Time-driven activity-based costing of low-dose-rate and high-dose-rate brachytherapy for low-risk prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Cost estimates through traditional hospital accounting systems are often arbitrary and ambiguous. We used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to determine the true cost of low-dose-rate (LDR) and high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy for prostate cancer and demonstrate opportunities for cost containment at an academic referral center. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We implemented TDABC for patients treated with I-125, preplanned LDR and computed tomography based HDR brachytherapy with two implants from initial consultation through 12-month followup. We constructed detailed process maps for provision of both HDR and LDR. Personnel, space, equipment, and material costs of each step were identified and used to derive capacity cost rates, defined as price per minute. Each capacity cost rate was then multiplied by the relevant process time and products were summed to determine total cost of care. RESULTS: The calculated cost to deliver HDR was greater than LDR by $2,668.86 ($9,538 vs. $6,869). The first and second HDR treatment day cost $3,999.67 and $3,955.67, whereas LDR was delivered on one treatment day and cost $3,887.55. The greatest overall cost driver for both LDR and HDR was personnel at 65.6% ($4,506.82) and 67.0% ($6,387.27) of the total cost. After personnel costs, disposable materials contributed the second most for LDR ($1,920.66, 28.0%) and for HDR ($2,295.94, 24.0%). CONCLUSIONS: With TDABC, the true costs to deliver LDR and HDR from the health system perspective were derived. Analysis by physicians and hospital administrators regarding the cost of care afforded redesign opportunities including delivering HDR as one implant. Our work underscores the need to assess clinical outcomes to understand the true difference in value between these modalities.

Utilizing time-driven activity-based costing to understand the short- and long-term costs of treating localized, low-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: Given the costs of delivering care for men with prostate cancer remain poorly described, this article reports the results of time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) for competing treatments of low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS: Process maps were developed for each phase of care from the initial urologic visit through 12 years of follow-up for robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP), cryotherapy, high-dose rate (HDR) and low-dose rate (LDR) brachytherapy, intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), and active surveillance (AS). The last modality incorporated both traditional transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy and multiparametric-MRI/TRUS fusion biopsy. The costs of materials, equipment, personnel, and space were calculated per unit of time and based on the relative proportion of capacity used. TDABC for each treatment was defined as the sum of its resources. RESULTS: Substantial cost variation was observed at 5 years, with costs ranging from $7,298 for AS to $23,565 for IMRT, and they remained consistent through 12 years of follow-up. LDR brachytherapy ($8,978) was notably cheaper than HDR brachytherapy ($11,448), and SBRT ($11,665) was notably cheaper than IMRT, with the cost savings attributable to shorter procedure times and fewer visits required for treatment. Both equipment costs and an inpatient stay ($2,306) contributed to the high cost of RALP ($16,946). Cryotherapy ($11,215) was more costly than LDR brachytherapy, largely because of increased single-use equipment costs ($6,292 vs $1,921). AS reached cost equivalence with LDR brachytherapy after 7 years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The use of TDABC is feasible for analyzing cancer services and provides insights into cost-reduction tactics in an era focused on emphasizing value. By detailing all steps from diagnosis and treatment through 12 years of follow-up for low-risk prostate cancer, this study has demonstrated significant cost variation between competing treatments.

Determining the True Costs of Treating Small Renal Masses Using Time Driven, Activity Based Costing.

INTRODUCTION: We report the implementation of time driven, activity based costing for competing treatments of small renal masses at an academic referral center. METHODS: To use time driven, activity based costing we developed a process map outlining the steps to treat small renal masses. We then derived the costs of supplying every resource per unit time. Known as the capacity cost rate, this included equipment and its depreciation (eg price per minute of the operating room table), personnel and space (eg cost per minute to rent clinic space). We multiplied each capacity cost rate by the time for each step. Time driven, activity based costing was defined as the sum of the products for each intervention. RESULTS: Robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy was the most expensive treatment for small renal masses. It was 69.7% more costly than the most inexpensive inpatient modality, laparoscopic radical nephrectomy ($17,841.79 vs $10,514.05). Equipment costs were greater for laparoscopic radical nephrectomy than for open partial nephrectomy. However for laparoscopic radical nephrectomy vs open partial nephrectomy the lower personnel capacity cost rate due to faster operating room time (195.2 vs 217.3 minutes, p = 0.001) and shorter length of stay (2.4 vs 3.7 days, p = 0.13) were the primary drivers in lowering costs. Radiofrequency ablation was 48.4% less expensive than laparoscopic radical nephrectomy ($5,093.83 vs $10,514.05) largely by avoiding inpatient costs. Renal biopsy contributed 3.5% vs 12.2% to the overall cost of robot-assisted laparoscopic partial nephrectomy vs radiofrequency ablation but it may allow for increased active surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Using time driven, activity based costing we determined the relative resource utilization of competing small renal mass treatments, finding significant cost differences among various treatments. This informs value considerations, which are particularly relevant in the current health care milieu.

Time-driven activity-based costing: a driver for provider engagement in costing activities and redesign initiatives.

OBJECT: To date, health care providers have devoted significant efforts to improve performance regarding patient safety and quality of care. To address the lagging involvement of health care providers in the cost component of the value equation, UCLA Health piloted the implementation of time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC). Here, the authors describe the implementation experiment, share lessons learned across the care continuum, and report how TDABC has actively engaged health care providers in costing activities and care redesign. METHODS: After the selection of pilots in neurosurgery and urology and the creation of the TDABC team, multidisciplinary process mapping sessions, capacity-cost calculations, and model integration were coordinated and offered to engage care providers at each phase. RESULTS: Reviewing the maps for the entire episode of care, varying types of personnel involved in the delivery of care were noted: 63 for the neurosurgery pilot and 61 for the urology pilot. The average cost capacities for care coordinators, nurses, residents, and faculty were $0.70 (range $0.63-$0.75), $1.55 (range $1.28-$2.04), $0.58 (range $0.56-$0.62), and $3.54 (range $2.29-$4.52), across both pilots. After calculating the costs for material, equipment, and space, the TDABC model enabled the linking of a specific step of the care cycle (who performed the step and its duration) and its associated costs. Both pilots identified important opportunities to redesign care delivery in a costconscious fashion. CONCLUSIONS: The experimentation and implementation phases of the TDABC model have succeeded in engaging health care providers in process assessment and costing activities. The TDABC model proved to be a catalyzing agent for cost-conscious care redesign.