Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Comparison of urologist reimbursement for managing patients with low-risk prostate cancer by active surveillance versus total prostatectomy

Abstract

Active surveillance (AS) is an alternative to total prostatectomy (TP) in managing low-risk prostate cancer (PC). Our aim is to compare urologist reimbursement for managing low-risk PC by AS or TP. The urologist's reimbursement for TP includes the fee for the procedure and follow-up visits. For AS, our protocol involves digital rectal examination (DRE) and PSA testing every 3 months for first 2 years and every 6 months thereafter. Transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided biopsies are performed yearly. Some urologists recommend spacing the biopsies by 1–3 years. Medicare reimbursement values were used. The urologist reimbursements for a follow-up visit, prostate biopsy, open TP and robotic TP are $72, $595, $1905 and $2939, respectively. We also corrected for a 15% chance of having TP after being on AS. The cumulative reimbursements from open TP and following the patient up to 10 years are approximately $2121 (1 year), $2265 (2 years), $2697 (5 years) and $3057 (10 years). For robotic TP, the urologist reimbursements are $3155 (1 year), $3259 (2 years), $3731 (5 years) and $4091 (10 years). For AS, the urologist reimbursements are $883 (1 year), $1766 (2 years), $4269 (5 years) and $7964 (10 years). The urologist reimbursement from AS and TP become nearly equal between 3 and 4 years follow-up, subsequently AS attains higher reimbursement.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ . Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 2009; 59: 225–249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cooperberg MR, Moul JW, Carroll PR . The changing face of prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 8146–8151.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Klotz L . Active surveillance for prostate cancer: trials and tribulations. World J Urol 2008; 26: 437–442.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Zietman A . Active surveillance: a safe, low-cost prognostic test for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2008; 101: 1059–1060.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Soloway MS, Soloway CT, Williams S, Ayyathurai R, Kava B, Manoharan M . Active surveillance; a reasonable management alternative for patients with prostate cancer: the Miami experience. BJU Int 2008; 101: 165–169.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Gatling RR . Prostate carcinoma: an autopsy evaluation of the influence of age, tumor grade, and therapy on tumor biology. South Med J 1990; 83: 782–784.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dall’era MA, Carroll PR . Outcomes and follow-up strategies for patients on active surveillance. Curr Opin Urol 2009; 19: 258–262.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Watanabe M, Nakayama T, Shiraishi T, Stemmermann GN, Yatani R . Comparative studies of prostate cancer in Japan versus the United States. A review. Urol Oncol 2000; 5: 274–283.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Drouin SJ, Roupret M . News aspects on surgical management of localized prostate cancer. Prog Urol 2009; 19 (Suppl 1): S12–S14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eggener SE, Mueller A, Berglund RK, Ayyathurai R, Soloway C, Soloway MS et al. A multi-institutional evaluation of active surveillance for low risk prostate cancer. J Urol 2009; 181: 1635–1641.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bodenheimer T . High and rising health care costs. Part 1: seeking an explanation. Ann Intern Med 2005; 142: 847–854.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dorman T . Unsustainable growth rate: physician perspective. Crit Care Med 2006; 34 (Suppl 3): S78–S81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Roehrborn CG, Stage KH . The value of your time: evaluation of effects of changes in medicare reimbursement rates on the practice of urology. J Urol 2004; 172 (5 Pt 1): 1958–1962.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Adiga K, Buss M, Beasley BW . Perceived, actual, and desired knowledge regarding Medicare billing and reimbursement. A national needs assessment survey of internal medicine residents. J Gen Intern Med 2006; 21: 466–470.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Madan AK, Tichansky DS, Barton GE, Taddeucci RJ . Knowledge and opinions regarding Medicare reimbursement for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Surg Endosc 2007; 21: 2091–2093.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Thompson I, Thrasher JB, Aus G, Burnett AL, Canby-Hagino ED, Cookson MS et al. Guideline for the management of clinically localized prostate cancer: 2007 update. J Urol 2007; 177: 2106–2131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mohler J, Bahnson RR, Boston B, Busby JE, D’Amico A, Eastham JA et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: prostate cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2010; 8: 162–200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by ‘CURED’ and Vincent A Rodriguez.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M Manoharan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Manoharan, M., Eldefrawy, A., Katkoori, D. et al. Comparison of urologist reimbursement for managing patients with low-risk prostate cancer by active surveillance versus total prostatectomy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 13, 307–310 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2010.34

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2010.34

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links