HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post

gdpawel · 07-26-2010, 02:40 PM

I wrote to Earle and Newhouse, co-authors of the Michigan/Harvard study and the latest study published in Health Affairs and asked them if there was an incentive for radiation oncologists at community cancer centers to chose whole brain radiation treatments, as these were the most expensive, for them.

Could their methodology collect data documenting a clear association between reimbursement to radiation oncologists for whole brain radiation treatment which is based on how much incentive occurs to the radiation oncologist?

They thought that there were similar issues, but their methodology would be different because radiation isn't something that individual doctors buy, sometimes at a discount, and then profit from if they're reimbursed more for it, as in the case with chemotherapy.

They relied upon price variation across regions in Medicare, which was pseudo-random and had been eliminated. To their knowledge, there was no comparable price variation in radiology that they could have used.

However, they did mention a radiation oncologist in Michigan, who had done some work looking at the number of palliative fractions of radiation given to patients with advanced lung cancer as being a situation in which there is a lot of discretion on the part of the physicians: one fraction is as good as 10, but 10 will reimburse more.

07-26-2010, 02:40 PM	#4
gdpawel Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 1,080	Radiation incentives I wrote to Earle and Newhouse, co-authors of the Michigan/Harvard study and the latest study published in Health Affairs and asked them if there was an incentive for radiation oncologists at community cancer centers to chose whole brain radiation treatments, as these were the most expensive, for them. Could their methodology collect data documenting a clear association between reimbursement to radiation oncologists for whole brain radiation treatment which is based on how much incentive occurs to the radiation oncologist? They thought that there were similar issues, but their methodology would be different because radiation isn't something that individual doctors buy, sometimes at a discount, and then profit from if they're reimbursed more for it, as in the case with chemotherapy. They relied upon price variation across regions in Medicare, which was pseudo-random and had been eliminated. To their knowledge, there was no comparable price variation in radiology that they could have used. However, they did mention a radiation oncologist in Michigan, who had done some work looking at the number of palliative fractions of radiation given to patients with advanced lung cancer as being a situation in which there is a lot of discretion on the part of the physicians: one fraction is as good as 10, but 10 will reimburse more.