Patient driven care in the management of prostate cancer: analysis of the United States military healthcare system
Muhammad Ali Chaudhary,
Jeffrey J. Leow,
Matthew Mossanen,
Ritam Chowdhury,
Wei Jiang,
Peter A. Learn,
Joel S. Weissman,
Steven L. Chang
Affiliations
Muhammad Ali Chaudhary
Center for Surgery and Public Health, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health
Jeffrey J. Leow
Center for Surgery and Public Health, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health
Matthew Mossanen
Division of Urology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School
Ritam Chowdhury
Center for Surgery and Public Health, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health
Wei Jiang
Center for Surgery and Public Health, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health
Peter A. Learn
Department of Surgery, Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences
Joel S. Weissman
Center for Surgery and Public Health, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health
Steven L. Chang
Division of Urology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School
Abstract Background Patient preferences are assumed to impact healthcare resource utilization, especially treatment options. There is limited data exploring this phenomenon. We sought to identify factors associated with patients transferring care for prostatectomy, from military to civilian facilities, and the receipt of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP). Methods Retrospective review of 2006-2010 TRICARE data identified men diagnosed with prostate cancer (ICD-9 185) receiving open radical prostatectomy (ORP; ICD-9: 60.5) or MIRP (ICD-9 60.5 + 54.21/17.42). Patients diagnosed at military facilities but underwent surgery at civilian facilities were defined as “transferring care”. Logistic regression models identified predictors of transferring care for patients diagnosed at military facilities. A secondary analysis identified the predictors of MIRP receipt at civilian facilities. Results Of 1420 patients, 247 (17.4%) transferred care. These patients were more likely to undergo MIRP (OR = 7.83, p < 0.01), and get diagnosed at low-volume military facilities (OR = 6.10, p < 0.01). Our secondary analysis demonstrated that transferring care was strongly associated with undergoing MIRP (OR = 1.51, p = 0.04). Conclusions Patient preferences induced a demand for greater utilization of MIRP and civilian facilities. Further work exploring factors driving these preferences and interventions tailoring them, based on evidence and cost considerations, is required.
