Search

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and change in low-value cancer services. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, we used administrative claims from the HealthCore Integrated Research Environment, a repository of medical and pharmacy data from US health plans representing more than 80 million members, between January 1, 2016, and March 31, 2021. METHODS: We used linear probability models to investigate the relation between the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and 4 guideline-based metrics of low-value cancer care: (1) conventional fractionation radiotherapy instead of hypofractionated radiotherapy for early-stage breast cancer; (2) non--guideline-based antiemetic use for minimal-, low-, or moderate- to high-risk chemotherapies; (3) off-pathway systemic therapy; and (4) aggressive end-of-life care. We identified patients with new diagnoses of breast, colorectal, and/or lung cancer. We excluded members who did not have at least 6 months of continuous insurance coverage and members with prevalent cancers. RESULTS: Among 117,116 members (median [IQR] age, 60 [53-69] years; 72.4% women), 59,729 (51.0%) had breast cancer, 25,751 (22.0%) had colorectal cancer, and 31,862 (27.2%) had lung cancer. The payer mix was 18.7% Medicare Advantage or Medicare supplemental and 81.2% commercial non-Medicare. Rates of low-value cancer services exhibited minimal changes during the pandemic, as adjusted percentage-point differences were 3.93 (95% CI, 1.50-6.36) for conventional radiotherapy, 0.82 (95% CI, -0.62 to 2.25) for off-pathway systemic therapy, -3.62 (95% CI, -4.97 to -2.27) for non--guideline-based antiemetics, and 2.71 (95% CI, -0.59 to 6.02) for aggressive end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: Low-value cancer care remained prevalent throughout the pandemic. Policy makers should consider changes to payment and incentive design to turn the tide against low-value cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: To describe trends in US health care spending in a large, national, and commercially insured population during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of commercially insured members enrolled between May 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021. METHODS: The study utilized a population-based sample of continuously enrolled members in a geographically diverse federation of Blue Cross Blue Shield plans across the United States. Our sample excluded Medicare and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. The COVID-19 exposure period was defined as 2020-2021; 2018-2019 were pre--COVID-19 years. We defined 4 post--COVID-19 periods: March 1 to April 30, 2020; May 1 to December 31, 2020; January 1 to March 31, 2021; and April 1 to December 31, 2021. The primary outcome was inflation-adjusted overall per-member per-month (PMPM) medical spending adjusted for age, sex, Elixhauser comorbidities, area-level racial composition, income, and education. RESULTS: Our sample included 97,319,130 individuals. Mean PMPM medical spending decreased from $370.92 in January-February 2020 to $281.00 in March-April 2020. Between May and December 2020, mean PMPM medical spending recovered to--but did not exceed--prepandemic levels. Mean PMPM medical spending stayed below prepandemic levels between January and March 2021, rose above prepandemic baselines between April and June 2021, and decreased below baseline between July and December 2021. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic induced a spending shock in 2020, and health care spending did not recover to near baseline until mid-2021, with some emerging evidence of pent-up demand. The observed spending below baseline through the end of 2021 will pose challenges to setting spending benchmarks for alternative payment and shared savings models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Like all United States physicians, ophthalmologists may be implicated in lawsuits claiming fraudulent medical practice. In order to educate, raise awareness, and mitigate fraudulent practice, we reviewed a legal database and analyzed fraud claims in ophthalmology lawsuits. Methods: A retrospective legal literature review was performed on jury verdicts and settlements from the online legal database LexisNexis Academic from 1985 through 2020 that were filed by or against an ophthalmologist, involved a fraud claim, and included a final decision or settlement. Cases were evaluated for factors including demographics of plaintiffs and defendants, type of fraud claim, ophthalmologist party status (plaintiff or defendant), decision outcome, and amount awarded (when applicable). Results: Of the 27 cases analyzed, all ophthalmologist defendants involved were male and the most common sub-specialty for an ophthalmologist defendant was refractive surgery. The most common fraud type was a fraud claim involving a malpractice lawsuit (12 of 27), followed by contract fraud and billing fraud. While the ophthalmologists in malpractice-related fraud cases experienced more rulings in favor of the defendant on the fraud claims (8 of 12), ophthalmologists in billing fraud cases experienced fewer rulings in their favor (0 of 5). Discussion: Ophthalmology lawsuits involving fraud claims occurred in various settings, including malpractice lawsuits, contract cases, and Medicare and Medicaid billing. Defendants were all male and most commonly refractive surgeons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose--To identify temporal and geographic trends in private equity (PE)--backed acquisitions of ophthalmology and optometry practices in the United States from 2012 to 2021. Methods--In this cross-sectional time series, acquisition data from 10/21/2019 to 9/1/2021 and previously published data from 1/1/2012 to 10/20/2019 were analyzed. Acquisition data were compiled from 6 financial databases, 5 industry news outlets, and publicly available press releases. Linear regression models were used to compare rates of acquisition. Outcomes included number of total acquisitions, practice type, locations, provider details, and geographic footprint. Results--A total of 245 practices associated with 614 clinical locations and 948 ophthalmologists or optometrists were acquired by 30 PE-backed platform companies between 10/21/2019 and 9/1/2021. Of 30 platform companies, 18 were new vis-à-vis our prior study. Of these acquisitions, 127 were comprehensive practices, 29 were retina practices, and 89 were optometry practices. From 2012 to 2021, monthly acquisitions increased by 0.947 acquisitions per year (P < 0.001*). Texas, Florida, Michigan, and New Jersey were the states with the greatest number of PE acquisitions, with 55, 48, 29, and 28 clinic acquisitions, respectively. Average monthly PE acquisitions were 5.71 per month from 1/1/2019 to 2/29/2020 (pre-COVID), 5.30 per month from 3/1/2020 to 12/31/2020 (COVID pre-vaccine [P = 0.81]), and 8.78 per month from 1/1/2021 to 9/1/2021 (COVID post-vaccine [P = 0.20]). Conclusions--PE acquisitions increased during the period 2012-2021 as companies continue to utilize regionally focused strategies for acquisitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Oncologists may overestimate prognosis for patients with cancer, leading to delayed or missed conversations about patients' goals and subsequent low-quality end-of-life care. Machine learning algorithms may accurately predict mortality risk in cancer, but it is unclear how oncology clinicians would use such algorithms in practice. Methods: The purpose of this qualitative study was to assess oncology clinicians' perceptions on the utility and barriers of machine learning prognostic algorithms to prompt advance care planning. Participants included medical oncology physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) practicing in tertiary and community practices within a large academic healthcare system. Transcripts were coded and analyzed inductively using NVivo software. Results: The study included 29 oncology clinicians (19 physicians, 10 APPs) across 6 practice sites (1 tertiary, 5 community) in the USA. Fourteen participants had previously had exposure to an automated machine learning-based prognostic algorithm as part of a pragmatic randomized trial. Clinicians believed that there was utility for algorithms in validating their own intuition about prognosis and prompting conversations about patient goals and preferences. However, this enthusiasm was tempered by concerns about algorithm accuracy, over-reliance on algorithm predictions, and the ethical implications around disclosure of an algorithm prediction. There was significant variation in tolerance for false positive vs. false negative predictions. Conclusion: While oncologists believe there are applications for advanced prognostic algorithms in routine care of patients with cancer, they are concerned about algorithm accuracy, confirmation and automation biases, and ethical issues of prognostic disclosure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To study the epidemiology of inpatient open globe injuries (OGI) in the United States (US). This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with a primary diagnosis of OGI in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2009 to 2015. Sociodemographic characteristics, including age, gender, race, ethnicity, insurance, and income were stratified for comparison. Annual prevalence rates were calculated using 2010 US Census data. Statistical analysis included Chi-square tests, ANCOVA, and Tukey tests. A total of 6,821 US inpatient hospital discharge records met inclusion/exclusion criteria. The estimated national prevalence of OGI during the 5-year period from 2009 to 2015 was 34,061 (95% confidence interval [CI] 31,445–36,677). The overall annual prevalence rate was 1.58 per 100,000 per year (CI 1.56–1.59). Overall, average annual prevalence rates were highest among patients 85 years or older (7.72, CI 6.95–8.49), on Medicare (3.92, CI 3.84–4.00), males (2.28, CI 2.25–2.30), African Americans (2.38, CI 2.32–2.44), and Native Americans (1.80, CI 1.62–2.00). OGI rates were lowest among Whites (1.21, CI 1.19–1.22), females (0.89, CI 0.87–0.91), those with private insurance (0.84, CI 0.82–0.86), and Asians (0.69, CI 0.64–0.74). Being in the lowest income quartile was a risk factor for OGI (p <.05). Inpatient OGIs disproportionately affected those over 85, young males, elderly females, patients of African-American descent, on Medicare, and in the lowest income quartile. Additionally, children and young children had lower rates of OGI compared to adolescents. Further studies should delineate causes for socioeconomic differences in OGI rates to guide future public health measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The Oncology Care Model (OCM) is Medicare's first bundled payment program for patients with cancer. We examined baseline characteristics of OCM physician participants and markets with high OCM physician participation to inform generalizability and complement the ongoing practice-level evaluation of the OCM. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we identified characteristics of US medical oncologists practicing in 2016, using a national telephone-verified physician database. We linked these data with Dartmouth Atlas and Medicare claims data from 2011 through 2016 to identify characteristics of markets with high OCM participation. We used logistic regression to examine relationships between market characteristics and OCM participation. RESULTS: Of 10,428 US medical oncologists, 2,605 (24.9%) were listed in an OCM practice. There were no differences in sex or medical training between OCM participants and nonparticipants, although OCM participants were slightly younger. OCM participants practiced in larger (median daily patient volume, 80 v 55 patients) and urban practices (95.2% v 90.7%) and were less likely to be part of a health system (41.0% v 60.4%) or solo practice (45.5% v 67.4%; all P <.001). Participation was higher in southern and mid-Atlantic markets. Markets with high OCM physician participation had higher specialist density, hospital care intensity, and acute care use at the end of life (all P <.001). Market-level penetration of Accountable Care Organizations (adjusted odds ratio, 4.65; 95% CI 3.31 to 6.56; P <.001) and Medicare Advantage (adjusted odds ratio 2.82; 95% CI, 1.97 to 4.06; P <.001) were associated with higher OCM participation. CONCLUSION: In the first description of oncologists participating in the OCM, we found differences in practice demographics, care intensity, and exposure to nontraditional payment models between OCM-participating and nonparticipating physicians. Such provider-level differences may not be captured in Medicare's practice-level analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research letter discusses the association between label restrictions by the US Food and Drug Administration on first-line immunotherapy for advanced bladder cancer and subsequent changes in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States spends $3.4 trillion annually on healthcare, but outcomes are suboptimal, and almost a third of the care is inappropriate or unnecessary. A small percentage of patients accounts for a disproportionate amount of spending. Dartmouth Atlas of Healthcare data show serious gaps in the quality of advanced illness and end-of-life care delivery, allowing us to rank best and worst places to die. Such statistics are important for legislative and regulatory changes aiming to address disparities and ensure person-centered care delivery. Implementing initiatives requires a community of stakeholders committed to improving care in advanced illness, as well as culture change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Physician turnover is costly to health care systems and affects patient experience due to discontinuity of care. This study aimed to assess the frequency of turnover by ophthalmologists and identify physician and practice characteristics associated with turnover. Retrospective cross-sectional study. Actively practicing United States ophthalmologists included in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician Compare and Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File between 2014 and 2021. We collected data for each ophthalmologist that was associated with practice/institution and then calculated the rate of turnover both annually in each year window and cumulatively as the total proportion from 2014 to 2021. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify physician and practice characteristics associated with turnover. We also evaluated turnover characteristics surrounding the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Ophthalmologist turnover, defined as a change of an ophthalmologist's National Provider Identifier practice affiliation from one year to the next. Of 13 264 ophthalmologists affiliated with 3306 unique practices, 34.1% separated from at least 1 practice between 2014 and 2021. Annual turnover ranged from 3.7% (2017) to 19.4% (2018), with an average rate of 9.4%. Factors associated with increased turnover included solo practice (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 9.59), university affiliation (aOR, 1.55), practice location in the Northeast (aOR, 1.39), and practice size of 2 to 4 members (aOR, 1.21; P < 0.05 for all). Factors associated with decreased turnover included male gender (aOR, 0.87) and more than 5 years of practice: 6 to 10 years (aOR, 0.63), 11 to 19 years (aOR, 0.54), 20 to 29 years (aOR, 0.36), and ≥ 30 years (aOR, 0.18; P < 0.05 for all). In the initial year (2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic, annual turnover increased from 7.8% to 11.0%, then decreased to 8.7% in the postvaccine period (2021). One-third of United States ophthalmologists separated from at least 1 practice from 2014 through 2021. Turnover patterns differed by various physician and practice characteristics, which may be used to develop future strategies for workforce stability. Because administrative data cannot solely determine reasons for turnover, further investigation is warranted given the potential clinical and financial implications. Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To distinguish the various characteristics of medical malpractice lawsuits involving trainees to prevent future litigation.Methods: LexisNexis, an online legal research database containing legal records from the United States, was retrospectively reviewed for malpractice cases involving urology interns, residents, or fellows from January 1, 1988 to December 31, 2020.Results: A total of 16 cases were included, of which 7 (43.8%) involved urological allegations while 9 (56.2%) involved non-urological allegations. 5 of the cases consisting of non-urological adverse outcomes led to mortality. Procedural error was claimed in 12 (75.0%) cases, negligence in 7 (43.8%), delayed evaluation in 6 (37.5%), lack of informed consent of procedure or complications in 5 (31.2.%), failure to pursue treatment in 4 (25.0%), inexperienced trainee in 2 (12.5%), failure to supervise trainee in 2, lack of informed consent of trainee involvement in 1, incorrect diagnosis in 1, and prolonged operative time in 1 case.Conclusion: Malpractice education, careful supervision, awareness during perioperative care, and detailed communication between patients and physicians should be highlighted in training programs to improve patient outcomes and mitigate risk of future malpractice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To estimate temporal trends in total and out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures for ophthalmic prescription medications among adults in the United States. Retrospective, longitudinal cohort study. Participants in the 2007 through 2016 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) 18 years of age or older. The MEPS is a nationally representative survey of the noninstitutionalized, civilian United States population. We estimated trends in national and per capita annual ophthalmic prescription expenditures by pooling data into 2-year cycles and using weighted linear regressions. We also identified characteristics associated with greater total or OOP expenditures with multivariate weighted linear regression. Costs were adjusted to 2016 United States dollars using the gross domestic product price index. Trends in total and OOP annual expenditures for ophthalmic medications from 2007 through 2016 as well as factors associated with greater expenditures. From 2007 through 2016, 9989 MEPS participants (4.2%) reported ophthalmic medication prescription use. Annual ophthalmic medication use increased from 10.0 to 12.2 million individuals from 2007 and 2008 through 2015 and 2016. In this same period, national expenditures for ophthalmic medications increased from $3.39 billion to $6.08 billion and OOP expenditures decreased from $1.34 to $1.18 billion. Per capita expenditure increased from $338.72 to $499.42 (P < 0.001), and per capita OOP expenditure decreased from $133.48 to $96.67 (P < 0.001) from 2007 and 2008 through 2015 and 2016, respectively. From 2015 through 2016, dry eye (29.5%) and glaucoma (42.7%) medications accounted for 72.2% of all ophthalmic medication expenditures. Patients who were older than 65 years (P < 0.001), uninsured (P < 0.001), and visually impaired (P < 0.001) were significantly more likely to have greater OOP spending on ophthalmic medications. Total ophthalmic medication expenditure in the United States increased significantly over the last decade, whereas OOP expenses decreased. Increases in coverage, copayment assistance, and use of expensive brand drugs may be contributing to these trends. Policy makers and physicians should be aware that rising overall drug expenditures ultimately may increase indirect costs to the patient and offset a decline in OOP prescription drug spending. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To identify temporal and geographic trends in private equity (PE)–backed acquisitions of ophthalmology and optometry practices in the United States. A cross-sectional study using private equity acquisition and investment data from January 1, 2012, through October 20, 2019. A total of 228 PE acquisitions of ophthalmology and optometry practices in the United States between 2012 and 2019. Acquisition and financial investment data were compiled from 6 financial databases, 4 industry news outlets, and publicly available press releases from PE firms or platform companies. Yearly trends in ophthalmology and optometry acquisitions, including number of total acquisitions, clinical locations, and providers of acquired practices as well as subsequent sales, median holding period, geographic footprint, and financing status of each platform company. A total of 228 practices associated with 1466 clinical locations and 2146 ophthalmologists or optometrists were acquired by 29 PE-backed platform companies. Of these acquisitions, 127, 9, and 92 were comprehensive or multispecialty, retina, and optometry practices, respectively. Acquisitions increased rapidly between 2012 and 2019: 42 practices were acquired between 2012 and 2016 compared to 186 from 2017 through 2019. Financing rounds of platform companies paralleled temporal acquisition trends. Three platform companies, comprising 60% of platforms formed before 2016, were subsequently sold or recapitalized to new PE investors by the end of this study period with a median holding period of 3.5 years. In terms of geographic distribution, acquisitions occurred in 40 states with most PE firms developing multistate platform companies. New York and California were the 2 states with the greatest number of PE acquisitions with 22 and 19, respectively. Private equity–backed acquisitions of ophthalmology and optometry practices have increased rapidly since 2012, with some platform companies having already been sold or recapitalized to new investors. Additionally, private equity–backed platform companies have developed both regionally focused and multistate models of add-on acquisitions. Future research should assess the impact of PE investment on patient, provider, and practice metrics, including health outcomes, expenditures, procedural volume, and staff employment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The Oncology Care Model (OCM), a value-based payment model for traditional Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, yielded total spending reductions that were outweighed by incentive payments, resulting in net losses to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. We studied whether the OCM yielded spillover effects in total episode spending, utilization, and quality among commercially insured and Medicare Advantage (MA) members, who were not targeted by the program., Patients and Methods: This observational study used administrative claims from a large national payer, yielding 157,189 total patients with commercial insurance or MA with solid malignancies who initiated 229,376 systemic anticancer therapy episodes before (2012-2015) and during (2016-2021) the OCM at 125 OCM-participating practices (a subset of total OCM practices) and a 1:10 propensity-matched set of 860 non-OCM practices. We used difference-in-differences analyses to assess the association between the OCM and total episode spending, defined as medical spending during a 6-month episode. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization and emergency department (ED) utilization and quality measures., Results: From the pre-OCM to the OCM period, mean total episode payments increased from $45,504 in US dollars (USD) to $46,239 USD for OCM-participating practices, and increased from $50,519 USD to $58,591 USD for non-OCM practices (adjusted difference-in-differences -$6,287 USD [95% CI, -$10,076 USD to -$2,498 USD], P = .001). The OCM was associated with adjusted spending decreases for both high-risk (-$6,756 USD [95% CI, -$10,731 USD to -$2,781 USD], P = .001) and low-risk (-$4,171 USD [95% CI, -$7,799 USD to -$543 USD], P = .025) episodes. OCM-associated spending reductions were strongest for outpatient (-$5,243 USD [95% CI, -$8,589 USD to -$1,897 USD], P = .002) and infused/injected anticancer drug (-$3,031 USD [95% CI, -$5,193 USD to -$869 USD], P = .006) spending. There were no associations between OCM participation and changes in hospital or ED utilization nor quality of care., Conclusion: The OCM was associated with reductions in spending for nontargeted members, a spillover effect.

Purpose: To characterize private equity (PE) acquisition of ophthalmology and optometry practices and compare procedural utilization before and after acquisition., Methods: Ophthalmologists and optometrists in practices acquired from 2012 to 2016 were identified and characterized using an internet archive with an additional search in 2017 to characterize doctor turnover. United States Census Bureau and Internal Revenue Service Data were used to determine population health insurance and adjusted gross income (AGI). Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes were drawn from the Medicare database., Results: Six platform companies acquired 36 practices between 2012 and 2016, including 518 optometrists and 136 ophthalmologists with a net doctor decrease of 3% and 7%, respectively (years 2016 to 2017). PE firm-owned practices were primarily located in metropolitan core areas with above-average AGI and insurance coverage. Diagnostic procedures, total encounters, cataract surgery, and yttrium aluminum garnet (YAG) capsulotomy volume increased per physician 1-year post-acquisition. In adjusted difference-in-difference comparisons, cataract surgery (13.3% relative increase, P<0.001) and YAG capsulotomy (35.6% relative increase, P<0.001) remained significant. PE practices demonstrated an increase in cataract surgery procedures (28,813/platform pre-acquisition to 33,930/platform post-acquisition, P=0.015)., Conclusion: PE acquisitions of ophthalmology and optometry practices were centered in metropolitan core areas with above-average AGI and insurance coverage. PE acquisition led to less optometrists and ophthalmologists employed at the practice. Overall, they exhibited doctor turnover with a net doctor decrease. When compared to non-PE doctors, PE-acquired doctors demonstrated an increase in cataract surgery and YAG capsulotomy volume. Overall, cataract surgery volume increased among PE practices after acquisition., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To determine whether dropless, injection-based cataract surgery prophylaxis with intracameral antibiotic and subconjunctival steroid may reduce healthcare system costs and patient out-of-pocket costs compared with topical medication regimens., Setting: U.S. national medical expenditures database., Design: Retrospective cost analysis., Methods: Costs were analyzed for topical ophthalmics from the 2020 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) and for dropless medications from pharmaceutical invoices/catalogs. Main outcomes included system costs, from insurance and patient payments, and out-of-pocket costs for cataract surgery topical and dropless, injection-based prophylactic medication regimens, per eye and nationally. System costs for individual topical medications and same-class dropless, injection-based medications were compared using 2-sided, 1-sample t tests., Results: There were 583 prophylactic topical ophthalmic purchases in MEPS. Mean system costs per eye were $76.20 ± SD 39.07 for the lowest cost topical steroid (prednisolone) compared with $4.01 for the lowest cost subconjunctival steroid (triamcinolone acetonide) ( P < .001). Per eye, the lowest cost dropless, injection-based regimen, at $15.91, results in an $87.99 (84.7%) reduction in overall healthcare costs and a $43.64 (100%) reduction in patient out-of-pocket costs relative to the lowest cost topical regimen ($103.90 ± 43.14 mean system cost and $43.64 ± 37.32 mean out-of-pocket cost per eye). Use of intracameral moxifloxacin and subconjunctival triamcinolone acetonide can reduce annual national healthcare system and out-of-pocket costs up to $450 000 000 and $225 000 000, respectively., Conclusions: An evidence-based cataract surgery prophylactic medication regimen of intracameral moxifloxacin and subconjunctival triamcinolone acetonide can reduce healthcare system and patient out-of-pocket costs in comparison with various topical regimens., (Copyright © 2024 Published by Wolters Kluwer on behalf of ASCRS and ESCRS.)

Background: Among patients with serious illness, palliative care before hospice enrollment is associated with improved quality of life, reduced symptom burden, and earlier transitions to hospice. However, fewer than half of eligible patients receive specialty palliative care referrals. As most hospice clinicians and administrators have experience in specialty palliative care, several emerging programs propose engaging hospice clinicians to provide early palliative care. Objective: We sought to identify barriers and facilitators to upstream palliative care. Design: We conducted a key informant qualitative study among hospice administrators and clinicians. Setting/Subjects: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 23 hospice administrators and clinicians in eight states from March to August 2022. We identified participants using snowball and purposive sampling using states that participate in Medicare Advantage's value-based insurance design Model. Results: Respondents indicated that barriers to early palliative care included inadequate staffing and reimbursement. Hospice clinicians providing community-based palliative care can address access barriers and improve transitions to hospice. Respondents expressed desire for payer guidance in identifying eligible patients but were cautious about payers acting as direct palliative care providers. However, payers could facilitate uptake by broadening and specifying coverage of services to include goals of care conversations and symptom management. Routine referrals initiated by objective measures could potentially increase access. Conclusions: Utilizing hospice providers to provide upstream palliative care can increase access, improve outcomes, and ease the transition to hospice.

Objective: To determine the rate of Medicare opt-out among optometrists and ophthalmologists and to contrast the differences in the characteristics and geographic distribution of these populations., Design: A retrospective cross-sectional study., Setting: Using a publicly available Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) data set, we collated data for ophthalmologists and optometrists who opted out in each year between 2005 and 2023. We calculated the rate of opt-out annually in each year window and cumulatively from 2005 to 2023. Comparative analysis was used to identify clinician characteristics associated with opt-out., Main Outcomes and Measures: Both annual and cumulative rate of ophthalmologist and optometrist opt-out from Medicare., Results: The estimated prevalence of Medicare opt-outs was 0.52% (77/14,807) for ophthalmologists and 0.38% (154/40,526) for optometrists. Ophthalmologists opting out were predominantly male (67.5%), had a longer practice duration (average 31.8 years), and were more often located in urban areas (83.1%), compared to optometrists (53.2% male, average 19.6 years in practice, 59.1% in urban areas, p = 0.04, p<0.001, p<0.001 respectively). Approximately 83% of ophthalmologists were either anterior segment or oculoplastics specialties, while the majority (52.1%) of optometrists were in optometry-only practices; >75% of identified clinicians were in private practice. Geographical distribution across the US showed variable opt-out rates, with the top 3 states including Oklahoma (3.4%), Arizona (2.1%), and Kansas (1.6%) for ophthalmology and Idaho (4.3%), Montana (3.1%), and Wyoming (1.4%) for optometry., Conclusions and Relevance: Few ophthalmologists and optometrists opt-out of Medicare but this trend has significantly increased since 2012. Of those who disenrolled from Medicare, 83% of ophthalmologists were in urbanized areas while 41% of optometrists were in non-urbanized areas. Because reasons for Medicare opt-out cannot be solely determined by administrative data, further investigation is warranted given the potential impact on healthcare accessibility., Competing Interests: We have read the journal’s policy regarding competing interests and the authors of the manuscript have no financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome. The following general competing interests are as follows: Michael Maywood: none Harris Ahmed none Ravi Parikh: Financial disclosures: Consultant fees from GLG, Health and Wellness Partners, Axon Advisors LLV; Funding from AAO for AAO-related work with Relative Value Update Committee Tedi Begaj: Financial disclosures: Consultant fees from Regenxbio, Eyepoint, (Copyright: © 2024 Maywood et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

US health care use declined during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Although utilization is known to have recovered in 2021 and 2022, it is unknown how revenue in 2020-22 varied by physician specialty and practice setting. This study linked medical claims from a large national federation of commercial health plans to physician and practice data to estimate pandemic-associated impacts on physician revenue (defined as payments to eligible physicians) by specialty and practice characteristics. Surgical specialties, emergency medicine, and medical subspecialties each experienced a greater than 9 percent adjusted gross revenue decline in 2020 relative to prepandemic baselines. By 2022, pathology and psychiatry revenue experienced robust recovery, whereas surgical and oncology revenue remained at or below baseline. Revenue recovery in 2022 was greater for physicians practicing in hospital-owned practices and in practices participating in accountable care organizations. Pandemic-associated revenue recovery in 2021 and 2022 varied by specialty and practice type. Given that physician financial instability is associated with health care consolidation and leaving practice, policy makers should closely monitor revenue trends among physicians in specialties or practice settings with sustained gross revenue reductions during the pandemic.

Context: Despite clinical benefits of early palliative care, little is known about Medicare physician workforce specialized in Hospice and Palliative Medicine (HPM) and their service delivery settings., Objectives: To examine changes in Medicare HPM physician workforce and their service delivery settings in 2008-2020., Methods: Using the Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty from 2008 to 2020, we identified 2375 unique Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) physicians (15,565 physician-year observations) with self-reported specialty in "Palliative Care and Hospice". We examined changes in the annual number of HPM physicians, average number of Medicare services overall and by care setting, total number of Medicare FFS beneficiaries, and total Medicare allowed charges billed by the physician., Results: The number of Medicare HPM physicians increased 2.32 times from 771 in 2008 to 1790 in 2020. The percent of HPM physicians practicing in metropolitan areas increased from 90% to 96% in 2008-2020. Faster growth was also observed in female physicians (52.4% to 60.1%). Between 2008 and 2020, we observed decreased average annual Medicare FFS beneficiaries (170 to 123), number of FFS services (467 to 335), and Medicare allowed charges billed by the physician ($47,230 to $37,323). The share of palliative care delivered in inpatient settings increased from 47% to 68% in 2008-2020; whereas the share of services delivered in outpatient settings decreased from 37% to 19%., Conclusion: Despite growth in Medicare HPM physician workforce, access is disproportionately concentrated in metropolitan and inpatient settings. This may limit receipt of early outpatient specialized palliative care, especially in nonmetropolitan areas., (Copyright © 2024 American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with serious illnesses have unmet symptom and psychosocial needs. Specialty palliative care could address many of these needs; however, access varies by geography and health system. Virtual visits and automated referrals could increase access and lead to improved quality of life, health outcomes, and patient-centered care for patients with serious illness. Objectives: We sought to understand referring clinician perspectives on barriers and facilitators to utilizing virtual tools to increase upstream access to palliative care. Design: Participants in this multisite qualitative study included practicing clinicians who commonly place palliative care referrals across multiple specialties, including hematology/oncology, family medicine, cardiology, and geriatrics. All interviews were transcribed and subsequently coded and analyzed by trained research coordinators using Atlas.ti software. Settings/Subjects: This study included 23 clinicians (21 physicians, 2 nonphysicians) across 5 specialties, 4 practice settings, and 7 states in the United States. Results: Respondents felt that community-based specialty palliative services including symptom management, advance care planning, physical therapy, and mental health counseling would benefit their patients. However, they had mixed feelings about automated referrals, with some clinicians feeling hesitant about not being alerted to such referrals. Many respondents were supportive of virtual palliative care, particularly for those who may have difficulty accessing physician offices, but most respondents felt that such care should only be provided after an initial in-person consultation where clinicians can meet face-to-face with patients. Conclusion: Clinicians believe that automated referrals and virtual palliative care could increase access to the benefits of specialty palliative care. However, virtual palliative care models should give attention to iterative communication with primary clinicians and the perceived need for an initial in-person visit.

Importance: Integration of pharmacies with physician practices, also known as medically integrated dispensing, is increasing in oncology. However, little is known about how this integration affects drug use, expenditures, medication adherence, or time to treatment initiation., Objective: To examine the association of physician-pharmacy integration with oral oncology drug expenditures, use, and patient-centered measures., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used claims data from a large commercial insurer in the US to analyze changes in outcome measures among patients treated by pharmacy-integrating vs nonintegrating community oncologists in 14 states between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2019. Commercially insured patients were aged 18 to 64 years with 1 of the following advanced-stage diagnoses: breast cancer, colorectal cancer, kidney cancer, lung cancer, melanoma, or prostate cancer. Data analysis was conducted from May 2023 to March 2024., Exposure: Treatment by a pharmacy-integrating oncologist, ascertained by the presence of an on-site pharmacy or nonpharmacy dispensing site., Main Outcomes and Measures: Oral, intravenous (IV), total, and out-of-pocket drug expenditures for a 6-month episode of care; share of patients prescribed oral drugs; days' supply of oral drugs; medication adherence measured by proportion of days covered; and time to treatment initiation. The association between an oncologist's pharmacy integration and each outcome of interest was estimated using the difference-in-differences estimator., Results: Between 2012 and 2019, 3159 oncologists (745 females [27.1%], 2002 males [72.9%]) treated 23 968 patients (66.4% female; 53.4% aged 55-64 years). Of the 3159 oncologists, 578 (18.3%) worked in practices that integrated with pharmacies (with a low rate in 2011 of 0% and a high rate in 2019 of 31.5%). In the full sample (including all cancer sites), after physician-pharmacy integration, no significant changes were found in oral drug expenditures, IV drug expenditures, or total drug expenditures. There was, however, an increase in days' supply of oral drugs (5.96 days; 95% CI, 0.64-11.28 days; P = .001). There were no significant changes in out-of-pocket expenditures, medication adherence, or time to treatment initiation of oral drugs. In the breast cancer sample, there was an increase in oral drug expenditures ($244; 95% CI, $41-$446; P = .02) and a decrease in IV drug expenditures (-$4187; 95% CI, -$8293 to -$80; P = .05)., Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cohort study indicated that the integration of oncology practices with pharmacies was not associated with significant changes in expenditures or clear patient-centered benefits.

Background: Germline genetic testing is a vital component of guideline-recommended cancer care for males with pancreatic, breast, or metastatic prostate cancers. We sought to determine whether there were racial disparities in germline genetic testing completion in this population., Patients and Methods: This retrospective cohort study included non-Hispanic White and Black males with incident pancreatic, breast, or metastatic prostate cancers between January 1, 2019, and September 30, 2021. Two nationwide cohorts were examined: (1) commercially insured individuals in an administrative claims database, and (2) Veterans receiving care in the Veterans Health Administration. One-year germline genetic testing rates were estimated by using Kaplan-Meier methods. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to test the association between race and genetic testing completion. Causal mediation analyses were performed to investigate whether socioeconomic variables contributed to associations between race and germline testing., Results: Our cohort consisted of 7,894 males (5,142 commercially insured; 2,752 Veterans). One-year testing rates were 18.0% (95% CI, 16.8%-19.2%) in commercially insured individuals and 14.2% (95% CI, 11.5%-15.0%) in Veterans. Black race was associated with a lower hazard of testing among commercially insured individuals (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.73; 95% CI, 0.58-0.91; P=.005) but not among Veterans (aHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.75-1.32; P=.960). In commercially insured individuals, income (aHR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96) and net worth (aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98) mediated racial disparities, whereas education (aHR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.94-1.01) did not., Conclusions: Overall rates of guideline-recommended genetic testing are low in males with pancreatic, breast, or metastatic prostate cancers. Racial disparities in genetic testing among males exist in a commercially insured population, mediated by net worth and household income; these disparities are not seen in the equal-access Veterans Health Administration. Alleviating financial and access barriers may mitigate racial disparities in genetic testing.

Purpose: To analyze ophthalmology workforce supply and demand projections from 2020 to 2035., Design: Observational cohort study using data from the National Center for Health Workforce Analysis (NCHWA)., Methods: Data accessed from the Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) website were compiled to analyze the workforce supply and demand projections for ophthalmologists from 2020 to 2035., Main Outcome Measures: Projected workforce adequacy over time., Results: From 2020 to 2035, the total ophthalmology supply is projected to decrease by 2650 full-time equivalent (FTE) ophthalmologists (12% decline) and total demand is projected to increase by 5150 FTE ophthalmologists (24% increase), representing a supply and demand mismatch of 30% workforce inadequacy. The level of projected adequacy was markedly different based on rurality by year 2035 with 77% workforce adequacy versus 29% workforce adequacy in metro and nonmetro geographies, respectively. By year 2035, ophthalmology is projected to have the second worst rate of workforce adequacy (70%) of 38 medical and surgical specialties studied., Conclusions: The HRSA's Health Workforce Simulation Model forecasts a sizeable shortage of ophthalmology supply relative to demand by the year 2035, with substantial geographic disparities. Ophthalmology is one of the medical specialties with the lowest rate of projected workforce adequacy by 2035. Further dedicated workforce supply and demand research for ophthalmology and allied professionals is needed to validate these projections, which may have significant future implications for patients and providers., Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) medications for intraocular use are a major and increasing cost, and biosimilars may be a means of reducing the high cost of many biologic medications. However, a bevacizumab biosimilar, which is currently pending Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval (bevacizumab-vikg), paradoxically may increase the cost burden of intravitreal anti-VEGF agents, because off-label repackaged drugs may no longer be allowed per the Drug Quality and Security Act (DQSA). We aimed to investigate the potential impact of biosimilars on costs in the United States., Design: Cost analysis of anti-VEGF medications., Participants: Medicare data from October 2022 and previously published market share data from 2019., Methods: Average sales prices (ASPs) of ranibizumab, aflibercept, and bevacizumab were calculated from Medicare allowable payments. The ASPs of biosimilars were calculated from wholesale acquisition costs from a representative distributor. The cost of an intraocular bevacizumab formulation is modeled at $500/1.25-mg dose and $900/1.25-mg dose., Main Outcome Measures: Costs of anti-VEGF drugs to Medicare Part B and patients., Results: If an intraocular bevacizumab biosimilar were to be priced at $500, costs to Medicare would increase by $457 million from $3.01 billion to $3.47 billion (15.2% increase). Patient responsibility would increase by $117 million from $768 million to $884 million. Similarly, if intraocular bevacizumab were priced at $900, Medicare costs would increase by $897 million to $3.91 billion (29.8% increase), and patient responsibility would increase by $229 million to $997 million. If bevacizumab were $500/dose, switching all patients currently receiving ranibizumab or aflibercept to respective biosimilars would compensate for only 28.8% of the increased cost. Current prices of ranibizumab and aflibercept biosimilars would have to decrease by an aggregate of 15.7% to $616.80/injection, $1027.97/injection, and $1436.88/injection for ranibizumab 0.3 mg, ranibizumab 0.5 mg, and aflibercept, respectively., Conclusions: An FDA-approved bevacizumab biosimilar for ophthalmic use could increase costs to the health care system and patients, raising concerns for access. This increase would not be offset by ranibizumab and aflibercept biosimilar use at current prices. These data support the need for an exemption of section 503B of the DQSA and continued use of repackaged off-label bevacizumab., Financial Disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Ophthalmology. All rights reserved.)

Clinical guidelines have endorsed early palliative care for patients with advanced malignancies, but receipt remains low in the US. This study examined the association between Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act and receipt of palliative care among patients newly diagnosed with advanced-stage cancers. Using the National Cancer Database, we found that the percentage of eligible patients who received palliative care as part of first-course treatment increased from 17.0 percent preexpansion to 18.9 percent postexpansion in Medicaid expansion states and from 15.7 percent to 16.7 percent, respectively, in nonexpansion states, resulting in a net increase of 1.3 percentage points in expansion states in adjusted analyses. Increases in receipt of palliative care associated with Medicaid expansion were largest for patients with advanced pancreatic, colorectal, lung, and oral cavity and pharynx cancers and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Our findings suggest that increasing Medicaid coverage facilitates access to guideline-based palliative care for advanced cancer, and they provide additional evidence of benefit in cancer care from states' expansion of income eligibility for Medicaid.

Purpose: The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is currently the only federally mandated value-based payment model for oncologists. The weight of cost measures in MIPS has increased from 0% in 2017 to 30% in 2022. Given that cost measures are specialty-agnostic, specialties with greater costs of care such as oncology may be unfairly affected. We investigated the implications of incorporating cost measures into MIPS on physician reimbursements for oncologists and other physicians., Methods: We evaluated physicians scored on cost and quality in the 2018 MIPS using the Doctors and Clinicians database. We used multivariable Tobit regression to identify physician-level factors associated with cost and quality scores. We simulated composite MIPS scores and payment adjustments by applying the 2022 cost-quality weights to the 2018 category scores and compared changes across specialties., Results: Of 168,098 identified MIPS-participating physicians, 5,942 (3.5%) were oncologists. Oncologists had the lowest cost scores compared with other specialties (adjusted mean score, 58.4 for oncologists v 71.0 for nononcologists; difference, -12.66 [95% CI, -13.34 to -11.99]), while quality scores were similar (82.9 v 84.2; difference, -1.31 [95% CI, -2.65 to 0.03]). After the 2022 cost-quality reweighting, oncologists would receive a 4.3-point (95% CI, 4.58 to 4.04) reduction in composite MIPS scores, corresponding to a four-fold increase in magnitude of physician penalties ($4,233.41 US dollars [USD] in 2018 v $18,531.06 USD in 2022) and greater reduction in exceptional payment bonuses compared with physicians in other specialties (-42.8% [95% CI, -44.1 to -41.5] for oncologists v -23.6% [95% CI, -23.8 to -23.4] for others)., Conclusion: Oncologists will likely be disproportionally penalized after the incorporation of cost measures into MIPS. Specialty-specific recalibration of cost measures is needed to ensure that policy efforts to promote value-based care do not compromise health care quality and outcomes.

The merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS) is a value-based payment model created by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to promote high-value care through performance-based adjustments of Medicare reimbursements. In this cross-sectional study, we examined the participation and performance of oncologists in the 2019 MIPS. Oncologist participation was low (86%) compared to all-specialty participation (97%). After adjusting for practice characteristics, higher MIPS scores were observed among oncologists with alternative payment models (APMs) as their filing source (mean score, 91 for APMs vs. 77.6 for individuals; difference, 13.41 [95% CI, 12.21, 14.6]), indicating the importance of greater organizational resources for participants. Lower scores were associated with greater patient complexity (mean score, 83.4 for highest quintile vs. 84.9 for lowest quintile, difference, -1.43 [95% CI, -2.48, -0.37]), suggesting the need for better risk-adjustment by CMS. Our findings may guide future efforts to improve oncologist engagement in MIPS., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Importance: Cataract surgery is one of the most commonly performed surgeries across medicine and an integral part of ophthalmologic care. Complex cataract surgery requires more time and resources than simple cataract surgery, yet it remains unclear whether the incremental reimbursement for complex cataract surgery, compared with simple cataract surgery, offsets the increased costs., Objective: To measure the difference in day-of-surgery costs and net earnings between simple and complex cataract surgery., Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is an economic analysis at a single academic institution using time-driven activity-based costing methodology to determine the operative-day costs of simple and complex cataract surgery. Process flow mapping was used to define the operative episode limited to the day of surgery. Simple and complex cataract surgery cases (Current Procedural Terminology codes 66984 and 66982, respectively) at the University of Michigan Kellogg Eye Center from 2017 to 2021 were included in the analysis. Time estimates were obtained using an internal anesthesia record system. Financial estimates were obtained using a mix of internal sources and prior literature. Supply costs were obtained from the electronic health record., Main Outcomes and Measures: Difference in day-of-surgery costs and net earnings., Results: A total of 16 092 cataract surgeries were included, 13 904 simple and 2188 complex. Time-based day-of-surgery costs for simple and complex cataract surgery were $1486.24 and $2205.83, respectively, with a mean difference of $719.59 (95% CI, $684.09-$755.09; P < .001). Complex cataract surgery required $158.26 more for costs of supplies and materials (95% CI, $117.00-$199.60; P < .001). The total difference in day-of-surgery costs between complex and simple cataract surgery was $877.85. Incremental reimbursement for complex cataract surgery was $231.01; therefore, complex cataract surgery had a negative earnings difference of $646.84 compared with simple cataract surgery., Conclusions and Relevance: This economic analysis suggests that the incremental reimbursement for complex cataract surgery undervalues the resource costs required for the procedure, failing to cover increased costs and accounting for less than 2 minutes of increased operating time. These findings may affect ophthalmologist practice patterns and access to care for certain patients, which may ultimately justify increasing cataract surgery reimbursement.

Purpose: To determine the allegation, precipitating medical issue, and outcome of telephone triage focused malpractice litigation among ophthalmologists., Methods: The WestLaw Edge database was reviewed using terms pertaining to ophthalmology and telemedicine. The search ranged from 4/7/30 to 1/25/22., Results: Of the 510 lawsuits, 3.5% (18/510) met inclusion criteria. 94.5% (17/18) alleged delays in evaluation and/or treatment. 61.1% (11/18) alleged incorrect diagnoses, 38.9% (7/18) claimed improper discussion of risks or informed consent, and 5.6% (1/18) alleged delayed referrals. The precipitating medical issues included retinal detachment in 33.3% (6/18) of cases, post-procedure and post-trauma endophthalmitis in 33.3% (6/18) of cases, ocular trauma without endophthalmitis in 22.2% (4/18) of cases, and bilateral acute retinal necrosis and allergic reactions each accounting for 5.6% (1/18) of cases., Conclusion: Telephone triage creates potential malpractice litigation. Delay in in-person clinical evaluation and alleged failure to inform patients of possible irreversible vision loss may lead to potential malpractice litigation. We suggest offering the option of same day in person evaluation and informing the patient how delay may lead to irreversible vision loss.

The Oncology Care Model (OCM), launched in 2016 by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, was the first demonstration of value-based payment in oncology. Although the OCM delivered mixed results in terms of quality of care and total episode costs, the model had no statistically significant impact on remediating racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities among beneficiaries. These deficits have been prominent in other aspects of US healthcare, and as a result, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement has advocated for stakeholders to leverage improvement science, an applied science that focuses on implementing rapid cycles for change, to identify and overcome barriers to health equity. With the announcement of the new Enhancing Oncology Model, a continuation of the OCM's efforts in introducing value to cancer care for episodes surrounding chemotherapy administration, both policymakers and providers must apply tenets of improvement science and make eliminating disparities in alternative payment models a forefront objective. In this commentary, we discuss previous inequities in alternative payment models, the role that improvement science plays in addressing health-care disparities, and steps that stakeholders can take to maximize equitable outcomes in the Enhancing Oncology Model., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound effect on the delivery of healthcare in the United States and globally. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on common ophthalmic procedure utilization and normalization to pre-pandemic daily rates., Methods: Leveraging a national database, Clinformatics™ DataMart (OptumInsight, Eden Prairie, MN), procedure frequencies and daily averages, defined by Current Procedural Terminology codes, of common elective and non-elective procedures within multiple ophthalmology sub-specialties were calculated. Interrupted time-series analysis with a Poisson regression model and smooth spline functions was used to model trends in pre-COVID-19 (January 1, 2018-February 29, 2020) and COVID-19 (March 1, 2020-June 30, 2020) periods., Results: Of 3,583,231 procedures in the study period, 339,607 occurred during the early COVID-19 time period. Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections (44,412 to 39,774, RR 1.01, CI 0.99-1.02; p = .212), retinal detachment repairs (1,290 to 1,086, RR 1.07, CI 0.99-1.15; p = .103), and glaucoma drainage implants/trabeculectomies (706 to 487, RR 0.93, CI 0.83-1.04; p = .200) remained stable. Cataract surgery (61,421 to 33,054, RR 0.77; CI 0.76-0.78; p < .001), laser peripheral iridotomy (1,875 to 890, RR 0.82, CI 0.76-0.88; p < .001), laser trabeculoplasty (2,680 to 1,753, RR 0.79, CI 0.74-0.84; p < .001), and blepharoplasty (1,522 to 797, RR 0.71, CI 0.66-0.77; p < .001) all declined significantly. All procedures except laser iridotomy returned to pre-COVID19 rates by June 2020., Conclusion: Most ophthalmic procedures that significantly declined during the COVID-19 pandemic were elective procedures. Among these, the majority returned to 2019 daily averages by June 2020.

Purpose: The integration of pharmacies with oncology practices-known as medically integrated dispensing or in-office dispensing-could improve care coordination but may incentivize overprescribing or inappropriate prescribing. Because little is known about this emerging phenomenon, we analyzed historical trends in medically integrated dispensing., Methods: Annual IQVIA data on oncologists were linked to 2010-2019 National Council for Prescription Drug Programs pharmacy data; data on commercially insured patients diagnosed with any of six common cancer types; and summary data on providers' Medicare billing. We calculated the national prevalence of medically integrated dispensing among community and hospital-based oncologists. We also analyzed the characteristics of the oncologists and patients affected by this care model., Results: Between 2010 and 2019, the percentage of oncologists in practices with medically integrated dispensing increased from 12.8% to 32.1%. The share of community oncologists in dispensing practices increased from 7.6% to 28.3%, whereas the share of hospital-based oncologists in dispensing practices increased from 18.3% to 33.4%. Rates of medically integrated dispensing varied considerably across states. Oncologists who dispensed had higher patient volumes ( P < .001) and a smaller share of Medicare beneficiaries ( P < .001) than physicians who did not dispense. Patients treated by dispensing oncologists had higher risk and comorbidity scores ( P < .001) and lived in areas with a higher % Black population ( P < .001) than patients treated by nondispensing oncologists., Conclusion: Medically integrated dispensing has increased significantly among oncology practices over the past 10 years. The reach, clinical impact, and economic implications of medically integrated dispensing should be evaluated on an ongoing basis., Competing Interests: Ravi B. ParikhStock and Other Ownership Interests: Merck, Google, GNS Healthcare, Onc.AIConsulting or Advisory Role: GNS Healthcare, Cancer Study Group, Onc.AI, Thyme Care, Humana, NanOlogy, MerckResearch Funding: HumanaPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Technology to integrate patient-reported outcomes into electronic health record algorithmsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: The Oncology Institute of Hope and Innovation Michael J. FischEmployment: AIM Specialty HealthStock and Other Ownership Interests: AnthemPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Healthcore, Inc, A subsidiary of Anthem, IncOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/767578https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/767578 David DebonoEmployment: AnthemStock and Other Ownership Interests: Lilly Justin BekelmanStock and Other Ownership Interests: Reimagine CareHonoraria: National Comprehensive Cancer NetworkConsulting or Advisory Role: UnitedHealthcare, Reimagine Care Stephanie SchauderEmployment: Anthem, Inc, Piedmont Plastic Surgery & Dermatology (I)Research Funding: Anthem, IncTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Anthem, Inc Gosia SylwestrzakOther Relationship: Anthem, Inc John J. BarronResearch Funding: HealthCore (Inst)Other Relationship: Anthem, Inc Rebecca CobbEmployment: AnthemStock and Other Ownership Interests: UnknownResearch Funding: AnthemTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Anthem Dima M. QatoConsulting or Advisory Role: AbbVie Mireille JacobsonOther Relationship: Opioid Litigation on Behalf of Plaintiffs, UCI HealthNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Importance: Medicare's Oncology Care Model (OCM) was an alternative payment model that tied performance-based payments to cost and quality goals for participating oncology practices. A major concern about the OCM regarded inclusion of high-cost cancer therapies, which could potentially disincentivize oncologists from prescribing novel therapies., Objective: To examine whether oncologist participation in the OCM changed the likelihood that patients received novel therapies vs alternative treatments., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data and Medicare claims compared patient receipt of novel therapies for patients treated by oncologists participating vs not participating in the OCM in the period before (January 2015-June 2016) and after (July 2016-December 2018) OCM initiation. Participants included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in SEER registries who were eligible to receive 1 of 10 novel cancer therapies that received US Food and Drug Administration approval in the 18 months before implementation of the OCM. The study excluded the Hawaii registry because complete data were not available at the time of the data request. Patients in the OCM vs non-OCM groups were matched on novel therapy cohort, outcome time period, and oncologist specialist status. Analysis was conducted between July 2021 and April 2022., Exposures: Oncologist participation in the OCM., Main Outcomes and Measures: Preplanned analyses evaluated patient receipt of 1 of 10 novel therapies vs alternative therapies specific to the patient's cancer for the overall study sample and for racial subgroups., Results: The study included 2839 matched patients (760 in the OCM group and 2079 in the non-OCM group; median [IQR] age, 72.7 [68.3-77.6] years; 1591 women [56.0%]). Among patients in the non-OCM group, 33.2% received novel therapies before and 40.1% received novel therapies after the start of the OCM vs 39.9% and 50.3% of patients in the OCM group (adjusted difference-in-differences, 3.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.7 to 10.7 percentage points; P = .34). In subgroup analyses, second-line immunotherapy use in lung cancer was greater among patients in the OCM group vs non-OCM group (adjusted difference-in-differences, 17.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.8-30.0 percentage points; P = .007), but no differences were seen in other subgroups. Over the entire study period, patients with oncologists participating in the OCM were more likely to receive novel therapies than those with oncologists who were not participating (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.09-1.97; P = .01)., Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that participation in the OCM was not associated with oncologists' prescribing novel therapies to Medicare beneficiaries with cancer. These findings suggest that OCM financial incentives did not decrease patient access to novel therapies.

Purpose of Review: Private equity investment in ophthalmology has dramatically increased over the past 20 years. Despite a massive influx in private equity investment in ophthalmology, little is known regarding if and how private equity investment might affect practice behavior. This review seeks to discuss why private equity investment may be expanding in ophthalmology and explore recent data on demographic and billing trends before and after private equity acquisition., Recent Findings: Recent publications have identified ophthalmology and optometry practices acquired by private equity from 2012 to 2021. Practice demographics and provider billing habits before and after private equity acquisition were analyzed from 2012 to 2019 and 2012 to 2017, respectively, using Internal Revenue Service, United States Census, and Medicare fee-for-service data., Summary: Private equity investment in ophthalmology is increasing and may be because of a growing demand from an aging population, fragmented network of healthcare practices, and potential for ancillary billable services. Private equity practices acquired between 2012 and 2019 were mostly in metropolitan areas with higher proportions of private insurance coverage. Ophthalmologists and optometrists in practices acquired between 2012 and 2016 showed increased utilization of diagnostic testing and cataract surgery in the year following private equity acquisition compared with the year prior to private equity acquisition., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The 2 primary efforts of Medicare to advance value-based care are Medicare Advantage (MA) and the fee-for-service-based Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). It is unknown how spending differs between the 2 programs after accounting for differences in patient clinical risk., Objective: To examine how spending and utilization differ between MA and MSSP beneficiaries after accounting for differences in clinical risk using data from administrative claims and electronic health records., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective economic evaluation used data from 15 763 propensity score-matched beneficiaries who were continuously enrolled in MA or MSSP from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018, with diabetes, congestive heart failure (CHF), chronic kidney disease (CKD), or hypertension. Participants received care at a large nonprofit academic health system in the southern United States that bears risk for Medicare beneficiaries through both the MA and MSSP programs. Differences in beneficiary risk were mitigated by propensity score matching using validated clinical criteria based on data from administrative claims and electronic health records. Data were analyzed from January 2019 to May 2022., Exposures: Enrollment in MA or attribution to an accountable care organization in the MSSP program., Main Outcomes and Measures: Per-beneficiary annual total spending and subcomponents, including inpatient hospital, outpatient hospital, skilled nursing facility, emergency department, primary care, and specialist spending., Results: The sample of 15 763 participants included 12 720 (81%) MA and 3043 (19%) MSSP beneficiaries. MA beneficiaries, compared with MSSP beneficiaries, were more likely to be older (median [IQR] age, 75.0 [69.9-81.8] years vs 73.1 [68.3-79.8] years), male (5515 [43%] vs 1119 [37%]), and White (9644 [76%] vs 2046 [69%]) and less likely to live in low-income zip codes (2338 [19%] vs 750 [25%]). The mean unadjusted per-member per-year spending difference between MSSP and MA disease-specific subcohorts was $2159 in diabetes, $4074 in CHF, $2560 in CKD, and $2330 in hypertension. After matching on clinical risk and demographic factors, MSSP spending was higher for patients with diabetes (mean per-member per-year spending difference in 2015: $2454; 95% CI, $1431-$3574), CHF ($3699; 95% CI, $1235-$6523), CKD ($2478; 95% CI, $1172-$3920), and hypertension ($2258; 95% CI, $1616-2,939). Higher MSSP spending among matched beneficiaries was consistent over time. In the matched cohort in 2018, MSSP total spending ranged from 23% (CHF) to 30% (CKD) higher than MA. Adjusting for differential trends in coding intensity did not affect these results. Higher outpatient hospital spending among MSSP beneficiaries contributed most to spending differences between MSSP and MA, representing 49% to 62% of spending differences across disease cohorts., Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, utilization and spending were consistently higher for MSSP than MA beneficiaries within the same health system even after adjusting for granular metrics of clinical risk. Nonclinical factors likely contribute to the large differences in MA vs MSSP spending, which may create challenges for health systems participating in MSSP relative to their participation in MA.

Importance: The study team investigated costs associated with the ranibizumab port delivery system (PDS) for neovascular age-related macular (nAMD), an alternative to conventional intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) injections., Objective: To investigate costs of intravitreal anti-VEGF injections vs ranibizumab PDS for patients with neovascular AMD (nAMD)., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cost analysis used trial data and Medicare reimbursement rates and included patients with nAMD who were receiving ranibizumab, aflibercept, bevacizumab injections, or ranibizumab PDS., Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of intravitreal ranibizumab, aflibercept, and bevacizumab injections to break even with costs of ranibizumab PDS. Total direct medical costs over 1 year and 5 years for the ranibizumab PDS arm with refills at fixed 6-month intervals compared with monthly or bimonthly injections were calculated using Medicare rates. Scenario and sensitivity analyses accounted for uncertainty and variation., Results: The mean (SD) number of ranibizumab, aflibercept, and bevacizumab injections to break even with the cost of ranibizumab PDS with 1 refill was 10.8 (1.3), 9.3 (1.1), and 34.5 (4.2), respectively. Ranibizumab PDS with fixed 6-month refills over 1 year cost $21 016 ($2102). Comparatively, monthly intravitreal ranibizumab cost $1943 (95% CI, -$3047 to $6932; P = .34) more, aflibercept cost $5702 (95% CI, $253-$11 151; P = .04) more, and bevacizumab cost $16 732 (95% CI, -$20 170 to -$13 294, P < .001) less. For bimonthly injections, aflibercept cost $7658 (95% CI, -$11 649.52 to -$3665.61; P = .006) less. Over 5 years, monthly intravitreal ranibizumab projected to cost $25 581 (95% CI, $2275-$48 887; P = .04) more, aflibercept cost $44 374 (95% CI, $18 623-$70 125; P = .008) more, and bevacizumab cost $67 793 (95% CI, -$82 501 to -$53 085; P < .001) less than PDS with fixed refills (mean [SD] cost, $89 218 [$8921]). For bimonthly injections, aflibercept cost $22 422 (95% CI, -$40 287 to -$45,56; P = .03) less. In scenario analyses, ranibizumab PDS with refills as needed offered cost savings compared with real-world intravitreal ranibizumab or aflibercept use at 5 years but not at 1 year., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cost analysis, ranibizumab PDS with 1 refill cost more than intravitreal ranibizumab or aflibercept injections if less than or equal to approximately 11 or 10 injections, respectively, are required within the first year. Long term, if less than 4.4 and 3.8 injections are needed per refill, intravitreal ranibizumab and aflibercept is lower cost. Ranibizumab PDS costs more than intravitreal bevacizumab injections throughout scenarios.

Importance: The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is intended to promote high-value health care through quality-related Medicare payment adjustments., Objective: To assess the economic evaluation of MIPS scoring and reporting on ophthalmologists., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective, cross-sectional, multicenter economic evaluation conducted from October 10 to November 30, 2021, MIPS performance and related payment adjustments were evaluated using the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service (CMS) public data files for ophthalmologists. Participants were stratified by reporting affiliation. Analysis of variance and summary statistics were used to characterize and compare total and subcategory MIPS scores and adjustments received by participants. Reported CMS methodology and performance year (PY) 2019 payment percentages were used to estimate payment adjustments for the following categories: positive MIPS adjustment plus potential additional adjustment for exceptional performance, positive MIPS adjustment, neutral payment adjustment, negative MIPS payment adjustment, and maximum negative MIPS payment adjustment. Study participants included ophthalmologists registered for Medicare Part B with participation in the Quality Payment Program (QPP) in PY 2019., Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of ophthalmologists qualifying for payment adjustments and payment adjustments., Results: For PY 2019, 76.5% of ophthalmologists (13 621) who registered for Medicare participated in the MIPS pathway of the QPP. Ophthalmologists practiced in a predominantly large metropolitan area (12 302; 90.3%). Roughly 99% of participants (11 182) received nonnegative reimbursement adjustments, and 92.6% (10 367) received positive adjustments. Ophthalmologists filing as individuals were less likely to achieve exceptional performance scores compared with those who had a filing category of advanced alternative payment model (APM; odds ratio [OR], 0.0003; 95% CI, 0.00002-0.00481) or group (OR, 0.21013; 95% CI, 0.19020-0.23215). When analyzing participating ophthalmologists with available Medicare payment data (11 193), a total of 8777 (78.4%) achieved exceptional MIPS scores corresponding to mean (SD) adjustments per physician of $244.60 ($217.36) to $4864.78 ($4323.08), or 0.07% ($2 146 835.21 of $3 212 011 252.88) to 1.33% ($42 698 166.89 of $3 212 011 252.88), of the total nondrug Medicare payment., Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this economic evaluation showed that although 78.4% of ophthalmologists received exceptional positive payment adjustments, roughly 84% (798916 of 954615) of all health care professionals nationally achieved this benchmark. Exceptional MIPS was associated with filing as group or APM, resulting in, on average, a relatively small additional payment per participant; this suggests that ophthalmologists who file as individuals should consider an alternative filing approach. Changes in MIPS methodology may disproportionately affect certain ophthalmologists, which warrants further study.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to delays in patients seeking care for life-threatening conditions; however, its impact on treatment patterns for patients with metastatic cancer is unknown. We assessed the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on time to treatment initiation (TTI) and treatment selection for patients newly diagnosed with metastatic solid cancer., Methods: We used an electronic health record-derived longitudinal database curated via technology-enabled abstraction to identify 14 136 US patients newly diagnosed with de novo or recurrent metastatic solid cancer between January 1 and July 31 in 2019 or 2020. Patients received care at approximately 280 predominantly community-based oncology practices. Controlled interrupted time series analyses assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic period (April-July 2020) on TTI, defined as the number of days from metastatic diagnosis to receipt of first-line systemic therapy, and use of myelosuppressive therapy., Results: The adjusted probability of treatment within 30 days of diagnosis was similar across periods (January-March 2019 = 41.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 32.2% to 51.1%; April-July 2019 = 42.6%, 95% CI = 32.4% to 52.7%; January-March 2020 = 44.5%, 95% CI = 30.4% to 58.6%; April-July 2020 = 46.8%, 95% CI= 34.6% to 59.0%; adjusted percentage-point difference-in-differences = 1.4%, 95% CI = -2.7% to 5.5%). Among 5962 patients who received first-line systemic therapy, there was no association between the pandemic period and use of myelosuppressive therapy (adjusted percentage-point difference-in-differences = 1.6%, 95% CI = -2.6% to 5.8%). There was no meaningful effect modification by cancer type, race, or age., Conclusions: Despite known pandemic-related delays in surveillance and diagnosis, the COVID-19 pandemic did not affect TTI or treatment selection for patients with metastatic solid cancers., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Many payers and clinicians are committed to advancing value-based care through the establishment of alternative payment models (APMs) that incentivize practices and clinicians to improve quality and reduce cost. A multistakeholder working group has observed that in specialty fields such as oncology, despite many attempts to design and implement APM pilots for commercial and Medicare Advantage populations, practical challenges and small numbers of episodes and patients present headwinds to viability and scalability. Despite this, some payers report emerging good practices and are optimistic about APMs. Careful and realistic consideration of the specific goals of a proposed model is warranted, as is close examination of the feasibility of transferring risk.

Purpose: To assess whether the type of peer-review (single-blinded vs double-blinded) has an impact on nationality representation in journals., Methods: A cross-sectional study analyzing the top 10 nationalities contributing to the number of articles across 16 ophthalmology journals., Results: There was no difference in the percentage of articles published from the journal's country of origin between the top single-blind journals and double-blind journals (SB = 42.0%, DB = 26.6%, p = .49), but there was a significant difference between the percentage of articles from the US (SB = 48.0%, DB = 22.8%, p = .02). However, there was no difference for both country of origin (SB = 38.0%, DB = 26.6%, p = .43) and articles from the US (SB = 35.0%, DB = 22.8%, p = .21) when assessing the top eight double-blind journals matched with single-blind journals of a similar impact factor. The US (n = 16, 100%) and England (n = 16, 100%) most commonly made the top 10 lists for article contribution. This held true even for journals established outside the United States (US=11/12, England = 11/12)., Conclusions: There was no significant difference in country-of-origin representation between single-blind journals and double-blind journals. However, higher income countries contributed most often to the journals studied even among journals based outside the US.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of three international pricing index models on Medicare Part B spending for intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) drugs Design: Cost analysis Methods: U.S. and international sales data from the Multinational Integrated Data Analysis (MIDAS) database was used with data from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to calculate Medicare Part B spending on anti-VEGF drugs Main Outcome: Medicare Part B expenditures of anti-VEGF drugs under various international pricing index models Results: Total Medicare Part B savings was greatest (75%) under the "most favored nation" proposal to peg the U.S. price to the lowest international price. Under the "most favored nation" proposal, prices of aflibercept are reduced from $1825.80 to $507.17, bevacizumab from $74.39 to $27.55, and ranibizumab (3 units or 0.3mg) from $1057.08 to $99.72., Conclusion: International pricing index models are one of many pricing strategies that could lead to savings in Medicare Part B costs.

Background: Identifying individuals at risk for future hospitalization or death has been a major priority of population health management strategies. High-risk individuals are a heterogeneous group, and existing studies describing heterogeneity in high-risk individuals have been limited by data focused on clinical comorbidities and not socioeconomic or behavioral factors. We used machine learning clustering methods and linked comorbidity-based, sociodemographic, and psychobehavioral data to identify subgroups of high-risk Veterans and study long-term outcomes, hypothesizing that factors other than comorbidities would characterize several subgroups., Methods and Findings: In this cross-sectional study, we used data from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse, a national repository of VA administrative claims and electronic health data. To identify high-risk Veterans, we used the Care Assessment Needs (CAN) score, a routinely-used VA model that predicts a patient's percentile risk of hospitalization or death at one year. Our study population consisted of 110,000 Veterans who were randomly sampled from 1,920,436 Veterans with a CAN score≥75th percentile in 2014. We categorized patient-level data into 119 independent variables based on demographics, comorbidities, pharmacy, vital signs, laboratories, and prior utilization. We used a previously validated density-based clustering algorithm to identify 30 subgroups of high-risk Veterans ranging in size from 50 to 2,446 patients. Mean CAN score ranged from 72.4 to 90.3 among subgroups. Two-year mortality ranged from 0.9% to 45.6% and was highest in the home-based care and metastatic cancer subgroups. Mean inpatient days ranged from 1.4 to 30.5 and were highest in the post-surgery and blood loss anemia subgroups. Mean emergency room visits ranged from 1.0 to 4.3 and were highest in the chronic sedative use and polysubstance use with amphetamine predominance subgroups. Five subgroups were distinguished by psychobehavioral factors and four subgroups were distinguished by sociodemographic factors., Conclusions: High-risk Veterans are a heterogeneous population consisting of multiple distinct subgroups-many of which are not defined by clinical comorbidities-with distinct utilization and outcome patterns. To our knowledge, this represents the largest application of ML clustering methods to subgroup a high-risk population. Further study is needed to determine whether distinct subgroups may benefit from individualized interventions., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Importance: Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of mortality in patients with prostate cancer, and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) may worsen cardiovascular risk. Adherence to guideline-recommended assessment and management of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRFs) in patients initiating ADT is unknown., Objective: To describe CVRF assessment and management in men with prostate cancer initiating ADT and overall., Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional analysis of 90 494 men treated within the US Veterans Health Administration diagnosed with prostate cancer between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, was conducted. Participants included men with a history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), and treatment with ADT within 1 year of diagnosis. Data analysis was conducted from September 10, 2019, to July 1, 2020., Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates of comprehensive CVRF assessment, uncontrolled CVRFs, and untreated CVRFs. Comprehensive CVRF assessment was defined as recorded measures for blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose levels; CVRF control as blood pressure lower than 140/90 mm Hg, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol 130 mg/dL, and hemoglobin A1c less than 7%; and CVRF treatment as receipt of cardiac risk-reducing medications. Multivariable risk difference regression assessed the association between ASCVD and initiation of ADT and these outcomes., Results: Of 90 494 veterans, median age was 66 years (interquartile range, 62-70 years); and 22 700 men (25.1%) received ADT. Overall, 68.1% (95% CI, 67.8%-68.3%) of the men received comprehensive CVRF assessment; 54.1% (95% CI. 53.7%-54.4%) of those assessed had uncontrolled CVRFs, and 29.6% (95% CI, 29.2%-30.0%) of those with uncontrolled CVRFs were not receiving corresponding cardiac risk-reducing medication. Compared with the reference group of patients without ASCVD not receiving ADT, patients with ASCVD not receiving ADT had a 10.4% (95% CI, 9.5%-11.3%) higher probability of comprehensive CVRF assessment, 4.0% (95% CI, 2.9%-5.1%) lower risk of uncontrolled CVRFs, and 22.2% (95% CI, 21.1%-23.3%) lower risk of untreated CVRFs. Similar differences were observed in patients with ASCVD receiving ADT. In contrast, patients without ASCVD receiving ADT had only a 3.0% (95% CI, 2.1%-3.9%) higher probability of comprehensive CVRF assessment, 2.6% (95% CI, 1.6%-3.5%) higher risk of uncontrolled CVRFs, and 5.4% (95% CI, 4.2%-6.6%) lower risk of untreated CVRFs., Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that veterans with prostate cancer had a high rate of underassessed and undertreated CVRFs, and ADT initiation was not associated with substantial improvements in CVRF assessment or management. These findings highlight gaps in care and the need for interventions to improve CVRF mitigation in this population.

Purpose: To model Medicare Part B and patient savings associated with increased bevacizumab payment and use for intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy., Design: Cost analysis., Participants: Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS®) Registry data., Methods: Medicare claims and IRIS® Registry data were used to calculate Medicare Part B expenditures and patient copayments for anti-VEGF agents with increasing reimbursement and use of bevacizumab relative to ranibizumab and aflibercept., Main Outcome Measures: Medicare Part B costs and patient copayments for anti-VEGF agents in the Medicare fee-for-service population., Results: Increasing bevacizumab reimbursement to $125.78, equalizing the dollar margin with aflibercept, would result in Medicare Part B savings of $468 million and patient savings of $119 million with a 10% increase in bevacizumab market share., Conclusions: Increased use of bevacizumab achievable with increased reimbursement to eliminate the financial disincentive to its use would result in substantial savings for the Medicare Part B program and for patients receiving anti-VEGF intravitreal injections., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)