Advertisement

Evaluating the Downstream Revenues of a Self-Pay Bi-Parametric Prostate MRI Program

Published:October 01, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2022.09.013

      ABSTRACT

      Objective

      To quantify downstream healthcare utilization and revenue associated with a self-pay bi-parametric prostate MRI (bpMRI) program.

      Methods

      Medical records of 592 patients who underwent bpMRI between August 2017 and March 2020 were examined for follow-up clinical activities. These include prostate biopsy, radical prostatectomy, external beam radiation therapy, brachytherapy, androgen deprivation therapy, CT Chest, Abdomen and Pelvis, PET/CT, MRI Pelvis, and Nuclear Medicine Bone Scans. The charges for each clinical activity were derived from the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule to conservatively estimate revenues. This patient population was further divided into four groups: Group A, patients who demonstrated an MRI lesion and underwent prostatectomy; Group B, patients who did not demonstrate lesion but underwent prostatectomy; Group C, patients who demonstrated lesion but did not undergo prostatectomy; and Group D, patients who neither demonstrated lesion nor underwent prostatectomy. Revenues for each group were categorized by Urology, Radiation Oncology and Radiology subspecialties.

      Results

      Conservative estimates yielded $520 of downstream revenue per patient who underwent bpMRI. Group A patients yielded 47% of total revenue ($1974 per patient). Group B patients, the smallest group, yielded $1828 per patient. Group C patients made up the largest group and grossed $398 per patient. Group D demonstrated the lowest per patient revenue of $179. Groups A and B yielded most relative revenue for Urology. Group C yielded most relative revenue for Radiation Oncology, and Group D yielded most relative revenue for Radiology.

      Conclusion

      A self-pay bpMRI program has the potential to improve patient access to prostate cancer screening while remaining financial sustainable.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

      1. Key Statistics for Prostate Cancer. Website. American Cancer Society, Inc. Kennesaw, GA. Updated January 12, 2022.. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/prostate-cancer/about/key-statistics.html. Accessed February 27, 2022.

        • Gan JM
        • Kikano EG
        • Smith DA
        • et al.
        Clinically significant prostate cancer detection after a negative prebiopsy MRI examination: comparison of biparametric versus multiparametric MRI.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021; https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.21.26569
        • Ahmed HU
        • El-Shater Bosaily A
        • Brown LC
        • et al.
        Diagnostic accuracy of multi-parametric MRI and TRUS biopsy in prostate cancer (PROMIS): a paired validating confirmatory study.
        Lancet. 2017; 389: 815-822https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32401-1
        • Obmann VC
        • Pahwa S
        • Tabayayong W
        • et al.
        Diagnostic accuracy of a rapid biparametric MRI protocol for detection of histologically proven prostate cancer.
        Urology. 2018; 122: 133-138https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.08.032
        • Pahwa S
        • Schiltz NK
        • Ponsky LE
        • Lu Z
        • Griswold MA
        • Gulani V.
        Cost-effectiveness of MR imaging-guided strategies for detection of prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men.
        Radiology. 2017; 285: 157-166https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017162181
        • Gatti M
        • Faletti R
        • Calleris G
        • et al.
        Prostate cancer detection with biparametric magnetic resonance imaging (bpMRI) by readers with different experience: performance and comparison with multiparametric (mpMRI).
        Abdom Radiol (NY). 2019; 44: 1883-1893https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-01934-3
        • Udayakumar N
        • Porter KK.
        How fast can we go: abbreviated prostate MR protocols.
        Curr Urol Rep. 2020; 21: 59https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-020-01008-8
        • Hiremath A
        • Shiradkar R
        • Fu P
        • et al.
        An integrated nomogram combining deep learning, Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scoring, and clinical variables for identification of clinically significant prostate cancer on biparametric MRI: a retrospective multicentre study.
        Lancet Digit Health. 2021; 3: e445-e454https://doi.org/10.1016/S2589-7500(21)00082-0
        • Algohary A
        • Shiradkar R
        • Pahwa S
        • et al.
        Combination of peri-tumoral and intra-tumoral radiomic features on bi-parametric MRI accurately stratifies prostate cancer risk: a multi-site study.
        Cancers (Basel). 2020; 12https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12082200
        • Porter KK
        • King A
        • Galgano SJ
        • Sherrer RL
        • Gordetsky JB
        • Rais-Bahrami S
        Financial implications of biparametric prostate MRI.
        Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2020; 23: 88-93https://doi.org/10.1038/s41391-019-0158-x
        • Merisaari H
        • Jambor I
        • Ettala O
        • et al.
        IMPROD biparametric MRI in men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer (IMPROD Trial): sensitivity for prostate cancer detection in correlation with whole-mount prostatectomy sections and implications for focal therapy.
        J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019; 50: 1641-1650https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26727
        • Maeng D
        • Wall B
        • Hassen D
        • Diehl DL.
        Upstream and downstream revenue of upper gastrointestinal endoscopic ultrasound determined with an episode-of-care approach.
        Endosc Int Open. 2019; 7: E1316-E1321https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0990-9458
        • Chung JM
        • Simmerman EL
        • Sadek RF
        • et al.
        Financial analysis of free lung cancer screening program shows profitability using broader NCCN guidelines.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2019; 107: 885-890https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2018.09.056
        • Headrick Jr., JR
        • Morin O
        • Miller AD
        • Hill L
        • Smith J
        Mobile lung screening: Should we all get on the bus?.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2020; 110: 1147-1152https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.03.093
        • Schoots IG
        • Barentsz JO
        • Bittencourt LK
        • et al.
        PI-RADS committee position on MRI without contrast medium in biopsy-naive men with suspected prostate cancer: narrative review.
        AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2021; 216: 3-19https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.20.24268
      2. Pelech D. An Analysis of Private-Sector Prices for Physicians’ Services. Vol. 2018-01. 2018. Washington, DC. Working Paper Series. Available at: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53441. Accessed March 6, 2022.

        • Morgan L
        • Choi H
        • Reid M
        • Khawaja A
        • Mazzone PJ.
        Frequency of incidental findings and subsequent evaluation in low-dose computed tomographic scans for lung cancer screening.
        Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017; 14: 1450-1456https://doi.org/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201612-1023OC
        • Ruohoniemi DM
        • Ross FL
        • Chiu ES
        • et al.
        A descriptive revenue analysis of a wound-center IR collaboration to treat lower extremity venous ulcers.
        J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2019; 30 (1988-1993 e1)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvir.2019.06.017