Benchmarking the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model: Changes in Medicare Reimbursement for 16 Common Radiation Therapy Treatment Courses.

Radiation oncology (RO) has seen declines in Medicare reimbursement (MCR) in the past decade under the current fee-for-service model. Although studies have explored decline in reimbursement at a per-code level, to our knowledge there are no recent studies analyzing changes in MCR over time for common RO treatment courses. By analyzing changes in MCR for common treatment courses, our study had 3 objectives: (1) to provide practitioners and policymakers with estimates of recent reimbursement changes for common treatment courses; (2) to provide an estimate of how reimbursement will change in the future under the current fee-for-service model if current trends continue; and (3) to provide a baseline for treatment episodes in the event that the episode-based Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model is eventually implemented. Specifically, we quantified inflation- and utilization-adjusted changes in reimbursement for 16 common radiation therapy (RT) treatment courses from 2010 to 2020. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary databases were used to obtain reimbursement for all RO procedures in 2010, 2015, and 2020 for free-standing facilities. Inflation-adjusted average reimbursement (AR) per billing instance was calculated for each Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code using 2020 dollars. For each year, the billing frequency of each code was multiplied by the AR per code. Results were summed per RT course per year, and AR for RT courses were compared. Sixteen common RO courses for head and neck, breast, prostate, lung, and palliative RT were analyzed. AR decreased for all 16 courses from 2010 to 2020. From 2015 to 2020, the only course that increased in AR was palliative 2-dimensional 10-fraction 30 Gy, which increased by 0.4%. Courses using intensity modulated RT saw the largest AR decline from 2010 to 2020, ranging from 38% to 39%. We report significant declines in reimbursement from 2010 to 2020 for common RO courses, with the largest declines for intensity modulated RT. Policymakers should consider the significant cuts to reimbursement that have already occurred when considering future reimbursement adjustment under the current fee-for-service model or when considering mandatory adoption of a new payment system with further cuts and the negative effect of such cuts on quality and access to care.

Decreases in Radiation Oncology Medicare Reimbursement Over Time: Analysis by Billing Code.

PURPOSE: Radiation oncology (RO) has seen declines in Medicare reimbursement (MCR). However, there are no recent studies analyzing the contributions of specific billing codes to overall RO reimbursement. We compared total MCR for specific Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes in 2019 with MCR for those codes in 2010 and 2015, corrected for inflation, to see how the same basket of RO services in 2019 would have been reimbursed in 2010 and 2015 (adjusted MCR). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary database was used to obtain MCR data for RO HCPCS codes in 2010, 2015, and 2019. For each code, the total allowed charge was divided by the number of submitted claims to calculate the average MCR per claim in 2010, 2015, and 2019. The 2019 billing frequency for each code was then multiplied by the inflation-adjusted average MCR for those codes in 2010 and 2015 to determine what the MCR would have been in 2010 and 2015 using 2019 dollars and utilization rates. Results were compared with actual 2019 MCR to calculate the projected difference. RESULTS: Total inflation-adjusted RO MCR was $2281 million (M), $1991 M, and $1848 M in 2010, 2015, and 2019 respectively. This represents a cut of $433 M (19%) and $143 M (7%) from 2010 and 2015, respectively, to 2019. After utilization adjustment, total reimbursement was $2534 M, $2034 M, and $1848 M for 2010, 2015, and 2019, respectively, representing a cut of $686 M (27%) and $186 M (9%) from 2010 and 2015, respectively, to 2019. Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) treatment delivery and planning accounted for $917 M (36%), $670 M (33%), and $573 M (31%) of the adjusted MCR in 2010, 2015, and 2019, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare reimbursement decreased substantially from 2010 to 2019. A decline in IMRT treatment reimbursement was the primary driver of MCR decline. When considering further cuts, policymakers should consider these trends and their consequences for health care quality and access.

Effectiveness of postoperative radiotherapy after radical cystectomy for locally advanced bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Local-regional failure (LF) for locally advanced bladder cancer (LABC) after radical cystectomy (RC) is common even with chemotherapy and is associated with high morbidity/mortality. Postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) can reduce LF and may enhance overall survival (OS) but has no defined role. We hypothesized that the addition of PORT would improve OS in LABC in a large nationwide oncology database. METHODS: We identified ≥ pT3pN0-3M0 LABC patients in the National Cancer Database diagnosed 2004-2014 who underwent RC ± PORT. OS was calculated using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to identify predictors of OS. Propensity matching was performed to match RC patients who received PORT vs those who did not. RESULTS: 15,124 RC patients were identified with 512 (3.3%) receiving PORT. Median OS was 20.0 months (95% CI, 18.2-21.8) for PORT vs 20.8 months (95% CI, 20.3-21.3) for no PORT (P = 0.178). In multivariable analysis, PORT was independently associated with improved OS: hazard ratio 0.87 (95% CI, 0.78-0.97); P = 0.008. A one-to-three propensity match yielded 1,858 patients (24.9% receiving PORT and 75.1% without). In the propensity-matched cohort, median OS was 19.8 months (95% CI, 18.0-21.6) for PORT vs 16.9 months (95% CI, 15.6-18.1) for no PORT (P = 0.030). In the propensity-matched cohort of urothelial carcinoma patients (N = 1,460), PORT was associated with improved OS for pT4, pN+, and positive margins (P < 0.01 all). CONCLUSION: In this observational cohort, PORT was associated with improved OS in LABC. While the data should be interpreted cautiously, these results lend support to the use of PORT in selected patients with LABC, regardless of histology. Prospective trials of PORT are warranted.

Assessment of the treatment approach and survival outcomes in a modern cohort of patients with atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumors using the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Atypical teratoid rhabdoid tumors (ATRTs) are rare brain tumors that occur primarily in children under the age of 3 years. This report evaluates the treatment approach and survival outcomes in a large cohort of patients treated in the United States. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database, the analysis included all ATRT patients aged 0 to 18 years who were diagnosed between 2004 and 2012 and had complete treatment data. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-one ATRT patients were evaluated. The 5-year overall survival (OS) rate was 29.9%, and it was significantly lower for children who were less than 3 years old (5-year OS, 27.7%) versus those who were 3 years old or older (5-year OS, 37.5%; P < .001). The best outcome was seen for patients with localized disease who received trimodality therapy (surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy [RT]) with a 5-year OS rate of 46.8%. The utilization of trimodality therapy significantly increased during the study period (27.7% in 2004-2008 vs 45.1% in 2009-2012; P < .01), largely because of the increased use of RT. In a multivariate analysis, treatment that did not utilize trimodality therapy was associated with significantly worse OS (hazard ratio, 2.52; 95% confidence interval (1.82-3.51). Children aged 0 to 2 years were significantly less likely to receive trimodality therapy because of decreased utilization of RT in this age group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of trimodality therapy significantly increased during the study period and was associated with improved outcomes. For patients with localized disease who received trimodality therapy, the OS rate at 5 years approached 50%. However, further research into the optimal management of children less than 3 years old is needed because of their significantly worse OS in comparison with older children. Cancer 2017;123:682-687. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Online Magnetic Resonance Image Guided Adaptive Radiation Therapy: First Clinical Applications.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate the feasibility of online adaptive magnetic resonance (MR) image guided radiation therapy (MR-IGRT) through reporting of our initial clinical experience and workflow considerations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The first clinically deployed online adaptive MR-IGRT system consisted of a split 0.35T MR scanner straddling a ring gantry with 3 multileaf collimator-equipped (60)Co heads. The unit is supported by a Monte Carlo-based treatment planning system that allows real-time adaptive planning with the patient on the table. All patients undergo computed tomography and MR imaging (MRI) simulation for initial treatment planning. A volumetric MRI scan is acquired for each patient at the daily treatment setup. Deformable registration is performed using the planning computed tomography data set, which allows for the transfer of the initial contours and the electron density map to the daily MRI scan. The deformed electron density map is then used to recalculate the original plan on the daily MRI scan for physician evaluation. Recontouring and plan reoptimization are performed when required, and patient-specific quality assurance (QA) is performed using an independent in-house software system. RESULTS: The first online adaptive MR-IGRT treatments consisted of 5 patients with abdominopelvic malignancies. The clinical setting included neoadjuvant colorectal (n=3), unresectable gastric (n=1), and unresectable pheochromocytoma (n=1). Recontouring and reoptimization were deemed necessary for 3 of 5 patients, and the initial plan was deemed sufficient for 2 of the 5 patients. The reasons for plan adaptation included tumor progression or regression and a change in small bowel anatomy. In a subsequently expanded cohort of 170 fractions (20 patients), 52 fractions (30.6%) were reoptimized online, and 92 fractions (54.1%) were treated with an online-adapted or previously adapted plan. The median time for recontouring, reoptimization, and QA was 26 minutes. CONCLUSION: Online adaptive MR-IGRT has been successfully implemented with planning and QA workflow suitable for routine clinical application. Clinical trials are in development to formally evaluate adaptive treatments for a variety of disease sites.