Time-driven activity-based cost comparison of prostate cancer brachytherapy and intensity-modulated radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the delivery cost of frequently used radiotherapy options offered to patients with intermediate- to high-risk prostate cancer using time-driven activity-based costing and compare the results with Medicare reimbursement and relative value units (RVUs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Process maps were created to represent each step of prostate radiotherapy treatment at our institution. Salary data, equipment purchase costs, and consumable costs were factored into the cost analysis. The capacity cost rate was determined for each resource and calculated for each treatment option from initial consultation to its completion. Treatment options included low-dose-rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT), combined high-dose-rate brachytherapy single fraction boost with 25-fraction intensity-modulated radiotherapy (HDR-BT-IMRT), moderately hypofractionated 28-fraction IMRT, conventionally fractionated 39-fraction IMRT, and conventionally fractionated (2 Gy/fraction) 23-fraction pelvis irradiation with 16-fraction prostate boost. RESULTS: The total cost to deliver LDR-BT, HDR-BT-IMRT, moderately hypofractionated 28-fraction IMRT, conventionally fractionated 39-fraction IMRT, conventionally fractionated 39-fraction IMRT, and conventionally fractionated (2 Gy/fraction) 23-fraction pelvis irradiation with 16-fraction prostate boost was $2719, $6517, $4173, $5507, and $5663, respectively. Total reimbursement for each course was $3123, $10,156, $7862, $9725, and $10,377, respectively. Radiation oncology attending time was 1.5-2 times higher for treatment courses incorporating BT. Attending radiation oncologist's time consumed per RVU was higher with BT (4.83 and 2.56 minutes per RVU generated for LDR-BT and HDR-BT-IMRT, respectively) compared to without BT (1.41-1.62 minutes per RVU). CONCLUSIONS: Time-driven activity-based costing analysis identified higher delivery costs associated with prostate BT compared with IMRT alone. In light of recent guidelines promoting BT for intermediate- to high-risk disease, re-evaluation of payment policies is warranted to encourage BT delivery.

Evaluation of Delivery Costs for External Beam Radiation Therapy and Brachytherapy for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the delivery costs, using time-driven activity-based costing, and reimbursement for definitive radiation therapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Process maps were created to represent each step of the radiation treatment process and included personnel, equipment, and consumable supplies used to deliver care. Personnel were interviewed to estimate time involved to deliver care. Salary data, equipment purchasing information, and facilities costs were also obtained. We defined the capacity cost rate (CCR) for each resource and then calculated the total cost of patient care according to CCR and time for each resource. Costs were compared with 2016 Medicare reimbursement and relative value units (RVUs). RESULTS: The total cost of radiation therapy for cervical cancer was $12,861.68, with personnel costs constituting 49.8%. Brachytherapy cost $8610.68 (66.9% of total) and consumed 423 minutes of attending radiation oncologist time (80.0% of total). External beam radiation therapy cost $4055.01 (31.5% of total). Personnel costs were higher for brachytherapy than for the sum of simulation and external beam radiation therapy delivery ($4798.73 vs $1404.72). A full radiation therapy course provides radiation oncologists 149.77 RVUs with intensity modulated radiation therapy or 135.90 RVUs with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, with total reimbursement of $23,321.71 and $16,071.90, respectively. Attending time per RVU is approximately 4-fold higher for brachytherapy (5.68 minutes) than 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (1.63 minutes) or intensity modulated radiation therapy (1.32 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: Time-driven activity-based costing was used to calculate the total cost of definitive radiation therapy for cervical cancer, revealing that brachytherapy delivery and personnel resources constituted the majority of costs. However, current reimbursement policy does not reflect the increased attending physician effort and delivery costs of brachytherapy. We hypothesize that the significant discrepancy between treatment costs and physician effort versus reimbursement may be a potential driver of reported national trends toward poor compliance with brachytherapy, and we suggest re-evaluation of payment policies to incentivize quality care.