Trends in physician reimbursements and procedural volumes for radiosurgery versus open surgery in brain tumor care: an analysis of Medicare data from 2009 to 2018.

OBJECTIVE: Given its minimally invasive nature and effectiveness, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has become a mainstay for the multimodal treatment of intracranial neoplasm. However, no studies have evaluated recent trends in the use of SRS versus those of open resection for the management of brain tumor or trends in the involvement of neurosurgeons in SRS (which is primarily delivered by radiation oncologists). Here, the authors used publicly available Medicare data from 2009 to 2018 to elucidate trends in the treatment of intracranial neoplasm and to compare reimbursements between these approaches. METHODS: By using CPT Professional 2019, the authors identified 10 open resection and 9 SRS codes (4 for neurosurgery and 5 for radiation oncology) for the treatment of intracranial neoplasm. Medicare payments (inflation adjusted) and allowed services (number of reimbursed procedures) for each code were abstracted from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Part B National Summary Data File (2009-2018). Payments per procedure and procedures per 100,000 Medicare enrollees were analyzed with linear regression and compared with tests for equality of slopes (α = 0.05). The average payment per procedure over the study period was compared by using the 2-tailed Welsh unequal variances t-test, and more granular comparisons were conducted by using ANOVA with post hoc Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) tests. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2018, the number of SRS treatments per 100,000 Medicare enrollees for intracranial neoplasm increased by 3.97 cases/year (R2 = 0.99, p < 0.001), while comparable open resections decreased by 0.34 cases/year (R2 = 0.85, p < 0.001) (t16 = 7.5, p < 0.001). By 2018, 2.6 times more SRS treatments were performed per 100,000 enrollees than open resections (74.9 vs 28.7 procedures). However, neurosurgeon involvement in SRS treatment declined over the study period, from 23.4% to 11.5% of SRS treatments; simultaneously, the number of lesions treated per session increased from 1.46 to 1.84 (R2 = 0.98, p < 0.001). Overall, physician payments from 2013 to 2018 averaged $1816.08 (95% CI $1788.71-$1843.44) per SRS treatment and $1565.59 (95% CI $1535.83-$1595.34) per open resection (t10 = 15.9, p < 0.001). For neurosurgeons specifically, reimbursements averaged $1566 per open resection, but this decreased to $1031-$1198 per SRS session; comparatively, radiation oncologists were reimbursed even less (average $359-$898) per SRS session (p < 0.05 according to the Tukey HSD test for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Over a decade, the number of open resections for intracranial neoplasm in Medicare enrollees declined slightly, while the number of SRS procedures increased greatly. This latter expansion is largely attributable to radiation oncologists; meanwhile, neurosurgeons have shifted their involvement in SRS toward sessions for the management of multiple lesions.

Sideline Concussion Assessment: The Current State of the Art.

More than 200 million American adults and children participate in organized physical activity. Growing awareness has highlighted that concussion, especially when repeated, may be associated with prolonged neurological, cognitive, and/or neuropsychiatric sequelae. Objective diagnosis of concussion remains challenging. Although some concussion symptoms may be apparent even to nonmedical observers, diagnosis and removal from play for evaluation depend on validated assessment tools and trained, vigilant healthcare personnel. Over the past 2 decades, sideline concussion measures have undergone significant revision and augmentation to become more comprehensive batteries in order to detect a wide spectrum of symptomatology, eg, neurocognitive function, postconcussive symptoms, gait/balance, and saccadic eye movements. This review summarizes the current state-of-the-art concussion evaluation instruments, ranging from the Sports Concussion Assessment Tool (SCAT) and tools that may enhance concussion detection, to near-term blood-based biomarkers and emerging technology (eg, head impact sensors, vestibulo-ocular/eye-tracking, and mobile applications). Special focus is directed at feasibility, utility, generalizability, and challenges to implementation of each measure on-field and on the sidelines. This review finds that few instruments beyond the SCAT provide guidance for removal from play, and establishing thresholds for concussion detection and removal from play in qualification/validation of future instruments is of high importance. Integration of emerging sideline concussion evaluation tools should be supported by resources and education to athletes, caregivers, athletic staff, and medical professionals for standardized administration as well as triage, referral, and prevention strategies. It should be noted that concussion evaluation instruments are used to assist the clinician in sideline diagnosis, and no single test can diagnose concussion as a standalone investigation.

Insurance type impacts the economic burden and survival of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

OBJECTIVE: Glioblastoma (GBM) carries a high economic burden for patients and caregivers, much of which is associated with initial surgery. The authors investigated the impact of insurance status on the inpatient hospital costs of surgery for patients with GBM. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective review of patients with GBM (2010-2015) undergoing their first resection at the University of California, San Francisco, and corresponding inpatient hospital costs. RESULTS: Of 227 patients with GBM (median age 62 years, 37.9% females), 31 (13.7%) had Medicaid, 94 (41.4%) had Medicare, and 102 (44.9%) had private insurance. Medicaid patients had 30% higher overall hospital costs for surgery compared to non-Medicaid patients ($50,285 vs $38,779, p = 0.01). Medicaid patients had higher intensive care unit (ICU; p < 0.01), operating room (p < 0.03), imaging (p < 0.001), room and board (p < 0001), and pharmacy (p < 0.02) costs versus non-Medicaid patients. Medicaid patients had significantly longer overall and ICU lengths of stay (6.9 and 2.6 days) versus Medicare (4.0 and 1.5 days) and privately insured patients (3.9 and 1.8 days, p < 0.01). Medicaid patients had similar comorbidity rates to Medicare patients (67.8% vs 68.1%), and both groups had higher comorbidity rates than privately insured patients (37.3%, p < 0.0001). Only 67.7% of Medicaid patients had primary care providers (PCPs) versus 91.5% of Medicare and 86.3% of privately insured patients (p = 0.009) at the time of presentation. Tumor diameter at diagnosis was largest for Medicaid (4.7 cm) versus Medicare (4.1 cm) and privately insured patients (4.2 cm, p = 0.03). Preoperative (70 vs 90, p = 0.02) and postoperative (80 vs 90, p = 0.03) Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) scores were lowest for Medicaid versus non-Medicaid patients, while in subgroup analysis, postoperative KPS score was lowest for Medicaid patients (80, vs 90 for Medicare and 90 for private insurance; p = 0.03). Medicaid patients had significantly shorter median overall survival (10.7 months vs 12.8 months for Medicare and 15.8 months for private insurance; p = 0.02). Quality-adjusted life year (QALY) scores were 0.66 and 1.05 for Medicaid and non-Medicaid patients, respectively (p = 0.036). The incremental cost per QALY was $29,963 lower for the non-Medicaid cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with GBMs and Medicaid have higher surgical costs, longer lengths of stay, poorer survival, and lower QALY scores. This study indicates that these patients lack PCPs, have more comorbidities, and present later in the disease course with larger tumors; these factors may drive the poorer postoperative function and greater consumption of hospital resources that were identified. Given limited resources and rising healthcare costs, factors such as access to PCPs, equitable adjuvant therapy, and early screening/diagnosis of disease need to be improved in order to improve prognosis and reduce hospital costs for patients with GBM.

Disparities in health care determine prognosis in newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

OBJECTIVE Glioblastoma (GBM) is an aggressive brain malignancy with a short overall patient survival, yet there remains significant heterogeneity in outcomes. Although access to health care has previously been linked to impact on prognosis in several malignancies, this question remains incompletely answered in GBM. METHODS This study was a retrospective analysis of 354 newly diagnosed patients with GBM who underwent first resection at the authors' institution (2007-2015). RESULTS Of the 354 patients (median age 61 years, and 37.6% were females), 32 (9.0%) had no insurance, whereas 322 (91.0%) had insurance, of whom 131 (40.7%) had Medicare, 45 (14%) had Medicaid, and 146 (45.3%) had private insurance. On average, insured patients survived almost 2-fold longer (p < 0.0001) than those who were uninsured, whereas differences between specific insurance types did not influence survival. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for death was higher in uninsured patients (HR 2.27 [95% CI 1.49-3.33], p = 0.0003). Age, mean household income, tumor size at diagnosis, and extent of resection did not differ between insured and uninsured patients, but there was a disparity in primary care physician (PCP) status-none of the uninsured patients had PCPs, whereas 72% of insured patients had PCPs. Postoperative adjuvant treatment rates with temozolomide (TMZ) and radiation therapy (XRT) were significantly less in uninsured (TMZ in 56.3%, XRT in 56.3%) than in insured (TMZ in 75.2%, XRT in 79.2%; p = 0.02 and p = 0.003) patients. Insured patients receiving both agents had better prognosis than uninsured patients receiving the same treatment (9.1 vs 16.34 months; p = 0.025), suggesting that the survival effect in insured patients could only partly be explained by higher treatment rates. Moreover, having a PCP increased survival among the insured cohort (10.7 vs 16.1 months, HR 1.65 [95% CI 1.27-2.15]; p = 0.0001), which could be explained by significant differences in tumor diameter at initial diagnosis between patients with and without PCPs (4.3 vs 4.8 cm, p = 0.003), and a higher rate of clinical trial enrollment, suggesting a critical role of PCPs for a timelier diagnosis of GBM and proactive cancer care management. CONCLUSIONS Access to health care is a strong determinant of prognosis in newly diagnosed patients with GBM. Any type of insurance coverage and having a PCP improved prognosis in this patient cohort. Higher rates of treatment with TMZ plus XRT, clinical trial enrollment, fewer comorbidities, and early diagnosis may explain survival disparities. Lack of health insurance or a PCP are major challenges within the health care system, which, if improved upon, could favorably impact the prognosis of patients with GBM.