An exploratory instrumental variable analysis of the outcomes of localized breast cancer treatments in a medicare population

Health Economics

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 171-186

  Hadley, Jack ^a,b   Polsky, Daniel ^c   Mandelblatt, Jeanne S ^d   Mitchell, Jean M ^e   Weeks, Jane C ^f   Wang, Qin ^e   Hwang, Yi Ting ^d  

^a URBAN INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b CENTER FOR STUDYING HEALTH SYSTEM CHANGE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^d GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^f HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Health outcomes research; Instrumental variable analysis; Observational data bias; Outcomes of localized breast cancer

Indexed keywords

AGED; ANALYTIC METHOD; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST SURGERY; CANCER LOCALIZATION; CANCER STAGING; CANCER SURVIVAL; CLINICAL OBSERVATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MASTECTOMY; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICARE; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIOTHERAPY; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SAMPLING; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; SURVIVAL RATE; SURVIVAL TIME; TREATMENT OUTCOME; VALIDATION PROCESS;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; COMBINED MODALITY THERAPY; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEAST-SQUARES ANALYSIS; MASTECTOMY, RADICAL; MASTECTOMY, SEGMENTAL; MEDICARE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; OBSERVATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0037338809     PISSN: 10579230     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/hec.710     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Russell L, for members of the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. The role of cost-effectiveness analysis for decision making in health. JAMA 1996; 276: 1172-1177.
2. Mandelblatt JS, Fryback DF, Weinstein MC et al. Assessing effectiveness for cost-effectiveness analyses. In Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine, Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (eds). Oxford University Press: New York, 1996; 135-175.
3. Newmyer J. Access to your medication's track record. Los Angeles Times 2000; August 1.
4. McClellan M, McNeil BJ, Newhouse JP. Does more intensive treatment of acute myocardial infarction in the elderly reduce mortality? Analysis using instrumental variables. JAMA 1994; 272: 859-866.
5. Hadley J, Rabin DR, Epstein A et al. Posthospitalization home health care use and changes in functional status in a Medicare population. Med Care 2000; 38: 494-507.
6. Malkin JD, Broder MS, Keeler E. Do longer postpartum stays reduce newborn readmission? Analysis using instrumental variables. Health Serv Res 2000; 35: 1071-1092.
7. Howard D. The impact of waiting time on liver transplant outcomes. Health Serv Res 2000; 35: 1117-1134.
8. Fisher B, Bauer M, Margolese R et al. Five-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and segmental mastectomy with or without radiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Eng J Med 1985; 312: 665-673.
9. Steering Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Care and Treatment of Breast Cancer. Mastectomy or lumpectomy? The choice of operation for clinical stages I and II breast cancer. Can Med Assoc J 1998; 158 (Suppl. 3): S15-S21.
10. Bound J, Jaeger DA, Baker RM. Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variable is weak. J Am Stat Assoc 1995; 90: 443-450.
11. Staiger D, Stock JH. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 1997; 65: 557-586.
12. Farrow DC, Hunt WC, Samet JM. Geographic variation in the treatment of localized breast cancer. NEJM 1992; 326: 1097-1101.
13. Nattinger AB, Gottlieb MS, Hoffman RG et al. Minimal increase in the use of breast conserving surgery from 1986-1990. Med Care 1996; 34: 479-489.
14. Nattinger AB, Gottlieb MS, Veum J et al. Geographic variation in the use of breast-conserving treatment for breast cancer. N Eng J Med 1992; 326: 1102-1107.
15. Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives. 1993. Medicare reimbursement to physicians. 1993 Green Book. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, 407ff.
16. Kelejian H. Two-stage least squares and econometric systems linear in parameters but nonlinear in the endogenous variables. J Am Stat Assoc 1971; 66: 373-374.
17. Greene WH. Econometric Analysis. Macmillan Publishing Co.: New York, 1997; 638-639.
18. Davidson R, MacKinnon JG. Estimation and Inference in Econometrics. Oxford University Press: New York, 1993; 236-242.
19. Hadley J, Mandelblatt JS, Mitchell JM et al. The effects of Medicare breast surgery fees on the treatment received by older women with localized breast cancer. Working Paper IWP 99-115. Institute for Health Care Research and Policy, Georgetown University, 1999.
20. McClellan M, Noguchi H. The validity of Instrumental variable estimates. Unpublished manuscript. National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, 2000.
21. Fisher B, Anderson S, Redmond C et al. Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Eng J Med 1995; 333: 1456-1461.
22. Fallowfield LJ, Hall A, Maguire P et al. Psychological effects of being offered a choice of surgery for breast cancer. Br Med J 1994; 309: 448.
23. Polsky D, Keating NL, Weeks JC et al. The utility of choice: options for breast cancer treatment. Mimeograph. University of Pennsylvania, 2001.
24. McClellan M, Newhouse J. Overview of the special supplement issue. Health Serv Res 2000; 35: 1061-1070.