br Clinical Genitourinary Cancer June Table Regression
Clinical Genitourinary Cancer June 2019 - Table 3 Regression Estimates for Risk-Adjusted ED Visits, Risk-Adjusted Mortality, and Costs
Characteristic ED Visits Within 30 Days ED Visits Within 365 Days Death Within 365 Days Total Costs Within 6 Months Total Costs Within 12 Months
Big metro (ref)
Renal-cell carcinoma (ref)
Charlson Comorbidity Score
Joel E. Segel et al
Abbreviations: CI ¼ confidence interval; ED ¼ emergency department; OR ¼ odds ratio. aReceived within 30 days of surgery where outcome is measured at 30 days; and within 365-day outcomes for outcomes measured at 365 days after surgery.
Risk-Adjusted ED Visits
Abbreviations: CI ¼ confidence interval; ED ¼ emergency department.
or coordination of subsequent care. Finally, while the OCM spe-cifically targets patients receiving systemic targeted therapy, this is relatively less common in kidney cancer so we focused on surgery as the primary index treatment.
While a hospital’s 30-day risk-adjusted ED visit rate may not be highly correlated with its risk-adjusted mortality rate or costs, it Geneticin likely remains an important outcome to collect, especially from a payer’s
perspective. Conversely, longer term ED visit rates were associated with significantly increased costs, even when excluding the cost of the ED visit. This may indicate that risk-adjusted ED visits can serve as an early warning sign of worsening health or that for a variety of reasons care coordination may need to be improved even if the visit may be less related to the initial surgery. Payers and providers should work together and share data to ensure that kidney cancer patients receive quality, long-term care coordination, especially as time passes since the initial surgery.
Clinical Practice Points
Older age, stage IV disease at diagnosis, and higher CCI score were all associated with significantly higher odds of a 30- or 365-day ED visit. A hospital’s risk-adjusted ED visit rate does not appear to be significantly correlated with its risk-adjusted mortality rate.
A hospital’s 365-day risk-adjusted ED visit rate was associated with significantly higher costs; however 30-day ED visit rates were not associated with significantly higher costs.
The authors have stated that they have no conflicts of interest.
1. Soni A. Trends in use and expenditures for cancer treatment among adults 18 and older, US civilian noninstitutionalized population, 2001 and 2011, Statistical Brief #443. Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, June 2014. Available at: https://meps. ahrq.gov/data_files/publications/st443/stat443.pdf. Accessed: April 4, 2019.
4. Kolodziej M, Hoverman JR, Garey JS, et al. Benchmarks for value in cancer care: an analysis of a large commercial population. J Oncol Pract 2011; 7:301-6. 5. Fitch K, Pelizzari PM, Pyenson B, Community Oncology Alliance. Cost drivers of cancer care: a retrospective analysis of Medicare and commercially insured popu-lation claim data, 2004-2014. Milliman, April 14, 2016, Available at: http://www. milliman.com/insight/2016/Cost-drivers-of-cancer-care-A-retrospective-analysis-of-Medicare-and-commercially-insured-population-claim-data-2004-2014/. Accessed: April 4, 2019.
6. Rivera DR, Gallicchio L, Brown J, Liu B, Kyriacou DN, Shelburne N. Trends in adult cancer-related emergency department utilization: an analysis of data from the Nationwide Emergency Department sample. JAMA Oncol 2017:e172450. 7. Chandra A, Shafrin J, Dhawan R. Utility of cancer value frameworks for patients, payers, and physicians. JAMA 2016; 315:2069-70.
8. Schnipper LE, Davidson NE, Wollins DS, et al. Updating the American Society of Clinical Oncology value framework: revisions and reflections in response to comments received. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34:2925-34.
9. Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Dafni U, et al. A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit cyanobacteria can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol 2015; 26:1547-73. 10. Burwell SM. Setting value-based payment goals—HHS efforts to improve US health care. N Engl J Med 2015; 372:897-9.
11. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Oncology Care Model, Available at: https://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/oncology-care/. Accessed: April 4, 2019. 12. Kline R, Adelson K, Kirshner JJ, et al. The Oncology Care Model: perspectives from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and participating oncology practices in academia and the community. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2017; 37: 460-6.