Literature DB >> 22863464

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

Peter A S Johnstone1, John Kerstiens, Helsper Richard.   

Abstract

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.
Copyright © 2012 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22863464     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2012.03.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol        ISSN: 1546-1440            Impact factor:   5.532


  10 in total

Review 1.  Proton therapy for the treatment of children with CNS malignancies.

Authors:  Radhika Sreeraman; Daniel J Indelicato
Journal:  CNS Oncol       Date:  2014-03

Review 2.  Proton beam and prostate cancer: An evolving debate.

Authors:  Anthony Zietman
Journal:  Rep Pract Oncol Radiother       Date:  2013-07-03

3.  Arrests reveal debate about costs and benefits of proton therapy.

Authors:  Amanda B Keener
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 53.440

4.  Variations in Proton Therapy Coverage in the State of Texas: Defining Medical Necessity for a Safe and Effective Treatment.

Authors:  Nikhil G Thaker; Ankit Agarwal; Matthew Palmer; Rosemarie Hontiveros; Stephen M Hahn; Bruce D Minsky; Ronald Walters; John Bingham; Thomas W Feeley; Thomas A Buchholz; Steven J Frank
Journal:  Int J Part Ther       Date:  2016-03-24

Review 5.  Protons, Photons, and the Prostate - Is There Emerging Evidence in the Ongoing Discussion on Particle Therapy for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer?

Authors:  Kilian C Schiller; Gregor Habl; Stephanie E Combs
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2016-01-28       Impact factor: 6.244

6.  MRI-Linac Economics II: Rationalizing Schedules.

Authors:  Peter A S Johnstone; John Kerstiens; Stuart Wasserman; Stephen A Rosenberg
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-02-07       Impact factor: 4.241

7.  Retrospective analysis of reduced energy switching and room switching times on throughput efficiency of a multi-room proton therapy center.

Authors:  Dennis Mah; Chin Cheng Chen; A Omer Nawaz; Greg Galbreath; Reuven Shmulenson; Nancy Lee; Brian Chon
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-12-02       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 8.  A critical appraisal of the clinical utility of proton therapy in oncology.

Authors:  Dongxu Wang
Journal:  Med Devices (Auckl)       Date:  2015-10-28

Review 9.  Proton beam therapy: clinical utility and current status in prostate cancer.

Authors:  Kosj Yamoah; Peter As Johnstone
Journal:  Onco Targets Ther       Date:  2016-09-16       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Early Experience of the First Single-Room Gantry Mounted Active Scanning Proton Therapy System at an Integrated Cancer Center.

Authors:  Matthew K Forsthoefel; Elizabeth Ballew; Keith R Unger; Peter H Ahn; Sonali Rudra; Dalong Pang; Sean P Collins; Anatoly Dritschilo; William Harter; Nitika Paudel; Brian T Collins; Jonathan W Lischalk
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 6.244

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.