Suppr超能文献

医疗保险优势计划与传统医疗保险中低价值癌症治疗的使用情况

Use of Low-Value Cancer Treatments in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare.

作者信息

Jung Jeah, Carlin Caroline, Feldman Roger, Song Ge, Mitchell Aaron

机构信息

Department of Health Administration and Policy, College of Public Health, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.

Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.

出版信息

J Clin Oncol. 2025 Jul 10;43(20):2245-2254. doi: 10.1200/JCO-24-01907. Epub 2025 May 31.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Medicare Advantage (MA) provides beneficiaries an option to receive Medicare benefits from private plans. Although MA covers over half of the Medicare population, limited information exists about how utilization of cancer treatments in MA differs from traditional Medicare (TM). We compared use of low-value cancer treatments between MA and TM and analyzed variation in use of low-value cancer treatments across large MA insurers.

METHODS

Using national Medicare data, we performed retrospective analyses of beneficiaries who had a new cancer diagnosis between 2016 and 2021 and who were at risk of receiving a low-value treatment: granulocyte-colony stimulating factors (GCSFs) for patients receiving low-risk chemotherapy, denosumab for castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC), nab-paclitaxel instead of paclitaxel for breast or lung cancers, adding bevacizumab to carboplatin plus paclitaxel for ovarian cancer, and branded drugs or biologics for which generic or biosimilar versions existed.

RESULTS

Use of any low-value cancer treatment was 1.7 percentage points lower in MA than in TM (34.2% 35.9%; < .001). MA had lower utilization rates than TM for GCSF among patients receiving low-risk chemotherapy (7.3% 8.9%; < .001), denosumab for CSPC (26.4% 33.1%; < .001), nab-paclitaxel for breast or lung cancer (7.9% 8.7%; < .001), addition of bevacizumab for ovarian cancer (8.3% 10.5%; < .001), and biologics with biosimilar alternatives (66.8% 68.5%; < .001). Use of branded drugs did not significantly differ between MA and TM. The differences in use of low-value cancer treatments from TM varied moderately across large MA insurers.

CONCLUSION

MA has lower use of low-value cancer treatments than TM, with varying degrees across large MA insurers. Efforts are needed to identify effective strategies to reduce use of low-value cancer treatments.

摘要

目的

医疗保险优势计划(MA)为受益人提供了从私人保险公司获得医疗保险福利的选择。尽管MA覆盖了超过一半的医疗保险人群,但关于MA中癌症治疗的使用情况与传统医疗保险(TM)有何不同的信息有限。我们比较了MA和TM中低价值癌症治疗的使用情况,并分析了大型MA保险公司在低价值癌症治疗使用方面的差异。

方法

利用全国医疗保险数据,我们对2016年至2021年间被新诊断出患有癌症且有接受低价值治疗风险的受益人进行了回顾性分析:接受低风险化疗患者使用的粒细胞集落刺激因子(GCSF)、去势敏感性前列腺癌(CSPC)患者使用的地诺单抗、乳腺癌或肺癌患者使用纳米白蛋白结合型紫杉醇而非紫杉醇、卵巢癌患者在卡铂加紫杉醇基础上加用贝伐单抗,以及存在通用或生物类似物版本的品牌药物或生物制剂。

结果

MA中任何低价值癌症治疗的使用率比TM低1.7个百分点(34.2%对35.9%;P<0.001)。在接受低风险化疗的患者中,MA中GCSF的使用率低于TM(7.3%对8.9%;P<0.001),CSPC患者使用地诺单抗的情况(26.4%对33.1%;P<0.001),乳腺癌或肺癌患者使用纳米白蛋白结合型紫杉醇的情况(7.9%对8.7%;P<0.001),卵巢癌患者加用贝伐单抗的情况(8.3%对10.5%;P<0.001),以及有生物类似物替代的生物制剂的使用情况(66.8%对68.5%;P<0.001)。MA和TM中品牌药物的使用情况没有显著差异。大型MA保险公司在低价值癌症治疗使用方面与TM的差异存在一定程度的不同。

结论

MA中低价值癌症治疗的使用低于TM,大型MA保险公司之间存在不同程度的差异。需要努力确定有效的策略来减少低价值癌症治疗的使用。

相似文献

1
Use of Low-Value Cancer Treatments in Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Medicare.
J Clin Oncol. 2025 Jul 10;43(20):2245-2254. doi: 10.1200/JCO-24-01907. Epub 2025 May 31.
2
Evaluation of Low-Value Services Across Major Medicare Advantage Insurers and Traditional Medicare.
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Nov 4;7(11):e2442633. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.42633.
3
Quality of Hospices Used by Medicare Advantage and Traditional Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries.
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Dec 2;7(12):e2451227. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.51227.
4
Financial Hardship Among Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage Enrollees With and Without Food Insecurity.
J Gen Intern Med. 2024 Oct;39(13):2407-2414. doi: 10.1007/s11606-024-08798-4. Epub 2024 May 16.
5
Financial burden of care greatest among rural beneficiaries in Medicare advantage.
Health Serv Res. 2025 Jun;60(3):e14393. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.14393. Epub 2024 Oct 9.
8
Medicare Plan Switching Among Beneficiaries With and Without a History of Cancer.
JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Jun 2;8(6):e2513394. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.13394.
9
Coverage Gaps and Contraceptive Use Among Medicare Enrollees With Disabilities.
JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Jun 2;8(6):e2517718. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.17718.
10
Osteoporosis testing and treatment remain low in both Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.
Osteoporos Int. 2025 Feb;36(2):275-281. doi: 10.1007/s00198-024-07318-8. Epub 2024 Nov 21.

本文引用的文献

1
Evaluation of Low-Value Services Across Major Medicare Advantage Insurers and Traditional Medicare.
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Nov 4;7(11):e2442633. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.42633.
3
Macular Degeneration Drug Prescribing Patterns After Step Therapy Introduction in Medicare Advantage.
JAMA Health Forum. 2024 Aug 2;5(8):e242446. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.2446.
4
Commercial Versus Medicaid Insurance and Use of High-Priced Anticancer Treatments.
Oncologist. 2024 Jun 3;29(6):527-533. doi: 10.1093/oncolo/oyae035.
5
Filgrastim and infliximab biosimilar uptake in Medicare Advantage compared with Traditional Medicare, 2016-2019.
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2024 Jan;30(1):15-21. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2024.30.1.15.
6
Biosimilar Uptake in Medicare Advantage vs Traditional Medicare.
JAMA Health Forum. 2023 Dec 1;4(12):e234335. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.4335.
7
Prior Authorization and Association With Delayed or Discontinued Prescription Fills.
J Clin Oncol. 2024 Mar 10;42(8):951-960. doi: 10.1200/JCO.23.01693. Epub 2023 Dec 12.
9
Opportunities for Savings in Risk Arrangements for Oncologic Care.
JAMA Health Forum. 2023 Sep 1;4(9):e233124. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.3124.
10
End-of-Life Systemic Oncologic Treatment in the Immunotherapy Era: The Role of Race, Insurance, and Practice Setting.
J Clin Oncol. 2023 Oct 20;41(30):4729-4738. doi: 10.1200/JCO.22.02180. Epub 2023 Jun 20.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验