Article

Decreasing use of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists in the United States is Independent of Reimbursement Changes: A Medicare and Veterans Health Administration claims analysis.

Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.
The Journal of urology (Impact Factor: 3.75). 06/2009; 182(1):255-60; discussion 261. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2009.02.141
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists are the most common form of androgen deprivation therapy in men with prostate cancer. Limited data exist regarding physician decision-making in prescribing luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists. We present an analysis of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist use trends based on a time matched comparison of data from Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration, a health care system unaffected by recent changes in Medicare reimbursement implemented by the Medicare Modernization Act in 2004.
Medicare claims and payment data were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from 2003 to 2007 for luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists and for simple orchiectomy. The Veterans Health Administration Pharmacy Benefits Management database was queried for the annual number of prescriptions for luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists during the same period.
After implementation of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act in 2004 the reimbursement of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists in the Medicare population decreased by 54.8% and annual claims decreased by 25.1% from 2004 to 2007. During the same period luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist use decreased by 16.8% in the Veterans Health Administration population. There was no compensatory increase in the use of simple orchiectomy for androgen deprivation therapy during the study period.
Use of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists has decreased in the Medicare and Veterans Health Administration populations since 2004 without a compensatory increase in the use of alternative forms of androgen deprivation therapy. The shift in practice patterns is likely due to a decrease in Medicare reimbursement for these drugs, an increase in the use of intermittent therapy and increased recognition of the adverse effects associated with androgen deprivation therapy.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Joseph Liao, Jul 02, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
86 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. The therapeutic impact of palliative androgen deprivation in metastatic prostate cancer is indisputable. Bilateral orchiectomy represents the traditional method of AD but was reduced during the last years in favor for treatment with LHRH analogues. Due to limited economic resources of the health care system, the economically priced definite surgical castration might experience a renaissance. Methods. In this single-center retrospective study, 83 consecutive patients with osseous metastasized prostate cancer were evaluated, who had primarily been treated by subcapsular bilateral orchiectomy. Response to therapy, time until therapy failure, overall survival time, psychological disorders due to loss of organ, and disease-associated and postoperative surgical complications were recorded. The median followup was 35 months (IQR: 26-46). Results. Patients' mean age at surgery was 72.1 (54-91) years. Six patients (7.2%) displayed immediate tumor progression after orchiectomy. Median time of tumor remission and overall survival time were 29 and 36 months, respectively. 14% of the study group showed minor postoperative complications. No psychological problems occurred following bilateral orchiectomy. Conclusion. Due to an effective and persistent oncological effectiveness, less morbidity, and absence of psychological implications, bilateral subcapsular orchiectomy seems to be a practicable and advisable alternative in the first-line therapy of metastasized PCa.
    Advances in Urology 01/2012; 2012(1687-6369):190624. DOI:10.1155/2012/190624
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Medicare Modernization Act led to moderate reductions in reimbursement for androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for prostate cancer, starting in 2004 and followed by substantial changes in 2005. We hypothesized that these reductions would lead to decreases in the use of ADT for indications that were not evidence based. Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Medicare database, we identified 54,925 men who received a diagnosis of incident prostate cancer from 2003 through 2005. We divided these men into groups according to the strength of the indication for ADT use. The use of ADT was deemed to be inappropriate as primary therapy for men with localized cancers of a low-to-moderate grade (for whom a survival benefit of such therapy was improbable), appropriate as adjuvant therapy with radiation therapy for men with locally advanced cancers (for whom a survival benefit was established), and discretionary for men receiving either primary or adjuvant therapy for localized but high-grade tumors. The proportion of men receiving ADT was calculated according to the year of diagnosis for each group. We used modified Poisson regression models to calculate the effect of the year of diagnosis on the use of ADT. The rate of inappropriate use of ADT declined substantially during the study period, from 38.7% in 2003 to 30.6% in 2004 to 25.7% in 2005 (odds ratio for ADT use in 2005 vs. 2003, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.79). There was no decrease in the appropriate use of adjuvant ADT (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.19). In cases involving discretionary use, there was a significant decline in use in 2005 but not in 2004. Changes in the Medicare reimbursement policy in 2004 and 2005 were associated with reductions in ADT use, particularly among men for whom the benefits of such therapy were unclear. (Funded by the American Cancer Society.).
    New England Journal of Medicine 11/2010; 363(19):1822-32. DOI:10.1056/NEJMsa0910784 · 54.42 Impact Factor
  • CancerSpectrum Knowledge Environment 12/2010; 102(24):1814-5. DOI:10.1093/jnci/djq467 · 15.16 Impact Factor