脊柱转移瘤放射治疗方案的时间驱动活动成本分析。

Q1 Nursing
D. Boyce-Fappiano, M. Ning, N. Thaker, T. Pezzi, O. Gjyshi, S. Mesko, C. Anakwenze, Nicholas D. Olivieri, A. Guzman, J. Incalcaterra, Chad Tang, M. McAleer, J. Herman, A. Ghia
{"title":"脊柱转移瘤放射治疗方案的时间驱动活动成本分析。","authors":"D. Boyce-Fappiano, M. Ning, N. Thaker, T. Pezzi, O. Gjyshi, S. Mesko, C. Anakwenze, Nicholas D. Olivieri, A. Guzman, J. Incalcaterra, Chad Tang, M. McAleer, J. Herman, A. Ghia","doi":"10.1200/JOP.19.00480","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE\nSeveral 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.\n\n\nMETHODS\nComparisons 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.\n\n\nRESULTS\nFull-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 (P < .001).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nResource 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.","PeriodicalId":54273,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Oncology Practice","volume":"1 1","pages":"JOP1900480"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1200/JOP.19.00480","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Time-Driven Activity-Based Cost Analysis of Radiation Treatment Options for Spinal Metastases.\",\"authors\":\"D. Boyce-Fappiano, M. Ning, N. Thaker, T. Pezzi, O. Gjyshi, S. Mesko, C. Anakwenze, Nicholas D. Olivieri, A. Guzman, J. Incalcaterra, Chad Tang, M. McAleer, J. Herman, A. Ghia\",\"doi\":\"10.1200/JOP.19.00480\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PURPOSE\\nSeveral 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.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nComparisons 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.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nFull-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 (P < .001).\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSIONS\\nResource 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54273,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Oncology Practice\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"JOP1900480\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1200/JOP.19.00480\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Oncology Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.19.00480\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Nursing\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Oncology Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/JOP.19.00480","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

目的脊柱转移瘤有多种治疗方案,包括多种放射治疗(RT)技术:三维(3D)常规RT(3D-RT)、强度调节RT(IMRT)和脊柱立体定向放射外科(SSRS)。尽管存在关于不同方案报销差异的数据,但提供者护理提供成本的差异仍有待评估。我们使用基于时间的作业成本模型量化了与脊柱转移瘤RT相关的机构成本。方法比较(1)10次3D-RT至30Gy,(2)10次IMRT至30Gy,(3)3次SSRS(SSRS-3)至27Gy,和(4)单次SSRS(SSRS-1)至18Gy。处理时间通过小组访谈确定,人事成本从机构薪酬数据中提取。确定每个资源的容量成本率,然后乘以活动时间来计算成本,将其相加以确定总成本。结果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%的IMRT高1%。IMRT的技术成本分别比SSRS-3和SSRS-1高出50%和77%。相反,SSRS-1的人员成本分别比IMRT和3D-RT高3%和28%(P<.001)。结论不同治疗方案的资源利用率差异显著。通过量化提供者护理提供成本,该分析支持SSRS-1的机构资源效率。将临床结果与此类资源和成本数据相结合,将进一步深入了解最高价值模式,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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Time-Driven Activity-Based Cost Analysis of Radiation Treatment Options for Spinal Metastases.
PURPOSE 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. METHODS 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. RESULTS 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 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Oncology Practice
Journal of Oncology Practice Nursing-Oncology (nursing)
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Journal of Oncology Practice (JOP) provides necessary information and insights to keep oncology practice current on changes and challenges inherent in delivering quality oncology care. All content dealing with understanding the provision of care—the mechanics of practice—is the purview of JOP. JOP also addresses an expressed need of practicing physicians to have compressed, expert opinion addressing common clinical problems.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信