Determining variable costs in the acute urolithiasis cycle of care through time-driven activity-based costing

OBJECTIVE

To characterize full cycle of care costs for managing an acute ureteral stone using time-driven activity-based costing.

METHODS

We defined all phases of care for patients presenting with an acute ureteral stone and built an overarching process map. Maps for sub-processes were constructed through interviews with providers and direct observation of clinical spaces. This facilitated calculation of cost per minute for all aspects of care delivery, which were multiplied by associated process times. These were added to consumable costs to determine cost for each specific step and later aggregated to determine total cost for each sub-process. We compared costs of eight common clinical pathways for acute stone management, defining total cycle of care cost as the sum of all sub-processes that comprised each pathway.

RESULTS

Cost per sub-process included $920 for emergency department (ED) care, $1665 for operative stent placement, $2368 for percutaneous nephrostomy tube placement, $106 for urology clinic consultation, $238 for preoperative center visit, $4057 for ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy (URS), $2923 for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, $169 for clinic stent removal, $197 for abdominal x-ray, and $166 for ultrasound. The lowest cost pathway ($1388) was for medical expulsive therapy, whereas the most expensive pathway ($8002) entailed a repeat ED visit prompting temporizing stent placement and interval URS.

CONCLUSION

We found a high degree of cost variation between care pathways common to management of acute ureteral stone episodes. Reliable cost accounting data and an understanding of variability in clinical pathway costs can inform value-based care redesign as payors move away from pure fee-for-service reimbursement.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing in Breast Cancer Care Delivery

BACKGROUND

Accurate measurement of healthcare costs is required to assess and improve the value of oncology care.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the cost of breast cancer care provision across collaborating health care organizations.

METHODS

We used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to calculate the complete cost of breast cancer care-initial treatment planning, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, surgical resection and reconstruction, and ancillary services (e.g., psychosocial oncology, physical therapy)-across multiple hospital sites. Data were collected between December 2019 and February 2020. TDABC steps involved (1) developing process maps for care delivery pathways; (2) determine capacity cost rates for staff, medical equipment, and hospital space; (3) measure the time required for each process step, both manually through clinic observation and using data from the Real-Time Location System (RTLS); and (4) calculate the total cost of care delivery.

RESULTS

Surgical care costs ranged from $1431 for a lumpectomy to $12,129 for a mastectomy with prepectoral implant reconstruction. Radiation therapy was costed at $1224 for initial simulation and patient education, and $200 for each additional treatment. Base costs for chemotherapy delivery were $382 per visit, with additional costs driven by chemotherapy agent(s) administered. Personnel expenses were the greatest contributor to the cost of surgical care, except in mastectomy with implant reconstruction, where device costs equated to up to 60% of the cost of surgery.

CONCLUSION

The cost of complete breast cancer care depended on (1) treatment protocols; (2) patient choice of reconstruction; and (3) the need for ancillary services (e.g., physical therapy). Understanding the actual costs and cost drivers of breast cancer care delivery may better inform resource utilization to lower the cost and improve the quality of care.

Improving efficiency and reducing costs of MRI-Guided prostate brachytherapy using Time-Driven Activity-Based costing

INTRODUCTION

Integrated quality improvement (QI) and cost reduction strategies can help increase value in cancer care. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) is a bottom-up costing tool that measures resource use over the full care cycle. We applied standard QI and TDABC methods to improve workflow efficiency and reduce costs for MRI-guided prostate brachytherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We constructed process maps of the baseline prostate brachytherapy workflow from initial consultation through one year after treatment. Process maps reflected resources and time required at each step. TDABC costs were calculated by multiplying each process time by the cost per min of the resource(s) used at that step. We then used plan-do-study-act methodology to identify workflow inefficiencies and implement solutions to reduce resource consumption.

RESULTS

The highest cost components at baseline were the operating room (OR) (40%), imaging (8.7%), and consultation (7.6%). Higher-than-expected costs (3%) were incurred during surgery scheduling. After targeted QI initiatives, OR time was reduced from 90 to 70 min, which reduced overall cost by 5%. Personnel task downshifting reduced costs by 10% at consultation and 77% at surgery scheduling. Re-engineering of follow-up protocols reduced costs by 8.4%. Costs under the new workflow decreased by 18.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

TDABC complements traditional QI initiatives by quantifying the highest cost steps and focusing QI initiatives to reduce costs and improve efficiency. As payment reform evolves toward bundled payments, TDABC and QI initiatives will help providers understand, communicate, and improve the value of cancer care.

Activity-Based Costing of Intensity-Modulated Proton versus Photon Therapy for Oropharyngeal Cancer

PURPOSE

In value-based health care delivery, radiation oncologists need to compare empiric costs of care delivery with advanced technologies, such as intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). We used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to compare the costs of delivering IMPT and IMRT in a case-matched pilot study of patients with newly diagnosed oropharyngeal (OPC) cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used clinicopathologic factors to match 25 patients with OPC who received IMPT in 2011-12 with 25 patients with OPC treated with IMRT in 2000-09. Process maps were created for each multidisciplinary clinical activity (including chemotherapy and ancillary services) from initial consultation through 1 month of follow-up. Resource costs and times were determined for each activity. Each patient-specific activity was linked with a process map and TDABC over the full cycle of care. All calculated costs were normalized to the lowest-cost IMRT patient.

RESULTS

TDABC costs for IMRT were 1.00 to 3.33 times that of the lowest-cost IMRT patient (mean ± SD: 1.65 ± 0.56), while costs for IMPT were 1.88 to 4.32 times that of the lowest-cost IMRT patient (2.58 ± 0.39) (P < .05). Although single-fraction costs were 2.79 times higher for IMPT than for IMRT (owing to higher equipment costs), average full cycle cost of IMPT was 1.53 times higher than IMRT, suggesting that the initial cost increase is partly mitigated by reductions in costs for other, non-RT supportive health care services.

CONCLUSIONS

In this matched sample, although IMPT was on average more costly than IMRT primarily owing to higher equipment costs, a subset of IMRT patients had similar costs to IMPT patients, owing to greater use of supportive care resources. Multidimensional patient outcomes and TDABC provide vital methodology for defining the value of radiation therapy modalities.

Value-Based Healthcare in Urology: A Collaborative Review

CONTEXT

In response to growing concerns over rising costs and major variation in quality, improving value for patients has been proposed as a fundamentally new strategy for how healthcare should be delivered, measured, and remunerated.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the literature regarding the implementation and impact of value-based healthcare in urology.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A systematic review was performed to identify studies that described the implementation of one or more elements of value-based healthcare in urologic settings and in which the associated change in healthcare value had been measured. Twenty-two publications were selected for inclusion.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Reorganization of urologic care around medical conditions was associated with increased use of guidelines-compliant care for men with prostate cancer, and improved outcomes for patients with lower urinary tract symptoms. Measuring outcomes for every patient was associated with improved prostate cancer outcomes, while the measurement of costs using time-driven activity-based costing was associated with reduced resource utilization in a pediatric multidisciplinary clinic. Centralization of urologic cancer care in the UK, Denmark, and Canada was associated with overall improved outcomes, although systems integration in the USA yielded mixed results among urologic cancer patients. No studies have yet examined bundled payments for episodes of care, expanding the geographic reach for centers of excellence, or building enabling information technology platforms.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have critically assessed the actual or simulated implementation of value-based healthcare in urology, but the available literature suggests promising early results. In order to effectively redesign care, there is a need for further research to both evaluate the potential results of proposed value-based healthcare interventions and measure their effects where already implemented.

PATIENT SUMMARY

While few studies have evaluated the implementation of value-based healthcare in urology, the available literature suggests promising early results.

Utilizing time-driven activity-based costing to determine open radical cystectomy and ileal conduit surgical episode cost drivers

OBJECTIVES

Patients undergoing radical cystectomy represent a particularly resource-intensive patient population. Time-driven activity based costing (TDABC) assigns time to events and then costs are based on the people involved in providing care for specific events. To determine the major cost drivers of radical cystectomy care we used a TDABC analysis for the cystectomy care pathway.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a random sample of 100 patients out of 717 eligible patients undergoing open radical cystectomy and ileal conduit for bladder cancer at our institution between 2012 and 2015. We defined the cycle of care as beginning at the preoperative clinic visit and ending with the 90-day postoperative clinic visit. TDABC was carried out with construction of detailed process maps. Capacity cost rates were calculated and the care cycle was divided into 3 phases: surgical, inpatient, and readmissions. Costs were normalized to the lowest cost driver within the cohort.

RESULTS

The mean length of stay was 6.9 days. Total inpatient care was the main driver of cost for radical cystectomy making up 32% of the total costs. Inpatient costs were mainly driven by inpatient staff care (76%). Readmissions were responsible for 29% of costs. Surgery was 31% of the costs, with the majority derived from operating room staff costs (65%).

CONCLUSION

The major driver of cost in a radical cystectomy pathway is the inpatient stay, closely followed by operating room costs. Surgical costs, inpatient care and readmissions all remain significant sources of expense for cystectomy and efforts to reduce cystectomy costs should be focused in these areas.

Value-Based Health Care in Undergraduate Medical Education

PROBLEM

Value-based health care (VBHC) is an innovative framework for redesigning care delivery to achieve better outcomes for patients and reduce cost; however, providing students with the skills to understand and engage with these topics is a challenge to medical educators.

APPROACH

Here, the authors present a novel, VBHC curriculum integrated into a required course for post-core clerkship students-launched in 2018 at Harvard Medical School and taught in conjunction with Harvard Business School faculty-that highlights key principles of VBHC most relevant to undergraduate medical education. The course integrates VBHC with related health disciplines, including health policy, ethics, epidemiology, and social medicine, using a case-based method. Students practice active decision making while learning key concepts to address value in clinical practice.

OUTCOMES

Since the course's inception in March 2018, 95 students (87%) completed the standardized course evaluation; the majority said VBHC content and pedagogical style (i.e., case-based learning) enhanced their learning. Students' critiques focused on too little integration with other disciplines (e.g., social medicine, ethics), the physical space, and inadequate time for debates about potential tensions between VBHC and other course disciplines.

NEXT STEPS

The authors believe that by exposing medical students to the principles of VBHC, students will fulfill the expectations of graduating physicians by excelling as critical thinkers, collaborative team members, and judicious care providers throughout their residency, clinical practice, and beyond. Future VBHC curricula expansions may include elective coursework, intensive seminar series, and formal dual degrees.

Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing to Demonstrate Value in Perioperative Care: Recommendations and Review from the Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement (SPAQI)

A shift in healthcare payment models from volume toward value-based incentives will require deliberate input into systems development from both perioperative clinicians and administrators to ensure appropriate recognition of the value of all services provided-particularly ones that are not reimbursable in current fee-for-service payment models. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) methodology identifies cost drivers and reduces inaccurate costing based on siloed budgets. Inaccurate costing also results from the fact that current costing methods use charges and there has been tremendous cost shifting throughout health care. High cost, high variability processes can be identified for process improvement. As payment models inevitably evolve towards value-based metrics, it will be critical to knowledgably participate in the coordination of these changes. This document provides 8 practical Recommendations from the Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement (SPAQI) aimed at outlining the principles of TDABC, creating process maps for patient workflows, understanding payment structures, establishing physician alignment across service lines to create integrated practice units to facilitate development of evidence-based pathways for specific patient risk groups, establishing consistent care delivery, minimizing variability between physicians and departments, utilizing data analytics and information technology tools to track progress and obtain actionable data, and using TDABC to create costing transparency.

Development and Feasibility of Bundled Payments for the Multidisciplinary Treatment of Head and Neck Cancer: A Pilot Program

Purpose:

Despite growing interest in bundled payments to reduce the costs of care, this payment method remains largely untested in cancer. This 3-year pilot tested the feasibility of a 1-year bundled payment for the multidisciplinary treatment of head and neck cancers.

Methods:

Four prospective treatment-based bundles were developed for patients with selected head and neck cancers. These risk-adjusted bundles covered 1 year of care that began with primary cancer treatment. Manual processes were developed for patient identification, enrollment, billing, and payment. Patients were prospectively identified and enrolled, and bundled payments were made at treatment start. Operational metrics tracked incremental effort for pilot processes and average payment cycle time compared with fee-for-service (FFS) payments.

Results:

This pilot confirmed the feasibility of a 1-year prospective bundled payment for head and neck cancers. Between November 2014 and October 2016, 88 patients were enrolled successfully with prospective bundled payments. Through September 2017, 94% of patients completed the pilot with 6% still enrolled. Manual pilot processes required more effort than anticipated; claims processing was the most time-consuming activity. The production of a bundle bill took an additional 15 minutes versus FFS billing. The average payment cycle time was 37 days (range, 15 to 141 days) compared with a 15-day average under FFS.

Conclusion:

Prospective bundled payments were successfully implemented in this pilot. Additional pilots should study this payment method in higher-volume cancers. Robust systems are needed to automate patient identification, enrollment, billing, and payment along with policies that reduce administrative burden and allow for the introduction of novel cancer therapies.

Measuring cost in the value equation using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Division of Radiation Oncology

e18305

Background: The cost of a full cycle of radiation therapy at MD Anderson Cancer Center has not been determined using a bottom-up measurement approach. Due to the complexity and variation in clinical processes, typical costing strategies do not provide the level of detail necessary to evaluate the value equation, defined as outcomes over cost. To address this limitation, we designed and implemented a practice-wide Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC) strategy to capture our total direct cost of care for all treatment modalities within each of 9 disease site-specific services. Methods: Process maps were created for each of the 9 disease site-specific services. Care delivery times were captured by treatment modality for each service as determined by multidisciplinary teams routinely performing each step of the process. The data were entered into a standardized tool, which calculated step costs based upon capacity cost rates for each human resource. The costing tool also calculated total direct labor costs for specific treatment plans based on modality, complexity, and fractionation. Results: The analysis took six months to complete and required the use of approximately 1,000 administrative hours, 250 physician hours, 250 clinical staff hours and 100 medical physics hours. Approximately 17 process maps were created for each of the 9 services with each process map receiving further analysis based upon radiation treatment modality. As a result of observed variation in costs between disease-site services, best practices were identified and 15 standardization opportunities were discovered. Additionally, the cost-benefit analysis between high profile modalities within each disease-site service, such as Proton Therapy and Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy (IMRT) on the Head and Neck service, were easier to complete. Conclusions: Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing is a valid method for calculating direct costs in a large academic radiation oncology practice. Standardized clinical outcome data can be used to complete the value equation and ultimately provide insight for better clinical and administrative decision making.

Cancer patients' answers to surveys: Incorporation into the electronic health record (EHR) can decrease manual data entry and increase patient-centered information

130

Background: Delivery of value-based cancer care has centered on the use of EHR’s and how these applications can document health information, including patient reported outcomes (PRO’s), (1-4). Survey information must be incorporated into the medical record with minimal staff intervention. Our institution, and many cancer centers are currently using “EPIC” as their EHR platform. Although this is a data driven platform, and data can be extracted and reported as desired, certain things need to be done prior to going live in order to ensure this occurs. Surveys must be built using standardized “smart data elements” (SDE’s). If patient data is gathered, but not integrated correctly into the EHR, one will find themselves manually entering data. The goal is to allow patients to answer questions about their health history 1 time, validate answers, incorporate into the EHR, and report data. Methods: We engaged our technology team prior to “go-live” to build patient survey questionnaires. 40 survey questions, were mapped to 72 specific EHR/“EPIC” SDE’s. The SDE’s included cancer diagnoses and past medical history. Patients received and completed the electronic survey via the patient portal. Clinic providers validated patient answers from the surveys and the information was incorporated into the EHR. Results: Patient entered survey data collected, documented, and reported within the EHR. Decreased data entry by providers, efficiently incorporating the patient cancer diagnosis and medical history into the EHR. Data collected for review/reporting/research as needed. Conclusions: EHR’s can gather specific/discrete patient data to benefit both patients and providers. Cancer patients can participate in providing health information easily incorporated and documented by the provider. Data can be updated as needed, and used for patient reported outcomes (PRO’s) and other research endeavors. EHR’s should enhance care by allowing providers to spend more face to face time with patients and providing data that is most important to patients from which they may make informed decisions about their health care.

Communicating Value in Health Care Using Radar Charts: A Case Study of Prostate Cancer

PURPOSE

The transformation from volume to value will require communication of outcomes and costs of therapies; however, outcomes are usually nonstandardized, and cost of therapy differs among stakeholders. We developed a standardized value framework by using radar charts to visualize and communicate a wide range of patient outcomes and cost for three forms of prostate cancer treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data from men with low-risk prostate cancer who were treated with low-dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT), proton beam therapy, or robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Patient-reported outcomes comprised the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-50 domains for sexual function, urinary incontinence and/or bother, bowel bother, and vitality 12 months after treatment. Costs were measured by time-driven activity-based costing for the first 12 months of the care cycle. Outcome and cost data were plotted on a single radar chart for each treatment modality.

RESULTS

Outcome and cost data from patients who were treated with robotic-assisted prostatectomy (n = 381), proton beam therapy (n = 165), and LDR-BT (n = 238) were incorporated into the radar chart. LDR-BT seemed to deliver the highest overall value of the three treatment modalities; however, incorporation of patient preferences regarding outcomes may allow other modalities to be considered high-value treatment options.

CONCLUSION

Standardization and visualization of outcome and cost metrics may allow more comprehensive and collaborative discussions about the value of health care services. Communicating the value framework by using radar charts may be an effective method to present total value and the value of all outcomes and costs in a manner that is accessible to all stakeholders. Variations in plotting of costs and outcomes will require future focus group initiatives.

Value-based healthcare: implications for thyroid cancer

Today's delivery of care to thyroid cancer patients is complex, and costly, with uneven outcomes that can be improved. The incidence of thyroid cancer is rising and requires coordinated, multidisciplinary care with high volume centers that is not always available in our current fragmented healthcare system. To address the needs of patients, providers and payers, we believe that thyroid cancer care needs to be reexamined from the perspective of value for the patient, which is defined as the outcomes that matter to patients relative to the cost of delivering them. This paper provides recommendations based on the key principles of the value-based approach to transform the delivery of thyroid cancer care.

Defining the value framework for prostate brachytherapy using patient-centered outcome metrics and time-driven activity-based costing

PURPOSE

Value, defined as outcomes over costs, has been proposed as a measure to evaluate prostate cancer (PCa) treatments. We analyzed standardized outcomes and time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) for prostate brachytherapy (PBT) to define a value framework.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Patients with low-risk PCa treated with low-dose-rate PBT between 1998 and 2009 were included. Outcomes were recorded according to the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement standard set, which includes acute toxicity, patient-reported outcomes, and recurrence and survival outcomes. Patient-level costs to 1 year after PBT were collected using TDABC. Process mapping and radar chart analyses were conducted to visualize this value framework.

RESULTS

A total of 238 men were eligible for analysis. Median age was 64 (range, 46-81). Median followup was 5 years (0.5-12.1). There were no acute Grade 3-5 complications. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 50 scores were favorable, with no clinically significant changes from baseline to last followup at 48 months for urinary incontinence/bother, bowel bother, sexual function, and vitality. Ten-year outcomes were favorable, including biochemical failure-free survival of 84.1%, metastasis-free survival 99.6%, PCa-specific survival 100%, and overall survival 88.6%. TDABC analysis demonstrated low resource utilization for PBT, with 41% and 10% of costs occurring in the operating room and with the MRI scan, respectively. The radar chart allowed direct visualization of outcomes and costs.

CONCLUSIONS

We successfully created a visual framework to define the value of PBT using the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement standard set and TDABC costs. PBT is associated with excellent outcomes and low costs. Widespread adoption of this methodology will enable value comparisons across providers, institutions, and treatment modalities.

Value-Based Breast Cancer Care: A Multidisciplinary Approach for Defining Patient-Centered Outcomes

PURPOSE

Value in healthcare-i.e., patient-centered outcomes achieved per healthcare dollar spent-can define quality and unify performance improvement goals with health outcomes of importance to patients across the entire cycle of care. We describe the process through which value-based measures for breast cancer patients and dynamic capture of these metrics via our new electronic health record (EHR) were developed at our institution.

METHODS

Contemporary breast cancer literature on treatment options, expected outcomes, and potential complications was extensively reviewed. Patient perspective was obtained via focus groups. Multidisciplinary physician teams met to inform a 3-phase process of (1) concept development, (2) measure specification, and (3) implementation via EHR integration.

RESULTS

Outcomes were divided into 3 tiers that reflect the entire cycle of care: (1) health status achieved, (2) process of recovery, and (3) sustainability of health. Within these tiers, 22 patient-centered outcomes were defined with inclusion/exclusion criteria and specifications for reporting. Patient data sources will include the Epic Systems EHR and validated patient-reported outcome questionnaires administered via our institution's patient portal.

CONCLUSIONS

As healthcare costs continue to rise in the United States and around the world, a value-based approach with explicit, transparently reported patient outcomes will not only create opportunities for performance improvement but will also enable benchmarking across providers, healthcare systems, and even countries. Similar value-based breast cancer care frameworks are also being pursued internationally.