Barbara Vanderstraeten1, Jan Verstraete2, Roger De Croock3, Wilfried De Neve4, Yolande Lievens4. 1. Department of Radiotherapy, Ghent University Hospital, Gent, Belgium. Electronic address: barbara.vanderstraeten@uzgent.be. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium. 3. Belgian Hadron Therapy Center Foundation, Brussels, Belgium. 4. Department of Radiotherapy, Ghent University Hospital, Gent, Belgium.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the treatment cost and required reimbursement for a new hadron therapy facility, considering different technical solutions and financing methods. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The 3 technical solutions analyzed are a carbon only (COC), proton only (POC), and combined (CC) center, each operating 2 treatment rooms and assumed to function at full capacity. A business model defines the required reimbursement and analyzes the financial implications of setting up a facility over time; activity-based costing (ABC) calculates the treatment costs per type of patient for a center in a steady state of operation. Both models compare a private, full-cost approach with public sponsoring, only taking into account operational costs. RESULTS: Yearly operational costs range between €10.0M (M = million) for a publicly sponsored POC to €24.8M for a CC with private financing. Disregarding inflation, the average treatment cost calculated with ABC (COC: €29,450; POC: €46,342; CC: €46,443 for private financing; respectively €16,059, €28,296, and €23,956 for public sponsoring) is slightly lower than the required reimbursement based on the business model (between €51,200 in a privately funded POC and €18,400 in COC with public sponsoring). Reimbursement for privately financed centers is very sensitive to a delay in commissioning and to the interest rate. Higher throughput and hypofractionation have a positive impact on the treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: Both calculation methods are valid and complementary. The financially most attractive option of a publicly sponsored COC should be balanced to the clinical necessities and the sociopolitical context.
PURPOSE: To determine the treatment cost and required reimbursement for a new hadron therapy facility, considering different technical solutions and financing methods. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The 3 technical solutions analyzed are a carbon only (COC), proton only (POC), and combined (CC) center, each operating 2 treatment rooms and assumed to function at full capacity. A business model defines the required reimbursement and analyzes the financial implications of setting up a facility over time; activity-based costing (ABC) calculates the treatment costs per type of patient for a center in a steady state of operation. Both models compare a private, full-cost approach with public sponsoring, only taking into account operational costs. RESULTS: Yearly operational costs range between €10.0M (M = million) for a publicly sponsored POC to €24.8M for a CC with private financing. Disregarding inflation, the average treatment cost calculated with ABC (COC: €29,450; POC: €46,342; CC: €46,443 for private financing; respectively €16,059, €28,296, and €23,956 for public sponsoring) is slightly lower than the required reimbursement based on the business model (between €51,200 in a privately funded POC and €18,400 in COC with public sponsoring). Reimbursement for privately financed centers is very sensitive to a delay in commissioning and to the interest rate. Higher throughput and hypofractionation have a positive impact on the treatment costs. CONCLUSIONS: Both calculation methods are valid and complementary. The financially most attractive option of a publicly sponsored COC should be balanced to the clinical necessities and the sociopolitical context.