Alpha 2.0
Login Register
» Articles » PMID: 36427644

Radiation Therapy Expenditures Through the First 8 Performance Periods of the Oncology Care Model at a Statewide Multispecialty Health System

Overview
Journal Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
Specialties Oncology
Radiology
Date 2022 Nov 25
PMID 36427644
Authors
Brian De
Grant Andres
Christine Bates
Edgar Staren
Eric Kutscher
Donald J Brooks
Gautam H Thaker
Joseph Buscema
Robert Gin
Nikhil Thaker
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: Our purpose was to use real world data to assess trends in radiation therapy (RT) treatment fractionation and cost under the Oncology Care Model (OCM) through the first 8 performance periods (PPs).

Methods: We identified 17,157 episodes of care from 9898 patients treated at a statewide multispecialty health system through the first 8 6-month PPs (PP1-8: July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2020) of the OCM. Spending was stratified by 10 expenditure domains (eg, Part B/D drugs, radiation oncology [RO], etc), and 21 disease sites were extracted from claims data, from which an analysis of RO expenditures was performed on 2219 episodes from 2033 patients treated with RT. Expenses are expressed in per-beneficiary, per-episode terms.

Results: RO expenditures comprised 3% ($14.7M) of total spending over the 8 periods. By primary cancer, the largest RO expenses were for breast ($2.9M; 20%), prostate ($2.9M; 19%), and lung cancer ($2.8M; 13%). For RO, total per-episode average spending remained roughly constant between PP1 ($6314) and PP8 ($6664; P > .05) and decreased ($6314-$6215) when indexed to the Consumer Price Index for July 2016. Average number of RT fractions per episode decreased from 19.2 in PP1 to 18.6 in PP8; this decrease was most notably seen for breast (-2.1), lung (-2.8), and female genitourinary (-3.5) cancers. Intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) charges accounted for $7.6M (51%) of RT spending and increased 5% from PP1 to 8, whereas conventional external beam RT made up $3.0M (21%) and decreased 8%. Expenses for image guidance ($2.5M; 17%; +2% from PP1-8) and stereotactic RT ($1.3M; 9%; +1%) increased.

Conclusions: In inflation-adjusted terms, total RO expenditures have declined despite greater use of IMRT, stereotactic RT, and image guidance. Conversely, oncology costs have risen because of drug spending. Successful payment models must prioritize high-cost spending areas-including novel drug therapies-while accounting for high-value care and patient outcomes.

References
1.
Nead K, Swisher-McClure S . Utilization of hypofractionated radiation therapy in older glioblastoma patients. J Geriatr Oncol. 2018; 10(1):155-158. DOI: 10.1016/j.jgo.2018.06.006. View
2.
Nithiyananthan K, Creighton N, Currow D, Martin J . Population-Level Uptake of Moderately Hypofractionated Definitive Radiation Therapy in the Treatment of Prostate Cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2021; 111(2):417-423. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2021.04.033. View
3.
Kapadia N, Brooks G, Landrum M, Riedel L, Liu P, Hassol A . Association of the Oncology Care Model With Value-Based Changes in Use of Radiation Therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2022; 114(1):39-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.01.044. View
4.
Osarogiagbon R, Mullangi S, Schrag D . Medicare Spending, Utilization, and Quality in the Oncology Care Model. JAMA. 2021; 326(18):1805-1806. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2021.18765. View
5.
von Elm E, Altman D, Egger M, Pocock S, Gotzsche P, Vandenbroucke J . The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007; 370(9596):1453-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61602-X. View