Value-based health care - what does it mean for radiotherapy?

Men's perceptions and preferences regarding prostate cancer radiation therapy: A systematic scoping review

Purpose

To assess the literature on men's preferences and perceptions regarding prostate cancer radiation therapy.

Methods

A scoping review was undertaken as per JBI guidelines. Searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and Science Direct with search terms including "prostate cancer," "radiotherapy," "radiation therapy," "radiation oncology," "patient preferences," "patient perceptions" and "patient experience." The resultant studies were mapped and grouped according to the emergent themes and pathway stages.

Results

A total of 779 titles and abstracts were screened by two independent reviewers. Fifty-two full-text studies were reviewed, with 27 eligible for inclusion. There were 4 pre-treatment, 13 during treatment and 10 post-treatment studies covering broad themes of information needs (n = 3), preferences and decisions (n = 6), general experiences (n = 8), side effects (n = 6), and support (n = 4). There were a mix of methodologies, including 11 qualitative, 14 quantitative (including four preference studies), one mixed methods and one narrative review.

Conclusion

There were only four preference studies, with the remaining 23 reporting on perceptions. Overall, there is a paucity of literature regarding patient preferences and perceptions of prostate cancer radiation therapy, particularly when considering how many clinical and technical studies are published in the area. This highlights opportunities for future research.

Cost-effectiveness of 5 fraction and partial breast radiotherapy for early breast cancer in the UK: model-based multi-trial analysis

PURPOSE

We estimated the cost-effectiveness of 4 radiotherapy modalities to treat early breast cancer in the UK. In a subgroup of patients eligible for all modalities, we compared whole-breast (WB) and partial breast (PB) radiotherapy delivered in either 15 (WB15F, PB15F) or 5 fractions (WB5F, PB5F). In a subgroup ineligible for PB radiotherapy, we compared WB15F to WB5F.

METHODS

We developed a Markov cohort model to simulate lifetime healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each modality. This was informed by the clinical analysis of two non-inferiority trials (FAST Forward and IMPORT LOW) and supplemented with external literature. The primary analysis assumed that radiotherapy modality influences health only through its impact on locoregional recurrence and radiotherapy-related adverse events.

RESULTS

In the primary analysis, PB5F had the least cost and greatest expected QALYs. WB5F had the least cost and the greatest expected QALYs in those only eligible for WB radiotherapy. Applying a cost-effectiveness threshold of £15,000/QALY, there was a 62% chance that PB5F was the cost-effective alternative in the PB eligible group, and there was a 100% chance that WB5F was cost-effective in the subgroup ineligible for PB radiotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Hypofractionation to 5 fractions and partial breast radiotherapy modalities offer potentially important benefits to the UK health system.

Exploring the meaning of value-based occupational therapy services from the perspectives of managers, therapists and clients

Introduction

There is a worldwide trend towards value-based health care, which strives to control healthcare costs while maximising value for clients. The main concept of value has been defined as health outcomes achieved per US dollar spent. This research explored how clients of occupational therapy services, managers and occupational therapists perceived value in occupational therapy services.

Method

A qualitative design was used to explore the perspectives of clients (n = 11), occupational therapists (n = 7) and occupational therapy managers (n = 7). Appreciative inquiry guided the two phases of semi-structured interviews (n = 5) and focus groups (n = 6). Inductive and deductive coding were used to establish themes.

Findings

Three themes encompassed the participants' perceived value of occupational therapy services: (1) outcomes which are meaningful to daily life, (2) a constructive client-therapist relationship and (3) affordable, coordinated and understandable therapy.

Conclusion

Participants attributed value to occupational therapy services when they encountered personalised goal setting, focused on meaningful outcomes, managed personal costs and experienced positive therapeutic relationships. Enhancing services could focus on (1) developing skills in collaborative goal setting, (2) determining suitable outcome measures which are meaningful at personal- and service-level reporting, (3) encouraging self-management strategies, and (4) emphasising therapeutic relationships and supporting therapeutic communication skill development.

Innovation, value and reimbursement in radiation and complex surgical oncology: Time to rethink

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Complex surgery and radiotherapy are the central pillars of loco-regional oncology treatment. This paper describes the reimbursement schemes used in radiation and complex surgical oncology, reports on literature and policy reviews.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature of the reimbursement models has been carried out separately for radiotherapy and complex cancer surgery based on PRISMA guidelines. Using searches of PubMed and grey literature, we identified articles from scientific journals and reports published since 2000 on provider payment or reimbursement systems currently used in radiation oncology and complex cancer surgery, also including policy models.

RESULTS

Most European health systems reimburse radiotherapy using a budget-based, fee-for-service or fraction-based system; while few reimburse services according to an episode-based model. Also, the reimbursement models for cancer surgery are mostly restricted to differences embedded in the DRG system and adjustments applied to the fees, based on the complexity of each surgical procedure. There is an enormous variability in reimbursement across countries, resulting in different incentives and different amounts paid for the same therapeutic strategy.

CONCLUSION

A reimbursement policy, based on the episode of care as the basic payment unit, is advocated for. Innovation should be tackled in a two-tier approach: one defining the common criteria for reimbursement of proven evidence-based interventions; another for financing emerging innovation with uncertain definitive value. Relevant clinical and economic data, also collected real-life, should support reimbursement systems that mirror the actual cost of evidence-based practice.

Innovation, value and reimbursement in radiation and complex surgical oncology: time to rethink

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Complex surgery and radiotherapy are the central pillars of loco-regional oncology treatment. This paper describes the reimbursement schemes used in radiation and complex surgical oncology, reports on literature and policy reviews.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature of the reimbursement models has been carried out separately for radiotherapy and complex cancer surgery based on PRISMA guidelines. Using searches of PubMed and grey literature, we identified articles from scientific journals and reports published since 2000 on provider payment or reimbursement systems currently used in radiation oncology and complex cancer surgery, also including policy models.

RESULTS

Most European health systems reimburse radiotherapy using a budget-based, fee-for-service or fraction-based system; while few reimburse services according to an episode-based model. Also, the reimbursement models for cancer surgery are mostly restricted to differences embedded in the DRG system and adjustments applied to the fees, based on the complexity of each surgical procedure. There is an enormous variability in reimbursement across countries, resulting in different incentives and different amounts paid for the same therapeutic strategy.

CONCLUSION

A reimbursement policy, based on the episode of care as the basic payment unit, is advocated for. Innovation should be tackled in a two-tier approach: one defining the common criteria for reimbursement of proven evidence-based interventions; another for financing emerging innovation with uncertain definitive value. Relevant clinical and economic data, also collected real-life, should support reimbursement systems that mirror the actual cost of evidence-based practice.