Urologist Practice Structure and Spending for Prostate Cancer Care.

Modi PK, Herrel LA, Kaufman SR, Yan P, Borza T, Skolarus TA, Schroeck FR, Hollenbeck BK, Shahinian VB. Urologist Practice Structure and Spending for Prostate Cancer Care. Urology. 2019 Aug 1; 130:65-71.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• CDA 12-171 – Improving the prostate cancer survivorship care of veterans

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of urologist practice structure on health care spending for men with prostate cancer. We hypothesize that 3 elements of urologist practice structure may influence spending for prostate cancer care: urologist participation within a multispecialty group (MSG), practice size among single specialty urology groups, and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) ownership. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a 20% sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries to identify men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2011 and 2014. We identified each man's urologist and used data from the Healthcare Relational Spheres provider files to identify practice type, size, and IMRT ownership for each urologist. We then fit generalized linear mixed models to estimate the association between these practice features and Medicare payments in the year after diagnosis. All models were adjusted for patient and healthcare market characteristics. RESULTS: We identified 35,929 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer who were treated by 6381 urologists. Medicare payments for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer were significantly lower in MSGs ($19,181 v. $22,366 large single specialty group, P < 0.001) and significantly higher among practices with IMRT ownership ($23,801 v. $20,162 for non-owners, P < 0.001). These differences persisted in sensitivity analyses including only men treated with radiotherapy and examining only prostate cancer-related claims. CONCLUSION: Urologist practice structure is associated with payments for prostate cancer care. MSGs had the lowest Medicare payments per episode of prostate cancer care while groups with IMRT ownership had the highest.