The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Arizona Oncology, The US Oncology Network, Tucson, AZ.
JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Mar;16(3):e271-e279. doi: 10.1200/JOP.19.00480. Epub 2019 Nov 25.
Several treatment options for spinal metastases exist, including multiple radiation therapy (RT) techniques: three-dimensional (3D) conventional RT (3D-RT), intensity-modulated RT (IMRT), and spine stereotactic radiosurgery (SSRS). Although data exist regarding reimbursement differences across regimens, differences in provider care delivery costs have yet to be evaluated. We quantified institutional costs associated with RT for spinal metastases, using a time-driven activity-based costing model.
Comparisons were made between (1) 10-fraction 3D-RT to 30 Gy, (2) 10-fraction IMRT to 30 Gy, (3) 3-fraction SSRS (SSRS-3) to 27 Gy, and (4) single-fraction SSRS (SSRS-1) to 18 Gy. Process maps were developed from consultation through follow-up 30 days post-treatment. Process times were determined through panel interviews, and personnel costs were extracted from institutional salary data. The capacity cost rate was determined for each resource, then multiplied by activity time to calculate costs, which were summed to determine total cost.
Full-cycle costs of SSRS-1 were 17% lower and 17% higher compared with IMRT and 3D-RT, respectively. Full-cycle costs for SSRS-3 were only 1% greater than 10-fraction IMRT. Technical costs for IMRT were 50% and 77% more than SSRS-3 and SSRS-1. In contrast, personnel costs were 3% and 28% higher for SSRS-1 than IMRT and 3D-RT, respectively ( < .001).
Resource utilization varies significantly among treatment options. By quantifying provider care delivery costs, this analysis supports the institutional resource efficiency of SSRS-1. Incorporating clinical outcomes with such resource and cost data will provide additional insight into the highest value modalities and may inform alternative payment models, operational workflows, and institutional resource allocation.
存在多种治疗脊柱转移瘤的方法,包括多种放射治疗(RT)技术:三维(3D)常规 RT(3D-RT)、调强放射治疗(IMRT)和脊柱立体定向放射外科(SSRS)。虽然存在有关方案间报销差异的数据,但提供者护理提供成本的差异尚未得到评估。我们使用时间驱动的作业成本核算模型,量化了与脊柱转移瘤 RT 相关的机构成本。
比较了(1)10 个疗程 3D-RT 至 30 Gy、(2)10 个疗程 IMRT 至 30 Gy、(3)3 个疗程 SSRS(SSRS-3)至 27 Gy 和(4)单次疗程 SSRS(SSRS-1)至 18 Gy。从咨询到治疗后 30 天的随访,制定了流程图。通过小组访谈确定了流程时间,并从机构薪资数据中提取人员成本。为每个资源确定了产能成本率,然后乘以活动时间来计算成本,将成本相加以确定总成本。
SSRS-1 的全周期成本分别比 IMRT 和 3D-RT 低 17%和高 17%。SSRS-3 的全周期成本仅比 10 个疗程的 IMRT 高 1%。IMRT 的技术成本比 SSRS-3 和 SSRS-1 分别高 50%和 77%。相比之下,SSRS-1 的人员成本分别比 IMRT 和 3D-RT 高 3%和 28%(<0.001)。
治疗方案之间的资源利用差异很大。通过量化提供者护理提供成本,本分析支持 SSRS-1 的机构资源效率。将临床结果与这些资源和成本数据相结合,将为了解最高价值的治疗方式提供更多的见解,并可能为替代支付模式、运营工作流程和机构资源分配提供信息。