Radiation Therapy Expenditures Through the First 8 Performance Periods of the Oncology Care Model at a Statewide Multispecialty Health System.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to use real world data to assess trends in radiation therapy (RT) treatment fractionation and cost under the Oncology Care Model (OCM) through the first 8 performance periods (PPs). METHODS: We identified 17,157 episodes of care from 9898 patients treated at a statewide multispecialty health system through the first 8 6-month PPs (PP1-8: July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2020) of the OCM. Spending was stratified by 10 expenditure domains (eg, Part B/D drugs, radiation oncology [RO], etc), and 21 disease sites were extracted from claims data, from which an analysis of RO expenditures was performed on 2219 episodes from 2033 patients treated with RT. Expenses are expressed in per-beneficiary, per-episode terms. RESULTS: RO expenditures comprised 3% ($14.7M) of total spending over the 8 periods. By primary cancer, the largest RO expenses were for breast ($2.9M; 20%), prostate ($2.9M; 19%), and lung cancer ($2.8M; 13%). For RO, total per-episode average spending remained roughly constant between PP1 ($6314) and PP8 ($6664; Ptrend > .05) and decreased ($6314-$6215) when indexed to the Consumer Price Index for July 2016. Average number of RT fractions per episode decreased from 19.2 in PP1 to 18.6 in PP8; this decrease was most notably seen for breast (-2.1), lung (-2.8), and female genitourinary (-3.5) cancers. Intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) charges accounted for $7.6M (51%) of RT spending and increased 5% from PP1 to 8, whereas conventional external beam RT made up $3.0M (21%) and decreased 8%. Expenses for image guidance ($2.5M; 17%; +2% from PP1-8) and stereotactic RT ($1.3M; 9%; +1%) increased. CONCLUSIONS: In inflation-adjusted terms, total RO expenditures have declined despite greater use of IMRT, stereotactic RT, and image guidance. Conversely, oncology costs have risen because of drug spending. Successful payment models must prioritize high-cost spending areas-including novel drug therapies-while accounting for high-value care and patient outcomes.

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.