Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34751709›Full record

ArticleJAMA2021

Association of Participation in the Oncology Care Model With Medicare Payments, Utilization, Care Delivery, and Quality Outcomes.

Nancy L Keating, Shalini Jhatakia, Gabriel A Brooks, Amanda S Tripp, Inna Cintina, Mary Beth Landrum, Qing Zheng, Thomas J Christian, Roberta Glass, Van Doren Hsu and 5 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
14.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Use of Low-Value Cancer Treatments in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Treating Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Low Metastatic Breast Cancer.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Observational
  20. Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: Charting a New Course for a System in Crisis: One Decade Later.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Nancy L KeatingDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Shalini JhatakiaThe Lewin Group, Falls Church, Virginia.
Gabriel A BrooksGeisel School of Medicine, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Amanda S TrippThe Lewin Group, Falls Church, Virginia.
Inna CintinaThe Lewin Group, Falls Church, Virginia.
Mary Beth LandrumDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Qing ZhengAbt Associates, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Thomas J ChristianAbt Associates, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Roberta GlassAbt Associates, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Van Doren HsuGeneral Dynamics Information Technology, Falls Church, Virginia.
Colleen M KummetGeneral Dynamics Information Technology, Falls Church, Virginia.
Susannah WoodmanCenters for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation, Baltimore, Maryland.
Carol SimonThe Lewin Group, Falls Church, Virginia.
Andrea HassolAbt Associates, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Oncology Care Model Evaluation Team
Abt Global (United States) · USLewin Group (United States) · USGeneral Dynamics (United States) · USBrigham and Women's Hospital · USCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services · USDartmouth College · USHarvard University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceIn 2016, the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services initiated the Oncology Care Model (OCM), an alternative payment model designed to improve the value of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries with cancer.

objectiveTo assess the association of the OCM with changes in Medicare spending, utilization, quality, and patient experience during the OCM's first 3 years. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsExploratory difference-in-differences study comparing care during 6-month chemotherapy episodes in OCM participating practices and propensity-matched comparison practices initiated before (January 2014 through June 2015) and after (July 2016 through December 2018) the start of the OCM. Participants included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with cancer treated at these practices through June 2019. EXPOSURES: OCM participation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Total episode payments (Medicare spending for Parts A, B, and D, not including monthly payments for enhanced oncology services); utilization and payments for hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, office visits, chemotherapy, supportive care, and imaging; quality (chemotherapy-associated hospitalizations and ED visits, timely chemotherapy, end-of-life care, and survival); and patient experiences.

resultsAmong Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, 483 319 beneficiaries (mean age, 73.0 [SD, 8.7] years; 60.1% women; 987 332 episodes) were treated at 201 OCM participating practices, and 557 354 beneficiaries (mean age, 72.9 [SD, 9.0] years; 57.4% women; 1 122 597 episodes) were treated at 534 comparison practices. From the baseline period, total episode payments increased from $28 681 for OCM episodes and $28 421 for comparison episodes to $33 211 for OCM episodes and $33 249 for comparison episodes during the intervention period (difference in differences, -$297; 90% CI, -$504 to -$91), less than the mean $704 Monthly Enhanced Oncology Services payments. Relative decreases in total episode payments were primarily for Part B nonchemotherapy drug payments (difference in differences, -$145; 90% CI, -$218 to -$72), especially supportive care drugs (difference in differences, -$150; 90% CI, -$216 to -$84). The OCM was associated with statistically significant relative reductions in total episode payments among higher-risk episodes (difference in differences, -$503; 90% CI, -$802 to -$204) and statistically significant relative increases in total episode payments among lower-risk episodes (difference in differences, $151; 90% CI, $39-$264). The OCM was not significantly associated with differences in hospitalizations, ED visits, or survival. Of 22 measures of utilization, 10 measures of quality, and 7 measures of care experiences, only 5 were significantly different. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this exploratory analysis, the OCM was significantly associated with modest payment reductions during 6-month episodes for Medicare beneficiaries receiving chemotherapy for cancer in the first 3 years of the OCM that did not offset the monthly payments for enhanced oncology services. There were no statistically significant differences for most utilization, quality, and patient experience outcomes.

Indexed as

Health ExpendituresQuality of Health CareReimbursement MechanismsAgedCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.Cost SavingsDelivery of Health CareEpisode of CareFee-for-Service PlansFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMedical OncologyMedicareNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID34751709
PMCPMC8579232
OpenAlexW3213147687

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.