Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37713209›Full record

Observational studyJAMA health forum2023

Opportunities for Savings in Risk Arrangements for Oncologic Care.

Bruce E Landon, Miranda B Lam, Mary Beth Landrum, J Michael McWilliams, Laurie Meneades, Alexi A Wright, Nancy L Keating

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in JAMA health forum, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Bruce E LandonDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Miranda B LamDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Mary Beth LandrumDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
J Michael McWilliamsDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Laurie MeneadesDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Alexi A WrightDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts.
Nancy L KeatingDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Harvard University · USDana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center · USDana-Farber Cancer Institute · US

Funding

Comparing Targeted and Non-Targeted Approaches to Improving the Value of Cancer Care ServicesR01HS026498 · AHRQ · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI LANDON, BRUCE E. · 2019 to 2022
$1.5M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS026498
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: As the US accelerates adoption of alternative payment through global payment models such as Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) or Medicare Advantage (MA), high spending for cancer care is a potential target for savings. Objective: To quantify the extent to which ACOs and other risk-bearing organizations operating in a specific geographic area (hospital referral region [HRR]) could achieve savings by steering patients to efficient medical oncology practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational study included serial cross-sections of Medicare beneficiaries with cancer from 2010 to 2018. Data were analyzed from August 2021 to March 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Total spending and spending by category in the 1-year period following an index visit for a patient with newly diagnosed (incident) or poor-prognosis cancer. Results: The incident cohort included 1 309 825 patients with a mean age of 74.0 years; the most common cancer types were breast (21.4%), lung (16.7%), and colorectal cancer (10.0%). The poor prognosis cohort included 1 429 973 (mean age, 72.7 years); the most common cancer types were lung (26.6%), lymphoma (11.7%), and leukemia (7.3%). Options for steering varied across markets; the top quartile market had 10 or more oncology practices, but the bottom quartile had 3 or fewer oncology practices. Total spending (including Medicare Part D) in the incident cohort increased from a mean of $57 314 in 2009 to 2010 to $66 028 in 2016 to 2017. Within markets, total spending for practices in the highest spending quartile was 19% higher than in the lowest quartile. Hospital spending was the single largest component of spending in both time periods ($20 390 and $19 718, respectively) followed by Part B (infused) chemotherapy ($8022 and $11 699). Correlations in practice-level spending between the first-year (2009) and second-year (2010) spending were high (>0.90 in all categories with most >0.98), but these attenuated over time. Conclusions and Relevance: These results suggest there may be opportunities for ACOs and other risk-bearing organizations to select or drive referrals to lower-spending oncology practices in many local markets.

Indexed as

Accountable Care OrganizationsLeukemiaMedicare Part DAgedBreastHumansMedical OncologyUnited States

Identifiers

PMID37713209
PMCPMC10504611
OpenAlexW4386757807

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.