Drivers of Medicare Spending: A 15-Year Review of Radiation Oncology Charges Allowed by the Medicare Physician/Supplier Fee-for-Service Program Compared With Other Specialties.

PURPOSE: In 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposed a new radiation oncology alternative payment model aimed at reducing expenditures. We examined changes in aggregate physician Medicare charges allowed per specialty to provide contemporary context to proposed changes and hypothesize that radiation oncology charges remained stable through 2017. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Medicare physician/supplier utilization, program payments, and balance billing for original Medicare beneficiaries, by physician specialty, were analyzed from 2002 to 2017. Total allowed charges under the physician/supplier fee-for-service program, inflation-adjusted charges, and percent of total charges billed per specialty were examined. We adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index for medical care from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. RESULTS: Total allowed charges increased from $83 billion in 2002 to $138 billion in 2017. The specialties accounting for the most charges billed to Medicare were internal medicine and ophthalmology. Radiation oncology charges accounted for 1.2%, 1.6%, and 1.4% of total charges allowed by Medicare in 2002, 2012, and 2017, respectively. Radiation oncology charges allowed increased 44% from 2002 to 2012 ($987.6 million to $1.42 billion) but decreased by 19% from 2012 to 2017 ($1.15 billion), adjusted for inflation. Total charges allowed by internal medicine decreased 2% from 2002 to 2012 ($8.53 to $8.36 billion), adjusted for inflation, and decreased 16% from 2012 to 2017 ($7.05 billion). When adjusting for inflation, ophthalmology charges increased 18% from 2002 to 2012 ($4.53 to $5.36 billion) and increased 3% from 2012 to 2017 ($5.5 billion). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation oncology physician charges represent a small fraction of total Medicare expenses and are not a driver for Medicare spending. Aggregate inflation-adjusted charges by radiation oncology have dramatically declined in the past 5 years and represent a stable fraction of total Medicare charges. The need to target radiation oncology with cost-cutting measures may be overstated.

The Radiation Oncology Job Market: The Economics and Policy of Workforce Regulation.

Examinations of the US radiation oncology workforce offer inconsistent conclusions, but recent data raise significant concerns about an oversupply of physicians. Despite these concerns, residency slots continue to expand at an unprecedented pace. Employed radiation oncologists and professional corporations with weak contracts or loose ties to hospital administrators would be expected to suffer the greatest harm from an oversupply. The reduced cost of labor, however, would be expected to increase profitability for equipment owners, technology vendors, and entrenched professional groups. Policymakers must recognize that the number of practicing radiation oncologists is a poor surrogate for clinical capacity. There is likely to be significant opportunity to augment capacity without increasing the number of radiation oncologists by improving clinic efficiency and offering targeted incentives for geographic redistribution. Payment policy changes significantly threaten radiation oncologists' income, which may encourage physicians to care for greater patient loads, thereby obviating more personnel. Furthermore, the implementation of alternative payment models such as Medicare's Oncology Care Model threatens to decrease both the utilization and price of radiation therapy by turning referring providers into cost-conscious consumers. Medicare funds the vast majority of graduate medical education, but the extent to which the expansion in radiation oncology residency slots has been externally funded is unclear. Excess physician capacity carries a significant risk of harm to society by suboptimally allocating intellectual resources and creating comparative shortages in other, more needed disciplines. There are practical concerns associated with a market-based solution in which medical students self-regulate according to job availability, but antitrust law would likely forbid collaborative self-regulation that purports to restrict supply. Because Congress is unlikely to create one central body to govern residency controls for all specialties, we recommend better reporting of program-specific employment metrics and careful, intellectually honest re-evaluation of existing Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accreditation standards.

Supply and Demand for Radiation Oncology in the United States: Updated Projections for 2015 to 2025.

PURPOSE: Prior studies have forecasted demand for radiation therapy to grow 10 times faster than the supply between 2010 and 2020. We updated these projections for 2015 to 2025 to determine whether this imbalance persists and to assess the accuracy of prior projections. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The demand for radiation therapy between 2015 and 2025 was estimated by combining current radiation utilization rates determined by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data with population projections provided by the US Census Bureau. The supply of radiation oncologists was forecast by using workforce demographics and full-time equivalent (FTE) status provided by the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), current resident class sizes, and expected survival per life tables from the US Centers for Disease Control. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2025, the annual total number of patients receiving radiation therapy during their initial treatment course is expected to increase by 19%, from 490,000 to 580,000. Assuming a graduating resident class size of 200, the number of FTE physicians is expected to increase by 27%, from 3903 to 4965. In comparison with prior projections, the new projected demand for radiation therapy in 2020 dropped by 24,000 cases (a 4% relative decline). This decrease is attributable to an overall reduction in the use of radiation to treat cancer, from 28% of all newly diagnosed cancers in the prior projections down to 26% for the new projections. By contrast, the new projected supply of radiation oncologists in 2020 increased by 275 FTEs in comparison with the prior projection for 2020 (a 7% relative increase), attributable to rising residency class sizes. CONCLUSION: The supply of radiation oncologists is expected to grow more quickly than the demand for radiation therapy from 2015 to 2025. Further research is needed to determine whether this is an appropriate correction or will result in excess capacity.

Specialty medications: traditional and novel tools can address rising spending on these costly drugs.

Spending on specialty medications, which represented a small proportion of US pharmacy spending at the beginning of this decade, is growing by more than 15 percent annually. It is expected to account for approximately half ($235 billion) of total annual pharmacy spending by 2018. Among the numerous reasons for the high cost of this heterogeneous group of medications are the increasing size of target patient populations, the high cost of drug development, and a complex and uncoordinated delivery system. In this article we describe the evolution of the specialty market, characterize the current state of specialty medication use, and articulate key challenges and potential solutions. Fully realizing the potential value of the expanding universe of specialty medications will require collaborative efforts to reduce waste and promote value. Those who prescribe, dispense, deliver, and pay for specialty medications will need to employ a combination of traditional and novel management approaches, such as prior authorization, step therapy, tiered formularies, administration at lower-cost sites, and the unique tools being developed for cancer medications.

Cancer-specific outcomes among young adults without health insurance.

PURPOSE: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) will likely improve insurance coverage for most young adults, but subsets of young adults in the United States will face significant premium increases in the individual market. We examined the association between insurance status and cancer-specific outcomes among young adults. METHODS: We used the SEER program to identify 39,447 patients age 20 to 40 years diagnosed with a malignant neoplasm between 2007 and 2009. The association between insurance status and stage at presentation, employment of definitive therapy, and all-cause mortality was assessed using multivariable logistic or Cox regression, as appropriate. RESULTS: Patients who were uninsured were more likely to be younger, male, nonwhite, and unmarried than patients who were insured and were also more likely to be from regions of lower income, education, and population density (P < .001 in all cases). After adjustment for pertinent confounding variables, an association between insurance coverage and decreased likelihood of presentation with metastatic disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.94; P = .003), increased receipt of definitive treatment (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.52 to 2.50; P < .001), and decreased death resulting from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.91; P = .002) was noted. CONCLUSION: The improved coverage fostered by the ACA may translate into better outcomes among most young adults with cancer. Extra consideration will need to be given to ensure that patients who will face premium increases in the individual market can obtain insurance coverage under the ACA.