Trends in Financial Relationships Between Industry and Radiation Oncologists Versus Other Physicians in the United States from 2014 to 2018.

PURPOSE: The Open Payments transparency program publishes data on industry-physician payments, in part to discourage relationships considered inappropriate including gifts, meals, and speaker's bureau fees. We evaluated trends in physician-level payments to test whether implementation of Open Payments resulted in fewer industry-radiation oncologist (RO) interactions or shifted interactions toward those considered more appropriate compared with medical oncologists (MOs) and other hospital-based physicians (HBPs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: We performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study of practicing US ROs versus MOs and HBPs in 2014 matched to general (nonresearch) payments between 2014 and 2018. Trends in payments were analyzed and reported by nature of payment. Values of payments to ROs from the top 10 companies were identified. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2018, 3379 (90.3%) ROs accepted 106,930 payments totaling $40.8 million. The per-physician number and value of payments was lower in radiation oncology than in medical oncology and higher than HBPs. The proportion of ROs accepting payments increased from 61.8% in 2014 to 64.2% in 2018; the proportion of MOs accepting payments decreased from 78.7% to 77.7%; and the proportion of HBPs decreased from 40.8% to 37.5%, respectively. The annual per-physician value and number of payments accepted by ROs and MOs increased. Payments in entertainment, meals, travel and lodging, and gifts increased among ROs and remained stable or decreased among MOs and HBPs. Consulting payments increased across all groups. Top RO payors produced novel cancer therapeutics, hydrogel spacers, radiation treatment machines, and opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Industry payments to ROs have become more common since OP's inception, while becoming less common for MOs and HBPs. Payments to ROs and MOs have become more frequent and of modestly increasing value compared with other HBPs, for whom the value is decreasing. No large changes in the nature of relationships were seen in ROs. Increased engagement with financial conflicts of interest is needed in radiation oncology.

Federal Political Contribution Characteristics of Radiation Oncologists in the United States from 2003 to 2018.

PURPOSE: The health care industry has many stakeholders who seek relationships within government to ensure certain interests are considered in the legislative process. This study characterized the federal political contributions of US radiation oncologists (ROs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Public finance data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC) containing self-identified ROs' contributions to a federal candidate or committee were obtained from 2003 to 2018. Contribution recipients were classified as a political action committee (PAC) or a presidential, Senate, or House candidate. Political parties of recipients were based on FEC designations. For PACs, political parties of recipients were based on spending patterns to political parties in each 2-year election cycle or, when unavailable, overall spending patterns of greater than 50% to 1 political party, as detailed by the Center for Responsive Politics. Data were analyzed temporally, and Spearman's rho was used to assess trends. RESULTS: From 2003 to 2018, the FEC reported a total of 31,646,000 federal political contributions. Exactly 4617 federal political contributions were made from 1021 unique self-identified ROs, totaling $3,350,747. The number of ROs making contributions ranged from 56 in 2005 to 600 in 2016 (mean, 289 ± 191.4 ROs yearly), with a mean annual contribution of $209,422. Of all RO dollars, 61.5% went to Democrats, 37.5% to Republicans, and 1.0% to third-party candidates. Most RO dollars (81.0%) went to PACs rather than candidates, with the majority of those PAC dollars (50.2%) directed toward the American Society for Radiation Oncology Political Action Committee. There was a positive annual trend in number of donors by year (ρ = 0.83, P < .0001) as well as RO contributions to the House (ρ = 0.58, P < .02), Senate (ρ = 0.58, P < .02), Democrats (ρ = 0.81, P < .001), Republicans (ρ = 0.66, P < .006), third-parties (ρ = 0.87, P < .001), PACs (ρ = 0.85, P < .0001), and overall (ρ = 0.8, P < .001). There was not a significant trend in contributions to presidential candidates (ρ = 0.71, P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: ROs' federal political contributions have significantly increased over the last decade and a half. This growth overwhelmingly represents contributions to specialty-focused PACs and both Democratic and Republican congressional candidates.

A Burnout Reduction and Wellness Strategy: Personal Financial Health for the Medical Trainee and Early Career Radiation Oncologist.

PURPOSE: Physician burnout is reported in more than one out of every 2 practicing clinicians and is just as prevalent in training physicians. Burnout severity is also associated with increasing levels of financial debt. Medical professionals are notable for their high and increasing levels of debt; despite this, financial literacy is poor among physicians, and financial education is largely absent from medical education. Radiation oncologists (ROs) are no different in this regard, with 33% of residents reporting high levels of burnout symptoms, 33% carrying >$200,000 of educational debt, and 75% reporting being unprepared to handle future financial decisions. To fill this gap, we reviewed the basic tenets of personal financial health for the early career RO. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The core concept of financial independence (FI) is introduced, and we review 4 basic tenets of personal financial health for the young medical professional: debt, behavior, investment, and asset protection strategies. RESULTS: FI is achieved by saving until the desired quality of life can be maintained, independent of employment income. Debt strategy involves minimizing debt accrual, understanding student loans, and having a debt management plan. Behavioral strategy involves setting financial goals, calculating worth and a savings rate, budgeting, and frugal living. The basics of investing include asset allocation, diversification, rebalancing, and minimizing expenses. Finally, asset protection includes insuring against catastrophic events with disability, life, health, liability, and property insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Healthy financial practices can lead to FI and may facilitate professional and personal freedoms with the goal of mitigating burnout-associated stressors. The tenets of strong financial health for ROs in the early stages of their career include sound debt, behavioral, investment, and asset protection strategies. Furthermore, initial and continuing financial education is an overlooked but important curriculum component. ROs with their financial houses in order can devote more resources to learning and practicing good medicine while living healthy, rewarding lives.

Assessment of Differences in Clinical Activity and Medicare Payments Among Female and Male Radiation Oncologists.

Importance: Although physician sex is known to influence salary even after controlling for productivity, sex-based differences in clinical activity and reimbursement among radiation oncologists are poorly understood. Objectives: To evaluate differences by sex in productivity, breadth of practice, and payments and to characterize Medicare reimbursement by sex among similarly productive groups of radiation oncologists. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using the January 1 to December 31, 2016, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File (POSPUF) to identify charge and payment information for individual radiation oncologists. Clinicians were part of a population-based sample of US radiation oncologists who bill Medicare in both non-facility-based (NFB) and facility-based (FB) practice settings. Analysis was conducted from June 5 to 25, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcome measurements included physician productivity (measured by number of Medicare charges), physician payments (reported as total Medicare payments as well as mean payments per charge submitted and per beneficiary treated), and physician breadth of practice (measured by number of unique Medicare billing codes) in NFB and FB settings. Results: A total of 4393 radiation oncologists (1133 women and 3260 men) were included in the POSPUF in 2016. Compared with their male counterparts, female physicians in the NFB setting submitted a mean of 1051 fewer charges (95% CI, -1458 to -644; P < .001), collected a mean of $143 610 less in revenue (95% CI, -$185 528 to -$101 692; P < .001), and used a mean of 1.32 fewer unique billing codes (95% CI, -2.23 to -0.41; P = .004). Compared with their male counterparts, female radiation oncologists in the FB setting submitted a mean of 423 fewer charges (95% CI, -506 to -341; P < .001), collected a mean of $26 735 less in revenue (95% CI, -$31 910 to -$21 560; P < .001), and submitted a mean of 1.28 fewer unique billing codes (95% CI, -1.77 to -0.78; P < .001). Women represented 46 of the 397 most highly productive radiation oncologists in the FB setting (11.6%) and collected a mean of $33 026 less (95% CI, -$52 379 to -$13 673; P = .001) than men who were similarly productive. In the NFB setting, women represented 54 of the 326 most highly productive radiation oncologists (16.6%) and collected $345 944 (95% CI, -$522 663 to -$169 225; P < .001) less than similarly highly productive men. Women collected a mean of $8.49 less per charge (95% CI, -$14.13 to -$2.86; P = .003) than men in the NFB setting. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that female radiation oncologists submit fewer Medicare charges, are reimbursed less per charge they submit, and receive lower Medicare payments overall compared with male radiation oncologists. Even among similarly productive radiation oncologists, women in this study still collected less revenue than men. Further research is required to understand the sex-based barriers to economic advancement within radiation oncology.

Evaluation of Sex Distribution of Industry Payments Among Radiation Oncologists.

Importance: Industry relationships are an important measure of professional advancement; however, the association between physician sex and industry payments in radiation oncology has not been described. Objective: To update the trends in the sex distribution of industry payments in radiation oncology. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted between July 1, 2018, and August 31, 2018. It used the publicly available Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments program and CMS Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File databases to obtain 2016 industry payment data for US radiation oncologists who reported receiving industry funding in that year (n = 3052). Total monetary value, number of payments, and median payment amounts were determined for each sex in the following categories: research, consulting, honoraria, industry grants, royalty or license, and services other than consulting. Main Outcomes and Measures: Industry payment amounts among 3052 radiation oncologists who reported receiving payments in 2016; association of median payment with the types of payment by sex. Results: Of the total 4483 radiation oncologists who practiced in 2016, 1164 (25.9%) were female and 3319 (74.0%) were male. Industry payments were distributed among 3052 radiation oncologists (68.1%), of whom 715 (23.4%) were female and 2337 (76.6%) were male. The proportion of female radiation oncologists who received at least 1 industry payment was 61.4% (715 of 1164), whereas the proportion of their male counterparts was 70.4% (2337 of 3319). Across all payment types, female radiation oncologists received a smaller percentage of total industry funding than the percentage of female physicians represented in each category. The median payment value was smaller for female radiation oncologists in consulting (-$1000; 95% CI, -$1966.67 to $100.63; P = .005) and honoraria (-$500; 95% CI, -$1071.43 to $0; P = .007). This trend was also observed in research payments, but was not statistically significant (-$135.02; 95% CI, -$476.93 to $6.88; P = .08). Of the $1 347 509 royalty or license payments made to 72 physicians, none was for female radiation oncologists. Conclusions and Relevance: Distribution of industry payments appears to show sex disparity in industry relationships among radiation oncologists; this observation warrants further investigation to determine the underlying reasons and provide avenues for increased parity.

Industry Funding Is Correlated With Publication Productivity of US Academic Radiation Oncologists.

PURPOSE: Industry payments to physicians are financial conflicts of interest and may influence research findings and medical decisions. We aim to (1) characterize industry payments within radiation oncology; and (2) explore the potential correlation between receiving disclosed industry payments and academic productivity. MATERIALS/METHODS: CMS database was used to extract 2015 industry payments. For academic radiation oncologists, research productivity was characterized by h- and m-indices, as well as receipt of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, which is not an industry payment. Logistic regression models were used to determine whether publication metrics (m-index, h-index) and other study characteristics such as gender, PhD status, NIH institution funding status, were associated with the endpoints, research and general payments. Associations between the amount of payments (if any) and publication metrics were further studied using linear regression models. RESULTS: A total of 22,543 individual payments totaling $25,532,482 to 2,995 radiation oncologists were included. Among the 1,189 academic radiation oncologists, 75% received less than $167; on the other hand, 10 (<1%) individuals received $6,425,728 (51%) of payments. On multiple logistic regression, research payments were significantly associated with the m-index, odds ratio 2.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.84-4.45, p-value <0.0001); as well as with the h-index, odds ratio 1.03 (95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.05, p-value <0.0001). The linear regression model shows that both m-index and h-index were significantly positively associated with the amount of general payments (p-values <0.0001). CONCLUSION: There is an association between disclosed payment from the industry and increased individual research productivity metrics. Further research to find the cause behind this association is warranted.

Provider variability in intensity modulated radiation therapy utilization among Medicare beneficiaries in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we sought to examine the variation in intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) use among radiation oncology providers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was queried for radiation oncologists practicing during 2014. Healthcare Common Procedural Coding System code 77301 was designated as IMRT planning with metrics including number of total IMRT plans, rate of IMRT utilization, and number of IMRT plans per distinct beneficiary. RESULTS: Of 2759 radiation oncologists, the median number of total IMRT plans was 26 (mean, 33.4; standard deviation, 26.2; range, 11-321) with a median IMRT utilization rate of 36% (mean, 43%; standard deviation, 25%; range, 4% to 100%) and a median number of IMRT plans per beneficiary of 1.02 (mean, 1.07; range, 1.00-3.73). On multivariable analysis, increased IMRT utilization was associated with male sex, academic practice, technical fee billing, freestanding practice, practice in a county with 21 or more radiation oncologists, and practice in the southern United States (P < .05). The top 1% of users (28 providers) billed a mean 181 IMRT plans with an IMRT utilization rate of 66% and 1.52 IMRT plans per beneficiary. Of these 28 providers, 24 had billed technical fees, 25 practiced in freestanding clinics, and 20 practiced in the South. CONCLUSIONS: Technical fee billing, freestanding practice, male sex, and location in the South were associated with increased IMRT use. A small group of outliers shared several common demographic and practice-based characteristics.

Evaluation of Delivery Costs for External Beam Radiation Therapy and Brachytherapy for Locally Advanced Cervical Cancer Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the delivery costs, using time-driven activity-based costing, and reimbursement for definitive radiation therapy for locally advanced cervical cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Process maps were created to represent each step of the radiation treatment process and included personnel, equipment, and consumable supplies used to deliver care. Personnel were interviewed to estimate time involved to deliver care. Salary data, equipment purchasing information, and facilities costs were also obtained. We defined the capacity cost rate (CCR) for each resource and then calculated the total cost of patient care according to CCR and time for each resource. Costs were compared with 2016 Medicare reimbursement and relative value units (RVUs). RESULTS: The total cost of radiation therapy for cervical cancer was $12,861.68, with personnel costs constituting 49.8%. Brachytherapy cost $8610.68 (66.9% of total) and consumed 423 minutes of attending radiation oncologist time (80.0% of total). External beam radiation therapy cost $4055.01 (31.5% of total). Personnel costs were higher for brachytherapy than for the sum of simulation and external beam radiation therapy delivery ($4798.73 vs $1404.72). A full radiation therapy course provides radiation oncologists 149.77 RVUs with intensity modulated radiation therapy or 135.90 RVUs with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy, with total reimbursement of $23,321.71 and $16,071.90, respectively. Attending time per RVU is approximately 4-fold higher for brachytherapy (5.68 minutes) than 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (1.63 minutes) or intensity modulated radiation therapy (1.32 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: Time-driven activity-based costing was used to calculate the total cost of definitive radiation therapy for cervical cancer, revealing that brachytherapy delivery and personnel resources constituted the majority of costs. However, current reimbursement policy does not reflect the increased attending physician effort and delivery costs of brachytherapy. We hypothesize that the significant discrepancy between treatment costs and physician effort versus reimbursement may be a potential driver of reported national trends toward poor compliance with brachytherapy, and we suggest re-evaluation of payment policies to incentivize quality care.