Usually when I make suggestions to journalists about things to cover, I urge them to report on questions of evidence for two of the fastest growing and most expensive medical technologies: proton beam radiation therapy and robotic surgery.
Recently, the American Society for Radiation Oncology issued a new model policy for proton beam therapy.
In it, the group states that proton beam therapy is supported for use in what should be categorized as relatively uncommon cancers:
For other uses, ASTRO says that some some patients enrolled in either an IRB-approved clinical trial or in a multi-institutional patient registry adhering to Medicare requirements should be covered by insurance. (An IRB is an institutional review board.) Some uses in this category include:
Head and neck malignancies
Thoracic malignancies
Abdominal malignancies
Pelvic malignancies, including genitourinary, gynecologic and gastrointestinal carcinomas
But for the granddaddy of applications – the one that pays the bills when the uncommon conditions don’t – prostate cancer – ASTRO states that “the comparative efficacy evidence is still being developed.
“In order for an informed consensus on the role of PBT for prostate cancer to be reached, it is essential to collect further data, especially to understand how the effectiveness of proton therapy compares to other radiation therapy modalities such as IMRT and brachytherapy. There is a need for more well-designed registries and studies with sizable comparator cohorts to help accelerate data collection. Proton beam therapy for primary treatment of prostate cancer should only be performed within the context of a prospective clinical trial or registry.”
Treatment cost for prostate cancer may run beyond $30,000.
The trade organization for proton beam centers says there are now 14 proton centers in operation in the US with 12 more in development.
The Mayo Clinic is building two proton facilities – one in Rochester, MN and one in Scottsdale, AZ – at an estimated investment of more than $370 million. In reaction, Dr. Ezekiel J. Emanuel, chair of the University of Pennsylvania’s Department of Medical Ethics & Health Policy, wrote:
“With Medicare reimbursement so generous, and patients and doctors eager for the latest technology, building new machines is sane, profitable business for hospitals like Mayo.
But it is crazy medicine and unsustainable public policy.”
A recent paper in the Journal of the American College of Radiology suggested how unsustainable continued proliferation of proton beam technology may be for the centers investing in this technology- UNLESS evidence and reimbursement for the more lucrative and more common adult uses – like the golden goose that is the prostate – comes through. The paper concluded:
“The mission to preferentially treat pediatric patients involves accepting a loss for one-third of pediatric patients before allocating any overhead. After averaging gross expenses over total operating hours, 60% of the pediatric patients were found to be treated at a net loss.
Given insurance constraints and unique costs associated with the pediatric population, proton beam therapy centers devoted to children should not be expected to be markedly profitable. For centers that do choose to accept pediatric patients, those patients must be balanced with patients producing higher net reimbursement.”
————————–
Tweet
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like