Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model

Decreases in Radiation Oncology Medicare Reimbursement over time: Analysis by Billing Code

PURPOSE

Radiation oncology (RO) has seen declines in Medicare reimbursement (MCR). However, there are no recent studies analyzing the contributions of specific billing codes to overall RO reimbursement. We compared total MCR for specific Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes in 2019 with MCR for those codes in 2010 and 2015, corrected for inflation, to see how the same basket of RO services in 2019 would have been reimbursed in 2010 and 2015 (adjusted MCR).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary database was used to obtain MCR data for RO HCPCS codes in 2010, 2015, and 2019. For each code, the total allowed charge was divided by the number of submitted claims to calculate the average MCR per claim in 2010, 2015, and 2019. The 2019 billing frequency for each code was then multiplied by the inflation-adjusted average MCR for those codes in 2010 and 2015 to determine what the MCR would have been in 2010 and 2015 using 2019 dollars and utilization rates. Results were compared with actual 2019 MCR to calculate the projected difference.

RESULTS

Total inflation-adjusted RO MCR was $2281 million (M), $1991 M, and $1848 M in 2010, 2015, and 2019 respectively. This represents a cut of $433 M (19%) and $143 M (7%) from 2010 and 2015, respectively, to 2019. After utilization adjustment, total reimbursement was $2534 M, $2034 M, and $1848 M for 2010, 2015, and 2019, respectively, representing a cut of $686 M (27%) and $186 M (9%) from 2010 and 2015, respectively, to 2019. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment delivery and planning accounted for $917 M (36%), $670 M (33%), and $573 M (31%) of the adjusted MCR in 2010, 2015, and 2019, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare reimbursement decreased substantially from 2010 to 2019. A decline in IMRT treatment reimbursement was the primary driver of MCR decline. When considering further cuts, policymakers should consider these trends and their consequences for health care quality and access.

Association Between Travel Distance and Use of Postoperative Radiation Therapy Among Men With Organ-Confined Prostate Cancer: Does Geography Influence Treatment Decisions?

PURPOSE

After radical prostatectomy, men with adverse pathologic features or a persistent postoperative detectable prostate-specific antigen (PSA) are candidates for postoperative radiation therapy (PORT). Previous data have suggested disparities in receipt of adjuvant radiation therapy for adverse pathologic features according to travel distance. Among patients without adverse pathologic features (pT2 disease and negative margins), the main indication for PORT is a persistent postoperative detectable PSA. However, it remains unknown whether the rate of receipt of PORT in this cohort of men with persistently detectable PSA is related to travel distance from the treating facility.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Using the National Cancer Database, we identified 170,379 men with prostate cancer diagnosed from 2004 to 2015 managed with upfront surgery who were found to have pT2 disease with negative surgical margins. Multivariable logistic regression defined adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of receiving PORT as the primary dependent variable and distance (<5, 5-10, 10-20, ≥20 miles from the treatment facility) as the primary independent variable.

RESULTS

Within our cohort, progressively farther distance from the treatment facility was associated with lower rates of PORT. In patients living <5 miles, 5 to 10 miles, 10 to 20 miles, and >20 miles from the treating facility, rates of PORT of were 1.37% (referent), 1.16% (AOR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79-1.04; P = .158), 0.98% (AOR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.93; P = .003), and 0.64% (AOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41-0.54; P < .001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

For men with localized prostate cancer without adverse pathologic features managed with surgery, increasing distance from treatment facility was associated with lower receipt of PORT. Given that the rate of a persistent postoperative detectable PSA is unlikely to depend on the distance to the treatment facility, these findings raise the possibility that the geographic availability of radiation treatment facilities influences the decision to undergo PORT for patients with persistent postoperative detectable PSA.

Single-Fraction Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy: A Paradigm During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic and Beyond?

PURPOSE

Owing to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, radiation oncology departments have adopted various strategies to deliver radiation therapy safely and efficiently while minimizing the risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 transmission among patients and health care providers. One practical strategy is to deliver stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in a single fraction, which has been well established for treating bone metastases, although it has been infrequently used for other extracranial sites.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A PubMed search of published articles in English related to single-fraction SBRT was performed. A critical review was performed of the articles that described clinical outcomes of single-fraction SBRT for treatment of primary extracranial cancers and oligometastatic extraspinal disease.

RESULTS

Single-fraction SBRT for peripheral early-stage non-small cell lung cancer is supported by randomized data and is strongly endorsed during the COVID-19 pandemic by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology practice guidelines. Prospective and retrospective studies supporting a single-fraction regimen are limited, although outcomes are promising for renal cell carcinoma, liver metastases, and adrenal metastases. Data are immature for primary prostate cancer and demonstrate excess late toxicity in primary pancreatic cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Single-fraction SBRT should be strongly considered for peripheral early-stage non-small cell lung cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic to mitigate the potentially severe consequences of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 transmission. Although single-fraction SBRT is promising for the definitive treatment of other primary or oligometastatic cancers, multi-fraction SBRT should be the preferred regimen owing to the need for additional prospective evaluation to determine long-term efficacy and safety.