Did changes in drug reimbursement after the medicare modernization act affect chemotherapy prescribing?
Mark C Hornbrook1, Jennifer Malin2, Jane C Weeks2
1Mark C. Hornbrook, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, OR; Jennifer Malin, Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA; Jane C. Weeks and Nancy L. Keating, Harvard Medical School; Jane C. Weeks, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute; Nancy L. Keating, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston MA; and Solomon B. Makgoeng and Arnold L. Potosky, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. mark.c.hornbrook@kpchr.org.
Purpose:
The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) decreased fee-for-service (FFS) payments for outpatient chemotherapy. We assessed how this policy affected chemotherapy in FFS settings versus in integrated health networks (IHNs).
Patients And Methods:
We examined 5,831 chemotherapy regimens for 3,613 patients from 2003 to 2006 with colorectal cancer (CRC) or lung cancers in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research Surveillance Consortium. Patients were from four geographically defined regions, seven large health maintenance organizations, and 15 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers. The outcome of interest was receipt of chemotherapy that included at least one drug for which reimbursement declined after the MMA.
Results:
The odds of receiving an MMA-affected drug were lower in the post-MMA era: the odds ratio (OR) was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89). Important differences across cancers were detected: for CRC, the OR was 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.92); for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the OR was 1.60 (95% CI, 1.09 to 2.35); and for small-cell lung cancer, the OR was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.34 to 1.16). After the MMA, FFS patients were less likely to receive MMA-affected drugs: OR, 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.89). No pre- versus post-MMA difference in the use of MMA-affected drugs was detected among IHN patients: OR, 1.01 (95% CI, 0.66 to 1.56). Patients with CRC were less likely to receive an MMA-affected drug in both FFS and IHN settings in the post- versus pre-MMA era, whereas patients with NSCLC were the opposite: OR, 1.60 (95% CI, 1.09 to 2.35) for FFS and 6.33 (95% CI, 2.09 to 19.11) for IHNs post- versus pre-MMA.
Conclusion:
Changes in reimbursement after the passage of MMA appear to have had less of an impact on prescribing patterns in FFS settings than the introduction of new drugs and clinical evidence as well as other factors driving adoption of new practice patterns.
Insights
The Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) impacted chemotherapy drug choices, reducing use of certain drugs in fee-for-service (FFS) settings. Integrated health networks (IHNs) showed no significant change in prescribing patterns post-MMA.
Area of Science:
- Health Economics
- Oncology
- Health Policy
Background:
- The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act (MMA) of 2003 reduced fee-for-service (FFS) payments for outpatient chemotherapy.
- This policy change may influence chemotherapy prescribing patterns, particularly comparing FFS settings with integrated health networks (IHNs).
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the impact of the MMA's FFS payment reductions on chemotherapy drug selection.
- To compare these effects in FFS settings versus IHNs.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of 5,831 chemotherapy regimens for 3,613 patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) or lung cancers (2003-2006).
- Data sourced from the Cancer Care Outcomes Research Surveillance Consortium across diverse healthcare settings.
- Outcome measured: receipt of chemotherapy including drugs with reduced reimbursement post-MMA.
Main Results:
- Overall, odds of receiving MMA-affected drugs decreased post-MMA (OR=0.73).
- FFS patients were less likely to receive MMA-affected drugs (OR=0.73), while IHN patients showed no significant change (OR=1.01).
- CRC patients received fewer MMA-affected drugs in both settings; NSCLC patients received more, especially in IHNs (OR=6.33 post-MMA).
Conclusions:
- MMA reimbursement changes had a lesser impact on FFS prescribing than new drug introductions and clinical evidence.
- Prescribing patterns in FFS settings were influenced by reimbursement shifts, but less so than by other practice-driving factors.
- The study highlights differential impacts of health policy on cancer treatment across different healthcare delivery systems.
Related Concept Videos
Drug Dosing: Geriatric Patients
Combination Therapies and Personalized Medicine
The combination of the drug acetazolamide and sulforaphane is a good example of combination therapy to treat cancer. The cells in the interior of a large tumor often die due to the hypoxic and...
Combination Therapies and Personalized Medicine
Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: Dopamine Receptor Antagonists
Phenothiazines, such as prochlorperazine...
Nursing Ethical Principles II
Consider the following scenario, which illustrates how these principles are applied in the care of Mr. John, a fifty-year-old teacher diagnosed with metastatic liver cancer.
Initially, Mr. John's...
Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting: 5-HT3 Receptor Antagonists
