RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
Purpose: Rapid pain relief for patients with bone metastases can be a challenge due to the lengthy and complex radiation therapy workflow. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the time (in days) between initial radiation oncology consultation and start of palliative radiation treatment after implementing an alternative virtual simulation palliative workflow. Methods and Materials: Patients meeting strict criteria were selected for virtual simulation, which included only those with painful bone metastases who were recommended palliative radiation therapy using standard anterior-posterior/posterior-anterior or opposed lateral fields. A recent (within 30 days) diagnostic computed tomography (CT) scan clearly visualizing the target volume was required for treatment planning. For comparison, a reference group of 40 consecutive patients with bone metastases who underwent in-person CT simulation before virtual simulation implementation was reviewed. Results: Forty-five patients were treated for painful bone metastases as part of the virtual simulation program from May 2021 to October 2022. Regarding travel distance, 23 patients lived locally (<50 miles from the treatment center) and 22 patients were distant (≥50 miles from the treatment center). Average time from consultation to treatment for all patients undergoing virtual simulation was 3.7 days, compared with 7.5 days for patients undergoing in-person CT simulation (3.8 days sooner, on average; P ≤ .001). Before full implementation of the virtual simulation program, 5 eligible patients participated in a virtual simulation pilot from April 2021 to May 2021, in which each patient was contoured and planned on both a pre-existing diagnostic CT scan and a standard CT simulation scan. For virtual simulation-based plans, the average V90, V95, and V99 were 99.99%, 99.87%, and 96.70%. No significant planning target volume (PTV) coverage difference was found on subsequent in-person CT simulation scans. Conclusions: The virtual simulation program decreased the time from consultation to start of treatment by more than 50% for patients recommended palliative radiation therapy for painful bone metastases. This benefit was most significant for outpatients traveling ≥50 miles for treatment. Virtual simulation-based planning can be considered for patients anxious to proceed with radiation therapy quickly or in underserved settings with limited transportation options to regional treatment centers.