Oncology

Mrs G.O. is an 80-year-old retired teacher who was widowed a decade ago. With no close relatives, she lives alone, accompanied by only two cats and a dog that she has rescued. “I am alone,” she told Gustavo Kusminsky, MD, consultant in Hematology and Hematopoietic Transplant Service at Austral University Hospital and lecturer in medicine at the Hospital Universitario Austral, Buenos Aires, Argentina. She said this calmly while refusing treatment for life-threatening multiple myeloma. “Doctor, I would rather not,” she added — her words lingering in the quiet consulting room. That moment is now the focus of a recent article in the journal Medicina.

In the article, Kusminsky described how he made an effort to clarify to the patient that she needed cancer treatment. He explained that the treatment was mostly oral, required no initial hospitalization, and that consultations could be spaced out. However, Mrs G.O. maintained her position.

“The patient had no signs of depression, and her argument was logical. Mrs G.O. was already receiving several medications for high blood pressure, was on anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation, and managed dyslipidemia with fenofibrate. But she preferred not to receive treatment for her multiple myeloma.” Kusminsky noted.

“Doctor, I have lived my life. I am old. I am already taking too many medications. I do not have a family, and it would be very difficult to deal with the side effects and be dependent on the hospital. As long as I can take care of myself, I do not want any more treatment, at least not for now. We will talk in a few months if I am still here,” she told him before leaving.

The article mentioned that responses such as Mrs G.O. spark perplexity in modern medicine to the extent that clinicians initiate protocols to rule out depression or other psychological factors when a patient rejects treatments that could prolong their life. On the contrary, no such checks are made when patients agree to treatment, because acceptance is deemed “normal.”

Because of collective assumptions and the war metaphors often used in oncology, Mrs G.O. risked being labeled a “deserter from the battalion” of patients with cancer. 

In truth, her decision invites reflection on the doctor-patient relationship, respect for autonomy, and the benefits of modern cancer care offered today, Kusminsky said.

This provides an opportunity to consider the patient’s perspective rather than a purely medical perspective.

Jennifer Hincapié Sánchez, PhD, professor in the Faculty of Medicine at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). She is the director of the UNAM University Bioethics Program and coordinates its Institutional Ethics and Bioethics Program for the Faculty of Medicine in Mexico. Although not involved in the article, she regards it as vital. “It’s crucial to remind medical staff that their role is to promote patients’ well-being and that this is related to the life plan that patients have set for themselves, even though this vision is sometimes not aligned with biomedical progress,” she said.

 

Patient Autonomy

Science-guided medicine aims to prolong life, improve quality, and relieve suffering. However, acceptance or refusal of treatment remains a personal choice for anyone with cancer.

Some evidence showed that patients who decline treatment do not always experience rapid decline. Many can live acceptable, even fulfilling, lives on their own for varying periods, even though they know that there is a possibility of shorter survival. Valuing fewer side effects and better quality of life. This suggested that quality of life is subjective and cannot be measured solely by biomedical standards but also by the meaning each person finds in their existence, even in the face of serious illness.

“There is a myth that quality of life is only valid when defined by objective success. Our task is to explain that it is subjective, and life can be meaningful despite limitations.” Kusminsky said.

Mrs G.O. knew her prognosis and treatment options but chose not to pursue treatment, which, while medically advisable, did not align with her values or vision of life.

Hincapié Sánchez stated that the priority is always to honor the patient’s choice. Clinicians must ensure that the patient has all necessary information that is always appropriate to their sociocultural context before making the decision.

“If the decision persists despite being informed and aware of the effects of the patient’s choice, all we can do is provide support, manage the pain, and seek the patient’s comfort,” she emphasized.

 

Medical Omnipotence 

Physicians should not view the refusal of treatment as an abandonment of the fundamental principles of the profession. Rather, it means respecting patient priorities and recognizing medicine as a dialogue between science and humanity, not as an exercise of control.

However, many clinicians struggle with such decisions because they conflict with their impulse to act and a sense of medical omnipotence. Hincapié Sánchez attributed these difficulties to medical training.

“We are taught to preserve life at all costs. If treatment even slightly prolongs life, many doctors continue to recommend it. The question becomes: Is it valid to extend life when its quality is in doubt?” she asked.

“Medicine is more than a science; it is an art. It is the most human in the sciences and the most scientific in the humanities. Let us not lose sight of the human element that allows us to see the patient as a person, not just a disease to be treated,” Hincapié Sánchez urges.

Kusminsky describes a common therapeutic obstinacy — doctors’ reluctance to stop “doing something,” to avoid “throwing in the towel,” or to uphold “hope is the last thing to be lost.”

“But physicians are growing more aware of these situations, and change is slowly coming,” he said. However, he added: “Of course, there is the issue of the perceived omnipotence of doctors — their words descending with authority to ‘prescribe’ treatment, issue ‘medical orders,’ or dictate ‘pharmacological’ therapy.

For the specialist, such terminology reflects a view of the doctor-patient relationship not as a mutual, two-way exchange, but as a vertical, paternalistic dynamic.

He suggested looking at ancient Greece for perspective. “Hippocrates, or rather the Hippocratic school, taught that the doctor-patient encounter is inherently one of compassion. We must approach this in that way. Reflecting on that bond, improving communication, humanizing relationships, and, above all, being available to listen are key,” Kusminsky said.

Another intersection that has long fascinated Kusminsky is between literature and medicine. This interest led him to explore the field of narrative medicine, serve on the board of directors of the Argentine Society of Narrative Medicine (SAMEN), and join the roster of speakers at the upcoming second SAMEN Conference in Buenos Aires on July 10 and 11, 2025.

“Narrative medicine uses storytelling tools to absorb, process, acknowledge, and empathize with patients’ illness narratives, aiming to restore humanism to practice,” he explained.

According to Kusminsky, the circumstances under which Mrs G.O. expressed her wish not to begin treatment immediately reminded him of a text by Melville’s famous “I would prefer not to” from Bartleby, the Scrivener.

This reflection inspired him to publish an article cited at its beginning. At the same time, it reinforced his belief that what patients say can itself be a form of narrative that extends beyond the confines of clinical history.

Mrs G.O. chose not to pursue treatment for multiple myeloma. However, she returned to Kusminsky’s office approximately 2 months ago. She felt well, and her disease slowly progressed; however, she still had no clinical signs or symptoms.

Kusminsky and Hincapié Sánchez have declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

This story was translated from Medscape’s Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Mrs G.O. is an 80-year-old retired teacher who was widowed a decade ago. With no close relatives, she lives alone, accompanied by only two cats and a dog that she has rescued. “I am alone,” she told Gustavo Kusminsky, MD, consultant in Hematology and Hematopoietic Transplant Service at Austral University Hospital and lecturer in medicine at the Hospital Universitario Austral, Buenos Aires, Argentina. She said this calmly while refusing treatment for life-threatening multiple myeloma. “Doctor, I would rather not,” she added — her words lingering in the quiet consulting room. That moment is now the focus of a recent article in the journal Medicina.

In the article, Kusminsky described how he made an effort to clarify to the patient that she needed cancer treatment. He explained that the treatment was mostly oral, required no initial hospitalization, and that consultations could be spaced out. However, Mrs G.O. maintained her position.

“The patient had no signs of depression, and her argument was logical. Mrs G.O. was already receiving several medications for high blood pressure, was on anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation, and managed dyslipidemia with fenofibrate. But she preferred not to receive treatment for her multiple myeloma.” Kusminsky noted.

“Doctor, I have lived my life. I am old. I am already taking too many medications. I do not have a family, and it would be very difficult to deal with the side effects and be dependent on the hospital. As long as I can take care of myself, I do not want any more treatment, at least not for now. We will talk in a few months if I am still here,” she told him before leaving.

The article mentioned that responses such as Mrs G.O. spark perplexity in modern medicine to the extent that clinicians initiate protocols to rule out depression or other psychological factors when a patient rejects treatments that could prolong their life. On the contrary, no such checks are made when patients agree to treatment, because acceptance is deemed “normal.”

Because of collective assumptions and the war metaphors often used in oncology, Mrs G.O. risked being labeled a “deserter from the battalion” of patients with cancer. 

In truth, her decision invites reflection on the doctor-patient relationship, respect for autonomy, and the benefits of modern cancer care offered today, Kusminsky said.

This provides an opportunity to consider the patient’s perspective rather than a purely medical perspective.

Jennifer Hincapié Sánchez, PhD, professor in the Faculty of Medicine at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). She is the director of the UNAM University Bioethics Program and coordinates its Institutional Ethics and Bioethics Program for the Faculty of Medicine in Mexico. Although not involved in the article, she regards it as vital. “It’s crucial to remind medical staff that their role is to promote patients’ well-being and that this is related to the life plan that patients have set for themselves, even though this vision is sometimes not aligned with biomedical progress,” she said.

 

Patient Autonomy

Science-guided medicine aims to prolong life, improve quality, and relieve suffering. However, acceptance or refusal of treatment remains a personal choice for anyone with cancer.

Some evidence showed that patients who decline treatment do not always experience rapid decline. Many can live acceptable, even fulfilling, lives on their own for varying periods, even though they know that there is a possibility of shorter survival. Valuing fewer side effects and better quality of life. This suggested that quality of life is subjective and cannot be measured solely by biomedical standards but also by the meaning each person finds in their existence, even in the face of serious illness.

“There is a myth that quality of life is only valid when defined by objective success. Our task is to explain that it is subjective, and life can be meaningful despite limitations.” Kusminsky said.

Mrs G.O. knew her prognosis and treatment options but chose not to pursue treatment, which, while medically advisable, did not align with her values or vision of life.

Hincapié Sánchez stated that the priority is always to honor the patient’s choice. Clinicians must ensure that the patient has all necessary information that is always appropriate to their sociocultural context before making the decision.

“If the decision persists despite being informed and aware of the effects of the patient’s choice, all we can do is provide support, manage the pain, and seek the patient’s comfort,” she emphasized.

 

Medical Omnipotence 

Physicians should not view the refusal of treatment as an abandonment of the fundamental principles of the profession. Rather, it means respecting patient priorities and recognizing medicine as a dialogue between science and humanity, not as an exercise of control.

However, many clinicians struggle with such decisions because they conflict with their impulse to act and a sense of medical omnipotence. Hincapié Sánchez attributed these difficulties to medical training.

“We are taught to preserve life at all costs. If treatment even slightly prolongs life, many doctors continue to recommend it. The question becomes: Is it valid to extend life when its quality is in doubt?” she asked.

“Medicine is more than a science; it is an art. It is the most human in the sciences and the most scientific in the humanities. Let us not lose sight of the human element that allows us to see the patient as a person, not just a disease to be treated,” Hincapié Sánchez urges.

Kusminsky describes a common therapeutic obstinacy — doctors’ reluctance to stop “doing something,” to avoid “throwing in the towel,” or to uphold “hope is the last thing to be lost.”

“But physicians are growing more aware of these situations, and change is slowly coming,” he said. However, he added: “Of course, there is the issue of the perceived omnipotence of doctors — their words descending with authority to ‘prescribe’ treatment, issue ‘medical orders,’ or dictate ‘pharmacological’ therapy.

For the specialist, such terminology reflects a view of the doctor-patient relationship not as a mutual, two-way exchange, but as a vertical, paternalistic dynamic.

He suggested looking at ancient Greece for perspective. “Hippocrates, or rather the Hippocratic school, taught that the doctor-patient encounter is inherently one of compassion. We must approach this in that way. Reflecting on that bond, improving communication, humanizing relationships, and, above all, being available to listen are key,” Kusminsky said.

Another intersection that has long fascinated Kusminsky is between literature and medicine. This interest led him to explore the field of narrative medicine, serve on the board of directors of the Argentine Society of Narrative Medicine (SAMEN), and join the roster of speakers at the upcoming second SAMEN Conference in Buenos Aires on July 10 and 11, 2025.

“Narrative medicine uses storytelling tools to absorb, process, acknowledge, and empathize with patients’ illness narratives, aiming to restore humanism to practice,” he explained.

According to Kusminsky, the circumstances under which Mrs G.O. expressed her wish not to begin treatment immediately reminded him of a text by Melville’s famous “I would prefer not to” from Bartleby, the Scrivener.

This reflection inspired him to publish an article cited at its beginning. At the same time, it reinforced his belief that what patients say can itself be a form of narrative that extends beyond the confines of clinical history.

Mrs G.O. chose not to pursue treatment for multiple myeloma. However, she returned to Kusminsky’s office approximately 2 months ago. She felt well, and her disease slowly progressed; however, she still had no clinical signs or symptoms.

Kusminsky and Hincapié Sánchez have declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

This story was translated from Medscape’s Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Mrs G.O. is an 80-year-old retired teacher who was widowed a decade ago. With no close relatives, she lives alone, accompanied by only two cats and a dog that she has rescued. “I am alone,” she told Gustavo Kusminsky, MD, consultant in Hematology and Hematopoietic Transplant Service at Austral University Hospital and lecturer in medicine at the Hospital Universitario Austral, Buenos Aires, Argentina. She said this calmly while refusing treatment for life-threatening multiple myeloma. “Doctor, I would rather not,” she added — her words lingering in the quiet consulting room. That moment is now the focus of a recent article in the journal Medicina.

In the article, Kusminsky described how he made an effort to clarify to the patient that she needed cancer treatment. He explained that the treatment was mostly oral, required no initial hospitalization, and that consultations could be spaced out. However, Mrs G.O. maintained her position.

“The patient had no signs of depression, and her argument was logical. Mrs G.O. was already receiving several medications for high blood pressure, was on anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation, and managed dyslipidemia with fenofibrate. But she preferred not to receive treatment for her multiple myeloma.” Kusminsky noted.

“Doctor, I have lived my life. I am old. I am already taking too many medications. I do not have a family, and it would be very difficult to deal with the side effects and be dependent on the hospital. As long as I can take care of myself, I do not want any more treatment, at least not for now. We will talk in a few months if I am still here,” she told him before leaving.

The article mentioned that responses such as Mrs G.O. spark perplexity in modern medicine to the extent that clinicians initiate protocols to rule out depression or other psychological factors when a patient rejects treatments that could prolong their life. On the contrary, no such checks are made when patients agree to treatment, because acceptance is deemed “normal.”

Because of collective assumptions and the war metaphors often used in oncology, Mrs G.O. risked being labeled a “deserter from the battalion” of patients with cancer. 

In truth, her decision invites reflection on the doctor-patient relationship, respect for autonomy, and the benefits of modern cancer care offered today, Kusminsky said.

This provides an opportunity to consider the patient’s perspective rather than a purely medical perspective.

Jennifer Hincapié Sánchez, PhD, professor in the Faculty of Medicine at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). She is the director of the UNAM University Bioethics Program and coordinates its Institutional Ethics and Bioethics Program for the Faculty of Medicine in Mexico. Although not involved in the article, she regards it as vital. “It’s crucial to remind medical staff that their role is to promote patients’ well-being and that this is related to the life plan that patients have set for themselves, even though this vision is sometimes not aligned with biomedical progress,” she said.

 

Patient Autonomy

Science-guided medicine aims to prolong life, improve quality, and relieve suffering. However, acceptance or refusal of treatment remains a personal choice for anyone with cancer.

Some evidence showed that patients who decline treatment do not always experience rapid decline. Many can live acceptable, even fulfilling, lives on their own for varying periods, even though they know that there is a possibility of shorter survival. Valuing fewer side effects and better quality of life. This suggested that quality of life is subjective and cannot be measured solely by biomedical standards but also by the meaning each person finds in their existence, even in the face of serious illness.

“There is a myth that quality of life is only valid when defined by objective success. Our task is to explain that it is subjective, and life can be meaningful despite limitations.” Kusminsky said.

Mrs G.O. knew her prognosis and treatment options but chose not to pursue treatment, which, while medically advisable, did not align with her values or vision of life.

Hincapié Sánchez stated that the priority is always to honor the patient’s choice. Clinicians must ensure that the patient has all necessary information that is always appropriate to their sociocultural context before making the decision.

“If the decision persists despite being informed and aware of the effects of the patient’s choice, all we can do is provide support, manage the pain, and seek the patient’s comfort,” she emphasized.

 

Medical Omnipotence 

Physicians should not view the refusal of treatment as an abandonment of the fundamental principles of the profession. Rather, it means respecting patient priorities and recognizing medicine as a dialogue between science and humanity, not as an exercise of control.

However, many clinicians struggle with such decisions because they conflict with their impulse to act and a sense of medical omnipotence. Hincapié Sánchez attributed these difficulties to medical training.

“We are taught to preserve life at all costs. If treatment even slightly prolongs life, many doctors continue to recommend it. The question becomes: Is it valid to extend life when its quality is in doubt?” she asked.

“Medicine is more than a science; it is an art. It is the most human in the sciences and the most scientific in the humanities. Let us not lose sight of the human element that allows us to see the patient as a person, not just a disease to be treated,” Hincapié Sánchez urges.

Kusminsky describes a common therapeutic obstinacy — doctors’ reluctance to stop “doing something,” to avoid “throwing in the towel,” or to uphold “hope is the last thing to be lost.”

“But physicians are growing more aware of these situations, and change is slowly coming,” he said. However, he added: “Of course, there is the issue of the perceived omnipotence of doctors — their words descending with authority to ‘prescribe’ treatment, issue ‘medical orders,’ or dictate ‘pharmacological’ therapy.

For the specialist, such terminology reflects a view of the doctor-patient relationship not as a mutual, two-way exchange, but as a vertical, paternalistic dynamic.

He suggested looking at ancient Greece for perspective. “Hippocrates, or rather the Hippocratic school, taught that the doctor-patient encounter is inherently one of compassion. We must approach this in that way. Reflecting on that bond, improving communication, humanizing relationships, and, above all, being available to listen are key,” Kusminsky said.

Another intersection that has long fascinated Kusminsky is between literature and medicine. This interest led him to explore the field of narrative medicine, serve on the board of directors of the Argentine Society of Narrative Medicine (SAMEN), and join the roster of speakers at the upcoming second SAMEN Conference in Buenos Aires on July 10 and 11, 2025.

“Narrative medicine uses storytelling tools to absorb, process, acknowledge, and empathize with patients’ illness narratives, aiming to restore humanism to practice,” he explained.

According to Kusminsky, the circumstances under which Mrs G.O. expressed her wish not to begin treatment immediately reminded him of a text by Melville’s famous “I would prefer not to” from Bartleby, the Scrivener.

This reflection inspired him to publish an article cited at its beginning. At the same time, it reinforced his belief that what patients say can itself be a form of narrative that extends beyond the confines of clinical history.

Mrs G.O. chose not to pursue treatment for multiple myeloma. However, she returned to Kusminsky’s office approximately 2 months ago. She felt well, and her disease slowly progressed; however, she still had no clinical signs or symptoms.

Kusminsky and Hincapié Sánchez have declared no relevant financial conflicts of interest.

This story was translated from Medscape’s Portuguese edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Can exercise “therapy” and diet improve survival in patients with colon cancer? It appears so, according to two pivotal studies presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

In the CHALLENGE trial, a structured exercise program after surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy cut the risk for colon cancer recurrence in patients with stage III and high-risk stage II disease by more than one quarter and the risk for death by more than one third.

“The magnitude of benefit with exercise is substantial. In fact, it is comparable, and in some cases exceeds the magnitude of benefit of many of our very good standard medical therapies in oncology,” study presenter Christopher Booth, MD, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, told attendees.

Results of the study were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation at the meeting.

The findings are “nothing short of a major milestone,” said study discussant Peter Campbell, PhD, with Montefiore Einstein Comprehensive Cancer Center, Bronx, New York.

The other study showed that eating a less inflammatory diet may reduce the risk for death in patients with colon cancer, with the greatest benefits seen in those who embraced anti-inflammatory foods and exercised regularly.

“Putting these two abstracts into perspective, we as physicians need to be essentially prescribing healthy diet and exercise. The combination of the two are synergistic,” Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, told attendees.

Despite the benefits of these lifestyle changes, exercise and diet are meant to supplement, not replace, established colon cancer treatments.

It would be a false binary to frame this as lifestyle vs cancer treatment, explained Mark Lewis, MD, director of Gastrointestinal Oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, Utah. With exercise, for instance, “the key is giving enough chemo to protect against recurrence and eliminate micrometastases but not so much that we cause neuropathy and reduce function and ability to follow the CHALLENGE structured program,” Lewis said.

Exercise and Survival

Colon cancer remains the second-leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Even with surgery and chemotherapy, roughly 30% of patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer will experience disease recurrence.

“As oncologists, one of the most common questions we get asked by patients is — what else can I do to improve my outcome?” Booth said.

Observational studies published nearly two decades ago hinted that physically active cancer survivors fare better, but no randomized trial has definitively tested whether exercise could alter disease course. That knowledge gap prompted the Canadian Cancer Trials Group to launch the CHALLENGE trial.

Between 2009 and 2023, the phase 3 study enrolled 889 adults (median age, 61 years; 51% women) who had completed surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III (90%) or high-risk stage II (10%) colon cancer. Most patients were from Canada and Australia and were enrolled 2-6 months after completing chemotherapy.

Half of study participants were randomly allocated to a structured exercise program (n = 445) and half to receive standard health education materials promoting physical activity and healthy eating (control individuals, n = 444).

As part of the structured exercise intervention, patients met with a physical activity consultant twice a month for the first 6 months. These sessions included exercise coaching and supervised exercise. Patients could choose their preferred aerobic exercise and most picked brisk walking.

The consultants gave each patient an “exercise prescription” to hit a specific amount of exercise. The target was an additional 10 metabolic equivalent (MET)–hours of aerobic activity per week — about three to four brisk walks each lasting 45-60 minutes. After 6 months, patients met with their consultants once a month, with additional sessions available for extra support if needed.

Structured exercise led to “substantial and sustained” increases in the amount of exercise participants did, as well as physiologic measures of their fitness, with “highly relevant” improvements in VO₂ max, 6-minute walk test, and patient-reported physical function, underscoring that participants were not only exercising more but also getting fitter, Booth said.

Exercise was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant 28% reduction in the risk for recurrent or new cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; P = .017), with a 5-year disease free survival rate of 80% in the exercise group and 74% in the control group.

In other words, “for every 16 patients that went on the exercise program, exercise prevented 1 person from recurrent or new cancer” at 5 years, Booth reported.

Overall survival results were “even more impressive,” he said.

At 8 years, 90% of patients in the exercise program were alive vs 83% of those in the control group, which translated to a 37% lower risk for death (HR, 0.63; P = .022).

“For every 14 patients who went on the exercise program, exercise prevented 1 person from dying” at the 8-year mark, Booth noted.

“Notably, this difference in survival was not driven by difference in cardiovascular deaths but by a reduction in the risk of death from colon cancer,” he said.

Besides a slight uptick in musculoskeletal aches, no major safety signals emerged in the exercise group.

It’s important to note that the survival benefit associated with exercise came after patients had received surgery followed by chemotherapy — in other words, exercise did not replace established cancer treatments. It’s also unclear whether initiating an exercise intervention earlier in the treatment trajectory — before surgery or during chemotherapy, instead of after chemotherapy — could further improve cancer outcomes, the authors noted.

Still, “exercise as an intervention is a no brainer and should be implemented broadly,” said ASCO expert Pamela Kunz, MD, with Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Marco Gerlinger, MD, with Barts Cancer Institute, London, England, agreed.

“Oncologists can now make a very clear evidence-based recommendation for patients who just completed their chemotherapy for bowel cancer and are fit enough for such an exercise program,” Gerlinger said in a statement from the nonprofit UK Science Media Centre.

Booth noted that knowledge alone will not be sufficient to allow most patients to change their lifestyle and realize the health benefits.

“The policy implementation piece of this is really key, and we need health systems, hospitals, and payers to invest in these behavior support programs so that patients have access to a physical activity consultant and can realize the health benefits,” he said.

“This intervention is empowering and achievable for patients and with much, much lower cost than many of our therapies. It is also sustainable for health systems,” he concluded.

Diet and Survival

Diet can also affect outcomes in patients with colon cancer.

In the same session describing the CHALLENGE results, Sara Char, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reported findings showing that consuming a diet high in proinflammatory foods was associated with worse overall survival in patients with stage III colon cancer. A proinflammatory diet includes red and processed meats, sugary drinks, and refined grains, while an anti-inflammatory diet focuses on fruits, vegetables, whole grains, fish, and olive oil.

Chronic systemic inflammation has been implicated in both colon cancer development and in its progression, and elevated levels of inflammatory markers in the blood have previously been associated with worse survival outcomes in patients with stage III colon cancer.

Char and colleagues analyzed dietary patterns of a subset of 1625 patients (mean age, 61 years) with resected stage III colon cancer enrolled in the phase 3 CALGB/SWOG 80702 (Alliance) clinical trial, which compared 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy with 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without the anti-inflammatory medication celecoxib.

As part of the trial, participants reported their diet and exercise habits at various timepoints. Their diets were scored using the validated empirical dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP) tool, which is a weighted sum of 18 food groups — nine proinflammatory and nine anti-inflammatory. A high EDIP score marks a proinflammatory diet, and a low EDIP score indicates a less inflammatory diet.

During median follow-up of nearly 4 years, researchers noted a trend toward worse disease-free survival in patients with high proinflammatory diets (HR, 1.46), but this association was not significant in the multivariable adjusted model (HR, 1.36; P = .22), Char reported.

However, higher intake of proinflammatory foods was associated with significantly worse overall survival.

Patients who consumed the most proinflammatory foods (top 20%) had an 87% higher risk for death compared with those who consumed the least (bottom 20%; HR, 1.87). The median overall survival in the highest quintile was 7.7 years and was not reached in the lowest quintile.

Combine Exercise and Diet for Best Results

To examine the joint effect of physical activity and diet on overall survival, patients were divided into higher and lower levels of physical activity using a cut-off of 9 MET hours per week, which roughly correlates to 30 minutes of vigorous walking five days a week with a little bit of light yoga, Char explained.

In this analysis, patients with less proinflammatory diets and higher physical activity levels had the best overall survival outcomes, with a 63% lower risk for death compared with peers who consumed more pro-inflammatory diets and exercised less (HR, 0.37; P < .0001).

Daily celecoxib use and low-dose aspirin use (< 100 mg/d) did not affect the association between inflammatory diet and survival.

Char cautioned, that while the EDIP tool is useful to measure the inflammatory potential of a diet, “this is not a dietary recommendation, and we need further studies to be able to tailor our findings into dietary recommendations that can be provided to patients at the bedside.”

Gralow said this “early but promising observational study suggests a powerful synergy: Patients with stage III colon cancer who embraced anti-inflammatory foods and exercised regularly showed the best overall survival compared to those with inflammatory diets and limited exercise.”

The CHALLENGE trial was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society, the National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, and the University of Sydney Cancer Research Fund. Booth had no disclosures. The diet study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Pfizer, and the Project P Fund. Char disclosed an advisory/consultant role with Goodpath. Kunz, Gralow and Campbell had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Can exercise “therapy” and diet improve survival in patients with colon cancer? It appears so, according to two pivotal studies presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

In the CHALLENGE trial, a structured exercise program after surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy cut the risk for colon cancer recurrence in patients with stage III and high-risk stage II disease by more than one quarter and the risk for death by more than one third.

“The magnitude of benefit with exercise is substantial. In fact, it is comparable, and in some cases exceeds the magnitude of benefit of many of our very good standard medical therapies in oncology,” study presenter Christopher Booth, MD, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, told attendees.

Results of the study were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation at the meeting.

The findings are “nothing short of a major milestone,” said study discussant Peter Campbell, PhD, with Montefiore Einstein Comprehensive Cancer Center, Bronx, New York.

The other study showed that eating a less inflammatory diet may reduce the risk for death in patients with colon cancer, with the greatest benefits seen in those who embraced anti-inflammatory foods and exercised regularly.

“Putting these two abstracts into perspective, we as physicians need to be essentially prescribing healthy diet and exercise. The combination of the two are synergistic,” Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, told attendees.

Despite the benefits of these lifestyle changes, exercise and diet are meant to supplement, not replace, established colon cancer treatments.

It would be a false binary to frame this as lifestyle vs cancer treatment, explained Mark Lewis, MD, director of Gastrointestinal Oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, Utah. With exercise, for instance, “the key is giving enough chemo to protect against recurrence and eliminate micrometastases but not so much that we cause neuropathy and reduce function and ability to follow the CHALLENGE structured program,” Lewis said.

Exercise and Survival

Colon cancer remains the second-leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Even with surgery and chemotherapy, roughly 30% of patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer will experience disease recurrence.

“As oncologists, one of the most common questions we get asked by patients is — what else can I do to improve my outcome?” Booth said.

Observational studies published nearly two decades ago hinted that physically active cancer survivors fare better, but no randomized trial has definitively tested whether exercise could alter disease course. That knowledge gap prompted the Canadian Cancer Trials Group to launch the CHALLENGE trial.

Between 2009 and 2023, the phase 3 study enrolled 889 adults (median age, 61 years; 51% women) who had completed surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III (90%) or high-risk stage II (10%) colon cancer. Most patients were from Canada and Australia and were enrolled 2-6 months after completing chemotherapy.

Half of study participants were randomly allocated to a structured exercise program (n = 445) and half to receive standard health education materials promoting physical activity and healthy eating (control individuals, n = 444).

As part of the structured exercise intervention, patients met with a physical activity consultant twice a month for the first 6 months. These sessions included exercise coaching and supervised exercise. Patients could choose their preferred aerobic exercise and most picked brisk walking.

The consultants gave each patient an “exercise prescription” to hit a specific amount of exercise. The target was an additional 10 metabolic equivalent (MET)–hours of aerobic activity per week — about three to four brisk walks each lasting 45-60 minutes. After 6 months, patients met with their consultants once a month, with additional sessions available for extra support if needed.

Structured exercise led to “substantial and sustained” increases in the amount of exercise participants did, as well as physiologic measures of their fitness, with “highly relevant” improvements in VO₂ max, 6-minute walk test, and patient-reported physical function, underscoring that participants were not only exercising more but also getting fitter, Booth said.

Exercise was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant 28% reduction in the risk for recurrent or new cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; P = .017), with a 5-year disease free survival rate of 80% in the exercise group and 74% in the control group.

In other words, “for every 16 patients that went on the exercise program, exercise prevented 1 person from recurrent or new cancer” at 5 years, Booth reported.

Overall survival results were “even more impressive,” he said.

At 8 years, 90% of patients in the exercise program were alive vs 83% of those in the control group, which translated to a 37% lower risk for death (HR, 0.63; P = .022).

“For every 14 patients who went on the exercise program, exercise prevented 1 person from dying” at the 8-year mark, Booth noted.

“Notably, this difference in survival was not driven by difference in cardiovascular deaths but by a reduction in the risk of death from colon cancer,” he said.

Besides a slight uptick in musculoskeletal aches, no major safety signals emerged in the exercise group.

It’s important to note that the survival benefit associated with exercise came after patients had received surgery followed by chemotherapy — in other words, exercise did not replace established cancer treatments. It’s also unclear whether initiating an exercise intervention earlier in the treatment trajectory — before surgery or during chemotherapy, instead of after chemotherapy — could further improve cancer outcomes, the authors noted.

Still, “exercise as an intervention is a no brainer and should be implemented broadly,” said ASCO expert Pamela Kunz, MD, with Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Marco Gerlinger, MD, with Barts Cancer Institute, London, England, agreed.

“Oncologists can now make a very clear evidence-based recommendation for patients who just completed their chemotherapy for bowel cancer and are fit enough for such an exercise program,” Gerlinger said in a statement from the nonprofit UK Science Media Centre.

Booth noted that knowledge alone will not be sufficient to allow most patients to change their lifestyle and realize the health benefits.

“The policy implementation piece of this is really key, and we need health systems, hospitals, and payers to invest in these behavior support programs so that patients have access to a physical activity consultant and can realize the health benefits,” he said.

“This intervention is empowering and achievable for patients and with much, much lower cost than many of our therapies. It is also sustainable for health systems,” he concluded.

Diet and Survival

Diet can also affect outcomes in patients with colon cancer.

In the same session describing the CHALLENGE results, Sara Char, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reported findings showing that consuming a diet high in proinflammatory foods was associated with worse overall survival in patients with stage III colon cancer. A proinflammatory diet includes red and processed meats, sugary drinks, and refined grains, while an anti-inflammatory diet focuses on fruits, vegetables, whole grains, fish, and olive oil.

Chronic systemic inflammation has been implicated in both colon cancer development and in its progression, and elevated levels of inflammatory markers in the blood have previously been associated with worse survival outcomes in patients with stage III colon cancer.

Char and colleagues analyzed dietary patterns of a subset of 1625 patients (mean age, 61 years) with resected stage III colon cancer enrolled in the phase 3 CALGB/SWOG 80702 (Alliance) clinical trial, which compared 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy with 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without the anti-inflammatory medication celecoxib.

As part of the trial, participants reported their diet and exercise habits at various timepoints. Their diets were scored using the validated empirical dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP) tool, which is a weighted sum of 18 food groups — nine proinflammatory and nine anti-inflammatory. A high EDIP score marks a proinflammatory diet, and a low EDIP score indicates a less inflammatory diet.

During median follow-up of nearly 4 years, researchers noted a trend toward worse disease-free survival in patients with high proinflammatory diets (HR, 1.46), but this association was not significant in the multivariable adjusted model (HR, 1.36; P = .22), Char reported.

However, higher intake of proinflammatory foods was associated with significantly worse overall survival.

Patients who consumed the most proinflammatory foods (top 20%) had an 87% higher risk for death compared with those who consumed the least (bottom 20%; HR, 1.87). The median overall survival in the highest quintile was 7.7 years and was not reached in the lowest quintile.

Combine Exercise and Diet for Best Results

To examine the joint effect of physical activity and diet on overall survival, patients were divided into higher and lower levels of physical activity using a cut-off of 9 MET hours per week, which roughly correlates to 30 minutes of vigorous walking five days a week with a little bit of light yoga, Char explained.

In this analysis, patients with less proinflammatory diets and higher physical activity levels had the best overall survival outcomes, with a 63% lower risk for death compared with peers who consumed more pro-inflammatory diets and exercised less (HR, 0.37; P < .0001).

Daily celecoxib use and low-dose aspirin use (< 100 mg/d) did not affect the association between inflammatory diet and survival.

Char cautioned, that while the EDIP tool is useful to measure the inflammatory potential of a diet, “this is not a dietary recommendation, and we need further studies to be able to tailor our findings into dietary recommendations that can be provided to patients at the bedside.”

Gralow said this “early but promising observational study suggests a powerful synergy: Patients with stage III colon cancer who embraced anti-inflammatory foods and exercised regularly showed the best overall survival compared to those with inflammatory diets and limited exercise.”

The CHALLENGE trial was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society, the National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, and the University of Sydney Cancer Research Fund. Booth had no disclosures. The diet study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Pfizer, and the Project P Fund. Char disclosed an advisory/consultant role with Goodpath. Kunz, Gralow and Campbell had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Can exercise “therapy” and diet improve survival in patients with colon cancer? It appears so, according to two pivotal studies presented at American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting.

In the CHALLENGE trial, a structured exercise program after surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy cut the risk for colon cancer recurrence in patients with stage III and high-risk stage II disease by more than one quarter and the risk for death by more than one third.

“The magnitude of benefit with exercise is substantial. In fact, it is comparable, and in some cases exceeds the magnitude of benefit of many of our very good standard medical therapies in oncology,” study presenter Christopher Booth, MD, with Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, told attendees.

Results of the study were published online in The New England Journal of Medicine to coincide with the presentation at the meeting.

The findings are “nothing short of a major milestone,” said study discussant Peter Campbell, PhD, with Montefiore Einstein Comprehensive Cancer Center, Bronx, New York.

The other study showed that eating a less inflammatory diet may reduce the risk for death in patients with colon cancer, with the greatest benefits seen in those who embraced anti-inflammatory foods and exercised regularly.

“Putting these two abstracts into perspective, we as physicians need to be essentially prescribing healthy diet and exercise. The combination of the two are synergistic,” Julie Gralow, MD, ASCO chief medical officer and executive vice president, told attendees.

Despite the benefits of these lifestyle changes, exercise and diet are meant to supplement, not replace, established colon cancer treatments.

It would be a false binary to frame this as lifestyle vs cancer treatment, explained Mark Lewis, MD, director of Gastrointestinal Oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City, Utah. With exercise, for instance, “the key is giving enough chemo to protect against recurrence and eliminate micrometastases but not so much that we cause neuropathy and reduce function and ability to follow the CHALLENGE structured program,” Lewis said.

Exercise and Survival

Colon cancer remains the second-leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Even with surgery and chemotherapy, roughly 30% of patients with stage III and high-risk stage II colon cancer will experience disease recurrence.

“As oncologists, one of the most common questions we get asked by patients is — what else can I do to improve my outcome?” Booth said.

Observational studies published nearly two decades ago hinted that physically active cancer survivors fare better, but no randomized trial has definitively tested whether exercise could alter disease course. That knowledge gap prompted the Canadian Cancer Trials Group to launch the CHALLENGE trial.

Between 2009 and 2023, the phase 3 study enrolled 889 adults (median age, 61 years; 51% women) who had completed surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III (90%) or high-risk stage II (10%) colon cancer. Most patients were from Canada and Australia and were enrolled 2-6 months after completing chemotherapy.

Half of study participants were randomly allocated to a structured exercise program (n = 445) and half to receive standard health education materials promoting physical activity and healthy eating (control individuals, n = 444).

As part of the structured exercise intervention, patients met with a physical activity consultant twice a month for the first 6 months. These sessions included exercise coaching and supervised exercise. Patients could choose their preferred aerobic exercise and most picked brisk walking.

The consultants gave each patient an “exercise prescription” to hit a specific amount of exercise. The target was an additional 10 metabolic equivalent (MET)–hours of aerobic activity per week — about three to four brisk walks each lasting 45-60 minutes. After 6 months, patients met with their consultants once a month, with additional sessions available for extra support if needed.

Structured exercise led to “substantial and sustained” increases in the amount of exercise participants did, as well as physiologic measures of their fitness, with “highly relevant” improvements in VO₂ max, 6-minute walk test, and patient-reported physical function, underscoring that participants were not only exercising more but also getting fitter, Booth said.

Exercise was associated with a clinically meaningful and statistically significant 28% reduction in the risk for recurrent or new cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; P = .017), with a 5-year disease free survival rate of 80% in the exercise group and 74% in the control group.

In other words, “for every 16 patients that went on the exercise program, exercise prevented 1 person from recurrent or new cancer” at 5 years, Booth reported.

Overall survival results were “even more impressive,” he said.

At 8 years, 90% of patients in the exercise program were alive vs 83% of those in the control group, which translated to a 37% lower risk for death (HR, 0.63; P = .022).

“For every 14 patients who went on the exercise program, exercise prevented 1 person from dying” at the 8-year mark, Booth noted.

“Notably, this difference in survival was not driven by difference in cardiovascular deaths but by a reduction in the risk of death from colon cancer,” he said.

Besides a slight uptick in musculoskeletal aches, no major safety signals emerged in the exercise group.

It’s important to note that the survival benefit associated with exercise came after patients had received surgery followed by chemotherapy — in other words, exercise did not replace established cancer treatments. It’s also unclear whether initiating an exercise intervention earlier in the treatment trajectory — before surgery or during chemotherapy, instead of after chemotherapy — could further improve cancer outcomes, the authors noted.

Still, “exercise as an intervention is a no brainer and should be implemented broadly,” said ASCO expert Pamela Kunz, MD, with Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Marco Gerlinger, MD, with Barts Cancer Institute, London, England, agreed.

“Oncologists can now make a very clear evidence-based recommendation for patients who just completed their chemotherapy for bowel cancer and are fit enough for such an exercise program,” Gerlinger said in a statement from the nonprofit UK Science Media Centre.

Booth noted that knowledge alone will not be sufficient to allow most patients to change their lifestyle and realize the health benefits.

“The policy implementation piece of this is really key, and we need health systems, hospitals, and payers to invest in these behavior support programs so that patients have access to a physical activity consultant and can realize the health benefits,” he said.

“This intervention is empowering and achievable for patients and with much, much lower cost than many of our therapies. It is also sustainable for health systems,” he concluded.

Diet and Survival

Diet can also affect outcomes in patients with colon cancer.

In the same session describing the CHALLENGE results, Sara Char, MD, with Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, reported findings showing that consuming a diet high in proinflammatory foods was associated with worse overall survival in patients with stage III colon cancer. A proinflammatory diet includes red and processed meats, sugary drinks, and refined grains, while an anti-inflammatory diet focuses on fruits, vegetables, whole grains, fish, and olive oil.

Chronic systemic inflammation has been implicated in both colon cancer development and in its progression, and elevated levels of inflammatory markers in the blood have previously been associated with worse survival outcomes in patients with stage III colon cancer.

Char and colleagues analyzed dietary patterns of a subset of 1625 patients (mean age, 61 years) with resected stage III colon cancer enrolled in the phase 3 CALGB/SWOG 80702 (Alliance) clinical trial, which compared 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy with 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without the anti-inflammatory medication celecoxib.

As part of the trial, participants reported their diet and exercise habits at various timepoints. Their diets were scored using the validated empirical dietary inflammatory pattern (EDIP) tool, which is a weighted sum of 18 food groups — nine proinflammatory and nine anti-inflammatory. A high EDIP score marks a proinflammatory diet, and a low EDIP score indicates a less inflammatory diet.

During median follow-up of nearly 4 years, researchers noted a trend toward worse disease-free survival in patients with high proinflammatory diets (HR, 1.46), but this association was not significant in the multivariable adjusted model (HR, 1.36; P = .22), Char reported.

However, higher intake of proinflammatory foods was associated with significantly worse overall survival.

Patients who consumed the most proinflammatory foods (top 20%) had an 87% higher risk for death compared with those who consumed the least (bottom 20%; HR, 1.87). The median overall survival in the highest quintile was 7.7 years and was not reached in the lowest quintile.

Combine Exercise and Diet for Best Results

To examine the joint effect of physical activity and diet on overall survival, patients were divided into higher and lower levels of physical activity using a cut-off of 9 MET hours per week, which roughly correlates to 30 minutes of vigorous walking five days a week with a little bit of light yoga, Char explained.

In this analysis, patients with less proinflammatory diets and higher physical activity levels had the best overall survival outcomes, with a 63% lower risk for death compared with peers who consumed more pro-inflammatory diets and exercised less (HR, 0.37; P < .0001).

Daily celecoxib use and low-dose aspirin use (< 100 mg/d) did not affect the association between inflammatory diet and survival.

Char cautioned, that while the EDIP tool is useful to measure the inflammatory potential of a diet, “this is not a dietary recommendation, and we need further studies to be able to tailor our findings into dietary recommendations that can be provided to patients at the bedside.”

Gralow said this “early but promising observational study suggests a powerful synergy: Patients with stage III colon cancer who embraced anti-inflammatory foods and exercised regularly showed the best overall survival compared to those with inflammatory diets and limited exercise.”

The CHALLENGE trial was funded by the Canadian Cancer Society, the National Health and Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, and the University of Sydney Cancer Research Fund. Booth had no disclosures. The diet study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, Pfizer, and the Project P Fund. Char disclosed an advisory/consultant role with Goodpath. Kunz, Gralow and Campbell had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

William Kissick’s description of health care’s iron triangle in 1994 still resonates. Access, quality, and cost will always come at the expense of the others.¹ In 2018, Congress passed the VA MISSION Act, allowing patients to pursue community care options for extended waits (> 28 days) or longer distance drive times of > 60 minutes for specialty care services, such as radiation oncology. According to Albanese et al, the VA MISSION Act sought to address gaps in care for veterans living in rural and underserved areas.² The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) continues to increase community care spending, with a 13.8% increase in fiscal year 2024 and an expected cost of > $40 billion for 2025.³ One could argue this pays for access for remote patients and quality when services are unavailable, making it a direct application of the iron triangle.

The VA MISSION Act also bolstered the expansion of existing community care department staff to expediently facilitate and coordinate care and payments.² Cost management and monitoring have become critical in predicting future staff requirements, maintaining functionality, and ensuring patients receive optimal care. The VHA purchases care through partner networks and defines these bundled health care services as standard episodes of care (SEOCs), which are “clinically related health care services for a specific unique illness or medical condition… over a defined period of time.”⁴ Medicare publishes its rates quarterly, and outpatient procedure pricing is readily available online.⁵ Along these same lines, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) publishes a current list of available procedures and associated Current Procedure Technology (CPT) codes that are covered under its VA fee schedule for community care.

Unique challenges persist when using this system to accurately account for radiation oncology expenditures. This study was based on the current practices at the Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (RLRVAMC), a large 1a hospital. A detailed analysis reveals the contemporaneous cost of radiation oncology cancer care from October 1, 2021, through February 1, 2024, highlights the challenges in SEOC definition and duration, communication issues between RLRVAMC and purchase partners, inconsistencies in billing, erroneous payments, and difficulty of cost categorization.

METHODS

Community care radiation oncology-related costs were examined from October 1, 2021, to February 1, 2024 for RLRVAMC, 6 months prior to billing data extraction. Figure 1 shows a simple radiation oncology patient pathway with consultation or visit, simulation and planning, and treatment, with codes used to check billing. It illustrates the expected relationships between the VHA (radiation oncology, primary, and specialty care) and community care (clinicians and radiation oncology treatment sites).

VHA standard operating procedures for a patient requesting community-based radiation oncology care require a board-certified radiation oncologist at RLRVAMC to review and approve the outside care request. Community care radiation oncology consultation data were accessed from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) using Pyramid Analytics (V25.2). Nurses, physicians, and community care staff can add comments, forward consultations to other services, and mark them as complete or discontinued, when appropriate. Consultations not completed within 91 days are automatically discontinued. All community care requests from 2018 through 2024 were extracted; analysis began April 1, 2021, 6 months prior to the cost evaluation date of October 1, 2021.

An approved consultation is reviewed for eligibility by a nurse in the community care department and assigned an authorization number (a VA prefix followed by 12 digits). Billing codes are approved and organized by the community care networks, and all procedure codes should be captured and labeled under this number. The VAMC Community Care department obtains initial correspondence from the treating clinicians. Subsequent records from the treating radiation oncologist are expected to be scanned into the electronic health record and made accessible via the VA Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) and Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS).

Radiation Oncology SEOC

The start date of the radiation oncology SEOC is determined by the community care nurse based on guidance established by the VA. It can be manually backdated or delayed, but current practice is to start at first visit or procedure code entry after approval from the VAMC Radiation Oncology department. Approved CPT codes from SEOC versions between October 1, 2021, and February 1, 2024, are in eAppendix 1 (available at doi:10.12788/fp.0585). These generally include 10 types of encounters, about 115 different laboratory tests, 115 imaging studies, 25 simulation and planning procedures, and 115 radiation treatment codes. The radiation oncology SEOCs during the study period had an approval duration of 180 days. Advanced Medical Cost Management Solutions software (AMCMS) is the VHA data analytics platform for community care medical service costs. AMCMS includes all individual CPT codes billed by specific radiation oncology SEOC versions. Data are refreshed monthly, and all charges were extracted on September 12, 2024, > 6 months after the final evaluated service date to allow for complete billing returns.⁶

Radiation Oncology-Specific Costs

The VA Close to Me (CTM) program was used to find 84 specific radiation oncology CPT codes, nearly all within the 77.XXX or G6.XXX series, which included all radiation oncology-specific (ROS) codes (except visits accrued during consultation and return appointments). ROS costs are those that could not be performed by any other service and include procedures related to radiation oncology simulation, treatment planning, treatment delivery (with or without image guidance), and physician or physicist management. All ROS costs should be included in a patient’s radiation oncology SEOC. Other costs that may accompany operating room or brachytherapy administration did not follow a 77.XXX or G6.XXX pattern but were included in total radiation therapy operating costs.

Data obtained from AMCMS and CTM included patient name and identifier; CPT billed amount; CPT paid amount; dates of service; number of claims; International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD) diagnosis; and VA authorization numbers. Only CTM listed code modifiers. Only items categorized as paid were included in the analysis. Charges associated with discontinued consultations that had accrued costs also were included. Codes that were not directly related to ROS were separately characterized as other and further subcategorized.

Deep Dive Categorization

All scanned documents tagged to the community consultation were accessed and evaluated for completeness by a radiation oncologist (RS). The presence or absence of consultation notes and treatment summaries was evaluated based on necessity (ie, not needed for continuation of care or treatment was not given). In the absence of a specific completion summary or follow-up note detailing the treatment modality, number of fractions, and treatment sites, available documentation, including clinical notes and billing information, was used. Radical or curative therapies were identified as courses expected to eradicate disease, including stereotactic ablative radiotherapy to the brain, lung, liver, and other organs. Palliative therapies included whole-brain radiotherapy or other low-dose treatments. If the patient received the intended course, this was categorized as full. If incomplete, it was considered partial.

Billing Deviations

The complete document review allowed for close evaluation of paid therapy and identification of gaps in billing (eg, charges not found in extracted data that should have occurred) for external beam radiotherapy patients. Conversely, extra charges, such as an additional weekly treatment management charge (CPT code 77427), would be noted. Patients were expected to have the number of treatments specified in the summary, a clinical treatment planning code, and weekly treatment management notes from physicians and physicists every 5 fractions. Consultations and follow-up visits were expected to have 1 visit code; CPT codes 99205 and 99215, respectively, were used to estimate costs in their absence.

Costs were based on Medicare rates as of January 1 of the year in which they were accrued. ^7-10 Duplicates were charges with the same code, date, billed quantity, and paid amounts for a given patient. These would always be considered erroneous. Medicare treatment costs for procedures such as intensity modulated radiotherapy (CPT code 77385 or 77386) are available on the Medicare website. When reviewing locality deviations for 77427, there was a maximum of 33% increase in Medicare rates. Therefore, for treatment codes, one would expect the range to be at least the Medicare rate and maximally 33% higher. These rates are negotiated with insurance companies, but this range was used for the purpose of reviewing and adjusting large data sets.

RESULTS

Since 2018, > 500 community care consults have been placed by radiation oncology for treatment in the community, with more following implementation of the VA MISSION Act. Use of radiation oncology community care services annually increased during the study period for this facility (Table 1, Figure 2). Of the 325 community care consults placed from October 1, 2021, to February 1, 2024, 248 radiation oncology SEOCs were recorded with charges for 181 patients (range, 1-5 SEOCs). Long drive time was the rationale for > 97% of patients directed to community care (Supplemental materials, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0585). Based on AMCMS data, $22.2 million was billed and $2.7 million was paid (20%) for 8747 CPT codes. Each community care interval cost the VA a median (range) of $5000 ($8-$168,000 (Figure 3).

After reviewing ROS charges extracted from CTM, 20 additional patients had radiation oncology charges but did not have a radiation oncology SEOC for 268 episodes of care for 201 unique patients. In addition to the 20 patients who did not have a SEOC, 42 nonradiation oncology SEOCs contained 1148 radiation oncology codes, corresponding to almost $500,000 paid. Additional charges of about $416,000, which included biologic agents (eg, durvalumab, nivolumab), procedures (eg, mastectomies), and ambulance rides were inappropriately added to radiation oncology SEOCs.

While 77% of consultations were scanned into CPRS and JLV, only 54% of completion summaries were available with an estimated $115,000 in additional costs. The total adjusted costs was about $2.9 million. Almost 37% of SEOCs were for visits only. For the 166 SEOCs where patients received any radiation treatment or planning, the median cost was $18,000. Differences in SEOC pathways are shown in Figure 4. One hundred twenty-one SEOCs (45%) followed the standard pathway, with median SEOC costs of $15,500; when corrected for radiation-specific costs, the median cost increased to $18,000. When adjusted for billing irregularities, the median cost was $20,600. Ninety-nine SEOCs (37%) were for consultation/ follow-up visits only, with a median cost of $220. When omitting shared scans and nonradiation therapy costs and correcting for billing gaps, the median cost decreased to $170. A median of $9200 was paid per patient, with $12,900 for radiation therapy-specific costs and $13,300 adjusted for billing deviations. Narrowing to the 106 patients who received full, radical courses, the median SEOC, ROS, and adjusted radiation therapy costs increased to $19,400, $22,200, and $22,900, respectively (Table 2, Figure 5). Seventy-one SEOCs (26%) had already seen a radiation oncologist before the VA radiation oncology department was aware, and 49 SEOCs (18%) had retroactive approvals (Supplemental materials available at doi:10.12788/fp.0585).

Every consultation charge was reviewed. A typical patient following the standard pathway (eAppendix 2, available at doi:10.12788/ fp.0585) exhibited a predictable pattern of consultation payment, simulation and planning, multiple radiation treatments interspersed with treatment management visits and a cone-down phase, and finishing with a follow-up visit. A less predictable case with excess CPT codes, gaps in charges, and an additional unexpected palliative course is shown in eAppendix 3 (available at doi:10.12788/fp.0585). Gaps occurred in 42% of SEOCs with missed bills costing as much as $12,000. For example, a patient with lung cancer had a treatment summary note for lung cancer after completion that showed the patient received 30 fractions of 2 Gy, a typical course. Only 10 treatment codes and 3 of 6 weekly treatment management codes were available. There was a gap of 20 volumetric modulated arc therapy treatments, 3 physics weekly status checks, 3 physician managements notes, and a computed tomography simulation charge.

Between AMCMS and CTM, 10,005 CPT codes were evaluated; 1255 (12.5%) were unique to AMCMS (either related to the radiation oncology course, such as Evaluation and Management CPT codes or “other” unrelated codes) while 1158 (11.6%) were unique to CTM. Of the 7592 CPT codes shared between AMCMS and CTM, there was a discrepancy in 135 (1.8%); all were duplicates (CTM showed double payment while AMCMS showed $0 paid). The total CPT code costs came to $3.2 million with $560,000 unique to SEOCs and $500,000 unique to CTM. Treatment codes were the most common (33%) as shown in Table 3 and accounted for 55% of the cost ($1.8 million). About 700 CPT codes were considered “other,” typically for biologic therapeutic agents (Table 4 and eAppendix 4, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0585).

DISCUSSION

The current method of reporting radiation oncology costs used by VA is insufficient and misleading. Better data are needed to summarize purchased care costs to guide decisions about community care at the VA. Investigations into whether the extra costs for quality care (ie, expensive capital equipment, specialized staff, mandatory accreditations) are worthwhile if omitted at other facilities patients choose for their health care needs. No study has defined specialty care-specific costs by evaluating billing receipts from the CDW to answer the question. Kenamond et al highlight the need for radiation oncology for rural patients.11 Drive time was cited as the reason for community care referral for 97% of veterans, many of whom lived in rural locations. Of patients with rurality information who enrolled in community care, 57% came from rural or highly rural counties, and this ratio held for those who received full curative therapies. An executive administrator relying on AMCMS reports would see a median SEOC cost of $5000, but without ROS knowledge in coding, the administrator would miss many additional costs. For example, 2 patients who each had 5 SEOCs during the evaluated period, incurred a total cost of only $1800.

Additionally, an administrator could include miscategorized costs with significant ramifications. The 2 most expensive SEOCs were not typical radiation oncology treatments. A patient undergoing radium-223 dichloride therapy incurred charges exceeding $165,000, contributing disproportionately to the overall median cost analysis; this would normally be administered by the nuclear medicine department. Immunotherapy and chemotherapy are uniformly overseen by medical oncology services, but drug administration codes were still found in radiation oncology SEOCs. A patient (whose SEOC was discontinued but accrued charges) had an electrocardiogram interpretation for $8 as the SEOC cost; 3 other SEOCs continued to incur costs after being discontinued. There were 24 empty SEOCs for patients that had consults to the community, and 2 had notes stating treatment had been delivered yet there was no ROS costs or SEOC costs. Of the 268 encounters, 43% had some sort of billing irregularities (ie, missing treatment costs) that would be unlikely for a private practice to omit; it would be much more likely that the CDW miscategorized the payment despite confirmation of the 2 retrieval systems.

It would be inadvisable to make staffing decisions or forecast costs based on current SEOC reports without specialized curation. A simple yet effective improvement to the cost attribution process would be to restrict the analysis to encounters containing primary radiation treatment codes. This targeted approach allows more accurate identification of patients actively receiving radiation oncology treatment, while excluding those seen solely for consultations or follow-up visits. Implementing this refinement leads to a substantial increase in the median payment—from $5000 to $13,000—without requiring additional coding or data processing, thereby enhancing the accuracy of cost estimates with minimal effort.

Clarifying radiation oncology service costs requires addressing the time frame and services included, given laxity and interpretation of the SEOCs. VA community care departments have streamlined the reimbursement process at the expense of medical cost organization and accuracy; 86% of VA practitioners reported that ≥ 1 potential community health care partners had refused to work with the VA because of payment delays.¹² Payments are contingent on correspondence from outside practices for community work. For radiation oncology, this includes the consultation but also critical radiation-related details of treatment, which were omitted nearly half the time. SEOC approval forms have many costly laboratory tests, imaging, and procedures that have little to do with radiation oncology cancer treatments but may be used in the workup and staging process; this creates noise when calculating radiation oncology fiscal cost.

The presumption that an episode of care equates to a completed radiation therapy course is incorrect; this occurs less than half of the time. An episode often refers to a return visit, or conversely, multiple treatment courses. As the patients’ medical homes are their VHA primary care practitioners, it would be particularly challenging to care for the patients without full treatment information, especially if adverse effects from therapy were to arise. As a tertiary specialty, radiation oncology does not seek out patients and are sent consultations from medical oncology, surgical, and medical oncologic specialties. Timesensitive processes such as workup, staging, and diagnosis often occur in parallel. This analysis revealed that patients see outside radiation oncologists prior to the VA. There are ≥ 100 patients who had radiation oncology codes without a radiation oncology SEOC or community care consultation, and in many cases, the consultation was placed after the patient was seen.

Given the lack of uniformity and standardization of patient traffic, the typical and expected pathways were insufficient to find the costs. Too many opportunities for errors and incorrect categorization of costs meant a different method would be necessary. Starting at the inception of the community care consult, only 1 diagnosis code can be entered. For patients with multiple diagnoses, one would not be able to tell what was treated without chart access. Radiation oncology consults come from primary and specialty care practitioners and nurses throughout the VA. Oftentimes, the referral would be solicited by the community radiation oncology clinic, diagnosing community specialty (ie, urology for a patient with prostate cancer), or indirectly from the patient through primary care. Many cases were retroactively approved as the veteran had already been consulted by the community care radiation oncologist. If the patient is drive-time eligible, it would be unlikely that they would leave and choose to return to the VA. There is no way for a facility VA service chief or administrator to mitigate VA community costs of care, especially as shown by the miscategorization of several codes. Database challenges exacerbate the issue: 1 patient changed her first and last name during this time frame, and 2 patients had the same name but different social security numbers. In order to strictly find costs between 2 discrete timepoints, 39 (15%) SEOCs were split and incomplete, and 6 SEOCs contained charges for 2 different patients. This was corrected, and all inadvertent charges were cancelled. Only 1 ICD code is allowed per community care consultation, so an investigation is required to find costs for patients with multiple sites of disease. Additionally, 5 of the patients marked for drive time were actually patients who received Gamma Knife and brachytherapy, services not available at the VA.

Hanks et al first attempted to calculate cost of radiation oncology services. External beam prostate cancer radiotherapy at 3 suburban California centers cost $6750 ($20,503 inflation adjusted) per patient before October 1984 and $5600 ($17,010 inflation adjusted) afterwards.¹³ According to the American Society for Radiation Oncology, Advocacy Radiation Oncology Case Rate Program Curative radiation courses should cost $20,000 to $30,000 and palliative courses should cost $10,000 to $15,000. These costs are consistent with totals demonstrated in this analysis and similar to the inflation-adjusted Hanks et al figures. Preliminary findings suggest that radiation treatment constituted more than half of the total expenditures, with a notable $4 million increase in adjusted cost compared to the Medicare rates, indicating significant variation. Direct comparisons with Medicaid or commercial payer rates remain unexplored.

Future Directions

During the study period, 201 patients received 186 courses of radiation therapy in the community, while 1014 patients were treated in-house for a total of 833 courses. A forthcoming analysis will directly compare the cost of in-house care with that of communitybased treatment, specifically breaking down expenditure differences by diagnosis. Future research should investigate strategies to align reimbursement with quality metrics, including the potential role of tertiary accreditation in incentivizing high-value care. Additional work is also warranted to assess patient out-ofpocket expenses across care settings and to benchmark VA reimbursement against Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance rates. In any case, with the increasing possibility of fewer fractions for treatments such as stereotactic radiotherapy or palliative care therapy, there is a clear financial incentive to treat as frequently as allowed despite equal clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Veterans increasingly choose to receive care closer to home if the option is available. In the VA iron triangle, cost comes at the expense of access but quantifying this has proved elusive in the cost accounting model currently used at the VA.1 The inclusion of all charges loosely associated with SEOCs significantly impairs the ability to conduct meaningful cost analyses. The current VA methodology not only introduces substantial noise into the data but also leads to a marked underestimation of the true cost of care delivered in community settings. Such misrepresentation risks driving policy decisions that could inappropriately reduce or eliminate in-house radiation oncology services. Categorizing costs effectively in the VA could assist in making managerial and administrative decisions and would prevent damaging service lines based on misleading or incorrect data. A system which differentiates between patients who have received any treatment codes vs those who have not would increase accuracy.

William Kissick’s description of health care’s iron triangle in 1994 still resonates. Access, quality, and cost will always come at the expense of the others.¹ In 2018, Congress passed the VA MISSION Act, allowing patients to pursue community care options for extended waits (> 28 days) or longer distance drive times of > 60 minutes for specialty care services, such as radiation oncology. According to Albanese et al, the VA MISSION Act sought to address gaps in care for veterans living in rural and underserved areas.² The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) continues to increase community care spending, with a 13.8% increase in fiscal year 2024 and an expected cost of > $40 billion for 2025.³ One could argue this pays for access for remote patients and quality when services are unavailable, making it a direct application of the iron triangle.

The VA MISSION Act also bolstered the expansion of existing community care department staff to expediently facilitate and coordinate care and payments.² Cost management and monitoring have become critical in predicting future staff requirements, maintaining functionality, and ensuring patients receive optimal care. The VHA purchases care through partner networks and defines these bundled health care services as standard episodes of care (SEOCs), which are “clinically related health care services for a specific unique illness or medical condition… over a defined period of time.”⁴ Medicare publishes its rates quarterly, and outpatient procedure pricing is readily available online.⁵ Along these same lines, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) publishes a current list of available procedures and associated Current Procedure Technology (CPT) codes that are covered under its VA fee schedule for community care.

Unique challenges persist when using this system to accurately account for radiation oncology expenditures. This study was based on the current practices at the Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (RLRVAMC), a large 1a hospital. A detailed analysis reveals the contemporaneous cost of radiation oncology cancer care from October 1, 2021, through February 1, 2024, highlights the challenges in SEOC definition and duration, communication issues between RLRVAMC and purchase partners, inconsistencies in billing, erroneous payments, and difficulty of cost categorization.

METHODS

Community care radiation oncology-related costs were examined from October 1, 2021, to February 1, 2024 for RLRVAMC, 6 months prior to billing data extraction. Figure 1 shows a simple radiation oncology patient pathway with consultation or visit, simulation and planning, and treatment, with codes used to check billing. It illustrates the expected relationships between the VHA (radiation oncology, primary, and specialty care) and community care (clinicians and radiation oncology treatment sites).

VHA standard operating procedures for a patient requesting community-based radiation oncology care require a board-certified radiation oncologist at RLRVAMC to review and approve the outside care request. Community care radiation oncology consultation data were accessed from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) using Pyramid Analytics (V25.2). Nurses, physicians, and community care staff can add comments, forward consultations to other services, and mark them as complete or discontinued, when appropriate. Consultations not completed within 91 days are automatically discontinued. All community care requests from 2018 through 2024 were extracted; analysis began April 1, 2021, 6 months prior to the cost evaluation date of October 1, 2021.

An approved consultation is reviewed for eligibility by a nurse in the community care department and assigned an authorization number (a VA prefix followed by 12 digits). Billing codes are approved and organized by the community care networks, and all procedure codes should be captured and labeled under this number. The VAMC Community Care department obtains initial correspondence from the treating clinicians. Subsequent records from the treating radiation oncologist are expected to be scanned into the electronic health record and made accessible via the VA Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) and Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS).

Radiation Oncology SEOC

The start date of the radiation oncology SEOC is determined by the community care nurse based on guidance established by the VA. It can be manually backdated or delayed, but current practice is to start at first visit or procedure code entry after approval from the VAMC Radiation Oncology department. Approved CPT codes from SEOC versions between October 1, 2021, and February 1, 2024, are in eAppendix 1 (available at doi:10.12788/fp.0585). These generally include 10 types of encounters, about 115 different laboratory tests, 115 imaging studies, 25 simulation and planning procedures, and 115 radiation treatment codes. The radiation oncology SEOCs during the study period had an approval duration of 180 days. Advanced Medical Cost Management Solutions software (AMCMS) is the VHA data analytics platform for community care medical service costs. AMCMS includes all individual CPT codes billed by specific radiation oncology SEOC versions. Data are refreshed monthly, and all charges were extracted on September 12, 2024, > 6 months after the final evaluated service date to allow for complete billing returns.⁶

Radiation Oncology-Specific Costs

The VA Close to Me (CTM) program was used to find 84 specific radiation oncology CPT codes, nearly all within the 77.XXX or G6.XXX series, which included all radiation oncology-specific (ROS) codes (except visits accrued during consultation and return appointments). ROS costs are those that could not be performed by any other service and include procedures related to radiation oncology simulation, treatment planning, treatment delivery (with or without image guidance), and physician or physicist management. All ROS costs should be included in a patient’s radiation oncology SEOC. Other costs that may accompany operating room or brachytherapy administration did not follow a 77.XXX or G6.XXX pattern but were included in total radiation therapy operating costs.

Data obtained from AMCMS and CTM included patient name and identifier; CPT billed amount; CPT paid amount; dates of service; number of claims; International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD) diagnosis; and VA authorization numbers. Only CTM listed code modifiers. Only items categorized as paid were included in the analysis. Charges associated with discontinued consultations that had accrued costs also were included. Codes that were not directly related to ROS were separately characterized as other and further subcategorized.

Deep Dive Categorization

All scanned documents tagged to the community consultation were accessed and evaluated for completeness by a radiation oncologist (RS). The presence or absence of consultation notes and treatment summaries was evaluated based on necessity (ie, not needed for continuation of care or treatment was not given). In the absence of a specific completion summary or follow-up note detailing the treatment modality, number of fractions, and treatment sites, available documentation, including clinical notes and billing information, was used. Radical or curative therapies were identified as courses expected to eradicate disease, including stereotactic ablative radiotherapy to the brain, lung, liver, and other organs. Palliative therapies included whole-brain radiotherapy or other low-dose treatments. If the patient received the intended course, this was categorized as full. If incomplete, it was considered partial.

Billing Deviations

The complete document review allowed for close evaluation of paid therapy and identification of gaps in billing (eg, charges not found in extracted data that should have occurred) for external beam radiotherapy patients. Conversely, extra charges, such as an additional weekly treatment management charge (CPT code 77427), would be noted. Patients were expected to have the number of treatments specified in the summary, a clinical treatment planning code, and weekly treatment management notes from physicians and physicists every 5 fractions. Consultations and follow-up visits were expected to have 1 visit code; CPT codes 99205 and 99215, respectively, were used to estimate costs in their absence.

Costs were based on Medicare rates as of January 1 of the year in which they were accrued. ^7-10 Duplicates were charges with the same code, date, billed quantity, and paid amounts for a given patient. These would always be considered erroneous. Medicare treatment costs for procedures such as intensity modulated radiotherapy (CPT code 77385 or 77386) are available on the Medicare website. When reviewing locality deviations for 77427, there was a maximum of 33% increase in Medicare rates. Therefore, for treatment codes, one would expect the range to be at least the Medicare rate and maximally 33% higher. These rates are negotiated with insurance companies, but this range was used for the purpose of reviewing and adjusting large data sets.

RESULTS

Since 2018, > 500 community care consults have been placed by radiation oncology for treatment in the community, with more following implementation of the VA MISSION Act. Use of radiation oncology community care services annually increased during the study period for this facility (Table 1, Figure 2). Of the 325 community care consults placed from October 1, 2021, to February 1, 2024, 248 radiation oncology SEOCs were recorded with charges for 181 patients (range, 1-5 SEOCs). Long drive time was the rationale for > 97% of patients directed to community care (Supplemental materials, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0585). Based on AMCMS data, $22.2 million was billed and $2.7 million was paid (20%) for 8747 CPT codes. Each community care interval cost the VA a median (range) of $5000 ($8-$168,000 (Figure 3).

After reviewing ROS charges extracted from CTM, 20 additional patients had radiation oncology charges but did not have a radiation oncology SEOC for 268 episodes of care for 201 unique patients. In addition to the 20 patients who did not have a SEOC, 42 nonradiation oncology SEOCs contained 1148 radiation oncology codes, corresponding to almost $500,000 paid. Additional charges of about $416,000, which included biologic agents (eg, durvalumab, nivolumab), procedures (eg, mastectomies), and ambulance rides were inappropriately added to radiation oncology SEOCs.

While 77% of consultations were scanned into CPRS and JLV, only 54% of completion summaries were available with an estimated $115,000 in additional costs. The total adjusted costs was about $2.9 million. Almost 37% of SEOCs were for visits only. For the 166 SEOCs where patients received any radiation treatment or planning, the median cost was $18,000. Differences in SEOC pathways are shown in Figure 4. One hundred twenty-one SEOCs (45%) followed the standard pathway, with median SEOC costs of $15,500; when corrected for radiation-specific costs, the median cost increased to $18,000. When adjusted for billing irregularities, the median cost was $20,600. Ninety-nine SEOCs (37%) were for consultation/ follow-up visits only, with a median cost of $220. When omitting shared scans and nonradiation therapy costs and correcting for billing gaps, the median cost decreased to $170. A median of $9200 was paid per patient, with $12,900 for radiation therapy-specific costs and $13,300 adjusted for billing deviations. Narrowing to the 106 patients who received full, radical courses, the median SEOC, ROS, and adjusted radiation therapy costs increased to $19,400, $22,200, and $22,900, respectively (Table 2, Figure 5). Seventy-one SEOCs (26%) had already seen a radiation oncologist before the VA radiation oncology department was aware, and 49 SEOCs (18%) had retroactive approvals (Supplemental materials available at doi:10.12788/fp.0585).

Every consultation charge was reviewed. A typical patient following the standard pathway (eAppendix 2, available at doi:10.12788/ fp.0585) exhibited a predictable pattern of consultation payment, simulation and planning, multiple radiation treatments interspersed with treatment management visits and a cone-down phase, and finishing with a follow-up visit. A less predictable case with excess CPT codes, gaps in charges, and an additional unexpected palliative course is shown in eAppendix 3 (available at doi:10.12788/fp.0585). Gaps occurred in 42% of SEOCs with missed bills costing as much as $12,000. For example, a patient with lung cancer had a treatment summary note for lung cancer after completion that showed the patient received 30 fractions of 2 Gy, a typical course. Only 10 treatment codes and 3 of 6 weekly treatment management codes were available. There was a gap of 20 volumetric modulated arc therapy treatments, 3 physics weekly status checks, 3 physician managements notes, and a computed tomography simulation charge.

Between AMCMS and CTM, 10,005 CPT codes were evaluated; 1255 (12.5%) were unique to AMCMS (either related to the radiation oncology course, such as Evaluation and Management CPT codes or “other” unrelated codes) while 1158 (11.6%) were unique to CTM. Of the 7592 CPT codes shared between AMCMS and CTM, there was a discrepancy in 135 (1.8%); all were duplicates (CTM showed double payment while AMCMS showed $0 paid). The total CPT code costs came to $3.2 million with $560,000 unique to SEOCs and $500,000 unique to CTM. Treatment codes were the most common (33%) as shown in Table 3 and accounted for 55% of the cost ($1.8 million). About 700 CPT codes were considered “other,” typically for biologic therapeutic agents (Table 4 and eAppendix 4, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0585).

DISCUSSION

The current method of reporting radiation oncology costs used by VA is insufficient and misleading. Better data are needed to summarize purchased care costs to guide decisions about community care at the VA. Investigations into whether the extra costs for quality care (ie, expensive capital equipment, specialized staff, mandatory accreditations) are worthwhile if omitted at other facilities patients choose for their health care needs. No study has defined specialty care-specific costs by evaluating billing receipts from the CDW to answer the question. Kenamond et al highlight the need for radiation oncology for rural patients.11 Drive time was cited as the reason for community care referral for 97% of veterans, many of whom lived in rural locations. Of patients with rurality information who enrolled in community care, 57% came from rural or highly rural counties, and this ratio held for those who received full curative therapies. An executive administrator relying on AMCMS reports would see a median SEOC cost of $5000, but without ROS knowledge in coding, the administrator would miss many additional costs. For example, 2 patients who each had 5 SEOCs during the evaluated period, incurred a total cost of only $1800.

Additionally, an administrator could include miscategorized costs with significant ramifications. The 2 most expensive SEOCs were not typical radiation oncology treatments. A patient undergoing radium-223 dichloride therapy incurred charges exceeding $165,000, contributing disproportionately to the overall median cost analysis; this would normally be administered by the nuclear medicine department. Immunotherapy and chemotherapy are uniformly overseen by medical oncology services, but drug administration codes were still found in radiation oncology SEOCs. A patient (whose SEOC was discontinued but accrued charges) had an electrocardiogram interpretation for $8 as the SEOC cost; 3 other SEOCs continued to incur costs after being discontinued. There were 24 empty SEOCs for patients that had consults to the community, and 2 had notes stating treatment had been delivered yet there was no ROS costs or SEOC costs. Of the 268 encounters, 43% had some sort of billing irregularities (ie, missing treatment costs) that would be unlikely for a private practice to omit; it would be much more likely that the CDW miscategorized the payment despite confirmation of the 2 retrieval systems.

It would be inadvisable to make staffing decisions or forecast costs based on current SEOC reports without specialized curation. A simple yet effective improvement to the cost attribution process would be to restrict the analysis to encounters containing primary radiation treatment codes. This targeted approach allows more accurate identification of patients actively receiving radiation oncology treatment, while excluding those seen solely for consultations or follow-up visits. Implementing this refinement leads to a substantial increase in the median payment—from $5000 to $13,000—without requiring additional coding or data processing, thereby enhancing the accuracy of cost estimates with minimal effort.

Clarifying radiation oncology service costs requires addressing the time frame and services included, given laxity and interpretation of the SEOCs. VA community care departments have streamlined the reimbursement process at the expense of medical cost organization and accuracy; 86% of VA practitioners reported that ≥ 1 potential community health care partners had refused to work with the VA because of payment delays.¹² Payments are contingent on correspondence from outside practices for community work. For radiation oncology, this includes the consultation but also critical radiation-related details of treatment, which were omitted nearly half the time. SEOC approval forms have many costly laboratory tests, imaging, and procedures that have little to do with radiation oncology cancer treatments but may be used in the workup and staging process; this creates noise when calculating radiation oncology fiscal cost.

The presumption that an episode of care equates to a completed radiation therapy course is incorrect; this occurs less than half of the time. An episode often refers to a return visit, or conversely, multiple treatment courses. As the patients’ medical homes are their VHA primary care practitioners, it would be particularly challenging to care for the patients without full treatment information, especially if adverse effects from therapy were to arise. As a tertiary specialty, radiation oncology does not seek out patients and are sent consultations from medical oncology, surgical, and medical oncologic specialties. Timesensitive processes such as workup, staging, and diagnosis often occur in parallel. This analysis revealed that patients see outside radiation oncologists prior to the VA. There are ≥ 100 patients who had radiation oncology codes without a radiation oncology SEOC or community care consultation, and in many cases, the consultation was placed after the patient was seen.

Given the lack of uniformity and standardization of patient traffic, the typical and expected pathways were insufficient to find the costs. Too many opportunities for errors and incorrect categorization of costs meant a different method would be necessary. Starting at the inception of the community care consult, only 1 diagnosis code can be entered. For patients with multiple diagnoses, one would not be able to tell what was treated without chart access. Radiation oncology consults come from primary and specialty care practitioners and nurses throughout the VA. Oftentimes, the referral would be solicited by the community radiation oncology clinic, diagnosing community specialty (ie, urology for a patient with prostate cancer), or indirectly from the patient through primary care. Many cases were retroactively approved as the veteran had already been consulted by the community care radiation oncologist. If the patient is drive-time eligible, it would be unlikely that they would leave and choose to return to the VA. There is no way for a facility VA service chief or administrator to mitigate VA community costs of care, especially as shown by the miscategorization of several codes. Database challenges exacerbate the issue: 1 patient changed her first and last name during this time frame, and 2 patients had the same name but different social security numbers. In order to strictly find costs between 2 discrete timepoints, 39 (15%) SEOCs were split and incomplete, and 6 SEOCs contained charges for 2 different patients. This was corrected, and all inadvertent charges were cancelled. Only 1 ICD code is allowed per community care consultation, so an investigation is required to find costs for patients with multiple sites of disease. Additionally, 5 of the patients marked for drive time were actually patients who received Gamma Knife and brachytherapy, services not available at the VA.

Hanks et al first attempted to calculate cost of radiation oncology services. External beam prostate cancer radiotherapy at 3 suburban California centers cost $6750 ($20,503 inflation adjusted) per patient before October 1984 and $5600 ($17,010 inflation adjusted) afterwards.¹³ According to the American Society for Radiation Oncology, Advocacy Radiation Oncology Case Rate Program Curative radiation courses should cost $20,000 to $30,000 and palliative courses should cost $10,000 to $15,000. These costs are consistent with totals demonstrated in this analysis and similar to the inflation-adjusted Hanks et al figures. Preliminary findings suggest that radiation treatment constituted more than half of the total expenditures, with a notable $4 million increase in adjusted cost compared to the Medicare rates, indicating significant variation. Direct comparisons with Medicaid or commercial payer rates remain unexplored.

Future Directions

During the study period, 201 patients received 186 courses of radiation therapy in the community, while 1014 patients were treated in-house for a total of 833 courses. A forthcoming analysis will directly compare the cost of in-house care with that of communitybased treatment, specifically breaking down expenditure differences by diagnosis. Future research should investigate strategies to align reimbursement with quality metrics, including the potential role of tertiary accreditation in incentivizing high-value care. Additional work is also warranted to assess patient out-ofpocket expenses across care settings and to benchmark VA reimbursement against Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance rates. In any case, with the increasing possibility of fewer fractions for treatments such as stereotactic radiotherapy or palliative care therapy, there is a clear financial incentive to treat as frequently as allowed despite equal clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Veterans increasingly choose to receive care closer to home if the option is available. In the VA iron triangle, cost comes at the expense of access but quantifying this has proved elusive in the cost accounting model currently used at the VA.1 The inclusion of all charges loosely associated with SEOCs significantly impairs the ability to conduct meaningful cost analyses. The current VA methodology not only introduces substantial noise into the data but also leads to a marked underestimation of the true cost of care delivered in community settings. Such misrepresentation risks driving policy decisions that could inappropriately reduce or eliminate in-house radiation oncology services. Categorizing costs effectively in the VA could assist in making managerial and administrative decisions and would prevent damaging service lines based on misleading or incorrect data. A system which differentiates between patients who have received any treatment codes vs those who have not would increase accuracy.

William Kissick’s description of health care’s iron triangle in 1994 still resonates. Access, quality, and cost will always come at the expense of the others.¹ In 2018, Congress passed the VA MISSION Act, allowing patients to pursue community care options for extended waits (> 28 days) or longer distance drive times of > 60 minutes for specialty care services, such as radiation oncology. According to Albanese et al, the VA MISSION Act sought to address gaps in care for veterans living in rural and underserved areas.² The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) continues to increase community care spending, with a 13.8% increase in fiscal year 2024 and an expected cost of > $40 billion for 2025.³ One could argue this pays for access for remote patients and quality when services are unavailable, making it a direct application of the iron triangle.

The VA MISSION Act also bolstered the expansion of existing community care department staff to expediently facilitate and coordinate care and payments.² Cost management and monitoring have become critical in predicting future staff requirements, maintaining functionality, and ensuring patients receive optimal care. The VHA purchases care through partner networks and defines these bundled health care services as standard episodes of care (SEOCs), which are “clinically related health care services for a specific unique illness or medical condition… over a defined period of time.”⁴ Medicare publishes its rates quarterly, and outpatient procedure pricing is readily available online.⁵ Along these same lines, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) publishes a current list of available procedures and associated Current Procedure Technology (CPT) codes that are covered under its VA fee schedule for community care.

Unique challenges persist when using this system to accurately account for radiation oncology expenditures. This study was based on the current practices at the Richard L. Roudebush VA Medical Center (RLRVAMC), a large 1a hospital. A detailed analysis reveals the contemporaneous cost of radiation oncology cancer care from October 1, 2021, through February 1, 2024, highlights the challenges in SEOC definition and duration, communication issues between RLRVAMC and purchase partners, inconsistencies in billing, erroneous payments, and difficulty of cost categorization.

METHODS

Community care radiation oncology-related costs were examined from October 1, 2021, to February 1, 2024 for RLRVAMC, 6 months prior to billing data extraction. Figure 1 shows a simple radiation oncology patient pathway with consultation or visit, simulation and planning, and treatment, with codes used to check billing. It illustrates the expected relationships between the VHA (radiation oncology, primary, and specialty care) and community care (clinicians and radiation oncology treatment sites).

VHA standard operating procedures for a patient requesting community-based radiation oncology care require a board-certified radiation oncologist at RLRVAMC to review and approve the outside care request. Community care radiation oncology consultation data were accessed from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW) using Pyramid Analytics (V25.2). Nurses, physicians, and community care staff can add comments, forward consultations to other services, and mark them as complete or discontinued, when appropriate. Consultations not completed within 91 days are automatically discontinued. All community care requests from 2018 through 2024 were extracted; analysis began April 1, 2021, 6 months prior to the cost evaluation date of October 1, 2021.

An approved consultation is reviewed for eligibility by a nurse in the community care department and assigned an authorization number (a VA prefix followed by 12 digits). Billing codes are approved and organized by the community care networks, and all procedure codes should be captured and labeled under this number. The VAMC Community Care department obtains initial correspondence from the treating clinicians. Subsequent records from the treating radiation oncologist are expected to be scanned into the electronic health record and made accessible via the VA Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) and Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS).

Radiation Oncology SEOC

The start date of the radiation oncology SEOC is determined by the community care nurse based on guidance established by the VA. It can be manually backdated or delayed, but current practice is to start at first visit or procedure code entry after approval from the VAMC Radiation Oncology department. Approved CPT codes from SEOC versions between October 1, 2021, and February 1, 2024, are in eAppendix 1 (available at doi:10.12788/fp.0585). These generally include 10 types of encounters, about 115 different laboratory tests, 115 imaging studies, 25 simulation and planning procedures, and 115 radiation treatment codes. The radiation oncology SEOCs during the study period had an approval duration of 180 days. Advanced Medical Cost Management Solutions software (AMCMS) is the VHA data analytics platform for community care medical service costs. AMCMS includes all individual CPT codes billed by specific radiation oncology SEOC versions. Data are refreshed monthly, and all charges were extracted on September 12, 2024, > 6 months after the final evaluated service date to allow for complete billing returns.⁶

Radiation Oncology-Specific Costs

The VA Close to Me (CTM) program was used to find 84 specific radiation oncology CPT codes, nearly all within the 77.XXX or G6.XXX series, which included all radiation oncology-specific (ROS) codes (except visits accrued during consultation and return appointments). ROS costs are those that could not be performed by any other service and include procedures related to radiation oncology simulation, treatment planning, treatment delivery (with or without image guidance), and physician or physicist management. All ROS costs should be included in a patient’s radiation oncology SEOC. Other costs that may accompany operating room or brachytherapy administration did not follow a 77.XXX or G6.XXX pattern but were included in total radiation therapy operating costs.

Data obtained from AMCMS and CTM included patient name and identifier; CPT billed amount; CPT paid amount; dates of service; number of claims; International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD) diagnosis; and VA authorization numbers. Only CTM listed code modifiers. Only items categorized as paid were included in the analysis. Charges associated with discontinued consultations that had accrued costs also were included. Codes that were not directly related to ROS were separately characterized as other and further subcategorized.

Deep Dive Categorization

All scanned documents tagged to the community consultation were accessed and evaluated for completeness by a radiation oncologist (RS). The presence or absence of consultation notes and treatment summaries was evaluated based on necessity (ie, not needed for continuation of care or treatment was not given). In the absence of a specific completion summary or follow-up note detailing the treatment modality, number of fractions, and treatment sites, available documentation, including clinical notes and billing information, was used. Radical or curative therapies were identified as courses expected to eradicate disease, including stereotactic ablative radiotherapy to the brain, lung, liver, and other organs. Palliative therapies included whole-brain radiotherapy or other low-dose treatments. If the patient received the intended course, this was categorized as full. If incomplete, it was considered partial.

Billing Deviations

The complete document review allowed for close evaluation of paid therapy and identification of gaps in billing (eg, charges not found in extracted data that should have occurred) for external beam radiotherapy patients. Conversely, extra charges, such as an additional weekly treatment management charge (CPT code 77427), would be noted. Patients were expected to have the number of treatments specified in the summary, a clinical treatment planning code, and weekly treatment management notes from physicians and physicists every 5 fractions. Consultations and follow-up visits were expected to have 1 visit code; CPT codes 99205 and 99215, respectively, were used to estimate costs in their absence.

Costs were based on Medicare rates as of January 1 of the year in which they were accrued. ^7-10 Duplicates were charges with the same code, date, billed quantity, and paid amounts for a given patient. These would always be considered erroneous. Medicare treatment costs for procedures such as intensity modulated radiotherapy (CPT code 77385 or 77386) are available on the Medicare website. When reviewing locality deviations for 77427, there was a maximum of 33% increase in Medicare rates. Therefore, for treatment codes, one would expect the range to be at least the Medicare rate and maximally 33% higher. These rates are negotiated with insurance companies, but this range was used for the purpose of reviewing and adjusting large data sets.

RESULTS

Since 2018, > 500 community care consults have been placed by radiation oncology for treatment in the community, with more following implementation of the VA MISSION Act. Use of radiation oncology community care services annually increased during the study period for this facility (Table 1, Figure 2). Of the 325 community care consults placed from October 1, 2021, to February 1, 2024, 248 radiation oncology SEOCs were recorded with charges for 181 patients (range, 1-5 SEOCs). Long drive time was the rationale for > 97% of patients directed to community care (Supplemental materials, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0585). Based on AMCMS data, $22.2 million was billed and $2.7 million was paid (20%) for 8747 CPT codes. Each community care interval cost the VA a median (range) of $5000 ($8-$168,000 (Figure 3).

After reviewing ROS charges extracted from CTM, 20 additional patients had radiation oncology charges but did not have a radiation oncology SEOC for 268 episodes of care for 201 unique patients. In addition to the 20 patients who did not have a SEOC, 42 nonradiation oncology SEOCs contained 1148 radiation oncology codes, corresponding to almost $500,000 paid. Additional charges of about $416,000, which included biologic agents (eg, durvalumab, nivolumab), procedures (eg, mastectomies), and ambulance rides were inappropriately added to radiation oncology SEOCs.

While 77% of consultations were scanned into CPRS and JLV, only 54% of completion summaries were available with an estimated $115,000 in additional costs. The total adjusted costs was about $2.9 million. Almost 37% of SEOCs were for visits only. For the 166 SEOCs where patients received any radiation treatment or planning, the median cost was $18,000. Differences in SEOC pathways are shown in Figure 4. One hundred twenty-one SEOCs (45%) followed the standard pathway, with median SEOC costs of $15,500; when corrected for radiation-specific costs, the median cost increased to $18,000. When adjusted for billing irregularities, the median cost was $20,600. Ninety-nine SEOCs (37%) were for consultation/ follow-up visits only, with a median cost of $220. When omitting shared scans and nonradiation therapy costs and correcting for billing gaps, the median cost decreased to $170. A median of $9200 was paid per patient, with $12,900 for radiation therapy-specific costs and $13,300 adjusted for billing deviations. Narrowing to the 106 patients who received full, radical courses, the median SEOC, ROS, and adjusted radiation therapy costs increased to $19,400, $22,200, and $22,900, respectively (Table 2, Figure 5). Seventy-one SEOCs (26%) had already seen a radiation oncologist before the VA radiation oncology department was aware, and 49 SEOCs (18%) had retroactive approvals (Supplemental materials available at doi:10.12788/fp.0585).

Every consultation charge was reviewed. A typical patient following the standard pathway (eAppendix 2, available at doi:10.12788/ fp.0585) exhibited a predictable pattern of consultation payment, simulation and planning, multiple radiation treatments interspersed with treatment management visits and a cone-down phase, and finishing with a follow-up visit. A less predictable case with excess CPT codes, gaps in charges, and an additional unexpected palliative course is shown in eAppendix 3 (available at doi:10.12788/fp.0585). Gaps occurred in 42% of SEOCs with missed bills costing as much as $12,000. For example, a patient with lung cancer had a treatment summary note for lung cancer after completion that showed the patient received 30 fractions of 2 Gy, a typical course. Only 10 treatment codes and 3 of 6 weekly treatment management codes were available. There was a gap of 20 volumetric modulated arc therapy treatments, 3 physics weekly status checks, 3 physician managements notes, and a computed tomography simulation charge.

Between AMCMS and CTM, 10,005 CPT codes were evaluated; 1255 (12.5%) were unique to AMCMS (either related to the radiation oncology course, such as Evaluation and Management CPT codes or “other” unrelated codes) while 1158 (11.6%) were unique to CTM. Of the 7592 CPT codes shared between AMCMS and CTM, there was a discrepancy in 135 (1.8%); all were duplicates (CTM showed double payment while AMCMS showed $0 paid). The total CPT code costs came to $3.2 million with $560,000 unique to SEOCs and $500,000 unique to CTM. Treatment codes were the most common (33%) as shown in Table 3 and accounted for 55% of the cost ($1.8 million). About 700 CPT codes were considered “other,” typically for biologic therapeutic agents (Table 4 and eAppendix 4, available at doi:10.12788/fp.0585).

DISCUSSION

The current method of reporting radiation oncology costs used by VA is insufficient and misleading. Better data are needed to summarize purchased care costs to guide decisions about community care at the VA. Investigations into whether the extra costs for quality care (ie, expensive capital equipment, specialized staff, mandatory accreditations) are worthwhile if omitted at other facilities patients choose for their health care needs. No study has defined specialty care-specific costs by evaluating billing receipts from the CDW to answer the question. Kenamond et al highlight the need for radiation oncology for rural patients.11 Drive time was cited as the reason for community care referral for 97% of veterans, many of whom lived in rural locations. Of patients with rurality information who enrolled in community care, 57% came from rural or highly rural counties, and this ratio held for those who received full curative therapies. An executive administrator relying on AMCMS reports would see a median SEOC cost of $5000, but without ROS knowledge in coding, the administrator would miss many additional costs. For example, 2 patients who each had 5 SEOCs during the evaluated period, incurred a total cost of only $1800.

Additionally, an administrator could include miscategorized costs with significant ramifications. The 2 most expensive SEOCs were not typical radiation oncology treatments. A patient undergoing radium-223 dichloride therapy incurred charges exceeding $165,000, contributing disproportionately to the overall median cost analysis; this would normally be administered by the nuclear medicine department. Immunotherapy and chemotherapy are uniformly overseen by medical oncology services, but drug administration codes were still found in radiation oncology SEOCs. A patient (whose SEOC was discontinued but accrued charges) had an electrocardiogram interpretation for $8 as the SEOC cost; 3 other SEOCs continued to incur costs after being discontinued. There were 24 empty SEOCs for patients that had consults to the community, and 2 had notes stating treatment had been delivered yet there was no ROS costs or SEOC costs. Of the 268 encounters, 43% had some sort of billing irregularities (ie, missing treatment costs) that would be unlikely for a private practice to omit; it would be much more likely that the CDW miscategorized the payment despite confirmation of the 2 retrieval systems.

It would be inadvisable to make staffing decisions or forecast costs based on current SEOC reports without specialized curation. A simple yet effective improvement to the cost attribution process would be to restrict the analysis to encounters containing primary radiation treatment codes. This targeted approach allows more accurate identification of patients actively receiving radiation oncology treatment, while excluding those seen solely for consultations or follow-up visits. Implementing this refinement leads to a substantial increase in the median payment—from $5000 to $13,000—without requiring additional coding or data processing, thereby enhancing the accuracy of cost estimates with minimal effort.

Clarifying radiation oncology service costs requires addressing the time frame and services included, given laxity and interpretation of the SEOCs. VA community care departments have streamlined the reimbursement process at the expense of medical cost organization and accuracy; 86% of VA practitioners reported that ≥ 1 potential community health care partners had refused to work with the VA because of payment delays.¹² Payments are contingent on correspondence from outside practices for community work. For radiation oncology, this includes the consultation but also critical radiation-related details of treatment, which were omitted nearly half the time. SEOC approval forms have many costly laboratory tests, imaging, and procedures that have little to do with radiation oncology cancer treatments but may be used in the workup and staging process; this creates noise when calculating radiation oncology fiscal cost.

The presumption that an episode of care equates to a completed radiation therapy course is incorrect; this occurs less than half of the time. An episode often refers to a return visit, or conversely, multiple treatment courses. As the patients’ medical homes are their VHA primary care practitioners, it would be particularly challenging to care for the patients without full treatment information, especially if adverse effects from therapy were to arise. As a tertiary specialty, radiation oncology does not seek out patients and are sent consultations from medical oncology, surgical, and medical oncologic specialties. Timesensitive processes such as workup, staging, and diagnosis often occur in parallel. This analysis revealed that patients see outside radiation oncologists prior to the VA. There are ≥ 100 patients who had radiation oncology codes without a radiation oncology SEOC or community care consultation, and in many cases, the consultation was placed after the patient was seen.

Given the lack of uniformity and standardization of patient traffic, the typical and expected pathways were insufficient to find the costs. Too many opportunities for errors and incorrect categorization of costs meant a different method would be necessary. Starting at the inception of the community care consult, only 1 diagnosis code can be entered. For patients with multiple diagnoses, one would not be able to tell what was treated without chart access. Radiation oncology consults come from primary and specialty care practitioners and nurses throughout the VA. Oftentimes, the referral would be solicited by the community radiation oncology clinic, diagnosing community specialty (ie, urology for a patient with prostate cancer), or indirectly from the patient through primary care. Many cases were retroactively approved as the veteran had already been consulted by the community care radiation oncologist. If the patient is drive-time eligible, it would be unlikely that they would leave and choose to return to the VA. There is no way for a facility VA service chief or administrator to mitigate VA community costs of care, especially as shown by the miscategorization of several codes. Database challenges exacerbate the issue: 1 patient changed her first and last name during this time frame, and 2 patients had the same name but different social security numbers. In order to strictly find costs between 2 discrete timepoints, 39 (15%) SEOCs were split and incomplete, and 6 SEOCs contained charges for 2 different patients. This was corrected, and all inadvertent charges were cancelled. Only 1 ICD code is allowed per community care consultation, so an investigation is required to find costs for patients with multiple sites of disease. Additionally, 5 of the patients marked for drive time were actually patients who received Gamma Knife and brachytherapy, services not available at the VA.

Hanks et al first attempted to calculate cost of radiation oncology services. External beam prostate cancer radiotherapy at 3 suburban California centers cost $6750 ($20,503 inflation adjusted) per patient before October 1984 and $5600 ($17,010 inflation adjusted) afterwards.¹³ According to the American Society for Radiation Oncology, Advocacy Radiation Oncology Case Rate Program Curative radiation courses should cost $20,000 to $30,000 and palliative courses should cost $10,000 to $15,000. These costs are consistent with totals demonstrated in this analysis and similar to the inflation-adjusted Hanks et al figures. Preliminary findings suggest that radiation treatment constituted more than half of the total expenditures, with a notable $4 million increase in adjusted cost compared to the Medicare rates, indicating significant variation. Direct comparisons with Medicaid or commercial payer rates remain unexplored.

Future Directions

During the study period, 201 patients received 186 courses of radiation therapy in the community, while 1014 patients were treated in-house for a total of 833 courses. A forthcoming analysis will directly compare the cost of in-house care with that of communitybased treatment, specifically breaking down expenditure differences by diagnosis. Future research should investigate strategies to align reimbursement with quality metrics, including the potential role of tertiary accreditation in incentivizing high-value care. Additional work is also warranted to assess patient out-ofpocket expenses across care settings and to benchmark VA reimbursement against Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance rates. In any case, with the increasing possibility of fewer fractions for treatments such as stereotactic radiotherapy or palliative care therapy, there is a clear financial incentive to treat as frequently as allowed despite equal clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Veterans increasingly choose to receive care closer to home if the option is available. In the VA iron triangle, cost comes at the expense of access but quantifying this has proved elusive in the cost accounting model currently used at the VA.1 The inclusion of all charges loosely associated with SEOCs significantly impairs the ability to conduct meaningful cost analyses. The current VA methodology not only introduces substantial noise into the data but also leads to a marked underestimation of the true cost of care delivered in community settings. Such misrepresentation risks driving policy decisions that could inappropriately reduce or eliminate in-house radiation oncology services. Categorizing costs effectively in the VA could assist in making managerial and administrative decisions and would prevent damaging service lines based on misleading or incorrect data. A system which differentiates between patients who have received any treatment codes vs those who have not would increase accuracy.