Reimbursement cuts and changes in urologist use of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

Vahakn B. Shahinian, Yong Fang Kuo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: We examined the impact of urologist academic affiliation on use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer before and after major reimbursement cuts for ADT in hopes of better understanding the influence of financial incentives on its use. In particular, we hypothesized that if financial incentive was the predominant factor driving use, we should see a narrowing in the previously documented gap of ADT use between non-academic and academic urologists following the reimbursement cuts. Methods: With the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database we examined use of ADT for potentially inappropriate indications (primary therapy of localized, lower risk tumors) among patients of 2214 urologists over the period 2000-2002 and 2004-2007, representing eras before and after reimbursement cuts. Multi-level logistic regression models were used to estimate the likelihood of ADT use adjusted for patient, tumor and urologist characteristics (academic affiliation, board certification, years in practice and patient panel size). Results: Overall, ADT use peaked in 2002 at 46.6% of patients, but dropped dramatically in 2005, with a slow continued decrease through 2007 to 31.1%. A similar pattern was evident within most strata of urologist characteristics, including academic affiliation. In the multilevel model, patients of non-academic urologists had a 30% higher odds of receiving ADT than those of academic urologists in both the eras before and after the reimbursement cuts. Conclusion: A similar proportionate drop in use of ADT among both academic and non-academic urologists following reimbursement cuts suggests that factors other than financial incentives may have played a role.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number25
JournalBMC Urology
Volume15
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 3 2015

Fingerprint

Androgens
Prostatic Neoplasms
Motivation
Therapeutics
Logistic Models
Urologists
Certification
Medicare
Neoplasms
Epidemiology
Databases

Keywords

  • Androgen deprivation
  • Prostate cancer
  • Reimbursement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Urology

Cite this

Reimbursement cuts and changes in urologist use of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. / Shahinian, Vahakn B.; Kuo, Yong Fang.

In: BMC Urology, Vol. 15, No. 1, 25, 03.04.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{47467cffa99a40b89a3d02dec08f3752,
title = "Reimbursement cuts and changes in urologist use of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer",
abstract = "Background: We examined the impact of urologist academic affiliation on use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer before and after major reimbursement cuts for ADT in hopes of better understanding the influence of financial incentives on its use. In particular, we hypothesized that if financial incentive was the predominant factor driving use, we should see a narrowing in the previously documented gap of ADT use between non-academic and academic urologists following the reimbursement cuts. Methods: With the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database we examined use of ADT for potentially inappropriate indications (primary therapy of localized, lower risk tumors) among patients of 2214 urologists over the period 2000-2002 and 2004-2007, representing eras before and after reimbursement cuts. Multi-level logistic regression models were used to estimate the likelihood of ADT use adjusted for patient, tumor and urologist characteristics (academic affiliation, board certification, years in practice and patient panel size). Results: Overall, ADT use peaked in 2002 at 46.6{\%} of patients, but dropped dramatically in 2005, with a slow continued decrease through 2007 to 31.1{\%}. A similar pattern was evident within most strata of urologist characteristics, including academic affiliation. In the multilevel model, patients of non-academic urologists had a 30{\%} higher odds of receiving ADT than those of academic urologists in both the eras before and after the reimbursement cuts. Conclusion: A similar proportionate drop in use of ADT among both academic and non-academic urologists following reimbursement cuts suggests that factors other than financial incentives may have played a role.",
keywords = "Androgen deprivation, Prostate cancer, Reimbursement",
author = "Shahinian, {Vahakn B.} and Kuo, {Yong Fang}",
year = "2015",
month = "4",
day = "3",
doi = "10.1186/s12894-015-0020-y",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
journal = "BMC Urology",
issn = "1471-2490",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reimbursement cuts and changes in urologist use of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer

AU - Shahinian, Vahakn B.

AU - Kuo, Yong Fang

PY - 2015/4/3

Y1 - 2015/4/3

N2 - Background: We examined the impact of urologist academic affiliation on use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer before and after major reimbursement cuts for ADT in hopes of better understanding the influence of financial incentives on its use. In particular, we hypothesized that if financial incentive was the predominant factor driving use, we should see a narrowing in the previously documented gap of ADT use between non-academic and academic urologists following the reimbursement cuts. Methods: With the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database we examined use of ADT for potentially inappropriate indications (primary therapy of localized, lower risk tumors) among patients of 2214 urologists over the period 2000-2002 and 2004-2007, representing eras before and after reimbursement cuts. Multi-level logistic regression models were used to estimate the likelihood of ADT use adjusted for patient, tumor and urologist characteristics (academic affiliation, board certification, years in practice and patient panel size). Results: Overall, ADT use peaked in 2002 at 46.6% of patients, but dropped dramatically in 2005, with a slow continued decrease through 2007 to 31.1%. A similar pattern was evident within most strata of urologist characteristics, including academic affiliation. In the multilevel model, patients of non-academic urologists had a 30% higher odds of receiving ADT than those of academic urologists in both the eras before and after the reimbursement cuts. Conclusion: A similar proportionate drop in use of ADT among both academic and non-academic urologists following reimbursement cuts suggests that factors other than financial incentives may have played a role.

AB - Background: We examined the impact of urologist academic affiliation on use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer before and after major reimbursement cuts for ADT in hopes of better understanding the influence of financial incentives on its use. In particular, we hypothesized that if financial incentive was the predominant factor driving use, we should see a narrowing in the previously documented gap of ADT use between non-academic and academic urologists following the reimbursement cuts. Methods: With the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database we examined use of ADT for potentially inappropriate indications (primary therapy of localized, lower risk tumors) among patients of 2214 urologists over the period 2000-2002 and 2004-2007, representing eras before and after reimbursement cuts. Multi-level logistic regression models were used to estimate the likelihood of ADT use adjusted for patient, tumor and urologist characteristics (academic affiliation, board certification, years in practice and patient panel size). Results: Overall, ADT use peaked in 2002 at 46.6% of patients, but dropped dramatically in 2005, with a slow continued decrease through 2007 to 31.1%. A similar pattern was evident within most strata of urologist characteristics, including academic affiliation. In the multilevel model, patients of non-academic urologists had a 30% higher odds of receiving ADT than those of academic urologists in both the eras before and after the reimbursement cuts. Conclusion: A similar proportionate drop in use of ADT among both academic and non-academic urologists following reimbursement cuts suggests that factors other than financial incentives may have played a role.

KW - Androgen deprivation

KW - Prostate cancer

KW - Reimbursement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84927948461&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84927948461&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12894-015-0020-y

DO - 10.1186/s12894-015-0020-y

M3 - Article

VL - 15

JO - BMC Urology

JF - BMC Urology

SN - 1471-2490

IS - 1

M1 - 25

ER -