accountable care organization [ACO] without financial risk, and ACO with risk). Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression was used to measure the association between payment model participation and treatment of prostate cancer. Additional models estimated the effects of payment model participation on use of treatment in men with very high risk (i.e., >75%) of non-cancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis (i.e., a group of men for whom treatment is generally not recommended) and price-standardized prostate cancer spending in the 12 months after diagnosis. RESULTS: Treatment did not vary by payment model, both overall (MIPS-67% [95% CI 66%-68%], ACOs without risk-66% [95% CI 66%-68%], ACOs with risk-66% [95% CI 64%-68%]). Similarly, treatment did not vary among men with very high risk of non-cancer mortality by payment model (MIPS-52% [95% CI 50%-55%], ACOs without risk-52% [95% CI 50%-55%], ACOs with risk-51% [95% CI 45%-56%]). Adjusted spending was similar across payment models (MIPS-$16,501 [95% CI $16,222-$16,780], ACOs without risk-$16,140 [95% CI $15,852-$16,429], ACOs with risk-$16,117 [95% CI $15,585-$16,649]). CONCLUSIONS: How urologists participate in value-based payment models is not associated with treatment, potential overtreatment, and prostate cancer spending in men with newly diagnosed disease.

The immediate effects of private equity acquisition of urology practices on the management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Some worry that physician practices acquired by private equity may increase the use of services to maximize revenue. We assessed the effects of private equity acquisition on spending, use of treatment, and diagnostic testing in men with prostate cancer. METHODS: We used a 20% sample of national Medicare claims to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with prostate cancer diagnosed from 2014 through 2019. The primary outcome was prostate cancer spending in the first 12 months after diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included the use of treatment and a composite measure of diagnostic testing (e.g., imaging, genomics) in the first 12 months after diagnosis. Multilevel modeling was used to adjust for differences in patient and market characteristics. The effect of practice acquisition on each outcome was assessed using a difference-in-differences design. RESULTS: There were 409 and 4021 men with prostate cancer managed by urologists in acquired and nonacquired practices, respectively. After acquisition, prostate cancer spending was comparable between acquired and nonacquired practices (difference-in-differences estimate $1182, p = 0.36). Acquisition did not affect the use of treatment (difference-in-differences estimate 3.7%, p = 0.30) or the use of diagnostic testing in men who were treated (difference-in-differences -5.5%, p = 0.12) and those managed conservatively (difference-in-differences -2.0%, p = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: In the year following acquisition of urology practices, private equity did not increase prostate cancer spending, the use of treatment or diagnostic testing in men with prostate cancer. Future work should evaluate the effects of private equity acquisition on practice patterns and quality over a longer time horizon.

Acquisition of Urology Practices by Private Equity Firms and Performance in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System.

INTRODUCTION: Private equity is increasingly engaged in the acquisition of urology practices. The implications of strategies to enhance practice value deployed by these firms for patients are unclear. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of urologist performance in the MIPS (Merit-based Incentive Payment System) program for 2017 to 2020 using national Medicare data from the Quality Payment Program file. The primary outcome was the overall MIPS score. Secondary outcomes included MIPS component scores (ie, quality, interoperability, improvement activities, cost) and the percentage of urologists receiving a bonus payment. Generalized estimating equations were used to estimate the relationship between private equity acquisition and outcomes using a difference-in-differences framework. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2020, 181 urologists were in a urology practice acquired by private equity with MIPS data available the year before and after acquisition. Compared to urologists in practices not acquired by private equity, those in acquired practices had worse overall MIPS performance after acquisition (difference-in-differences estimate, -14 points, P = .04). The decrease in the overall score was driven by worse performance in the quality score (difference-in-differences estimate, -28 points, P < .001). Finally, acquisition resulted in a decrease in the percentage of urologists receiving bonus payments (difference-in-differences estimate, -43%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Private equity acquisition of urology practices was associated with significantly lower MIPS performance. As private equity acquisition of urology practices becomes more prevalent, key stakeholders should ensure that the quality of patient care is maintained and that the involvement of for-profit entities in health care is being made transparent to patients.

In-office dispensing of oral targeted agents by urology practices in men with advanced prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Management of men with advanced prostate cancer has evolved to include urologists, made possible by oral targeted agents (eg, abiraterone or enzalutamide) that can be dispensed directly to patients in the office. We sought to investigate whether this increasingly common model improves access to these agents, especially for Black men who are historically undertreated. METHODS: We used 20% national Medicare data to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with advanced prostate cancer from 2011 through 2019, managed by urology practices with and without in-office dispensing. Using a difference-in-difference framework, generalized estimating equations were used to measure the effect of in-office dispensing on prescriptions for abiraterone and/or enzalutamide, adjusting for differences between patients, including race. RESULTS: New prescription fills for oral targeted agents increased after the adoption of in-office dispensing (+4.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 3.4% to 5.4%) relative to that for men managed by practices without dispensing (+2.4%, 95% CI = 1.4% to 3.4%). The increase in the postintervention period (difference-in-difference estimate) was 2% higher (95% CI = 0.6% to 3.4%) for men managed by practices adopting dispensing relative to men managed by practices without dispensing. The effect was strongest for practices adopting dispensing in 2015 (difference-in-difference estimate: +4.2%, 95% CI = 2.3% to 6.2%). The effect of dispensing adoption did not differ by race. CONCLUSION: Adoption of in-office dispensing by urology practices increased prescription fills for oral targeted agents in men with advanced prostate cancer. This model of delivery may improve access to this important class of medications.

Association between urology practice use of multiparametric MRI and genomic testing and treatment of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Biomarkers for prostate cancer, such as multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and tissue-based genomics, are increasingly used for treatment decision-making. Using biomarkers indiscriminately and thus ignoring competing risks of mortality may lead to treatment in some men who derive little clinical benefit. We assessed the relationship between urology practice use of biomarkers and subsequent treatment in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. METHODS: We used a 20% random sample of national Medicare data to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer diagnosed from 2015 through 2019. Urology practice-level use of biomarkers was characterized based on urology practice propensity to use either biomarker after diagnosis (never, below median, above the median). Noncancer mortality risk within 10 years of diagnosis was calculated for all men. Multilevel models were used to assess the relationship between practice-level biomarker use and treatment by noncancer mortality risk. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2019, 1,764 (65%) urology practices used mpMRI and 897 (33%) used genomic testing for prostate cancer. Compared with urology practices never using each biomarker, those using mpMRI above the median (56% vs. 47%, P = 0.003) and tissue-based genomics below the median (56% vs. 50%, P = 0.03) were more likely to treat men with >75% risk of noncancer mortality. Additionally, compared with urology practices never using either biomarker, use of mpMRI (72% vs. 69%, P = 0.07) or tissue-based genomics (71% vs. 70%, P = 0.65) did not impact treatment in the healthiest group (i.e., those with <25% risk of noncancer mortality). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to practices that do not use each biomarker in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, urology practices using mpMRI, and tissue-based genomics to a lesser extent, are more likely to treat men at very high risk of dying from competing risks of mortality within 10 years of prostate cancer diagnosis.

Health care delivery system contributions to management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Despite clinical guidelines advocating for use of conservative management in specific clinical scenarios for men with prostate cancer, there continues to be tremendous variation in its uptake. This variation may be amplified among men with competing health risks, for whom treatment decisions are not straightforward. The degree to which characteristics of the health care delivery system explain this variation remains unclear. METHODS: Using national Medicare data, men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer between 2014 and 2019 were identified. Hierarchical logistic regression models were used to assess the association between use of treatment and health care delivery system determinants operating at the practice level, which included measures of financial incentives (i.e., radiation vault ownership), practice organization (i.e., single specialty vs. multispecialty groups), and the health care market (i.e., competition). Variance was partitioned to estimate the relative influence of patient and practice characteristics on the variation in use of treatment within strata of noncancer mortality risk groups. RESULTS: Among 62,507 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, the largest variation in the use of treatment between practices was observed for men with high and very high-risk of noncancer mortality (range of practice-level rates of treatment for high: 57%-71% and very high: 41%-61%). Addition of health care delivery system determinants measured at the practice level explained 13% and 15% of the variation in use of treatment among men with low and intermediate risk of noncancer mortality in 10 years, respectively. Conversely, these characteristics explained a larger share of the variation in use of treatment among men with high and very high-risk of noncancer mortality (26% and 40%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Variation among urology practices in use of treatment was highest for men with high and very high-risk noncancer mortality. Practice characteristics explained a large share of this variation.

Practice Competition and Treatment of Newly Diagnosed Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of urology practice market competition on use of treatment in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. METHODS: We performed a retrospective national cohort study of 48,067 Medicare beneficiaries with newly diagnosed prostate cancer between 2014 and 2018. The primary exposure was urology practice-level market competition. Markets were established by the flow of patients to a practice using a variable radius approach. Practice level competition was measured annually using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. The primary outcome was use of treatment for prostate cancer (ie, surgery, radiation, or cryotherapy) stratified by 10-year risk of noncancer mortality. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2018, there was a decrease in the total percent of urologists practicing in small single-specialty groups (49%-41%) with an increase in multispecialty practices (38%-47%). After adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, a lower percentage of men underwent treatment in practices with low competition relative to those managed in practices with high competition (70% vs 67.0%, P < .001). Among men with the highest risk of noncancer mortality, those managed in practices in the least competitive markets were less likely to receive treatment relative to men managed by practices in the most competitive markets (48% vs 60%, P-value<.001). CONCLUSION: Reduction in competition between urology practices is not associated with greater use of treatment in men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, particularly in those with a high risk of noncancer mortality.

Effects of In-office Dispensing by Single-specialty Urology Practices on Management of Advanced Prostate Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: We examine changes in the volume of patients with advanced prostate cancer and prescriptions for abiraterone and enzalutamide among urology practices with and without in-office dispensing. METHODS: Using data from the National Council for Prescription Drug Programs, we identified in-office dispensing by single-specialty urology practices from 2011 to 2018. As the greatest growth in implementing dispensing occurred among large groups in 2015, outcomes were measured at the practice level in 2014 (before) and 2016 (after) for dispensing and non-dispensing practices. Outcomes included the volume of men with advanced prostate cancer managed by a practice and prescriptions for abiraterone and/or enzalutamide. Using national Medicare data, generalized linear mixed models were fit to compare the practice-level ratio of each outcome (2016 relative to 2014) adjusting for regional contextual factors. RESULTS: In-office dispensing increased from 1% to 30% of single-specialty urology practices from 2011 to 2018, with 28 practices implementing dispensing in 2015. In 2016 compared to 2014, adjusted changes in the volume of patients with advanced prostate cancer managed by a practice were similar between non-dispensing (0.88, 95% CI 0.81-0.94) and dispensing (0.93, 95% CI 0.76-1.09) practices (P = .60). Prescriptions for abiraterone and/or enzalutamide increased in both non-dispensing (2.00, 95% CI 1.58-2.41) and dispensing (8.99, 95% CI 4.51-13.47) practices (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In-office dispensing is increasingly common in urology practices. This emerging model is not associated with changes in patient volume but is associated with increased prescriptions for abiraterone and enzalutamide.

Effects of Advanced Practice Providers on Single-specialty Surgical Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of adding advanced practice providers to surgical practices on surgical complications, readmissions, mortality, episode spending, length of stay, and access to care. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: There has been substantial growth in the number of nurse practitioners and physician assistants (ie, advanced practice providers) in the United States. The extent to which advanced practice providers have been integrated into surgical practice, and their impact on surgical outcomes and access is unclear. METHODS: Using a 20% sample of national Medicare claims, we performed a retrospective cohort study of fee-for-service beneficiaries undergoing one of 4 major procedures (coronary artery bypass graft, colectomy, major joint replacement, and cystectomy) between 2010 and 2016. We limited our study population for each procedure to patients treated by single-specialty surgical groups to ensure that the advanced practice providers have direct interactions with its surgeons and patients. All outcomes were measured at the practice level for the year before and the year after the addition of the first advanced practice provider. Outcomes included: complications, readmission, mortality, episode payments, length of stay. Models were adjusted for age, race, sex, comorbidity, socioeconomic class and procedure type. Secondary outcome: practice-level office visits by surgical group type. RESULTS: The number of advanced practice providers increased by 13%, from 6713 to 7596 between 2010 and 2016. The largest relative increases occurred in general (46.9%) and urologic (27.6%) surgical practices. The year after an advanced practice provider was added to a surgical practice, the odds of complications were 17% and 16% lower at 30- and 90-days postprocedure, respectively. Additionally, 90-day readmissions were 18% less likely and length of stay was 0.33 days shorter (a 7.1% reduction). Average 30-day and90-day episode spending was $1294.73 and $1427.76 lower, respectively ( P < 0.001). General surgical, orthopedic, and urology practices realized increases of 49.0 (95% CI 13.5-84.5), 112.0 (95% CI 83.0-140.5), and 205.0 (95% CI 117.5-292.0) in-office visits per surgeon, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of advanced practice providers to single-specialty surgical groups is associated with improvements in surgical outcomes and access. Future work should clarify the mechanisms by which advanced practice providers within surgical practices contribute to health outcomes to identify best practices for deployment.

Implications of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System for Urology Practices.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the implications of the merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS) for urology practices. MIPS is a Medicare payment model that determines whether a physician is financially penalized or receives bonus payment based on performance in four categories: quality, practice improvement, promotion of interoperability, and spending. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of urologist performance in MIPS for 2017 and 2019 using Medicare data. Urologist practice organization was categorized as single-specialty (small, medium, large) or multispecialty groups. MIPS scores were estimated by practice organization. Logistic regression models were used to examine the association between urology practice characteristics, including proportion of dual eligible beneficiaries, and bonus payment adjustment as defined by Medicare methodology. Rates of consolidation (movement from smaller to larger practices) between 2017 and 2019 were compared between those who were and those who were not penalized in 2017. RESULTS: Urologists in small practices performed worse in MIPS and had a significantly lower adjusted odds ratio of receiving bonus payments in both 2017 and 2019 compared to larger group practices (odds ratio [OR] 0.04, 95% confidence interval [95%CI] 0.03-0.05 in 2017 and OR 0.37, 95%CI 0.30-0.47 in 2019). Increasing percent of dual eligible beneficiaries within a patient panel was associated with decreased odds of receiving bonus payment in both performance years. Urologists penalized in 2017 had higher rates of consolidation by 2019 compared to those who were not (14% vs 5%, P <.05). CONCLUSION: Small urology practices and those caring for a higher proportion of dual eligible beneficiaries tended to perform worse in MIPS.

Physician Dispensing Among Urology Practices and the Use of Abiraterone or Enzalutamide for Men With Advanced Prostate Cancer.

Urologists are increasingly prescribing oral targeted therapies to patients with advanced prostate cancer. Concurrent with this trend, urology practices are allowing patients to fill their prescription onsite or through a pharmacy established by the practice. We examined prescription patterns for abiraterone or enzalutamide between eventually dispensing single-specialty urology practices, nondispensing single-specialty urology practices, and multispecialty practices using a 20% random sample of the 2013-2017 national Medicare claims. We determined physician dispensing through manual search of publicly available information. From 2015 through 2017, higher percentages of patients managed by eventually dispensing single-specialty urology practices had a filled prescription of abiraterone or enzalutamide compared with patients managed in nondispensing single-specialty urology practices (eg, in 2017, 8.9%, 95% confidence interval = 7.3% to 10.9%, vs 5.9%, 95% confidence interval = 5.0% to 7.0%, respectively; 2-sided P < .001). Insofar as physician dispensing is associated with higher use of abiraterone or enzalutamide, it may represent a means to improve treatment access.

Risk of Metabolic and Cardiovascular Adverse Events With Abiraterone or Enzalutamide Among Men With Advanced Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone and enzalutamide are the most common oral agents for the treatment of men with advanced prostate cancer. To understand their safety profiles in real-world settings, we examined the association between the use of abiraterone or enzalutamide and the risk of metabolic or cardiovascular adverse events while on treatment. METHODS: Men with advanced prostate cancer and their use of abiraterone or enzalutamide were identified in a 20% sample of the 2010-2017 national Medicare claims. The primary composite outcome was the occurrence of a major metabolic or cardiovascular adverse event, defined as an emergency room visit or hospitalization associated with a primary diagnosis of diabetes, hypertension, or cardiovascular disease. The secondary composite outcome was the occurrence of a minor metabolic or cardiovascular adverse event, defined as an outpatient visit associated with a primary diagnosis of the aforementioned conditions. Risks were assessed separately for abiraterone and enzalutamide using Cox regression. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Compared with men not receiving abiraterone, men receiving abiraterone were at increased risk of both a major composite adverse event (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.53 to 2.05; P < .001) and a minor composite adverse event (HR = 1.24, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.47; P = .01). Compared with men not receiving enzalutamide, men receiving enzalutamide were at an increased risk of a major composite adverse event (HR = 1.22, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.48; P = .04) but not a minor composite adverse event (HR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.83 to 1.30; P = .75). CONCLUSION: Careful monitoring and management of men on abiraterone or enzalutamide through team-based approaches are critical.

Impact of Advanced Practice Provider Integration into Multispecialty Group Practices on Outcomes Following Major Surgery.

Background. While advanced practice providers (APPs) are increasingly integrated into care delivery models, little is known about their impact in surgical settings. Given that many patients undergo surgery in multispecialty group practice settings, we examined the impact of APP integration into such practices on outcomes after major surgery. Methods. We used a 20% sample of national Medicare claims to identify 190 101 patients who underwent 1 of 4 major surgeries (coronary artery bypass graft [CABG], colectomy, major joint replacement, and cystectomy) at multispecialty group practices from 2010 through 2016. The level of APP integration was measured as the ratio of APPs to physicians within each practice. Rates of mortality, major complications, and readmission within 30 days of discharge after the index surgery were compared between patients treated in practices with low, medium, and high levels of APP integration using multivariable regression analysis. Results. Relative to patients treated in practices with low APP integration, those treated in practices with medium or high APP integration had significantly lower rates of mortality (2.4% [low integration] vs 1.9% [medium integration] vs 2.0% [high integration]; P < .01), major complications (34.1% [low] vs 31.2% [medium] vs 30.2% [high]; P < .01), and readmission (11.7% [low] vs 10.6% [medium] vs 10.1% [high]; P < .01). This relationship was consistent for virtually all outcomes when considering each surgery type individually. Conclusions. Integration of APPs into multispecialty group practices was associated with improved postoperative outcomes after major surgery. Future research should identify the mechanisms by which APPs improve outcomes to inform optimal utilization.

Promotional Payments to Medical Oncologists and Urologists and Prescriptions for Abiraterone and Enzalutamide.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the influence of drug manufacturers on the prescribing patterns of medical oncologists and urologists, we examined the relationship between promotional payments from the manufacturers of abiraterone and enzalutamide and prescriptions for either drug by medical oncologists and urologists. METHODS: Promotional payments for abiraterone or enzalutamide made to medical oncologists and urologists between January 2014 and December 2017 reported through the Open Payments Program were categorized as $0, $1$999, and $1000 or more. Prescriptions filled between January 2013 and December 2017 were identified in the Medicare Part D File. Associations between promotional payments and prescribing were assessed using generalized linear models. RESULTS: From 2013 through 2017, the number of medical oncologists and urologists prescribing abiraterone or enzalutamide increased by 38% - 298%, respectively. The odds of prescribing among medical oncologists receiving $1--$999 and those receiving $1,000 or more were 1.69 (95%CI:1.59--1.79) and 2.61 (95% CI: 2.14--3.18) times that of medical oncologists receiving no payments. Among urologists receiving $1--$999 and those receiving $1,000 or more, the odds of prescribing were 4.04 (95%CI: 3.59--4.54) and 13.57 (95%CI: 9.69--19.0) times that of urologists receiving no payments. CONCLUSION: Increasing promotional payments were associated with prescribing among medical oncologists and urologists, with a stronger relationship evident for urologists. Prescribing patterns for abiraterone and enzalutamide, particularly among urologists, may be influenced by payments from drug manufacturers.

Understanding Active Surveillance for Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: To assess how active surveillance for prostate cancer is apportioned across specialties and how testing patterns and transition to treatment vary by specialty. METHODS: We used a 20% national sample of Medicare claims to identify men diagnosed with prostate cancer from 2010 through 2016 initiating surveillance (N = 13,048). Patients were assigned to the physician responsible for the bulk of surveillance care based on billing patterns. Freedom from treatment was assessed by specialty of the responsible physician (urology, radiation oncology, medical oncology, and primary care). Multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine associations between specialty and treatment patterns. RESULTS: Urologists were responsible for surveillance in 93.7% of patients in 2010 and 96.2% of patients in 2016 (P for trend = .01). Testing patterns varied by specialty. For example, patients of medical oncologists had more frequent prostate-specific antigen testing compared with patients of urologists (1.85 v 2.39 tests per year, respectively; P < .01). Three years after diagnosis, a significantly smaller proportion of patients managed by radiation oncologists (64.3%) remained on surveillance compared with patients managed by other physicians (75.8%-79.5%; P < .01). Although radiation was the most common treatment among all men who transitioned to treatment, a disproportionate percentage of patients followed by radiation oncologists (28.9%) ultimately underwent radiation compared with patients followed by other physicians (15.1%-15.4%; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Nontrivial percentages of patients on active surveillance are managed by physicians outside of urology. Given the interspecialty variations observed, efforts to strengthen the evidence underlying surveillance pathways and to engage other specialties in guideline development are needed.