You have accessJournal of UrologyHealth Services Research: Value of Care: Cost and Outcomes II (MP57)1 May 2024MP57-14 THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTS OF PRIVATE EQUITY ACQUISITION OF UROLOGY PRACTICES ON THE MANAGEMENT OF NEWLY DIAGNOSED PROSTATE CANCER Kassem Faraj, Samuel Kaufman, Lindsey Herrel, Avinash Maganty, Mary Oerline, Megan Caram, Vahakn Shahinian, and Brent Hollenbeck Kassem FarajKassem Faraj , Samuel KaufmanSamuel Kaufman , Lindsey HerrelLindsey Herrel , Avinash MagantyAvinash Maganty , Mary OerlineMary Oerline , Megan CaramMegan Caram , Vahakn ShahinianVahakn Shahinian , and Brent HollenbeckBrent Hollenbeck View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001009420.83948.eb.14AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: There has been an increase in private equity firm involvement in mergers and acquisitions of urology practice in recent years. These firms acquire practices that have potential for growth, increase their value through a variety of strategies, such as reducing labor costs, developing new, profitable service lines, expanding market share, and increasing utilization of services. The ultimate goal is for the firm to sell the acquired entity within 3 to 7 years for a profit. Some worry that physician practices acquired by private equity may increase the use of services to maximize revenue. We assessed the effects of private equity acquisition on spending, use of treatment, and diagnostic testing in men with prostate cancer. METHODS: We used a 20% sample of national Medicare claims to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with prostate cancer diagnosed from 2014 through 2019. The primary outcome was prostate cancer spending in the first 12-months after diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included the use of treatment and a composite measure of diagnostic testing (e.g., imaging, genomics) in the first 12-months after diagnosis. Multilevel modeling was used to adjust for differences in patient and market characteristics. The effect of practice acquisition on each outcome was assessed using a difference-in-differences design. RESULTS: There were 409 and 4,021 men with prostate cancer managed by urologists in acquired and non-acquired practices, respectively. After acquisition, prostate cancer spending was comparable between acquired and non-acquired practices (Figure 1; difference-in-differences estimate $1,182 p=0.36). Acquisition did not affect the use of treatment (difference-in-differences estimate 3.7%, p=0.30) or the use of diagnostic testing in men who were treated (difference-in-differences, -5.5%, p=.12) and those managed conservatively (difference-in-differences, -2.0%, p=.82). CONCLUSIONS: In the year following acquisition of urology practices, private equity did not increase prostate cancer spending, the use of treatment or diagnostic testing in men with prostate cancer. Future work should evaluate the effects of private equity acquisition on practice patterns and quality over a longer time horizon. Download PPT Source of Funding: This study is supported by funding from NCI T32CA180984 (KF, AM), NCI R01 CA269367 (VS) and a Research Scholar Grant from the American Cancer Society (RSGI-21-097-01-HOPS) © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e943 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Kassem Faraj More articles by this author Samuel Kaufman More articles by this author Lindsey Herrel More articles by this author Avinash Maganty More articles by this author Mary Oerline More articles by this author Megan Caram More articles by this author Vahakn Shahinian More articles by this author Brent Hollenbeck More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Faraj et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: