The effect of dual eligibility on the quality of active surveillance in patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

Kassem S Faraj,Rodney Dunn,Brent K. Hollenbeck,Vahakn B. Shahinian,Lindsey A. Herrel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.4_suppl.266

IF: 45.3

2024-02-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:266 Background: Dual eligible beneficiaries are a particularly vulnerable group of patients who qualify for Medicare due to age and Medicaid due to low income. Fully dual eligible beneficiaries have access to additional support services that may facilitate coordination for their prostate cancer evaluation and treatment, while others (i.e., partial dual eligible beneficiaries) do not have access to these services. The extent to which these additional support services impact the quality of care in men on active surveillance for prostate cancer is unclear. Methods: We performed a cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2015 and 2019. We identified men who were managed with active surveillance and evaluated the quality of care they received in the first year after diagnosis. Ideal surveillance was defined as having both 1-2 PSA tests and a confirmatory test (i.e., multiparametric MRI, genomics, or biopsy) at 1 year. Men who had testing below or above these thresholds were categorized as having “underuse” or “overuse” of active surveillance testing. Differences in active surveillance measures were compared between beneficiaries who were fully dual eligible, partially dual eligible, and those who were not dual eligible. Results: Of 138,785 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer, 4,611 (3.3%) were fully dual eligible and 2,031 (1.5%) were partially dual eligible. In the year after diagnosis, 1488 (32%) fully dual eligible men, 638 (31%) partially dual eligible men, and 31,133 (31%) non-dual eligible men were managed with active surveillance. Of these men, the use of ideal surveillance was lower in dual eligible beneficiaries (full-11%, partial-9%, non-dual-15%, p<0.001). This corresponded to more underuse (full-70%, partial-74%, non-dual-63%) in dual eligible men and more overuse in non-dual eligible men (full-19%, partial-16%, non-dual-22%). The most common reasons for underuse were 1) both a lack of PSA and confirmatory testing in 26% of all men and 2) adequate PSA testing but no confirmatory test in 23% of all men. Conclusions: Our findings reveal that only a small minority of men with localized prostate cancer who are on active surveillance undergo ideal follow-up testing after diagnosis. Dual eligible men experienced less frequent ideal surveillance, potentially reflecting disparities in the quality of care for these vulnerable men. Partially dual eligible men had the worst rates of ideal surveillance and the highest rates of underuse, which may reflect the lack of support services that fully dual eligible men receive. Policymakers and healthcare providers aiming to improve the quality of active surveillance in the Medicare population should ensure that vulnerable groups have the resources needed to comply with the recommended testing.

oncology