Role of simulation-based training and assessment to improve brachytherapy competency among radiation oncology residents.

Simulation is a technique used in healthcare to replicate clinical scenarios and improve patient safety, efficacy, and efficiency. Simulation-based medical education facilitates training and assessment in healthcare without increasing risk to patients, supported by ample evidence from surgical/procedural specialties. Simulation in radiation oncology has been leveraged to an extent, with successful examples of both screen-based and hands-on simulators that have improved confidence and performance in trainees. In the current era, evidence substantiates a significant deficit in brachytherapy procedure education, with radiation oncology residents reporting low confidence in this procedural skill, largely attributable to insufficient caseloads at some centers. Simulation-based medical education can facilitate structured training and competency-based assessment in brachytherapy skills. This review discusses existing advances and future directions in brachytherapy simulation, using examples from simulation in surgical specialties.

A Medicare Claims Analysis of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Access to Radiation Therapy Services.

PURPOSE: Reduced access and utilization of radiation therapy (RT) is a well-documented healthcare disparity observed among racial and ethnic minority groups in the USA and a contributor to the inferior health outcomes observed among Black, Hispanic, and Native American patient groups. What is less understood are the points during the process of care following RT consultation at which patients either fail to complete their prescribed treatment or encounter delays. Identification of those points where significant differences exist among different patient groups may help identify opportunities to close gaps in the access of clinically indicated RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This analysis examines 261,559 RT episodes abstracted from Medicare claims and beneficiary data between 2016 and 2018 to determine rates of treatment initiation following planning and timeliness of treatment completion for different racial groups. RESULTS: Failure to initiate treatment was observed to be 29.3% relatively greater for Black, Hispanic, and Native American patients than for White and Asian patients. Among episodes for which treatment was initiated, Black and Hispanic patients were observed to require a significantly greater number of calendar days (when adjusted for fraction number) for completion than for White, Asian, and Native American patients. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a patient cohort for which RT disparities may be more marginal in their effects-allowing for access to consultation and treatment prescription but not for treatment initiation or timely completion of treatment-and may therefore permit effective solutions to help address current differences in cancer 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.

Improving efficiency and reducing costs of MRI-Guided prostate brachytherapy using Time-Driven Activity-Based costing.

INTRODUCTION: Integrated quality improvement (QI) and cost reduction strategies can help increase value in cancer care. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) is a bottom-up costing tool that measures resource use over the full care cycle. We applied standard QI and TDABC methods to improve workflow efficiency and reduce costs for MRI-guided prostate brachytherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We constructed process maps of the baseline prostate brachytherapy workflow from initial consultation through one year after treatment. Process maps reflected resources and time required at each step. TDABC costs were calculated by multiplying each process time by the cost per min of the resource(s) used at that step. We then used plan-do-study-act methodology to identify workflow inefficiencies and implement solutions to reduce resource consumption. RESULTS: The highest cost components at baseline were the operating room (OR) (40%), imaging (8.7%), and consultation (7.6%). Higher-than-expected costs (3%) were incurred during surgery scheduling. After targeted QI initiatives, OR time was reduced from 90 to 70 min, which reduced overall cost by 5%. Personnel task downshifting reduced costs by 10% at consultation and 77% at surgery scheduling. Re-engineering of follow-up protocols reduced costs by 8.4%. Costs under the new workflow decreased by 18.2%. CONCLUSIONS: TDABC complements traditional QI initiatives by quantifying the highest cost steps and focusing QI initiatives to reduce costs and improve efficiency. As payment reform evolves toward bundled payments, TDABC and QI initiatives will help providers understand, communicate, and improve the value of cancer care.

Geographic access to brachytherapy services in the United States.

PURPOSE: Disparities in geographic access to medical care exist in nearly all fields of medicine including radiation oncology. We aim to update knowledge of the geographic distribution of radiation oncologists in the United States. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used the Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File (PUF) from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Directory of Radiotherapy Centers (DIRAC) database to identify practices that either coded for or are marked as having access to brachytherapy services. Geographic analysis was performed on several levels including United States (US) Census region, Dartmouth Atlas Healthcare Referral Region, and the county level. RESULTS: We identified 327 providers that billed for a brachytherapy code during the calendar year 2018 and 564 facilities providing brachytherapy. Within the 306 HRRs in the US, 149 have access to brachytherapy. This represents 247.5 million people based on 2018 estimates of population from the US Census Bureau. This implies that 76.7% of people within the US live in an HRR with access to brachytherapy, and, conversely, that 75.3 million people (23.3%) do not. Numerically, counties in metropolitan areas were more likely to have access to brachytherapy than those outside of a metropolitan area. CONCLUSIONS: Geographic disparities exist in access to brachytherapy; metropolitan counties are more likely to have access than non-metropolitan counties. We support continued development of databases of brachytherapy providers and programs that may support travel and lodging costs to minimize these disparities.

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.

Disproportionate Negative Impact of the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model on Rural Providers: A Cost Identification Analysis of Medicare Claims.

PURPOSE: The Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model (APM) is a Medicare demonstration project that will test whether prospective bundled payments to a randomly selected group of physician practices, hospital outpatient departments, and freestanding radiation therapy centers reduce overall expenditures while preserving or enhancing the quality of care for beneficiaries. The Model follows a complicated pricing methodology that blends historical reimbursements for a defined set of services made to professional and technical providers to create a weighted payment average for each of 16 cancer types. These averages are then adjusted by various factors to determine APM payments specific to each participating provider. METHODS: This impact study segregates APM participants into rural and urban groups and analyzes the effect of the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model on their fee-for-service reimbursements. RESULTS: The main findings of this study are (1) the greater net-negative revenue impact on rural facilities versus urban facilities that would have participated in the Model this year and (2) the relative lack of high-value treatment services (ie, stereotactic radiotherapy and brachytherapy) delivered by rural facilities that exacerbates their negative impact. CONCLUSION: As such, rural providers participating in the Model in its current form may face greater risk to their economic viability and greater difficulty in funding technology improvements necessary for the achievement of high-quality care compared with their urban counterparts.

Radiation Oncology's Place in Payment Reform: ASTRO Advocates for a Place at the Table.

In its current form, the Radiation Oncology Model (RO Model) prioritizes payment cuts over true value-based payment transformation. With significant modifications to the payment methodology, the reporting requirements, and recognition of the unique challenges faced by disadvantaged populations, the RO Model can protect patient access to care, preserve the physician-patient decision-making process, and ensure the delivery of high-quality, efficient radiation therapy treatment. The American Society for Radiation Oncology has spent several years advocating for a meaningful alternative payment model for radiation oncology and continues to push The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation for changes to the RO Model that will recognize these key outcomes.

Socioeconomic and Racial Determinants of Brachytherapy Utilization for Cervical Cancer: Concerns for Widening Disparities.

PURPOSE: Cervical cancer (CC) disproportionately affects minorities who have higher incidence and mortality rates. Standard of care for locally advanced CC involves a multimodality approach including brachytherapy (BT), which independently improves oncologic outcomes. Here, we examine the impact of insurance status and race on BT utilization with the SEER database. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 7,266 patients with stage I-IV CC diagnosed from 2007 to 2015 were included. BT utilization, overall survival (OS), and disease-specific survival (DSS) were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 3,832 (52.7%) received combined external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) + BT, whereas 3,434 (47.3%) received EBRT alone. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, increasing age (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.98 to 0.99; P < .001); Medicaid (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.88; P < .001), uninsured (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.80; P < .001), and unknown versus private insurance (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.86; P < .001); Black (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.77; P < .001) and unknown versus White race (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.77; P = .047); and American Joint Committee on Cancer stage II (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.24; P = .36), stage III (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.94; P = .006), stage IV (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.40; P < .001), and unknown stage versus stage I (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.45; P < .001) were associated with decreased BT utilization. When comparing racial survival differences, the 5-year OS was 44.2% versus 50.9% (P < .0001) and the 5-year DSS was 55.6% versus 60.5% (P < .0001) for Black and White patients, respectively. Importantly, the racial survival disparities resolved when examining patients who received combined EBRT + BT, with the 5-year OS of 57.3% versus58.5% (P = .24) and the 5-year DSS of 66.3% versus 66.6% (P = .53) for Black and White patients, respectively. CONCLUSION: This work demonstrates notable inequities in BT utilization for CC that particularly affects patients of lower insurance status and Black race, which translates into inferior oncologic outcomes. Importantly, the use of BT was able to overcome racial survival differences, thus highlighting its essential value.

Cost-Effectiveness Models of Proton Therapy for Head and Neck: Evaluating Quality and Methods to Date.

PURPOSE: Proton beam therapy (PBT) is associated with less toxicity relative to conventional photon radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer (HNC). Upfront delivery costs are greater, but PBT can provide superior long-term value by minimizing treatment-related complications. Cost-effectiveness models (CEMs) estimate the relative value of novel technologies (such as PBT) as compared with the established standard of care. However, the uncertainties of CEMs can limit interpretation and applicability. This review serves to (1) assess the methodology and quality of pertinent CEMs in the existing literature, (2) evaluate their suitability for guiding clinical and economic strategies, and (3) discuss areas for improvement among future analyses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed was queried for CEMs specific to PBT for HNC. General characteristics, modeling information, and methodological approaches were extracted for each identified study. Reporting quality was assessed via the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 24-item checklist, whereas methodologic quality was evaluated via the Philips checklist. The Cooper evidence hierarchy scale was employed to analyze parameter inputs referenced within each model. RESULTS: At the time of study, only 4 formal CEMs specific to PBT for HNC had been published (2005, 2013, 2018, 2020). The parameter inputs among these various Markov cohort models generally referenced older literature, excluding many clinically relevant complications and applying numerous hypothetical assumptions for toxicity states, incorporating inputs from theoretical complication-probability models because of limited availability of direct clinical evidence. Case numbers among study cohorts were low, and the structural design of some models inadequately reflected the natural history of HNC. Furthermore, cost inputs were incomplete and referenced historic figures. CONCLUSION: Contemporary CEMs are needed to incorporate modern estimates for toxicity risks and costs associated with PBT delivery, to provide a more accurate estimate of value, and to improve their clinical applicability with respect to PBT for HNC.

Activity-Based Costing of Intensity-Modulated Proton versus Photon Therapy for Oropharyngeal Cancer.

PURPOSE: In value-based health care delivery, radiation oncologists need to compare empiric costs of care delivery with advanced technologies, such as intensity-modulated proton therapy (IMPT) and intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). We used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to compare the costs of delivering IMPT and IMRT in a case-matched pilot study of patients with newly diagnosed oropharyngeal (OPC) cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used clinicopathologic factors to match 25 patients with OPC who received IMPT in 2011-12 with 25 patients with OPC treated with IMRT in 2000-09. Process maps were created for each multidisciplinary clinical activity (including chemotherapy and ancillary services) from initial consultation through 1 month of follow-up. Resource costs and times were determined for each activity. Each patient-specific activity was linked with a process map and TDABC over the full cycle of care. All calculated costs were normalized to the lowest-cost IMRT patient. RESULTS: TDABC costs for IMRT were 1.00 to 3.33 times that of the lowest-cost IMRT patient (mean ± SD: 1.65 ± 0.56), while costs for IMPT were 1.88 to 4.32 times that of the lowest-cost IMRT patient (2.58 ± 0.39) (P < .05). Although single-fraction costs were 2.79 times higher for IMPT than for IMRT (owing to higher equipment costs), average full cycle cost of IMPT was 1.53 times higher than IMRT, suggesting that the initial cost increase is partly mitigated by reductions in costs for other, non-RT supportive health care services. CONCLUSIONS: In this matched sample, although IMPT was on average more costly than IMRT primarily owing to higher equipment costs, a subset of IMRT patients had similar costs to IMPT patients, owing to greater use of supportive care resources. Multidimensional patient outcomes and TDABC provide vital methodology for defining the value of radiation therapy modalities.

The Case for Brachytherapy: Why It Deserves a Renaissance.

The recent global events related to the coronavirus disease of 2019 pandemic have significantly changed the medical landscape and led to a shift in oncologic treatment perspectives. There is a renewed focus on preserving treatment outcomes while maintaining medical accessibility and decreasing medical resource utilization. Brachytherapy, which is a vital part of the treatment course of many cancers (particularly prostate and gynecologic cancers), has the ability to deliver hypofractionated radiation and thus shorten treatment time. Studies in the early 2000s demonstrated a decline in brachytherapy usage despite data showing equivalent or even superior treatment outcomes for brachytherapy in disease sites, such as the prostate and cervix. However, newer data suggest that this trend may be reversing. The renewed call for shorter radiation courses based on data showing equivalent outcomes will likely establish hypofractionated radiation as the standard of care across multiple disease sites. With shifting reimbursement, brachytherapy represents the pinnacle in hypofractionated, conformal radiation therapy, and with extensive long-term data in support of the treatment modality brachytherapy is primed for a renaissance.

Developing a Value Framework: Utilizing Administrative Data to Assess an Enhanced Care Initiative.

BACKGROUND: There remains no tool to quantify the total value of comparative processes in health care. Hospital administrative data sets are emerging as valuable sources to evaluate performance. Thus, we use a framework to simultaneously assess multiple domains of value associated with an enhanced recovery initiative using national administrative data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Risk-stratified clinical pathways for patients undergoing pancreatic surgery were implemented in 2016 at our institution. We used a national administrative database to characterize changes in value associated with this initiative. Value metrics assessed included in-hospital mortality, complication rates, length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission rates, and institutional costs. We compared our performance with other hospitals both before and after implementation of the pathways. Metrics were graphed on radar charts to assess overall value. RESULTS: 22,660 cases were assessed. Comparing 75 cases at our institution and 5520 cases at all other hospitals before pathway implementation, mean in-hospital LOS was 9.6 versus 10.8 d, in-hospital mortality was 0.0% versus 1.9%, mean costs were $23,585 versus $21,387, 30-day readmission rates were 1.3% versus 7.4%, and complication rates were 8.0% versus 11.2%, respectively. Comparing 334 cases at our institution and 16,731 cases at all other hospitals after pathway implementation, mean in-hospital LOS was 7.7 versus 10.3 d, in-hospital mortality was 0.3% versus 1.6%, mean costs were $19,428 versus $22,032, 30-day readmission rates were 6.6% versus 7.5%, and complication rates were 6.3% versus 10.3%, respectively. Notably, LOS and institutional costs were reduced at our institution after implementation of the enhanced clinical care pathways. Our costs were higher than comparators before implementation, but lower than comparators after implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Herein, we used an analytic framework and used national administrative data to assess the value of an enhanced care initiative as benchmarked with data from other hospitals. We thus illustrate how to identify and measure opportunities for targeted improvements in health care delivery. We also recognize the limitations of the use of administrative data in a comprehensive assessment of value in health care.

Development, implementation, and outcomes of a simulation-based medical education (SBME) prostate brachytherapy workshop for radiation oncology residents.

PURPOSE: Despite a preponderance of data demonstrating strong clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness, prostate brachytherapy use and competency continue to decline. Enhanced resident education may help reverse this trend. We therefore developed and implemented a simulation-based medical education course for low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 1-week LDR-PB course comprised four 1-h lectures on clinical outcomes, physics, radiobiology, and anatomy/contouring, followed by a 4.5-h simulation session on ultrasound-guided prostate phantom implantation, was developed for radiation oncology residents at an academic institution. A 10-statement Likert-scale survey and 20-question multiple-choice test were administered 1 week before and 4 weeks after the course. RESULTS: Precourse and postcourse instruments were completed by 24 and 20 residents, respectively. The median number of prior LDR-PB cases after at least one genitourinary rotation was 10.5 (range 5-20). Overall mean test scores were significantly improved (55% before the course vs 68% after the course; p = 0.010). Mean Likert scores significantly increased on nine of 10 survey statements and were significantly increased overall (2.4 before the course vs 3.3 after the course, p < 0.001). When asked about interest in performing brachytherapy after residency, 37.5% of residents "agreed" or "strongly agreed" before the course vs 50% after the course (p = 0.41). Those with higher postresidency brachytherapy interest (scores of 4-5 vs 1-3) had significantly more LDR-PB cases (11.2 vs 5.3 cases; p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: A 1-week simulation-based medical education course for LDR-PB can improve didactic performance and self-reported technical competence/confidence, and may increase overall enthusiasm for brachytherapy. Future studies at our institution will incorporate evaluation of implant quality and assessment of procedural competence into this framework. Residency programs should dedicate resources to this essential component of radiation oncology.

Evaluating reimbursement of skin radiation therapy: Technique and fractionation.

PURPOSE: Multiple skin radiation therapy techniques exist including electron beam therapy, high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy, superficial/orthovoltage, and electronic brachytherapy (EB). The purpose of this analysis was to compare reimbursement between these modalities by fractionation regimen. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Reimbursement was derived from the 2020 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule by fractionation schedule or from the 2020 Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment national benchmarks. A secondary analysis evaluating incorporation of daily simulation codes was also performed to factor in coding heterogeneity. RESULTS: Superficial/orthovoltage was the least costly and EB the next least costly technique regardless of fractionation. When incorporating variations in coding of simulations, reimbursement with superficial/orthovoltage was still least costly, with a reduction in cost of $1,755, $2,715, $5,076, and $7,436 compared with HDR brachytherapy for 6, 10, 20, and 30 fractions, respectively, and a reduction in cost of $1,325, $2,170, $4,281, and $6,392 compared with EB. HDR brachytherapy and EB costs can increase by 63-110% based on nonrecommended variation in daily simulation billing, with superficial/orthovoltage experiencing the highest relative increase. Reimbursement per course can vary by a factor of 4.5-9.3x depending on the modality and fractionation scheme utilized. CONCLUSIONS: Superficial/orthovoltage followed by EB were the least costly modalities with regard to reimbursement; however, costs can vary with frequency of simulation code billing. Consistency and standardization in skin radiation therapy reimbursement is needed, and case rates within a radiation oncology alternative payment model may help to minimize reimbursement heterogeneity among treatment options.