MP23-15 EXPLORING PRACTICE PATTERNS AND REGIONAL PARTICIPATION OF UROLOGISTS IN ONCOLOGY CARE MODEL

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyHealth Services Research: Practice Patterns, Quality of Life and Shared Decision Making III (MP23)1 Sep 2021MP23-15 EXPLORING PRACTICE PATTERNS AND REGIONAL PARTICIPATION OF UROLOGISTS IN ONCOLOGY CARE MODEL Zafardjan Dalimov, Umar Iqbal, Zhe Jing, Ahmed S. Elsayed, Khurshid A. Guru, and Ahmed A. Hussein Zafardjan DalimovZafardjan Dalimov More articles by this author , Umar IqbalUmar Iqbal More articles by this author , Zhe JingZhe Jing More articles by this author , Ahmed S. ElsayedAhmed S. Elsayed More articles by this author , Khurshid A. GuruKhurshid A. Guru More articles by this author , and Ahmed A. HusseinAhmed A. Hussein More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002014.15AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is an episode-based payment model for chemotherapy-related care. It provides traditional fee-for-service, monthly payments for oncology services, and performance-based payments on eligible episodes linked to quality performance and benchmarked costs. This study aims to evaluate OCM participation by urologists and identify variation in practice patterns and utilization among OCM and non-OCM urologists. METHODS: We used Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Quality Payment Program Participation Eligibility tool to classify urologists based on their participation in OCM. Provider level utilization data were extracted from Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data for the 2017 OCM participation year. We used Chi-square and Mann-Whitney tests for to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Among 9055 urologists who received Medicare payments in 2017, 359 (4.0%) participated in OCM. There was a significant difference in distribution of OCM participating urologists across all American Urological Association sections (p <0.01), with higher than US average (4%) participation within New York (11.2%) and North Central (7.0%) sections. OCM urologists compared to non-OCM urologists provided care to patients with cancer diagnosis more frequently (23% vs 22%, p <0.01) and dealt with more complex patients evidenced by higher Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) risk adjustment scores (1.50 vs 1.40, p <0.01). Number of Medicare beneficiaries did not significantly differ between OCM and non-OCM urologists (504 vs 518, p=0.50). However, OCM urologists received higher median Medicare payments per beneficiary ($314vs $281, p <0.01) and per service ($60 vs $50, p <0.01). OCM urologists provided fewer services than non-OCM urologists (2534 vs 3101, p=0.06) (Table 1). CONCLUSIONS: Only small number of urologists are participating in the OCM. New York had above average participation of urologists in OCM. OCM urologists were more likely to provide care to patients with the diagnosis of cancer and higher HCC scores. They received higher payment per services provided and beneficiaries seen. Source of Funding: Roswell Park Alliance Foundation © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e407-e408 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Zafardjan Dalimov More articles by this author Umar Iqbal More articles by this author Zhe Jing More articles by this author Ahmed S. Elsayed More articles by this author Khurshid A. Guru More articles by this author Ahmed A. Hussein More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...