The Insurance Approval Process for Proton Radiation Therapy: A Significant Barrier to Patient Care.

PURPOSE: Proton therapy is increasingly prescribed for cancer treatment, given its potential for improvements in clinical outcomes and toxicity reduction; however, insurance coverage continues to be a barrier to patient access. This study examined insurance approval and appeal outcomes at a large-volume proton therapy center to clarify the process and identify areas for improvement. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 2013 to 2016, 1753 patients with thoracic or head and neck cancer were considered for proton therapy; 903 (553 thoracic, 350 head and neck) entered the insurance process. Rates of and times to approval and successful appeal after initial denial were calculated. Clinical factors were evaluated for association with insurance outcomes via logistic regression. RESULTS: Approval rates by Medicare (n = 538) and private insurance (n = 365) were 91% and 30% on initial request, at a median 3 days and 14 days from inquiry to determination. Of the 306 patients initially denied coverage, 276 appealed the decision, and denial was overturned for 189 patients (68%; median time, 21 days from initial inquiry). On multivariable analysis, Medicare (odds ratio [OR], 14.20; P < .001) was the strongest predictor of initial approval. Approval rates decreased from 2013 to 2014 versus 2015 to 2016 (OR 0.54; P = .001). For patients who appealed denial, multivariable analysis found no associations between approval and trial enrollment or tumor type. Submission of a comparison treatment plan (proton vs photon) indicating dosimetric advantage to normal tissues was associated with decreased likelihood of approval (OR 0.43; P = .006), as was a prescribed dose of ≥66 Gy (OR 0.48; P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: Despite an 87% ultimate approval rate for proton therapy, the insurance process is a resource-intensive barrier to patient access associated with significant time delays to cancer treatment. These findings, plus the lack of clinical correlates with insurance outcomes, highlight a need for increased efficiency, transparency, and collaboration among stakeholders to promote timely patient care and research.

Cost Analysis of PET/CT Versus CT as Surveillance for Stage III Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer After Definitive Radiation Therapy.

INTRODUCTION: A previous study showed that use of positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) for surveillance after treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) does not yield a detection or survival benefit over the use of chest CT. However, PET/CT remains a common method of follow-up imaging. Here we estimated and compared the costs of PET/CT versus CT for surveillance of patients with stage III NSCLC and identified patient and provider demographic characteristics associated with preference for use of PET/CT. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed 178 patients with stage III NSCLC who had received ≥ 1 PET/CT scan within 6 months of completing radiotherapy (n = 89) or had received CT after radiotherapy (n = 89) from 2000 to 2011. Costs were measured according to Medicare payments converted from institutional billing records. Total and imaging costs were analyzed at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after the end of treatment. Patient and provider demographic characteristics were also evaluated for potential associations with PET/CT use. RESULTS: Total costs in the PET/CT group were higher during the first 18 months after treatment (P = .002 at 6 months, P = .019 at 12 months, and P = .018 at 18 months) but was marginally significant (P = .05) at 24 months. In univariate analysis of demographic variables, patients who lived in a state different from the treatment center might have been more likely to receive PET/CT (odds ratio [OR], 1.76; P = .051). In multivariate analysis, patients treated in 2007 to 2010 (OR, 29.9; P < .001) or 2003 to 2006 (OR, 11.6; P = .002) were more likely to receive PET/CT than patients treated in 1999 to 2002. In addition, radiation oncologists with > 10 years of experience were more likely to use PET/CT than those with less experience, although this result might be confounded by the small number of providers. CONCLUSION: Use of PET/CT was associated with higher costs for 18 months after treatment, but the difference was at the borderline of statistical significance at 24 months.