Matthew S Ning1, Daniel R Gomez2, Aashish K Shah3, Charissa R Kim1, Matthew B Palmer3, Nikhil G Thaker4, David R Grosshans2, Zhongxing Liao2, Bhavana V Chapman1, Eric D Brooks1, Chad Tang2, David I Rosenthal2, Adam S Garden2, Steven J Frank2, G Brandon Gunn5. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Proton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 3. Proton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, Arizona Oncology, The US Oncology Network, Tucson, Arizona. 5. Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; Proton Therapy Center, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas. Electronic address: gbgunn@mdanderson.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Proton therapy is increasingly prescribed for cancer treatment, given its potential for improvements in clinical outcomes and toxicity reduction; however, insurance coverage continues to be a barrier to patient access. This study examined insurance approval and appeal outcomes at a large-volume proton therapy center to clarify the process and identify areas for improvement. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 2013 to 2016, 1753 patients with thoracic or head and neck cancer were considered for proton therapy; 903 (553 thoracic, 350 head and neck) entered the insurance process. Rates of and times to approval and successful appeal after initial denial were calculated. Clinical factors were evaluated for association with insurance outcomes via logistic regression. RESULTS: Approval rates by Medicare (n = 538) and private insurance (n = 365) were 91% and 30% on initial request, at a median 3 days and 14 days from inquiry to determination. Of the 306 patients initially denied coverage, 276 appealed the decision, and denial was overturned for 189 patients (68%; median time, 21 days from initial inquiry). On multivariable analysis, Medicare (odds ratio [OR], 14.20; P < .001) was the strongest predictor of initial approval. Approval rates decreased from 2013 to 2014 versus 2015 to 2016 (OR 0.54; P = .001). For patients who appealed denial, multivariable analysis found no associations between approval and trial enrollment or tumor type. Submission of a comparison treatment plan (proton vs photon) indicating dosimetric advantage to normal tissues was associated with decreased likelihood of approval (OR 0.43; P = .006), as was a prescribed dose of ≥66 Gy (OR 0.48; P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: Despite an 87% ultimate approval rate for proton therapy, the insurance process is a resource-intensive barrier to patient access associated with significant time delays to cancer treatment. These findings, plus the lack of clinical correlates with insurance outcomes, highlight a need for increased efficiency, transparency, and collaboration among stakeholders to promote timely patient care and research.
PURPOSE: Proton therapy is increasingly prescribed for cancer treatment, given its potential for improvements in clinical outcomes and toxicity reduction; however, insurance coverage continues to be a barrier to patient access. This study examined insurance approval and appeal outcomes at a large-volume proton therapy center to clarify the process and identify areas for improvement. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In 2013 to 2016, 1753 patients with thoracic or head and neck cancer were considered for proton therapy; 903 (553 thoracic, 350 head and neck) entered the insurance process. Rates of and times to approval and successful appeal after initial denial were calculated. Clinical factors were evaluated for association with insurance outcomes via logistic regression. RESULTS: Approval rates by Medicare (n = 538) and private insurance (n = 365) were 91% and 30% on initial request, at a median 3 days and 14 days from inquiry to determination. Of the 306 patients initially denied coverage, 276 appealed the decision, and denial was overturned for 189 patients (68%; median time, 21 days from initial inquiry). On multivariable analysis, Medicare (odds ratio [OR], 14.20; P < .001) was the strongest predictor of initial approval. Approval rates decreased from 2013 to 2014 versus 2015 to 2016 (OR 0.54; P = .001). For patients who appealed denial, multivariable analysis found no associations between approval and trial enrollment or tumor type. Submission of a comparison treatment plan (proton vs photon) indicating dosimetric advantage to normal tissues was associated with decreased likelihood of approval (OR 0.43; P = .006), as was a prescribed dose of ≥66 Gy (OR 0.48; P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: Despite an 87% ultimate approval rate for proton therapy, the insurance process is a resource-intensive barrier to patient access associated with significant time delays to cancer treatment. These findings, plus the lack of clinical correlates with insurance outcomes, highlight a need for increased efficiency, transparency, and collaboration among stakeholders to promote timely patient care and research.
Authors: William M Mendenhall; Stephanie Smith; Christopher G Morris; Julie A Bradley; Raymond B Mailhot Vega; Kathy McIntyre; Stuart L Klein; Nancy P Mendenhall Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2019-10-11
Authors: Miranda P Lawell; Daniel J Indelicato; Arnold C Paulino; William Hartsell; Nadia N Laack; Ralph P Ermoian; John P Perentesis; Ralph Vatner; Stephanie Perkins; Victor S Mangona; Christine E Hill-Kayser; Suzanne L Wolden; Young Kwok; John Han-Chih Chang; J Ben Wilkinson; Iain MacEwan; Andrew L Chang; Bree R Eaton; Matthew M Ladra; Sara L Gallotto; Elizabeth A Weyman; Benjamin V M Bajaj; Sujith Baliga; Beow Y Yeap; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Torunn I Yock Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Michael C Jin; Siyu Shi; Adela Wu; Navjot Sandhu; Michael Xiang; Scott G Soltys; Susan Hiniker; Gordon Li; Erqi L Pollom Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2020-06-18
Authors: Dennis Mah; Ellen Yorke; Entela Zemanaj; Zhiqiang Han; Haoyang Liu; Jobin George; Jason Lambiase; Christian Czmielewski; D Michael Lovelock; Andreas Rimner; Annemarie F Shepherd Journal: Med Dosim Date: 2021-08-21 Impact factor: 1.531
Authors: Danmeng Huang; Steven J Frank; Vivek Verma; Nikhil G Thaker; Eric D Brooks; Matthew B Palmer; Ross F Harrison; Ashish A Deshmukh; Matthew S Ning Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2021-06-25
Authors: Alexander Lin; John H C Chang; Ryan S Grover; Frank J P Hoebers; Upendra Parvathaneni; Samir H Patel; Juliette Thariat; David J Thomson; Johannes A Langendijk; Steven J Frank Journal: Int J Part Ther Date: 2021-06-25