A Medicare Claims Analysis of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Access to Radiation Therapy Services.

PURPOSE: Reduced access and utilization of radiation therapy (RT) is a well-documented healthcare disparity observed among racial and ethnic minority groups in the USA and a contributor to the inferior health outcomes observed among Black, Hispanic, and Native American patient groups. What is less understood are the points during the process of care following RT consultation at which patients either fail to complete their prescribed treatment or encounter delays. Identification of those points where significant differences exist among different patient groups may help identify opportunities to close gaps in the access of clinically indicated RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This analysis examines 261,559 RT episodes abstracted from Medicare claims and beneficiary data between 2016 and 2018 to determine rates of treatment initiation following planning and timeliness of treatment completion for different racial groups. RESULTS: Failure to initiate treatment was observed to be 29.3% relatively greater for Black, Hispanic, and Native American patients than for White and Asian patients. Among episodes for which treatment was initiated, Black and Hispanic patients were observed to require a significantly greater number of calendar days (when adjusted for fraction number) for completion than for White, Asian, and Native American patients. CONCLUSIONS: There appears to be a patient cohort for which RT disparities may be more marginal in their effects-allowing for access to consultation and treatment prescription but not for treatment initiation or timely completion of treatment-and may therefore permit effective solutions to help address current differences in cancer outcomes.

An Overview of the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model and Impact on Practices Serving Vulnerable Populations.

Radiation oncology reimbursement methodology has been largely unchanged over the past 30 years, and new approaches are of great interest to practicing radiation oncologists and other health care stakeholders. Traditional radiation oncology reimbursement is based on a series of individual codes for evaluation and management (professional) and technical services, yielding a complex reimbursement system. In an attempt to move toward a simpler, episodic payment model, bundling all of the codes into a single payment, an alternative payment model for radiation oncology was developed. The radiation oncology alternative payment model is a revolutionary change in how radiation oncologic services will be reimbursed and has potential to affect all aspects of radiation oncologic care. Here, the authors review the origin of the currently proposed radiation oncology model and discuss potential implications of this model on the provision of care, especially as it relates to rural practices and other underserved and vulnerable patient populations.

Radiation Oncology's Place in Payment Reform: ASTRO Advocates for a Place at the Table.

In its current form, the Radiation Oncology Model (RO Model) prioritizes payment cuts over true value-based payment transformation. With significant modifications to the payment methodology, the reporting requirements, and recognition of the unique challenges faced by disadvantaged populations, the RO Model can protect patient access to care, preserve the physician-patient decision-making process, and ensure the delivery of high-quality, efficient radiation therapy treatment. The American Society for Radiation Oncology has spent several years advocating for a meaningful alternative payment model for radiation oncology and continues to push The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation for changes to the RO Model that will recognize these key outcomes.

The role of physicians and medical organizations in the development, analysis, and implementation of health care policy.

Health policy is developed in the United States through a complicated interplay of governmental and private agencies and businesses, physician organizations, and societies as well as a host of other private ventures. The end result is rarely precisely what any individual or group may desire as the consequences of any action are never entirely predictable. There are many pathways to influence policy development within this system, and many of these are influenced by physicians as individuals and through organized medical societies. Opportunities abound to constructively engage the system, and it is important that physicians operating within this system understand where and how they may influence policy development. Changes are made or considered on a daily basis that impact patient's access to care, implementation and access to technological and biological innovation, reporting requirements, insurance, physician's reimbursement, and so on. This article reviews the most important channels by which physician input is incorporated in the system. The role of specialty societies, general medical societies, Congress, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are reviewed. The role of other players will also be addressed to show the many routes by which policy may evolve. Much of the discussion revolves around reimbursement because reimbursement often determines the availability and use of procedures and technology for our patients.

Long-term follow-up of 111In-capromab pendetide (ProstaScint) scan as pretreatment assessment in patients who undergo salvage radiotherapy for rising prostate-specific antigen after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the long-term failure patterns in patients who underwent an (111)In-capromab pendetide (ProstaScint) scan as part of their pretreatment assessment for a rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level after prostatectomy and subsequently received local radiotherapy (RT) to the prostate bed. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients were referred for evaluation of a rising PSA level after radical prostatectomy. All patients had negative findings for metastatic disease after abdominal/pelvis imaging with CT and isotope bone scans. All patients underwent a capromab pendetide scan, and the sites of uptake were noted. All patients were treated with local prostate bed RT (median dose 66.6 Gy). RESULTS: Of the 58 patients, 20 had biochemical failure (post-RT PSA level >0.2 ng/mL or a rise to greater than the nadir PSA), including 6 patients with positive uptake outside the bed (positive elsewhere). The 4-year biochemical relapse-free survival (bRFS) rates for patients with negative (53%), positive in the prostate bed alone (45%), or positive elsewhere (74%) scan findings did not differ significantly (p = 0.51). The positive predictive value of the capromab pendetide scan in detecting disease outside the bed was 27%. The capromab pendetide scan status had no effect on bRFS. Those with a pre-RT PSA level of <1 ng/mL had improved bRFS (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: The capromab pendetide scan has a low positive predictive value in patients with positive elsewhere uptake and the 4-year bRFS was similar to that for those who did not exhibit positive elsewhere uptake. Therefore, patients with a postprostatectomy rising PSA level should considered for local RT on the basis of clinicopathologic factors.

Assessment of different IMRT boost delivery methods on target coverage and normal-tissue sparing.

PURPOSE: Because of biologic, medical, and sometimes logistic reasons, patients may be treated with 3D conformal therapy or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) for the initial treatment volume (PTV(1)) followed by a sequential IMRT boost dose delivered to the boost volume (PTV(2)). In some patients, both PTV(1) and PTV(2) may be simultaneously treated by IMRT (simultaneous integrated boost technique). The purpose of this work was to assess the sequential and simultaneous integrated boost IMRT delivery techniques on target coverage and normal-tissue sparing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifteen patients with head-and-neck (H&N), lung, and prostate cancer were selected for this comparative study. Each site included 5 patients. In all patients, the target consisted of PTV(1) and PTV(2). The prescription doses to PTV(1) and PTV(2) were 46 Gy and 66 Gy (H&N cases), 45 Gy and 66.6 Gy (lung cases), 50 Gy and 78 Gy (prostate cases), respectively. The critical structures included the following: spinal cord, parotid glands, and brainstem (H&N structures); spinal cord, esophagus, lungs, and heart (lung structures); and bladder, rectum, femurs (prostate structures). For all cases, three IMRT plans were created: (1) 3D conformal therapy to PTV(1) followed by sequential IMRT boost to PTV(2) (sequential-IMRT(1)), (2) IMRT to PTV(1) followed by sequential IMRT boost to PTV(2) (sequential-IMRT(2)), and (3) Simultaneous integrated IMRT boost to both PTV(1) and PTV(2) (SIB-IMRT). The treatment plans were compared in terms of their dose-volume histograms, target volume covered by 100% of the prescription dose (D(100%)), and maximum and mean structure doses (D(max) and D(mean)). RESULTS: H&N cases: SIB-IMRT produced better sparing of both parotids than sequential-IMRT(1), although sequential-IMRT(2) also provided adequate parotid sparing. On average, the mean cord dose for sequential-IMRT(1) was 29 Gy. The mean cord dose was reduced to approximately 20 Gy with both sequential-IMRT(2) and SIB-IMRT. Prostate cases: The volume of rectum receiving 70 Gy or more (V(>70 Gy)) was reduced to 18.6 Gy with SIB-IMRT from 22.2 Gy with sequential-IMRT(2). SIB-IMRT reduced the mean doses to both bladder and rectum by approximately 10% and approximately 7%, respectively, as compared to sequential-IMRT(2). The mean left and right femur doses with SIB-IMRT were approximately 32% lower than obtained with sequential-IMRT(1). Lung cases: The mean heart dose was reduced by approximately 33% with SIB-IMRT as compared to sequential-IMRT(1). The mean esophagus dose was also reduced by approximately 10% using SIB-IMRT as compared to sequential-IMRT(1). The percentage of the lung volume receiving 20 Gy (V(20 Gy)) was reduced to 26% by SIB-IMRT from 30.6% with sequential-IMRT(1). CONCLUSIONS: For equal PTV coverage, both sequential-IMRT techniques demonstrated moderately improved sparing of the critical structures. SIB-IMRT, however, markedly reduced doses to the critical structures for most of the cases considered in this study. The conformality of the SIB-IMRT plans was also much superior to that obtained with both sequential-IMRT techniques. The improved conformality gained with SIB-IMRT may suggest that the dose to nontarget tissues will be lower.

Is an 192Ir permanent seed implant feasible for prostate brachytherapy?

PURPOSE: (125)I permanent seed brachytherapy for prostate cancer produces good clinical outcomes and limits radiation exposure to medical staff and patients' families. However, (125)I seeds cost thousands of dollars per implant. An encapsulated (192)Ir permanent seed possibly could cost less than 10 dollars. Could inexpensive permanent (192)Ir seeds be used for prostate implants? METHODS AND MATERIALS: We review the radiobiology of permanent implants, calculate the (192)Ir permanent seed air kerma strength (activity) required, simulate (125)I and (192)Ir seed implants and mixtures thereof, calculate exposure rates near simulated (192)Ir prostate patients, calculate potential radiation exposure to medical staff and family members, review patient release regulations, and analyze the potential cost benefits of using (192)Ir permanent seed implants. RESULTS: Low air kerma strength (<0.4 microGy m(2)/h/seed) [activity < 0.1-mCi/seed; <0.0558 mg Ra eq/seed] permanent (192)Ir seed implants yield more uniform prostate doses than (125)I seed implants and acceptable urethra, bladder, and rectal doses. The (192)Ir 73.83-day half-life allows mixing (192)Ir seeds and (125)I seeds. CONCLUSIONS: We believe medical staff could safely implant 40 microGy m(2)/h [10-mCi; 5.58 mg Ra eq] (192)Ir per case. Occupancy factors (1/8, 1/16) could acceptably limit families' exposures. Seed costs could be reduced markedly. With adequate protection of medical staff and proper instructions to patients post-implant, low air kerma strength (<0.4 microGy m(2)/h/seed) [activity <0.1-mCi/seed; <0.0558 mg Ra eq/seed] (192)Ir permanent seed implants are feasible in large patients, with mixed ((125)I, (92)Ir) seed implants feasible for modest size patients. Such implants could be useful in populous countries (China, India, Brazil) and for others who find (125)I seed implants too expensive to perform.