Variations in Medicaid Payment Rates for Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: Interstate variations in Medicaid reimbursements can be significant, and patients who live in states with low Medicaid reimbursements tend to have worse access to care. This analysis describes the extent of variations in Medicaid reimbursements for radiation oncology services across the United States. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Current Procedural Terminology codes billed for a course of whole breast radiation were identified for this study. Publicly available fee schedules were queried for all 50 states and Washington, DC, to determine the reimbursement for each service and the total reimbursement for the entire episode of care. The degree of interstate payment variation was quantified by computing the range, mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation. The cost of care for the entire episode of treatment was compared to the publicly available Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) Medicaid-to-Medicare fee index to determine if the pattern of payment variation in medical services generally is predictive of the variation seen in radiation oncology specifically. RESULTS: Data were available for 48 states and Washington, DC. The total episode reimbursement (excluding image guidance for respiratory tracking) varied from $2945 to $15,218 (mean, $7233; standard deviation, $2248 or 31%). The correlation coefficient of the KFF index to the calculated entire episode of care for each state was 0.55. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable variability in coverage and payments rates for radiation oncology services under Medicaid, and these variations track modestly with broader medical fees based on the KFF index. These variations may have implications for access to radiation oncology services that warrant further study.

Toward a better understanding of task demands, workload, and performance during physician-computer interactions.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between (1) task demands and workload, (2) task demands and performance, and (3) workload and performance, all during physician-computer interactions in a simulated environment. METHODS: Two experiments were performed in 2 different electronic medical record (EMR) environments: WebCIS (n = 12) and Epic (n = 17). Each participant was instructed to complete a set of prespecified tasks on 3 routine clinical EMR-based scenarios: urinary tract infection (UTI), pneumonia (PN), and heart failure (HF). Task demands were quantified using behavioral responses (click and time analysis). At the end of each scenario, subjective workload was measured using the NASA-Task-Load Index (NASA-TLX). Physiological workload was measured using pupillary dilation and electroencephalography (EEG) data collected throughout the scenarios. Performance was quantified based on the maximum severity of omission errors. RESULTS: Data analysis indicated that the PN and HF scenarios were significantly more demanding than the UTI scenario for participants using WebCIS (P < .01), and that the PN scenario was significantly more demanding than the UTI and HF scenarios for participants using Epic (P < .01). In both experiments, the regression analysis indicated a significant relationship only between task demands and performance (P < .01). DISCUSSION: Results suggest that task demands as experienced by participants are related to participants' performance. Future work may support the notion that task demands could be used as a quality metric that is likely representative of performance, and perhaps patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: The present study is a reasonable next step in a systematic assessment of how task demands and workload are related to performance in EMR-evolving environments.

Relating physician's workload with errors during radiation therapy planning.

PURPOSE: To relate subjective workload (WL) levels to errors for routine clinical tasks. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nine physicians (4 faculty and 5 residents) each performed 3 radiation therapy planning cases. The WL levels were subjectively assessed using National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). Individual performance was assessed objectively based on the severity grade of errors. The relationship between the WL and performance was assessed via ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: There was an increased rate of severity grade of errors with increasing WL (P value = .02). As the majority of the higher NASA-TLX scores, and the majority of the performance errors were in the residents, our findings are likely most pertinent to radiation oncology centers with training programs. CONCLUSIONS: WL levels may be an important factor contributing to errors during radiation therapy planning tasks.

Subjective and objective quantification of physician's workload and performance during radiation therapy planning tasks.

PURPOSE: To quantify, and compare, workload for several common physician-based treatment planning tasks using objective and subjective measures of workload. To assess the relationship between workload and performance to define workload levels where performance could be expected to decline. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Nine physicians performed the same 3 tasks on each of 2 cases ("easy" vs "hard"). Workload was assessed objectively throughout the tasks (via monitoring of pupil size and blink rate), and subjectively at the end of each case (via National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index; NASA-TLX). NASA-TLX assesses the 6 dimensions (mental, physical, and temporal demands, frustration, effort, and performance); scores > or ≈ 50 are associated with reduced performance in other industries. Performance was measured using participants' stated willingness to approve the treatment plan. Differences in subjective and objective workload between cases, tasks, and experience were assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA). The correlation between subjective and objective workload measures were assessed via the Pearson correlation test. The relationships between workload and performance measures were assessed using the t test. RESULTS: Eighteen case-wise and 54 task-wise assessments were obtained. Subjective NASA-TLX scores (P < .001), but not time-weighted averages of objective scores (P > .1), were significantly lower for the easy vs hard case. Most correlations between the subjective and objective measures were not significant, except between average blink rate and NASA-TLX scores (r = -0.34, P = .02), for task-wise assessments. Performance appeared to decline at NASA-TLX scores of ≥55. CONCLUSIONS: The NASA-TLX may provide a reasonable method to quantify subjective workload for broad activities, and objective physiologic eye-based measures may be useful to monitor workload for more granular tasks within activities. The subjective and objective measures, as herein quantified, do not necessarily track each other, and more work is needed to assess their utilities. From a series of controlled experiments, we found that performance appears to decline at subjective workload levels ≥55 (as measured via NASA-TLX), which is consistent with findings from other industries.