William M Mendenhall, Eric D Brooks, Stephanie Smith, Christopher G Morris, Curtis B Bryant, Randal H Henderson, Romaine C Nichols, Kathy McIntyre, Stuart L Klein, Nancy P Mendenhall
{"title":"Insurance Approval for Definitive Proton Therapy for Prostate Cancer.","authors":"William M Mendenhall, Eric D Brooks, Stephanie Smith, Christopher G Morris, Curtis B Bryant, Randal H Henderson, Romaine C Nichols, Kathy McIntyre, Stuart L Klein, Nancy P Mendenhall","doi":"10.14338/IJPT-21-00002.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine factors that influence insurance approval for definitive proton therapy (PT) for prostate cancer.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Between 2014 and 2018, 1592 insured patients with localized prostate cancer were evaluated and recommended to undergo definitive PT; 547 patients (34.4%) had commercial insurance, whereas 1045 patients (65.6%) had Medicare/Medicaid. Of those with Medicare, 164 patients (15.7%) had Medicare alone; 677 (64.8%) had supplemental plans; and 204 (19.5%) had secondary commercial insurance. Insurance that \"covered\" PT for prostate cancer implied that it was an indication designated in the coverage policy. \"Not covered\" means that the insurance policy did not list prostate cancer as an indication for PT. Of all 1592 patients, 1263 (79.3%) belonged to plans that covered PT per policy. However, approval for PT was still required via medical review for 619 patients (38.9%), comparative dosimetry for 56 patients (3.5%), peer-to-peer discussion for 234 patients (14.7%), and administrative law judge hearings for 3 patients (<0.1%). Multivariate analyses of factors affecting approval were conducted, including risk group (low/intermediate versus high), insurance type (commercial versus Medicare/Medicaid), whether PT was included as a covered benefit under the plan (covered versus not covered), and time period (2014-16 versus 2017 versus 2018).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On multivariate analysis, factors affecting PT approval for prostate treatment included coverage of PT per policy (97.1% had approval with insurance that covered PT versus 48.6% whose insurance did not cover PT; <i>P</i> < .001); insurance type (32.5% had approval with commercial insurance versus 97.4% with Medicare; <i>P</i> < .001); and time, with 877/987 patients (88.9%) approved between 2014 and 2016, 255/312 patients (81.7%) approved during 2017, and 255/293 patients (87.0%) approved thereafter (<i>P</i> = .02). Clinical factors, including risk group, had no bearing on insurance approval (<i>P</i> = .44).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Proton insurance approval for prostate cancer has decreased, is most influenced by the type of insurance a patient belongs to, and is unrelated to clinical factors (risk group) in this study. More work is needed to help navigate appropriate access to care and to assist patients seeking definitive PT for prostate cancer treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":36923,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Particle Therapy","volume":"8 3","pages":"36-42"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8768894/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Particle Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14338/IJPT-21-00002.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Purpose: To determine factors that influence insurance approval for definitive proton therapy (PT) for prostate cancer.
Materials and methods: Between 2014 and 2018, 1592 insured patients with localized prostate cancer were evaluated and recommended to undergo definitive PT; 547 patients (34.4%) had commercial insurance, whereas 1045 patients (65.6%) had Medicare/Medicaid. Of those with Medicare, 164 patients (15.7%) had Medicare alone; 677 (64.8%) had supplemental plans; and 204 (19.5%) had secondary commercial insurance. Insurance that "covered" PT for prostate cancer implied that it was an indication designated in the coverage policy. "Not covered" means that the insurance policy did not list prostate cancer as an indication for PT. Of all 1592 patients, 1263 (79.3%) belonged to plans that covered PT per policy. However, approval for PT was still required via medical review for 619 patients (38.9%), comparative dosimetry for 56 patients (3.5%), peer-to-peer discussion for 234 patients (14.7%), and administrative law judge hearings for 3 patients (<0.1%). Multivariate analyses of factors affecting approval were conducted, including risk group (low/intermediate versus high), insurance type (commercial versus Medicare/Medicaid), whether PT was included as a covered benefit under the plan (covered versus not covered), and time period (2014-16 versus 2017 versus 2018).
Results: On multivariate analysis, factors affecting PT approval for prostate treatment included coverage of PT per policy (97.1% had approval with insurance that covered PT versus 48.6% whose insurance did not cover PT; P < .001); insurance type (32.5% had approval with commercial insurance versus 97.4% with Medicare; P < .001); and time, with 877/987 patients (88.9%) approved between 2014 and 2016, 255/312 patients (81.7%) approved during 2017, and 255/293 patients (87.0%) approved thereafter (P = .02). Clinical factors, including risk group, had no bearing on insurance approval (P = .44).
Conclusion: Proton insurance approval for prostate cancer has decreased, is most influenced by the type of insurance a patient belongs to, and is unrelated to clinical factors (risk group) in this study. More work is needed to help navigate appropriate access to care and to assist patients seeking definitive PT for prostate cancer treatment.
目的:探讨影响前列腺癌质子治疗保险批准的因素。材料与方法:2014年至2018年,对1592例局限性前列腺癌参保患者进行评估并推荐行明确的前列腺造影;547名患者(34.4%)有商业保险,1045名患者(65.6%)有医疗保险/医疗补助。在有医疗保险的患者中,164例(15.7%)患者单独有医疗保险;677人(64.8%)有补充计划;204人(19.5%)有二级商业保险。“承保”前列腺癌PT的保险暗示这是保险政策中指定的一种指征。“未包括”是指保单未将前列腺癌列为PT的适应症。在所有1592名患者中,1263名(79.3%)属于每个保单涵盖PT的计划。然而,仍有619例患者(38.9%)、56例患者(3.5%)、234例患者(14.7%)和3例患者需要通过医学审查、比较剂量法、行政法法官听证会来批准PT。结果:在多因素分析中,影响前列腺治疗PT批准的因素包括每个保单的PT覆盖率(97.1%的人批准有PT的保险,48.6%的人批准没有PT的保险;p p p = .02)。临床因素(包括危险组)对保险审批无影响(P = 0.44)。结论:本研究中前列腺癌质子保险审批率有所下降,受患者所属保险类型影响最大,与临床因素(危险人群)无关。需要做更多的工作来帮助患者找到适当的护理途径,并帮助患者寻求前列腺癌治疗的最终治疗方案。