Value‐based payment models and management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveTo examine the effect of urologist participation in value‐based payment models on the initial management of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.MethodsMedicare 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.ResultsTreatment 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]).ConclusionsHow urologists participate in value‐based payment models is not associated with treatment, potential overtreatment, and prostate cancer spending in men with newly diagnosed disease.