Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42043828›Full record

ArticleJAMA internal medicine2026

The Oncology Care Model and Initiation of Systemic Therapy for Cancer.

Nancy L Keating, Miranda B Lam, Mary Beth Landrum, J Michael McWilliams, Alexi A Wright, Gabriel A Brooks, Jose R Zubizarreta, Benjamin Buzzee, Bruce E Landon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Interpreting vaccine-associated survival differences in immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Nancy L KeatingDepartment 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.
Alexi A WrightDepartment of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Gabriel A BrooksDepartment of Medicine, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Jose R ZubizarretaDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Benjamin BuzzeeDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Bruce E LandonDepartment of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Funding

Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Steven D Leach · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
AHRQ HHS R01 HS026498NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Oncology Care Model (OCM) was an episode payment model for patients with cancer; episodes were triggered by receipt of systemic cancer therapy. OCM provided monthly care management payments, and all practices were engaged in 1-sided risk in its early years. A concern about episode payment models triggered by use of a particular service is that they may prompt increases in episode volume. Objective: To assess if OCM is associated with an increase in the likelihood of initiating systemic therapy for cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quasi-experimental study used matched difference-in-differences analysis of serial cross sections of Medicare beneficiaries with an index visit for cancer from January 2010 to December 2019 who were treated at OCM practices or matched practices not participating in the OCM and followed up for 1 year, comparing changes in outcomes before vs after OCM began in July 2016. Data were analyzed from October 2021 to November 2025. Main Outcomes and Measures: Systemic therapy initiation in the year after an index visit for newly diagnosed (incident) or poor-prognosis cancer; a secondary outcome examined total Medicare payments in the year after the index visit. Results: The study included 754 182 patient episodes (750 483 patients; mean [SD] age, 74.1 [9.0] years; 467 071 female [62.2%]) in the incident population and 517 858 patients (mean [SD] age, 72.4 [9.7] years; 270 416 female [52.2%]) in the poor prognosis cohort treated at 197 intervention and 197 comparison practices. There was no statistically significant differential change in the initiation of systemic therapy in the incident population (-0.9 percentage point difference; 95% CI, -2.2 to 0.3 percentage points; P = .14). Among patients with poor-prognosis cancers, there was a statistically significant differential decrease in the likelihood of systemic therapy initiation (1.5 percentage points, 95% CI, -2.8 to -0.2 percentage points; P = .03). Following OCM, there was a non-statistically significant relative decrease in spending (-$898.26; 95% CI, -$1890.31 to $93.80; P = .08) in the year after the index incident diagnosis and a statistically significant relative decrease (-$2192.15; 95% CI, -3559.66 to -833.63; P = .002) in the poor prognosis cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: Despite concerns about greater use of systemic therapy for patients with cancer under 1-sided risk, this study found that the OCM was not associated with an increase in the likelihood of initiating systemic therapy episodes among patients with incident cancers but was associated with less chemotherapy initiation and lower spending among patients with poor-prognosis cancers. By not examining changes in chemotherapy initiation, the OCM evaluation may have underestimated savings related to the model.

Indexed as

Medical OncologyMedicareNeoplasmsAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleUnited States

Identifiers

PMID42043828
PMCPMC13122497

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.