True Costs of Uterine Artery Embolization: Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing in Interventional Radiology Over a 3-Year Period.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to uncover potential areas for cost savings in uterine artery embolization (UAE) using time-driven activity-based costing, the most accurate costing methodology for direct health care system costs. METHODS: One hundred twenty-three patients who underwent outpatient UAE for fibroids or adenomyosis between January 2020 and December 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Utilization times were captured from electronic health record time stamps and staff interviews using validated techniques. Capacity cost rates were estimated using institutional data and manufacturer proxy prices. Costs were calculated using time-driven activity-based costing for personnel, equipment, and consumables. Differences in time utilization and costs between procedures by an interventional radiology attending physician only versus an interventional radiology attending physician and trainee were additionally performed. RESULTS: The mean total cost of UAE was $4,267 ± $1,770, the greatest contributor being consumables (51%; $2,162 ± $811), followed by personnel (33%; $1,388 ± $340) and equipment (7%; $309 ± $96). Embolic agents accounted for the greatest proportion of consumable costs, accounting for 51% ($1,273 ± $789), followed by vascular devices (15%; $630 ± $143). The cost of embolic agents was highly variable, driven mainly by the number of vials (range 1-19) of tris-acryl gelatin particles used. Interventional radiology attending physician only cases had significantly lower personnel costs ($1,091 versus $1,425, P = .007) and equipment costs ($268 versus $317, P = .007) compared with interventional radiology attending physician and trainee cases, although there was no significant difference in mean overall costs ($3,640 versus $4,386; P = .061). CONCLUSIONS: Consumables accounted for the majority of total cost of UAE, driven by the cost of embolic agents and vascular devices.

Prospective Evaluation of the Cost of Performing Breast Imaging Examinations Using a Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Method: A Single-Center Study.

OBJECTIVE: Measuring the cost of performing breast imaging is difficult in healthcare systems. The purpose of our study was to evaluate this cost using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) and to evaluate cost drivers for different exams. METHODS: An IRB-approved, single-center prospective study was performed on 80 female patients presenting for breast screening, diagnostic or biopsy exams from July 2020 to April 2021. Using TDABC, data were collected for each exam type. Included were full-field digital mammography (FFDM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), US and MRI exams, and stereotactic, US-guided and MRI-guided biopsies. For each exam type, mean cost and relative contributions of equipment, personnel and supplies were calculated. RESULTS: Screening MRI, CEM, US, DBT, and FFDM costs were $249, $120, $83, $28, and $30. Personnel was the major contributor to cost (60.0%-87.0%) for all screening exams except MRI where equipment was the major contributor (62.2%). Diagnostic MRI, CEM, US, and FFDM costs were $241, $123, $70, and $43. Personnel was the major contributor to cost (60.5%-88.6%) for all diagnostic exams except MRI where equipment was the major contributor (61.8%). Costs of MRI-guided, stereotactic and US-guided biopsy were $1611, $826, and $356. Supplies contributed 40.5%-49.8% and personnel contributed 30.7%-55.6% to the total cost of biopsies. CONCLUSION: TDABC provides assessment of actual costs of performing breast imaging. Costs and contributors varied across screening, diagnostic and biopsy exams and modalities. Practices may consider this methodology in understanding costs and making changes directed at cost savings.

Telehealth Visits After Shoulder Surgery: Higher Patient Satisfaction and Lower Costs.

INTRODUCTION: Studies comparing the cost of in-person and virtual care are lacking. The goal of this study was threefold (1) to compare the cost of telemedicine visits with in-person clinic visits after common shoulder surgeries, (2) to measure the safety, and (3) to evaluate patient experience with telemedicine visits. METHODS: The In-Person Visit cohort (N = 25) and the telemedicine cohort (Virtual Visit cohort, N = 24) were selected from patients undergoing routine follow-up of common shoulder procedures. Time-driven activity-based costing was used to determine costs associated with each episode of care. Patient complications, satisfaction, convenience, and technical difficulties associated with telehealth were recorded. RESULTS: The average Virtual Visit was 54.1% less costly and 87.8% shorter than the In-Person Visit ($49 versus $107 per patient, 8.6 versus 70.1 minutes per patient, P < 0.01, respectively). One complication was missed in the Virtual Visit cohort, later captured by an in-person visit. All patients in the Virtual Visit cohort reported that the virtual visit was safe and convenient and showed high levels of satisfaction. DISCUSSION: Virtual visits for postoperative care of patients undergoing shoulder surgery are associated with decreased costs and high ratings of convenience and satisfaction. Postoperative complications may be more challenging to diagnose virtually.

Cost of cardiac stereotactic body radioablation therapy versus catheter ablation for treatment of ventricular tachycardia.

AIMS: To compare the cost of cardiac stereotactic body radioablation therapy (SBRT) versus catheter ablation for treating ventricular tachycardia (VT). BACKGROUND: Cardiac SBRT is a novel way of treating refractory VT that may be less costly than catheter ablation, owing to its noninvasive, outpatient nature. However, the true costs of either procedure are not well described, which could help inform a more appropriate reimbursement for cardiac SBRT than simply cross-indexing existing procedural rates. METHODS: Process maps were derived for the full patient care cycle of both procedures using time-driven activity-based costing. Step-by-step timestamps were collected prospectively from a 10-patient SBRT cohort and retrospectively from a 59-patient catheter ablation cohort. Individual costs were estimated by multiplying timestamps with capacity cost rates (CCRs) for personnel, space, equipment, consumable, and indirect resources. These were summed into total cost, which for cardiac SBRT was compared with current catheter ablation and single-fraction lung SBRT reimbursements, both potential reference rates for cardiac SBRT. RESULTS: The direct and total procedural costs of cardiac SBRT ($7549 and $10,621) were 49% and 54% less than those of VT ablation ($14,707 and $23,225). These costs were significantly different from current reimbursement for catheter ablation ($22,692) and lung SBRT ($6329). After including hospitalization expenses (≥$15,000), VT ablation costs at least $27,604 more to furnish than cardiac SBRT. CONCLUSIONS: Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) can be a helpful tool for assessing healthcare costs, including novel treatment approaches. In addition to its clinical benefits, cardiac SBRT may provide significant cost reduction opportunities for treatment of VT.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing in Breast Cancer Care Delivery.

BACKGROUND: Accurate measurement of healthcare costs is required to assess and improve the value of oncology care. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to determine the cost of breast cancer care provision across collaborating health care organizations. METHODS: We used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to calculate the complete cost of breast cancer care-initial treatment planning, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, surgical resection and reconstruction, and ancillary services (e.g., psychosocial oncology, physical therapy)-across multiple hospital sites. Data were collected between December 2019 and February 2020. TDABC steps involved (1) developing process maps for care delivery pathways; (2) determine capacity cost rates for staff, medical equipment, and hospital space; (3) measure the time required for each process step, both manually through clinic observation and using data from the Real-Time Location System (RTLS); and (4) calculate the total cost of care delivery. RESULTS: Surgical care costs ranged from $1431 for a lumpectomy to $12,129 for a mastectomy with prepectoral implant reconstruction. Radiation therapy was costed at $1224 for initial simulation and patient education, and $200 for each additional treatment. Base costs for chemotherapy delivery were $382 per visit, with additional costs driven by chemotherapy agent(s) administered. Personnel expenses were the greatest contributor to the cost of surgical care, except in mastectomy with implant reconstruction, where device costs equated to up to 60% of the cost of surgery. CONCLUSION: The cost of complete breast cancer care depended on (1) treatment protocols; (2) patient choice of reconstruction; and (3) the need for ancillary services (e.g., physical therapy). Understanding the actual costs and cost drivers of breast cancer care delivery may better inform resource utilization to lower the cost and improve the quality of care.

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.

Determining Variable Costs in the Acute Urolithiasis Cycle of Care Through Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize full cycle of care costs for managing an acute ureteral stone using time-driven activity-based costing. METHODS: We defined all phases of care for patients presenting with an acute ureteral stone and built an overarching process map. Maps for sub-processes were constructed through interviews with providers and direct observation of clinical spaces. This facilitated calculation of cost per minute for all aspects of care delivery, which were multiplied by associated process times. These were added to consumable costs to determine cost for each specific step and later aggregated to determine total cost for each sub-process. We compared costs of eight common clinical pathways for acute stone management, defining total cycle of care cost as the sum of all sub-processes that comprised each pathway. RESULTS: Cost per sub-process included $920 for emergency department (ED) care, $1665 for operative stent placement, $2368 for percutaneous nephrostomy tube placement, $106 for urology clinic consultation, $238 for preoperative center visit, $4057 for ureteroscopy with laser lithotripsy (URS), $2923 for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, $169 for clinic stent removal, $197 for abdominal x-ray, and $166 for ultrasound. The lowest cost pathway ($1388) was for medical expulsive therapy, whereas the most expensive pathway ($8002) entailed a repeat ED visit prompting temporizing stent placement and interval URS. CONCLUSION: We found a high degree of cost variation between care pathways common to management of acute ureteral stone episodes. Reliable cost accounting data and an understanding of variability in clinical pathway costs can inform value-based care redesign as payors move away from pure fee-for-service reimbursement.

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.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing in Interventional Oncology: Cost Measurement and Cost Variability for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Therapies.

PURPOSE: To use time-drive activity-based costing (TDABC) to characterize and compare costs of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), transarterial radioembolization (TARE), and ablation. METHODS: This three-part study involved (1) prospective observation to record resources used during TACE, TARE, and ablation and statistical evaluation of interobserver and interprocedure variability; (2) Bland-Altman analysis of prospective measurements and medical record time stamps to establish practicality of using retrospective data in place of direct observation; (3) retrospective time stamp assessment for 117 ablations, 61 TACE procedures, and 61 TARE procedures to reveal variability drivers. RESULTS: Ablation costs were lowest ($3,744), which were 74% of TACE costs ($5,089) and 18% of TARE costs ($20,818). Consumables were the greatest cost contributor, accounting for 65% of ablation, 58% of TACE, and 90% of TARE costs. A single consumable contributed to most of the overall costs: the ablation probe (42%), ethiodized oil for TACE (30%), and yttrium-90 microspheres for TARE (80%). Bland-Altman analysis showed agreement between retrospective time stamps and prospective measurements. Ablation costs increased from $3,288 to $4,245 to $4,461 for one, two, or three tumors treated. TACE cost increased from $5,051 to $5,296 for lobar versus selective approaches. CONCLUSION: A bottom-up costing approach using TDABC is feasible to assess true costs of hepatocellular carcinoma treatments and demonstrates ablation costs are significantly less than those of TACE and TARE. Replication of these methods at other institutions can facilitate development of a bundled payment model to promote utilization of locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma.

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.

Communicating Value in Health Care Using Radar Charts: A Case Study of Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: The transformation from volume to value will require communication of outcomes and costs of therapies; however, outcomes are usually nonstandardized, and cost of therapy differs among stakeholders. We developed a standardized value framework by using radar charts to visualize and communicate a wide range of patient outcomes and cost for three forms of prostate cancer treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data from men with low-risk prostate cancer who were treated with low-dose rate brachytherapy (LDR-BT), proton beam therapy, or robotic-assisted prostatectomy. Patient-reported outcomes comprised the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite-50 domains for sexual function, urinary incontinence and/or bother, bowel bother, and vitality 12 months after treatment. Costs were measured by time-driven activity-based costing for the first 12 months of the care cycle. Outcome and cost data were plotted on a single radar chart for each treatment modality. RESULTS: Outcome and cost data from patients who were treated with robotic-assisted prostatectomy (n = 381), proton beam therapy (n = 165), and LDR-BT (n = 238) were incorporated into the radar chart. LDR-BT seemed to deliver the highest overall value of the three treatment modalities; however, incorporation of patient preferences regarding outcomes may allow other modalities to be considered high-value treatment options. CONCLUSION: Standardization and visualization of outcome and cost metrics may allow more comprehensive and collaborative discussions about the value of health care services. Communicating the value framework by using radar charts may be an effective method to present total value and the value of all outcomes and costs in a manner that is accessible to all stakeholders. Variations in plotting of costs and outcomes will require future focus group initiatives.

Defining the value framework for prostate brachytherapy using patient-centered outcome metrics and time-driven activity-based costing.

PURPOSE: Value, defined as outcomes over costs, has been proposed as a measure to evaluate prostate cancer (PCa) treatments. We analyzed standardized outcomes and time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) for prostate brachytherapy (PBT) to define a value framework. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with low-risk PCa treated with low-dose-rate PBT between 1998 and 2009 were included. Outcomes were recorded according to the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement standard set, which includes acute toxicity, patient-reported outcomes, and recurrence and survival outcomes. Patient-level costs to 1 year after PBT were collected using TDABC. Process mapping and radar chart analyses were conducted to visualize this value framework. RESULTS: A total of 238 men were eligible for analysis. Median age was 64 (range, 46-81). Median followup was 5 years (0.5-12.1). There were no acute Grade 3-5 complications. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite 50 scores were favorable, with no clinically significant changes from baseline to last followup at 48 months for urinary incontinence/bother, bowel bother, sexual function, and vitality. Ten-year outcomes were favorable, including biochemical failure-free survival of 84.1%, metastasis-free survival 99.6%, PCa-specific survival 100%, and overall survival 88.6%. TDABC analysis demonstrated low resource utilization for PBT, with 41% and 10% of costs occurring in the operating room and with the MRI scan, respectively. The radar chart allowed direct visualization of outcomes and costs. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully created a visual framework to define the value of PBT using the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement standard set and TDABC costs. PBT is associated with excellent outcomes and low costs. Widespread adoption of this methodology will enable value comparisons across providers, institutions, and treatment modalities.