MRI-Linac Economics II: Rationalizing Schedules.

OBJECTIVE: Two benefits of MR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) are the ability to track target structures while treatment is being delivered and the ability to adapt plans daily for some lesions based on changing anatomy. These unique capacities come at two costs: increased capital for acquisition and greatly decreased workflow. An adaptive gated stereotactic body radiotherapy (MRgART) treatment routinely takes ~90 min to perform and requires the presence of both a physician and a physicist. This may significantly limit daily capacity. We previously described how "simple cases" were necessary for proton facilities to allow for debt management. In this manuscript, we seek to determine the optimal scheduling of different MRgRT plans to recoup capital costs. MATERIALS/METHODS: We assumed an MR-linac (MRL) was completely scheduled with patients over workdays of varying duration. Treatment times and reimbursement data from our facility for varying complexities of patients were extrapolated for varying numbers treated daily. We then derived the number of adaptive and non-adaptive patients required daily to optimize the schedules. HOPPS data were used to model reimbursement. RESULTS: A single MRL treating 14 non-gated, non-adaptive IMRT patients over an 8 h workday would take about 4.8 years to cover initial acquisition and installation costs. However, such patients may be more quickly and efficiently treated with a conventional linear accelerator, while MRgART cases may only be treated with an MRL. By treating four of these daily, that same MRL room would cover costs in 2.4 years. Personnel, maintenance costs, and profit further complicate any business case for treating non-adaptive patients or for extending hours. CONCLUSIONS: In our previously published paper discussing proton therapy, we noted that debt is not variable with capacity; this remains true with MRgRT. Different from protons, a clinically optimal case load of adaptive patients provides an optimal business case as well. This requires a large patient cadre to ensure continuing throughput. As improvements in MRgRT are brought to the clinic, shorter adaptive and non-adaptive treatment times will help improve the timeframe to recoup costs but will require even more appropriate patients.

Proton Facility Economics: Single-Room Centers.

OBJECTIVE: We have previously described the central nature of simple cases for financial feasibility of proton beam therapy centers-especially four- to five-room centers. In the 5 years since that publication, such construction has slowed drastically, and smaller, single-room projects are in vogue. We now seek to show under what circumstances a single-room system is optimally financially viable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A "standard" construction cost and debt for a single gantry system of $40 million was presumed, with 75% of the construction funded through standard 20-year financing. We then modeled a statistical analysis, deriving the optimal case mix required daily to cover construction and debt service costs. RESULTS: We previously published that a single gantry treating only complex patients would need to apply 85% of its treatment slots simply to service debt, though it would cover its debt treating 4 hours of simple patients. As the business model has changed, debt maintenance, profit and operational costs have somewhat reduced the business case for adding a large number of simple patients. Debt maintenance is possible with as little as 13% of daily patients for a 40% Medicare case mix, but these numbers are critically sensitive to continued patient throughput. CONCLUSIONS: Even in a single-room system, reducing overall debt, using tax-exempt financing, and having a case load emphasizing simple, private payer patients is paramount to fiscal health of the facility. Unused capacity is a huge risk if insufficient patients are available.

Practical aspects of pediatric proton radiation therapy.

Many radiotherapy centers desire proton therapy (PrT) because the unique physical dosimetry allows for improved dose distribution in some clinical situations. These benefits are best described in skull base and many pediatric lesions. However, there are significant challenges to PrT that are overlooked or simply ignored when centers embark on the PrT journey particularly as it applies to pediatric patients.In this review, we review the Indiana University Health Proton Therapy Center experience regarding benefits and drawbacks of PrT for pediatric patients. In conclusion, centers aspiring to PrT capacity should be aware not only of the well-described benefits in some clinical scenarios, but also the significant challenges to the modality in its practical clinical application.

Doing poorly by doing good: the bottom line of proton therapy for children.

PURPOSE: Proton beam therapy (PBT) is the most expensive form of radiation therapy in the United States. An area in which clear advantage has been modeled is the use of PBT for pediatric patients, although no publications deal with practice costs to PBT centers associated with a pediatric focus. Pediatric cases require longer treatment times and more staff members and incur higher supply and device costs. In addition to being more expensive to treat, the pediatric patients at the authors' center also present with Medicaid as their primary insurer at higher rates than adults. At their center, in the past 2 years, pediatric patients (<21 years of age) have constituted 32% of total patients treated. The authors present their cost experience in a PBT environment treating a large number of children. METHODS: After approval was obtained from the local institutional review board, data relating to patients ≤21 years of age who started treatment during the period between November 1, 2011, and October 31, 2013, were reviewed. Direct expenses of devices and supplies used, billing for anesthesia, staffing, and direct operational costs (proton beam) were calculated to determine the direct cost to treat. Those direct costs were then compared with actual reimbursements received for those treatments. Additionally, gross operating costs per hour and gross average expenses per pediatric patient were calculated, and that cost was then compared with actual reimbursement. RESULTS: The mission to preferentially treat pediatric patients involves accepting a loss for one-third of pediatric patients before allocating any overhead. After averaging gross expenses over total operating hours, 60% of the pediatric patients were found to be treated at a net loss. CONCLUSIONS: Given insurance constraints and unique costs associated with the pediatric population, PBT centers devoted to children should not be expected to be markedly profitable. For centers that do choose to accept pediatric patients, those patients must be balanced with patients producing higher net reimbursement.

Proton therapy expansion under current United States reimbursement models.

PURPOSE: To determine whether all the existing and planned proton beam therapy (PBT) centers in the United States can survive on a local patient mix that is dictated by insurers, not by number of patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We determined current and projected cancer rates for 10 major US metropolitan areas. Using published utilization rates, we calculated patient percentages who are candidates for PBT. Then, on the basis of current published insurer coverage policies, we applied our experience of what would be covered to determine the net number of patients for whom reimbursement is expected. Having determined the net number of covered patients, we applied our average beam delivery times to determine the total number of minutes needed to treat that patient over the course of their treatment. We then calculated our expected annual patient capacity per treatment room to determine the appropriate number of treatment rooms for the area. RESULTS: The population of patients who will be both PBT candidates and will have treatments reimbursed by insurance is significantly smaller than the population who should receive PBT. Coverage decisions made by insurers reduce the number of PBT rooms that are economically viable. CONCLUSIONS: The expansion of PBT centers in the US is not sustainable under the current reimbursement model. Viability of new centers will be limited to those operating in larger regional metropolitan areas, and few metropolitan areas in the US can support multiple centers. In general, 1-room centers require captive (non-PBT-served) populations of approximately 1,000,000 lives to be economically viable, and a large center will require a population of >4,000,000 lives. In areas with smaller populations or where or a PBT center already exists, new centers require subsidy.

Proton beam therapy and accountable care: the challenges ahead.

PURPOSE: Proton beam therapy (PBT) centers have drawn increasing public scrutiny for their high cost. The behavior of such facilities is likely to change under the Affordable Care Act. We modeled how accountable care reform may affect the financial standing of PBT centers and their incentives to treat complex patient cases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We used operational data and publicly listed Medicare rates to model the relationship between financial metrics for PBT center performance and case mix (defined as the percentage of complex cases, such as pediatric central nervous system tumors). Financial metrics included total daily revenues and debt coverage (daily revenues - daily debt payments). Fee-for-service (FFS) and accountable care (ACO) reimbursement scenarios were modeled. Sensitivity analyses were performed around the room time required to treat noncomplex cases: simple (30 minutes), prostate (24 minutes), and short prostate (15 minutes). Sensitivity analyses were also performed for total machine operating time (14, 16, and 18 h/d). RESULTS: Reimbursement under ACOs could reduce daily revenues in PBT centers by up to 32%. The incremental revenue gained by replacing 1 complex case with noncomplex cases was lowest for simple cases and highest for short prostate cases. ACO rates reduced this incremental incentive by 53.2% for simple cases and 41.7% for short prostate cases. To cover daily debt payments after ACO rates were imposed, 26% fewer complex patients were allowable at varying capital costs and interest rates. Only facilities with total machine operating times of 18 hours per day would cover debt payments in all scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Debt-financed PBT centers will face steep challenges to remain financially viable after ACO implementation. Paradoxically, reduced reimbursement for noncomplex cases will require PBT centers to treat more such cases over cases for which PBT has demonstrated superior outcomes. Relative losses will be highest for those facilities focused primarily on treating noncomplex cases.

Repetitive pediatric anesthesia in a non-hospital setting.

PURPOSE: Repetitive sedation/anesthesia (S/A) for children receiving fractionated radiation therapy requires induction and recovery daily for several weeks. In the vast majority of cases, this is accomplished in an academic center with direct access to pediatric faculty and facilities in case of an emergency. Proton radiation therapy centers are more frequently free-standing facilities at some distance from specialized pediatric care. This poses a potential dilemma in the case of children requiring anesthesia. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The records of the Indiana University Health Proton Therapy Center were reviewed for patients requiring anesthesia during proton beam therapy (PBT) between June 1, 2008, and April 12, 2012. RESULTS: A total of 138 children received daily anesthesia during this period. A median of 30 fractions (range, 1-49) was delivered over a median of 43 days (range, 1-74) for a total of 4045 sedation/anesthesia procedures. Three events (0.0074%) occurred, 1 fall from a gurney during anesthesia recovery and 2 aspiration events requiring emergency department evaluation. All 3 children did well. One aspiration patient needed admission to the hospital and mechanical ventilation support. The other patient returned the next day for treatment without issue. The patient who fell was not injured. No patient required cessation of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest reported series of repetitive pediatric anesthesia in radiation therapy, and the only available data from the proton environment. Strict adherence to rigorous protocols and a well-trained team can safely deliver daily sedation/anesthesia in free-standing proton centers.

Proton facility economics: the importance of "simple" treatments.

PURPOSE: Given the cost and debt incurred to build a modern proton facility, impetus exists to minimize treatment of patients with complex setups because of their slower throughput. The aim of this study was to determine how many "simple" cases are necessary given different patient loads simply to recoup construction costs and debt service, without beginning to cover salaries, utilities, beam costs, and so on. Simple cases are ones that can be performed quickly because of an easy setup for the patient or because the patient is to receive treatment to just one or two fields. METHODS: A "standard" construction cost and debt for 1, 3, and 4 gantry facilities were calculated from public documents of facilities built in the United States, with 100% of the construction funded through standard 15-year financing at 5% interest. Clinical best case (that each room was completely scheduled with patients over a 14-hour workday) was assumed, and a statistical analysis was modeled with debt, case mix, and payer mix moving independently. Treatment times and reimbursement data from the investigators' facility for varying complexities of patients were extrapolated for varying numbers treated daily. Revenue assumptions of $X per treatment were assumed both for pediatric cases (a mix of Medicaid and private payer) and state Medicare simple case rates. Private payer reimbursement averages $1.75X per treatment. The number of simple patients required daily to cover construction and debt service costs was then derived. RESULTS: A single gantry treating only complex or pediatric patients would need to apply 85% of its treatment slots simply to service debt. However, that same room could cover its debt treating 4 hours of simple patients, thus opening more slots for complex and pediatric patients. A 3-gantry facility treating only complex and pediatric cases would not have enough treatment slots to recoup construction and debt service costs at all. For a 4-gantry center, focusing on complex and pediatric cases alone, there would not be enough treatment slots to cover even 60% of debt service. Personnel and recurring costs and profit further reduce the business case for performing more complex patients. CONCLUSIONS: Debt is not variable with capacity. Absent philanthropy, financing a modern proton center requires treating a case load emphasizing simple patients even before operating costs and any profit are achieved.