Declining Inflation-Adjusted Medicare Physician Fees: An Unsustainable Trend in Hip Arthroscopy.

INTRODUCTION: Although hip arthroscopy continues to be one of the most used arthroscopic procedures, no focused, comprehensive evaluation of reimbursement trends has been conducted. The purpose of this study was to analyze the temporal Medicare reimbursement trends for hip arthroscopy procedures. METHODS: From 2011 to 2021, the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool was queried for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes related to hip arthroscopy (29860 to 29863, 29914 to 29916). All monetary data were adjusted to 2021 US dollars. The compound annual growth rate and total percentage change were calculated. Mann-Kendall trend tests were used to evaluate the reimbursement trends. RESULTS: Based on the unadjusted values, a significant increase in physician fee was observed from 2011 to 2021 for CPT codes 29861 (removal of loose or foreign bodies; % change: 3.49, P = 0.03) and 29862 (chondroplasty, abrasion arthroplasty, labral resection; % change: 3.19, P = 0.03). The remaining CPT codes experienced no notable changes in reimbursement based on the unadjusted values. After adjusting for inflation, all seven of the hip arthroscopy CPT codes were observed to experience a notable decline in Medicare reimbursement. Hip arthroscopy with acetabuloplasty (CPT: 29915) and labral repair (CPT: 29916) exhibited the greatest reduction in reimbursement with a decrease in physician fee of 24.69% ( P < 0.001) and 24.64% ( P < 0.001), respectively, over the study period. DISCUSSION: Medicare reimbursement for all seven of the commonly used hip arthroscopy services did not keep up with inflation, demonstrating marked reductions from 2011 to 2021. Specifically, the inflation-adjusted reimbursements decreased between 19.23% and 24.69% between 2011 and 2021.

Out-of-pocket medical expenses compared across five years for patients with one of five common cancers in Australia.

BACKGROUND: Patient medical out-of-pocket expenses are thought to be rising worldwide yet data describing trends over time is scant. We evaluated trends of out-of-pocket expenses for patients in Australia with one of five major cancers in the first-year after diagnosis. METHODS: Participants from the QSKIN Sun and Health prospective cohort Study with a histologically confirmed breast, colorectal, lung, melanoma, or prostate cancer diagnosed between 2011 and 2015 were included (n = 1965). Medicare claims data on out-of-pocket expenses were analysed using a two-part model adjusted for year of diagnosis, health insurance status, age and education level. Fisher price and quantity indexes were also calculated to assess prices and volumes separately. RESULTS: On average, patients with cancer diagnosed in 2015 spent 70% more out-of-pocket on direct medical expenses than those diagnosed in 2011. Out-of-pocket expenses increased significantly for patients with breast cancer (mean AU$2513 in 2011 to AU$6802 in 2015). Out-of-pocket expenses were higher overall for individuals with private health insurance. For prostate cancer, expenses increased for those without private health insurance over time (mean AU$1586 in 2011 to AU$4748 in 2014) and remained stable for those with private health insurance (AU$4397 in 2011 to AU$5623 in 2015). There were progressive increases in prices and quantities of medical services for patients with melanoma, breast and lung cancer. For all cancers, prices increased for medicines and doctor attendances but fluctuated for other medical services. CONCLUSION: Out-of-pocket expenses for patients with cancer have increased substantially over time. Such increases were more pronounced for women with breast cancer and those without private health insurance. Increased out-of-pocket expenses arose from both higher prices and higher volumes of health services but differ by cancer type. Further efforts to monitor patient out-of-pocket costs and prevent health inequities are required.

Drivers of Medicare Spending: A 15-Year Review of Radiation Oncology Charges Allowed by the Medicare Physician/Supplier Fee-for-Service Program Compared With Other Specialties.

PURPOSE: In 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposed a new radiation oncology alternative payment model aimed at reducing expenditures. We examined changes in aggregate physician Medicare charges allowed per specialty to provide contemporary context to proposed changes and hypothesize that radiation oncology charges remained stable through 2017. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Medicare physician/supplier utilization, program payments, and balance billing for original Medicare beneficiaries, by physician specialty, were analyzed from 2002 to 2017. Total allowed charges under the physician/supplier fee-for-service program, inflation-adjusted charges, and percent of total charges billed per specialty were examined. We adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index for medical care from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. RESULTS: Total allowed charges increased from $83 billion in 2002 to $138 billion in 2017. The specialties accounting for the most charges billed to Medicare were internal medicine and ophthalmology. Radiation oncology charges accounted for 1.2%, 1.6%, and 1.4% of total charges allowed by Medicare in 2002, 2012, and 2017, respectively. Radiation oncology charges allowed increased 44% from 2002 to 2012 ($987.6 million to $1.42 billion) but decreased by 19% from 2012 to 2017 ($1.15 billion), adjusted for inflation. Total charges allowed by internal medicine decreased 2% from 2002 to 2012 ($8.53 to $8.36 billion), adjusted for inflation, and decreased 16% from 2012 to 2017 ($7.05 billion). When adjusting for inflation, ophthalmology charges increased 18% from 2002 to 2012 ($4.53 to $5.36 billion) and increased 3% from 2012 to 2017 ($5.5 billion). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation oncology physician charges represent a small fraction of total Medicare expenses and are not a driver for Medicare spending. Aggregate inflation-adjusted charges by radiation oncology have dramatically declined in the past 5 years and represent a stable fraction of total Medicare charges. The need to target radiation oncology with cost-cutting measures may be overstated.

Rising Cost of Thyroid Surgery in Adult Patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to describe the economic trends in adults who underwent elective thyroidectomy. METHODS: We performed a population-based study utilizing the Premier Healthcare Database to examine adult patients who underwent elective thyroidectomy between January 2006 and December 2014. Time was divided into three equal time periods (2006-2008, 2009-2011, and 2012-2014). To examine trend in patient charges, we modeled patient charges using generalized linear regressions adjusting for key covariates with standard errors clustered at the hospital level. RESULTS: Our study cohort consisted of 52,012 adult patients who underwent a thyroid operation. During the study period, the most common procedure changed from a thyroid lobectomy to bilateral thyroidectomy. Over the study period, there was an increase in the proportion of completion thyroidectomies from 1.1% to 1.6% (P < 0.001), malignant diagnoses from 21.7% to 26.8% (P < 0.001), procedures performed at teaching hospitals from 27.7% to 32.9% (P < 0.001), and procedures performed on an outpatient basis from 93.85% to 97.55% (P < 0.001). The annual increase in median patient charge adjusted for inflation was $895 or 4.3% resulting in an increase of 38.8% over 9 y. Higher thyroidectomy charges were associated with male patients, malignant surgical pathology, patients undergoing limited or radical neck dissection, experiencing complications, those with managed health care insurance, and a prolonged length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recent changes in thyroid surgery practices to decrease the economic burden of hospitals, costs continue to rise 4.3% annually. Additional prospective studies are needed to identify factors associated with this increasing cost.

Setting health care services tariffs in Iran: half a century quest for a window of opportunity.

BACKGROUND: The process of medical tariffs setting in Iran remains to be a contentious issue and is heavily criticized by many stakeholders. This paper explores the experience of setting health care services tariffs in the Iranian health care system over the last five decades. METHODS: We analyzed data collected through literature review and reviews of the official documents developed at the various levels of the Iranian health system using inductive and deductive content analysis. Twenty-two face-to-face semi-structured interviews supplemented the analysis. Data were analysed and interpreted using 'policy triangle' and 'garbage can' models. RESULTS: Our comprehensive review of changes in the medical tariff setting provides valuable lessons for major stakeholders. Most changes were implemented in a sporadic, inadequate, and a non-evidence-based manner. Disparities in tariffs between public and private sectors continue to exist. Lack of clarity in tariffs setting mechanisms and its process makes negotiations between various stakeholders difficult and can potentially become a source of a corrupt income. Such clarity can be achieved by using fair and technically sound tariffs. Technical aspects of tariff setting should be separated from the political negotiations over the overall payment to the medical professionals. Transparency regarding a conflict of interest and establishing punitive measures against those violating the rules could help improving trust in the doctor-patient relationship. CONCLUSION: Use of evidence-informed models and methods in medical tariff setting could help to strike the right balance in the process of health care services provision to address health system objectives. A sensitive application of policy models can offer significant insights into the nature of medical tariff setting and highlight existing constraints and opportunities. This study generates lessons learned in tariffs setting, particularly for low- and middle-income countries.

Revenue Potential for Inpatient IR Consultation Services: A Financial Model.

PURPOSE: Interventional radiology (IR) has historically failed to fully capture the value of evaluation and management services in the inpatient setting. Understanding financial benefits of a formally incorporated billing discipline may yield meaningful insights for interventional practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A revenue modeling tool was created deploying standard financial modeling techniques, including sensitivity and scenario analyses. Sensitivity analysis calculates revenue fluctuation related to dynamic adjustment of discrete variables. In scenario analysis, possible future scenarios as well as revenue potential of different-size clinical practices are modeled. RESULTS: Assuming a hypothetical inpatient IR consultation service with a daily patient census of 35 patients and two new consults per day, the model estimates annual charges of $2.3 million and collected revenue of $390,000. Revenues are most sensitive to provider billing documentation rates and patient volume. A range of realistic scenarios-from cautious to optimistic-results in a range of annual charges of $1.8 million to $2.7 million and a collected revenue range of $241,000 to $601,000. Even a small practice with a daily patient census of 5 and 0.20 new consults per day may expect annual charges of $320,000 and collected revenue of $55,000. CONCLUSIONS: A financial revenue modeling tool is a powerful adjunct in understanding economics of an inpatient IR consultation service. Sensitivity and scenario analyses demonstrate a wide range of revenue potential and uncover levers for financial optimization.

Obesity is associated with increased health care charges in patients undergoing outpatient plastic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is associated with greater rates of surgical complications. To address these complications after outpatient plastic surgery, obese patients may seek care in the emergency department and potentially require admission to the hospital, which could result in greater health care charges. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship of obesity, postdischarge hospital-based acute care, and hospital charges within 30 days of outpatient plastic surgery. METHODS: From state ambulatory surgery center databases in four states, all discharges for adult patients who underwent liposuction, abdominoplasty, breast reduction, and blepharoplasty were identified. Patients were grouped by the presence or absence of obesity. Multivariable regression models were used to compare the frequency of hospital-based acute care, serious adverse events, and hospital charges within 30 days between groups while controlling for confounding variables. RESULTS: The final sample included 47,741 discharges, with 2052 of these discharges (4.3 percent) being obese. Obese patients more frequently had a hospital-based acute care encounter [7.3 percent versus 3.9 percent; adjusted OR, 1.35 (95% CI,1.13 to 1.61)] or serious adverse event [3.2 percent versus 0.9 percent; adjusted OR, 1.73 (95% CI, 1.30 to 2.29)] within 30 days of surgery. Obese patients had adjusted hospital charges that were, on average, $3917, $7412, and $7059 greater (p < 0.01) than those of nonobese patients after liposuction, abdominoplasty, and breast reduction, respectively. CONCLUSION: Obese patients who undergo common outpatient plastic surgery procedures incur substantially greater health care charges, in part attributable to more frequent adverse events and hospital-based health care within 30 days of surgery. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

The cost of freezing general practice.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the effect on general practitioners' income, and the amount of any copayment required for GPs to recoup lost income, of two policies (individually and combined) proposed by the Australian Government: a continued indexation freeze of Medicare schedule fees; and a $5 rebate reduction (now retracted). DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Analysis of data from the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health (BEACH) program, a continuous cross-sectional, national study of GP activity in Australia. We used data for April 2013 to March 2014 on direct encounters between patients and GPs for which at least one Medicare Benefits Schedule or Department of Veterans' Affairs general practice consultation item was claimable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The reduction in GP rebate income due to the policies and the size of any copayment needed to address this loss. RESULTS: The $5 rebate reduction would have reduced GPs' income by $219.53 per 100 consultations. This would have required a $4.81 copayment at all non-concessional patient consultations to recoup lost income. The freeze would cost GPs $384.32 in 2017-18 dollars per 100 consultations, requiring an $8.43 copayment per non-concessional patient consultation. Total estimated loss in rebate income to GPs would have been $603.85 in 2017-18 per 100 encounters, a reduction of 11.2%. The non-concessional consultation copayment required to cover lost income from both policies would have been $7-$8 in 2015-16, and $12-$15 by 2017-18. CONCLUSION: If both policies had gone ahead, GPs would have needed to charge substantially more than the suggested $5 copayment for consultations with non-concessional patients in order to maintain 2014-15 relative gross income. Even though the rebate reduction has been retracted, the freeze will have greater impact with time - nearly double the amount of the rebate reduction by 2017-18. For economic reasons, the freeze may still force GPs who currently bulk bill to charge copayments.