Assessment of MRI-Linac Economics under the RO-APM.

The implementation of the radiation oncology alternative payment model (RO-APM) has raised concerns regarding the development of MRI-guided adaptive radiotherapy (MRgART). We sought to compare technical fee reimbursement under Fee-For-Service (FFS) to the proposed RO-APM for a typical MRI-Linac (MRL) patient load and distribution of 200 patients. In an exploratory aim, a modifier was added to the RO-APM (mRO-APM) to account for the resources necessary to provide this care. Traditional Medicare FFS reimbursement rates were compared to the diagnosis-based reimbursement in the RO-APM. Reimbursement for all selected diagnoses were lower in the RO-APM compared to FFS, with the largest differences in the adaptive treatments for lung cancer (-89%) and pancreatic cancer (-83%). The total annual reimbursement discrepancy amounted to -78%. Without implementation of adaptive replanning there was no difference in reimbursement in breast, colorectal and prostate cancer between RO-APM and mRO-APM. Accommodating online adaptive treatments in the mRO-APM would result in a reimbursement difference from the FFS model of -47% for lung cancer and -46% for pancreatic cancer, mitigating the overall annual reimbursement difference to -54%. Even with adjustment, the implementation of MRgART as a new treatment strategy is susceptible under the RO-APM.

The case for radiotherapy in a Value based environment.

AIM: Describe the Value proposition for radiotherapy (RT) in the United States. BACKGROUND: In the United States since 2005, two forces have worked to decrease RT cost per patient: Federal changes in reimbursement and hypofractionation of treatment courses. We theorize that these have driven stable reimbursement in the context of increasing technology of intensity modulation (IMRT) and image guidance (IGRT). This phenomenon provides increasing Value of the discipline to patients and systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the Medicare Physician/Supplier data for Program Payments per Person with Utilization for 2000 through 2016. This involves two databases: Enrollment Database (EDB) for 2000-2012 and Common Medicare Enrollment (CME) since 2013. RT payments to individual patients accessing services were retrieved. RESULTS: Taking into account the change of calculation algorithm used by CMS in 2013, costs per patient were similar in 2012 and 2003, and 2016 and 2013. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, stabilizing costs in the face of increasing work, better outcomes, and decreased toxicity contributes to increasing RT value over the past 10 years.