ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: An episode-based payment model, the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model (RO-APM), has been proposed for Medicare reimbursement of radiation services provided to oncology patients. RO-APM may have significant impact on reimbursement for specific patient populations. METHODS: This investigation compares historical fee-for-service technical reimbursement estimates at a large hospital-based system to the RO-APM for advanced radiotherapy treatment of specific cancer types. These advanced techniques, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), online-adaptive SBRT, and proton therapy, were specifically chosen because they are resource intensive and are correspondingly among the most expensive radiation oncology procedures. A total of 203 Medicare patients were analyzed. RESULTS: RO-APM base-rate reimbursements were similar for SRS and were 38%-47% higher for SBRT. The proposed rates were 1%-31% lower for online-adaptive SBRT, and 48%-71% lower for proton therapy. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that the RO-APM may have the desired effect of encouraging shorter courses of radiotherapy, such as SBRT. However, emerging technologies that require large capital and operating investments may see an overall significant reduction in proposed reimbursement.
Subject(s)
Neoplasms , Proton Therapy , Radiation Oncology , Radiosurgery , Aged , Humans , Medicare , Neoplasms/radiotherapy , United StatesABSTRACT
Commercial systems such as Varian HyperArcTM and BrainLab Elements MultiMetTM have been developed that allow radiosurgery treatment of multiple brain metastases using a single isocenter. Each software package places increased demands on frameless immobilization and requires the use of a specific immobilization system: the QFix-Encompass system for Varian and the BrainLab frameless-mask system for BrainLab. At our institution, patients receiving traditional radiosurgery (one isocenter per target lesion) were treated using both immobilization systems. Intrafraction motion was determined for each patient using multiple cone-beam CT scans and the same image-registration software during treatment. There were no statistically-significant differences in mean absolute translational shifts between the two mask systems, with a mean 3D-vector motion of approximately 0.43 mm for both systems. There were also no statistically-significant differences in the mean absolute rotational shifts between the two mask systems. Although the average residual errors were insignificant between the mask systems, special attention should be paid to individual maximum shifts with both systems. Large maximum rotational misalignments could present significant misalignment of lesions as distance increases from the isocenter. Finally, large maximum shifts highlight the need for real-time monitoring of patient movement during radiosurgery of multiple lesions using a single isocenter.
