The Influence of Health Insurance Policy on Radiation Oncology Physician SBRT/SABR Use Practices: A North American Survey

Variations in Medical Necessity Determinations Across Commercial Insurance Carriers for Prostate Cancer Procedures

PURPOSE

Variation in commercial insurance coverage may lead to disparity in access to quality cancer care. We evaluated commercial insurance coverage determinations to assess the degree of variation across a national sample.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We identified the predominant carrier of commercial insurance in each state based on the 2020 US Government Accounting Office (GAO-21-34) report on insurance. For each state, publicly available medical policies from January 1, 2021 to January 31, 2021 were analyzed for coverage of 3 widely accepted procedures: hydrogel spacer, fluciclovine- positron emission tomography (PET), and intensity modulated radiation in low volume metastatic prostate cancer.

RESULTS

We analyzed 83 commercial medical policies across 51 states and District of Columbia. There was widespread variation in coverage policy. Hydrogel spacer was determined medically necessary in 9 states, mixed coverage in 8, not medically necessary in 22, and no available public policy in 12. Use of fluciclovine-PET required a minimum prostate specific antigen level of 2 ng/mL in 9 states, 1 ng/mL in 17, any minimum prostate specific antigen in 7, mixed coverage in 12, and no publicly available policy in 6. Intensity modulated radiation in low volume metastatic prostate cancer was medically necessary in 17 states, not necessary in 7, and not stated in 27. Insurance carriers often used external utilization management companies such as AIM-Healthcare and Evicore Healthcare. These determinations were more restrictive than carriers which did not use utilization management.

CONCLUSIONS

Commercial medical policies vary widely in medical necessity determinations for novel prostate cancer treatment procedures that are Food and Drug-approved and covered by Medicare. These data suggest a need for more consistent methodology for medical necessity determination to mitigate the current state where patients have unequal access to cancer procedures due to the location of residence and age.

Adherence of US Insurance Payer Policies to the American Society of Radiation Oncology Stereotactic Radiosurgery Model Policy

PURPOSE

The medical necessity of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is nonuniform across insurance policies. The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) created a model policy based on the consensus of the radiation oncology community to communicate medically necessary indications for SRS. We compared the current insurance policies for SRS with those of the ASTRO model policy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We identified 58 insurance payers and 3 national benefits managers with SRS policies. Among these, 7 insurance payers were excluded for policies that were not reviewed after 2015 and for not detailing individual medically necessary indications. For each of the indications listed in ASTRO's model policy, we determined the proportion of payers that considered SRS medically necessary. We compared these proportions for national versus regional payers and policies updated in the last 12 months versus those updated less often using Fisher exact and χ² tests.

RESULTS

All insurance policies reviewed considered SRS as medically necessary for brain metastases, medically refractory trigeminal neuralgia, and arteriovenous malformations. Compared with national payers, regional payers were less likely to deem other schwannomas, and a boost for large cranial or spinal lesions medically necessary (P < .05). The indication with the lowest coverage was medically refractory movement disorders (44.4%), followed by medically refractory epilepsy (33.3%). However, policies that were updated within the last year were more likely to deem medical necessity for epilepsy, movement disorders, hemangioblastoma, pineal gland tumors, and other schwannomas.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant discrepancy remains among insurance policies for several indications in ASTRO's model policy for SRS; however, national payers and those with recent policy updates have a greater concordance with the ASTRO model policy.

Commercial Insurance Coverage of Advanced Radiation Therapy Techniques Compared With American Society for Radiation Oncology Model Policies

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare and contrast the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) model policies (MPs) for intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR), and proton beam therapy (PBT) with the coverage policies constructed by 5 of the largest publicly available commercial insurers throughout the United States (ie, Aetna, Anthem, Cigna, Humana, and United Healthcare).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Appropriate indications for IMRT, SRS, SABR, and PBT by disease site (and particular clinical setting thereof) were extracted from the most recently published ASTRO MPs and published coverage policies (2019 editions) of the 5 carriers. After tabulation, concordance between ASTRO MPs and insurance policies were calculated for each modality.

RESULTS

All 5 insurer policies supported IMRT for neoplasms of the central nervous system, head/neck, hepatopancreaticobiliary, anal, and prostate cancers. The least covered diseases were retroperitoneal tumors (n = 0 carriers) and bladder cancer (n = 1). For SRS, all carriers covered benign brain tumors, brain metastases, arteriovenous malformations, and trigeminal neuralgia. None of the insurance carriers covered SRS for medically refractory epilepsy. For SABR, primary liver, lung, and low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer were covered by all insurers, and none allowed SABR for primary biliary neoplasms. Only one insurance carrier each covered SABR for primary/metastatic adrenal disease and primary renal cancer. All carriers approved PBT for ocular melanoma, skull base tumors, and pediatric malignancies. The ASTRO MPs listed 4 PBT scenarios (ie, spinal disease, retroperitoneal sarcoma, head/neck neoplasms, and patients with genetic radiosensitivity syndromes) not covered by any insurer. Concordance between insurance carriers and ASTRO MPs was 67.8% for IMRT, 72.0% for SRS, 58.4% for SABR, and 41.8% for PBT (P = .005).

CONCLUSIONS

Coverage guidelines for IMRT, SRS, SABR, and PBT vary across 5 major insurance providers and may be substantially discordant compared with ASTRO coverage guidelines. There remain several specific areas where ongoing and future dialogues between ASTRO members, payers, and policymakers remain essential.

Differences in United States Insurance Payer Policies and American Society for Radiation Oncology's (ASTRO) Model Policy on Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT)

PURPOSE

Insurance payers in the United States vary in the indications for which they consider stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) "medically necessary." We compared changes in policies after the last update to the American Society for Radiation Oncology's (ASTRO) SBRT model policy.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We identified 77 payers with SBRT policies in 2015 from a policy aggregator, as well as 4 national benefits managers (NBMs). Of these, 65 payers and 3 NBMs had publicly available updates since 2015. For each of the indications in ASTRO's model policy, we calculated the proportion of payers that considered SBRT medically necessary. We used Fisher's exact test to compare these proportions between 2015 and now, between policies updated in the past 12 months and those updated less often, and between national and regional payers currently.

RESULTS

Payers consider SBRT medically necessary most often for primary lung cancer (97%), reirradiation to the spine (91%), prostate cancer (68%), primary liver cancer (66%), and spinal metastases with radioresistant histologies (66%). Policies have become more aligned with ASTRO's model policy over time. National payers and NBMs cover indications in higher proportions than regional payers.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there have been improvements over time, more work is needed to align payer policies with ASTRO's model SBRT policy, especially at the regional level.