Reimbursement for radiotherapy treatment in the EU countries: how to encourage efficiency, quality and access?

Economic data for particle therapy: Dealing with different needs in a heterogeneous landscape

BACKGROUND

In the light of scarce resources to be allocated for cancer care and a steady stream of costly innovations in all modalities applied to treat cancer, particle therapy needs to demonstrate its cost-utility balance to allow its positioning in the context of competing modalities. In the continuous evolving particle therapy landscape, the timely availability of appropriate economic data is crucial.

METHODS

Economic data collection and compilation for particle therapy needs to follow health economic standards. Costing related analyses particularly need attention as clinical outcome data follow international standards to provide comparability. Among others, perspective, time horizons and cost categories are critical.

RESULTS

In this report from the "Health Economics Work Package" of the European Particle Therapy Network, the approaches commonly applied in health economic assessments are described and tailored to the specific needs of particle therapy. Data collection for cost calculation, economic evaluation and budget impact analysis are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The presented data are intended to serve as a guidance for economic data collection, bearing in mind that in each specific case, the heterogeneous requirements of national health systems will need to be considered and assessments adapted accordingly.

[Needs and financing of radiotherapy in France and Europe]

Access to high-quality and safe radiotherapy is a prerequisite to assure optimal oncology care in a multidisciplinary environment. In view of supporting long-term radiotherapy planning, actual and predicted radiotherapy needs should be put in context of the nowadays' available resources. The present article reviews the existing data on radiotherapy resources and needs, along with the prevailing reimbursement systems in the different European countries, with a specific emphasis on France. It describes potential incentives of different financing systems on clinical practice and highlights how knowledge of the cost of radiotherapy treatments, by indication and technique, is essential to support correct reimbursement, hence access to radiotherapy. It is expected that such data will help national professional and scientific radiotherapy societies across Europe in their negotiations with policy makers, with the ultimate aim to make radiotherapy accessible to all cancer patients who need it, now and in the decades to come.

Cost calculation: a necessary step towards widespread adoption of advanced radiotherapy technology

Radiotherapy costs are an often underestimated component of the economic assessment of new radiotherapy treatments and technologies. That the radiotherapy budget only consumes a finite part of the total cancer and healthcare budget does not relieve us from our responsibility to balance the extra costs to the additional benefits of new, more advanced, but typically also more expensive treatments we want to deliver. Yet, in contrast to what is the case for oncology drugs, literature evidence remains limited, as well for economic evaluations comparing new radiotherapy interventions as for cost calculation studies. Even more cumbersome, the available costing studies in the field of radiotherapy fail to accurately capture the real costs of our treatments due to the large variation in cost inputs, in scope of the analysis, in costing methodology. And this is not trivial. Accurate resource cost accounting lays the basis for the further steps in health technology assessment leading to radiotherapy investments and reimbursement, at the local, the national and the worldwide level. In the current paper we review some evidence from the existing costing literature and discuss how such data can be used to support reimbursement setting and investment cases for new radiotherapy equipment and infrastructure.

Decentralisation of radiation therapy. Is it possible and beneficial to patients? Experience of the first 5 years of a satellite radiotherapy unit in the province of Tarragona, Spain

BACKGROUND

The concept of satellite radiotherapy originates in countries whose populations are largely dispersed in order to treat homogenously the population by a unique fixed team.

AIM

This report describes the creation and management of a satellite radiotherapy unit in Spain (RUTE-Radiotherapy Unit, Terres de l'Ebre). It is managed by the Radiation Oncology Department at Hospital Universitari Sant Joan de Reus. We report the benefit gained in the comfort of patients and the economic benefit gained by reducing the expense of transport for the health care system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

RUTE is equipped with a linear accelerator. A team of 10 physicians, specialised in different oncology pathologies, travel to RUTE on a rotational basis from the main Radiation Oncology Department. Simulation and planning of treatment is managed at the Radiation Oncology Department in Reus. Patients from RUTE only have to visit the centre in Reus once throughout the treatment process.

RESULTS

Since August 2008, 1500 patients have completed treatment in the satellite unit. The implementation of RUTE has greatly improved the comfort of patients and along with that, there have been important savings in transport costs to the regional health care system.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the high technological requirements of our speciality, decentralising radiotherapy is feasible. We can guarantee the highest standards of treatment with no differences from attending the main centre. It implies a clear benefit for the comfort of the patients and an economic benefit by decreasing transport costs.

[Valorisation of high technology radiotherapy in Europe]

In order to support adoption and dissemination into clinical practice of innovative treatment strategies, being almost by definition more expensive than the corresponding standard treatments, an appropriate reimbursement is a prerequisite. This article describes different possible financing systems in the context of technological advances in radiation oncology and analyses if and how the reimbursement issue has been tackled in European radiotherapy centres.

Infrastructure of radiation oncology in France: a large survey of evolution of external beam radiotherapy practice

PURPOSE

To study the structural characteristics of radiation oncology facilities for France and to examine how technological evolutions had to be taken into account in terms of accessibility and costs. This study was initiated by the three health care financing administrations that cover health care costs for the French population. The needs of the population in terms of the geographic distribution of the facilities were also investigated. The endpoint was to make proposals to enable an evolution of the practice of radiotherapy (RT) in France.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A survey designed by a multidisciplinary committee was distributed in all RT facilities to collect data on treatment machines, other equipment, personnel, new patients, and new treatments. Medical advisors ensured site visits in each facility. The data were validated at the regional level and aggregated at the national level for analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 357 machines had been installed in 179 facilities: 270 linear accelerators and 87 cobalt units. The distribution of facilities and megavoltage units per million inhabitants over the country was good, although some disparities existed between areas. It appeared that most megavoltage units had not benefited from technological innovation, because 25% of the cobalt units and 57% of the linear accelerators were between 6 and 15 years old. Computed tomography access for treatment preparation was not sufficient, and complete data management systems were scarce (15% of facilities). Seven centers had no treatment planning system. Electronic portal imaging devices were available in 44.7% of RT centers and in vivo dosimetry in 35%. A lack of physicians and medical physicists was observed; consequently, the workload exceeded the normal standard recommended by the French White Book. Discrepancies were found between the number of patients treated per machine per year in each area (range, 244.5-604). Most treatments were delivered in smaller facilities (61.6%).

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the findings of this study, measures were taken to update the infrastructure of RT in France. A first evaluation showed an improvement of care supply in RT in the country.

Radiotherapy service delivery models for a dispersed patient population

Access to health care interventions can be impeded when significant patient travel is required. In this economic evaluation we compare, from a societal perspective, three scenarios for the delivery of radiation treatment to an idealized population of 1,600 patients distributed between two urban nodes (1,200 + 400 patients each) separated by up to 500 km. As it is implicitly assumed that the clinical outcome for those patients who access the system is independent of the service delivery model, this study constitutes a cost minimization analysis from a societal perspective. The costs to the health care system are based on an activity costing model developed by us and consistent with recent Canadian studies. The costs to the patient are approximated by a formula that includes direct costs (travel and accommodation) and indirect (time) costs, with the latter based on a human capital approach. A sensitivity analysis has been performed to confirm the robustness of our conclusions both to uncertainties in the input data and to the inclusion of time costs, the estimation of which remains controversial. From a societal cost perspective only, we show that outreach radiotherapy (central comprehensive facility and satellite) is the economically superior service delivery model for separations between 30 km and 170 km. Beyond 170 km, a fully decentralized service would be warranted if the only consideration were societal economic advantage.

Palliative radiotherapy practice within Western European countries: impact of the radiotherapy financing system?

PURPOSE

To analyze the reimbursement modalities for radiotherapy in the different Western European countries, as well as to investigate if these differences have an impact on the palliative radiotherapy practice for bone metastases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to 565 radiotherapy centres included in the 1997 ESTRO directory. In this questionnaire the reimbursement strategy applied in the different centres was assessed, with respect to the use of a budget (departmental or hospital budget), case payment and/or fee-for-service reimbursement. The differences were analyzed according to country and to type and size of the radiotherapy centre.

RESULTS

A total of 170 centres (86% of the responders) returned the questionnaire. Most frequent is budget reimbursement: some form of budget reimbursement is found in 69% of the centres, whereas 46% of the centres are partly reimbursed through fee-for-service and 35% through case payment. The larger the department, the more frequent the reimbursement through a budget or a case payment system and the less the importance of fee-for-service reimbursement (chi(2): P=0.0012; logit: P=0.0055). Whereas private centres are almost equally reimbursed by fee-for-service financing as by budget or case payment, radiotherapy departments in university hospitals receive the largest part of their financial resources through a budget or by case payment (83%) (chi(2): P=0.002; logit: P=0.0073). A correlation between the country and the radiotherapy reimbursement system was also demonstrated (P=0.002), radiotherapy centres in Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom being almost entirely reimbursed through a budget and/or case payment and centres in Germany and Switzerland mostly through a fee-for-service system. In budget and case payment financing lower total number of fractions and lower total dose (chi(2): P=0.003; logit: P=0.0120) as well as less shielding blocks (chi(2): P=0.003; logit: P=0.0066) are used. A same tendency is found for the use of isodose calculations and field set-up, but without being statistically significant (P=0.264 and P=0.061 res.). The type of the centre and the reimbursement modality influence the fractionation regimen independently (P=0.0274). This is not the case for the centre size and the reimbursement, which were found to exert correlated effects on the fractionation schedule (P=0.1042).

CONCLUSION

Reimbursement systems seem to influence radiotherapy practice. One should therefore aim to develop reimbursement criteria that pursue to deliver, not only the best qualitative, but also the most cost-effective treatments to the patients.

Improved management of radiotherapy departments through accurate cost data

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Escalating health care expenses urge governments towards cost containment. More accurate data on the precise costs of health care interventions are needed. We performed an aggregate cost calculation of radiation therapy departments and treatments and discussed the different cost components.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The costs of a radiotherapy department were estimated, based on accreditation norms for radiotherapy departments set forth in the Belgian legislation.

RESULTS

The major cost components of radiotherapy are the cost of buildings and facilities, equipment, medical and non-medical staff, materials and overhead. They respectively represent around 3, 30, 50, 4 and 13% of the total costs, irrespective of the department size. The average cost per patient lowers with increasing department size and optimal utilization of resources. Radiotherapy treatment costs vary in a stepwise fashion: minor variations of patient load do not affect the cost picture significantly due to a small impact of variable costs. With larger increases in patient load however, additional equipment and/or staff will become necessary, resulting in additional semi-fixed costs and an important increase in costs. A sensitivity analysis of these two major cost inputs shows that a decrease in total costs of 12-13% can be obtained by assuming a 20% less than full time availability of personnel; that due to evolving seniority levels, the annual increase in wage costs is estimated to be more than 1%; that by changing the clinical life-time of buildings and equipment with unchanged interest rate, a 5% reduction of total costs and cost per patient can be calculated. More sophisticated equipment will not have a very large impact on the cost (+/-4000 BEF/patient), provided that the additional equipment is adapted to the size of the department. That the recommendations we used, based on the Belgian legislation, are not outrageous is shown by replacing them by the USA Blue book recommendations. Depending on the department size, costs in our model would then increase with 14-36%.

CONCLUSION

We showed that cost information can be used to analyze the precise financial consequences of changes in routine clinical practice in radiotherapy. Comparing the cost data with the prevailing reimbursement may reveal inconsistencies and stimulate to develop improved financing systems.