Reimbursement and use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer

Urologist practice divestment from radiation vault ownership and treatment patterns for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Urologists practicing in single-specialty groups with ownership in radiation vaults are more likely to treat men with prostate cancer. The effect of divestment of vault ownership on treatment patterns is unclear.

METHODS

A 20% sample of national Medicare claims was used to perform a retrospective cohort study of men with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2019. Urology practices were categorized by radiation vault ownership as nonowners, continuous owners, and divested owners. The primary outcome was use of local treatment, and the secondary outcome was use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). A difference-in-differences framework was used to measure the effect of divestment on outcomes compared to continuous owners. Subgroup analyses assessed outcomes by noncancer mortality risk (high [>50%] vs. low [≤50%]).

RESULTS

Among 72 urology practices that owned radiation vaults, six divested during the study. Divestment led to a decrease in treatment compared with those managed at continuously owning practices (difference-in-differences estimate, -13%; p = .03). The use of IMRT decreased, but this was not statistically significant (difference-in-differences estimate, -10%; p = .13). In men with a high noncancer mortality risk, treatment (difference-in-differences estimate, -28%; p < .001) and use of IMRT (difference-in-differences estimate, -27%; p < .001) decreased after divestment.

CONCLUSIONS

Urology group divestment from radiation vault ownership led to a decrease in prostate cancer treatment. This decrease was most pronounced in men who had a high noncancer mortality risk. This has important implications for health care reform by suggesting that payment programs that encourage constraints on utilization, when appropriate, may be effective in reducing overtreatment.

Benchmarking the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model: Changes in Medicare Reimbursement for 16 Common Radiation Therapy Treatment Courses

Radiation oncology (RO) has seen declines in Medicare reimbursement (MCR) in the past decade under the current fee-for-service model. Although studies have explored decline in reimbursement at a per-code level, to our knowledge there are no recent studies analyzing changes in MCR over time for common RO treatment courses. By analyzing changes in MCR for common treatment courses, our study had 3 objectives: (1) to provide practitioners and policymakers with estimates of recent reimbursement changes for common treatment courses; (2) to provide an estimate of how reimbursement will change in the future under the current fee-for-service model if current trends continue; and (3) to provide a baseline for treatment episodes in the event that the episode-based Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model is eventually implemented. Specifically, we quantified inflation- and utilization-adjusted changes in reimbursement for 16 common radiation therapy (RT) treatment courses from 2010 to 2020. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary databases were used to obtain reimbursement for all RO procedures in 2010, 2015, and 2020 for free-standing facilities. Inflation-adjusted average reimbursement (AR) per billing instance was calculated for each Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code using 2020 dollars. For each year, the billing frequency of each code was multiplied by the AR per code. Results were summed per RT course per year, and AR for RT courses were compared. Sixteen common RO courses for head and neck, breast, prostate, lung, and palliative RT were analyzed. AR decreased for all 16 courses from 2010 to 2020. From 2015 to 2020, the only course that increased in AR was palliative 2-dimensional 10-fraction 30 Gy, which increased by 0.4%. Courses using intensity modulated RT saw the largest AR decline from 2010 to 2020, ranging from 38% to 39%. We report significant declines in reimbursement from 2010 to 2020 for common RO courses, with the largest declines for intensity modulated RT. Policymakers should consider the significant cuts to reimbursement that have already occurred when considering future reimbursement adjustment under the current fee-for-service model or when considering mandatory adoption of a new payment system with further cuts and the negative effect of such cuts on quality and access to care.

Characteristics of prostate cancer patients captured by facility-based versus geography-based cancer registries

PURPOSE

We determined differences in demographics, tumor factors, and treatment patterns of prostate cancer patients in a geographic-based cancer registry based on eligibility for a facility-based cancer registry system.

METHODS

We identified prostate cancer patients captured by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2018 to 2019. Our exposure was receipt of cancer care at a facility accredited by the American College of Surgeons' Commission on Cancer (CoC) providing eligibility for inclusion in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Outcomes included patient demographics, tumor factors (e.g., biopsy grade), and treatment with radical prostatectomy.

RESULTS

We identified 113,733 prostate cancer patients of whom 65,708 (57%) were NCDB-eligible with an analytic abstract, and 11,010 (10%) were NCDB-eligible without an analytic abstract. NCDB-eligible men were younger (67.0 vs. 68.1 years, P < 0.001), less likely to be Hispanic/Latino (8.7% vs. 13.2%, P < 0.001), and more likely in a county with median income over $75,000 (40.9% vs. 30.0%, P < 0.001). NCDB eligibility varied widely by registry, from 95.9% in Connecticut to 42.6% in Utah. NCDB-ineligible patients were more likely to have unknown stage (17.2% vs. 2.9% NCDB-eligible) and missing PSA (22.9% vs 9.3% NCDB-eligible). NCDB-eligible men were less likely to have Grade Group 1 cancer on biopsy (28.2% vs. 39.2%, P < 0.001). Treatment with prostatectomy was more common among NCDB-eligible patients for low-risk (19.6% vs. 8.8%, adjusted OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.72-6.66) and high-risk tumors (43.5% vs. 26.0%, adjusted OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.33-2.86).

CONCLUSION

Compared NCDB-ineligible patients, those eligible for inclusion in the NCDB have important differences in demographics, eligibility for active surveillance, and treatment patterns. Generalizations related to epidemiologic trends, practice patterns, and outcomes for this select population should be interpreted with caution.

Costs Around the First Year of Diagnosis for 4 Common Cancers Among the Privately Insured

BACKGROUND

We estimated trends in total and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs around the first year of diagnosis for privately insured nonelderly adult cancer patients.

METHODS

We constructed incident cohorts of breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer patients diagnosed between 2009 and 2016 using claims data from the Health Care Cost Institute. We identified cancer-related surgery, intravenous (IV) systemic therapy, and radiation and calculated associated total and OOP costs (in 2020 US dollars). We assessed trends in health-care utilization and cost by cancer site with logistic regressions and generalized linear models, respectively.

RESULTS

The cohorts included 105 255 breast, 23 571 colorectal, 11 321 lung, and 59 197 prostate cancer patients. For patients diagnosed between 2009 and 2016, total mean costs per patient increased from $109 544 to $140 732 for breast (29%), $151 751 to $168 730 for lung (11%) or $53 300 to $55 497 for prostate (4%) cancer were statistically significant. Increase for colorectal cancer (1%, $136 652 to $137 663) was not statistically significant (P = .09). OOP costs increased to more than 15% for all cancers, including colorectal, to more than $6000 by 2016. Use of IV systemic therapy and radiation statistically significantly increased, except for lung cancer. Cancer surgeries statistically significantly increased for breast and colorectal cancer but decreased for prostate cancer (P < .001). Total costs increased statistically significantly for nearly all treatment modalities, except for IV systemic therapy in colorectal and radiation in prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Rising costs of cancer treatments, compounded with greater cost sharing, increased OOP costs for privately insured, nonelderly cancer patients. Policy initiatives to mitigate financial hardship should consider cost containment as well as insurance reform.