Caught Between a Radiation Oncology Case Rate (ROCR) and a Hard Place: Improving Proposed Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Models

PURPOSE

The Radiation Oncology Case Rate (ROCR) aims to shift radiation reimbursement from fee-for-service (FFS) to bundled payments, which would decouple fractionation from reimbursement in the United States. This study compares historical reimbursement rates from 3 large centers and a national Medicare sample with proposed base rates from ROCR. It also tests the impact of methodological inclusion of treatment and disease characteristics to determine if any variables are associated with greater rate differences that may lead to inequitable reimbursement.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Using Mayo Clinic electronic medical record data from 2017 to 2020 and part B claims from the Medicare 5% research identifiable files, episodic 90-day historical reimbursement rates for 15 cancer types were calculated per the ROCR payment methodology. Mayo Clinic reimbursement rates were stratified by disease and treatment characteristics and multiple linear regression was performed to assess the association of these variables on historical episode reimbursement rates.

RESULTS

From Mayo Clinic, 3498 patient episodes were included and 480,526 from the research identifiable files. From both data sets, 25% of brain metastases and 13% of bone metastases episodes included ≥2 treatment courses with an average of 51 days between courses. Accounting for all 15 cancer types, ROCR base rates resulted in an average -2.4% and -2.9% reduction in rates for Mayo Clinic and the research identifiable files respectively compared with historical reimbursement. On multivariate analysis of Mayo Clinic data, treatment intent (curative vs palliative) was associated with higher historical reimbursement (+$477 to +$7417; P ≤.05) for 12 out of 12 applicable cancer types. Stage (III-IV vs I-II) was associated with higher historical reimbursement (+$1169 to +$3917; P ≤ .05) for 8 out of 12 applicable cancer types.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest ROCR base rates introduce an average ≤3% reimbursement rate decrease compared with historical FFS reimbursement per cancer type, which could produce the Medicare savings required for congressional approval of ROCR. Estimating comparisons with future FFS reimbursement would require consideration of additional factors such as the increased utilization of hypofractionation, proposed FFS rate cuts, and inflationary updates. A distinct rate and shortened episode duration (≤30 days) should be considered for palliative episodes. Applying a base rate modifier per cancer stage may mitigate disproportionate reductions in reimbursement for facilities with a higher volume of curative advanced-stage patients such as freestanding centers in rural settings.

Techno-Economic Feasibility Analysis of a Fully Mobile Radiation Oncology System Using Monte Carlo Simulation

Disparities in radiation oncology (RO) can be attributed to geographic location, socioeconomic status, race, sex, and other societal factors. One potential solution is to implement a fully mobile (FM) RO system to bring radiotherapy to rural areas and reduce barriers to access. We use Monte Carlo simulation to quantify techno-economic feasibility with uncertainty, using two rural Missouri scenarios.

An Overview of the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model and Impact on Practices Serving Vulnerable Populations

Radiation oncology reimbursement methodology has been largely unchanged over the past 30 years, and new approaches are of great interest to practicing radiation oncologists and other health care stakeholders. Traditional radiation oncology reimbursement is based on a series of individual codes for evaluation and management (professional) and technical services, yielding a complex reimbursement system. In an attempt to move toward a simpler, episodic payment model, bundling all of the codes into a single payment, an alternative payment model for radiation oncology was developed. The radiation oncology alternative payment model is a revolutionary change in how radiation oncologic services will be reimbursed and has potential to affect all aspects of radiation oncologic care. Here, the authors review the origin of the currently proposed radiation oncology model and discuss potential implications of this model on the provision of care, especially as it relates to rural practices and other underserved and vulnerable patient populations.

Impact of Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model on Community Cancer Centers

PURPOSE

An episode-based payment model, the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model (RO-APM), is scheduled to go into effect in January 2022. This article investigates the effects of RO-APM on hospital-based and freestanding community centers.

METHODS

Historical Medicare data used to generate the RO-APM base rates were reviewed. A sensitivity analysis was performed to show how the RO-APM reimbursements compare with current reimbursements for commonly accepted treatment schedules and with current reimbursements at a large community practice.

RESULTS

The RO-APM base rates represent a 2.2% decrease in overall Medicare reimbursement. Freestanding centers have historically billed at higher rates than hospital-based centers, however, and the RO-APM base rates represent a 6% decrease in global reimbursement for freestanding centers. The sensitivity analysis showed that, except for proton therapy, moderately hypofractionated treatment schedules will receive comparable reimbursement under RO-APM. Treatments using higher numbers of fractions of intensity-modulated radiation therapy or protons will see larger decreases in reimbursement. Application of the RO-APM base rates to the 2020 Medicare treatments in our health care network would result in small changes in expected reimbursement, but our sensitivity analysis indicated that Medicare reimbursement reductions could be as large as 23%.

CONCLUSION

Compared with historical Medicare reimbursement, RO-APM base rates provide lower reimbursement for many common treatment scenarios, and this will have a larger effect on centers that use complex treatment techniques and longer fractionation schedules or have a large Medicare population.

Impact of the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model on Brachytherapy Reimbursement

PURPOSE

The Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model (RO Model) will test prospective radiotherapy episode-based payments for 16 common disease sites. We created an automated analytics platform to calculate the impact of the RO Model vs historical fee-for-service episode reimbursements for brachytherapy treatments within five community oncology practices for prostate, uterine, and cervical cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Claims data between January 1, 2017 and October 2, 2019 for prostate, uterine, and cervical cancer were analyzed as per the RO Model Final Rule methodology. Expected professional and technical component (PC and TC) reimbursements were compared for episodes that utilized brachytherapy alone vs combination modality (external beam and brachytherapy) in the RO Model vs historical reimbursements.

RESULTS

6,022 RO Model-defined episodes (60% prostate, 28% uterine, 13% cervical) were generated. Brachytherapy monotherapy episodes (14%) would have an average positive reimbursement in the RO Model (+$2,163 for prostate, +$711 for uterine, +$533 for cervical for the PC; +$12,168 for prostate, +$8,181 for uterine, +$11,322 for cervical for the TC), while combination modality episodes (15%) would have an average negative reimbursement in the RO Model (-$183 for prostate, -$1,701 for uterine, -$2,195 for cervical for the PC; -$374 for prostate, -$5,026 for uterine, -$2,801 for cervical for the TC).

CONCLUSIONS

Brachytherapy monotherapy episodes for prostate, uterine, and cervical cancer will benefit from an increase in payment, whereas combination modality episodes will receive lower reimbursement. Large shifts in episodic payment may be related to practice-wide adjustments and pricing based on partial episodes of care that may ultimately limit access to care for vulnerable patient populations with cancer.