Elective Versus Nonelective Spinal Fusions: Surgical and Financial Outcomes in a Bundled Payment Reimbursement Model.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Bundled payment for care improvement advanced (BPCIA) is a voluntary alternative payment model administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services using value-based care to reduce costs by incentivizing care coordination and improved quality. We aimed to identify drivers of negative financial performance in BPCIA among patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery. METHODS: This is a single-institution retrospective review of patients enrolled in BPCIA undergoing spinal fusion with DRGs 453, 454, 455, 459, and 460 from 2018 to 2022. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with negative financial performance and compare nonelective vs elective surgeries. RESULTS: We identified 172 cases, of which 24% (n = 41) had negative financial performance and 9% (n = 16) were nonelective cases. Nonelective surgery (P < .001, odds ratios 19.81), greater levels instrumented (P < .001), and no anterior procedure (P = .001) were associated with negative financial performance. Surgical outcomes associated with negative financial performance and factors more common in nonelective cases respectively included higher hospital length of stay (P < .001, P = .005), nonhome discharge (P < .001, P < .001), 90-day hospital readmission (P < .001, P < .001), 90-day additional nonspine surgery (P = .01, P < .001), and less days at home of the 90 days (P < .001, P = .01). Nonelective surgeries had higher total spend (P = .01), readmission spend (P = .03), skilled nursing facility spend (P = .02), durable medical equipment spend (P = .003), and professional billing spend (P = .04) despite similar target pricing (P = .60), all of which resulted in greater financial loss compared with elective surgeries (P = .001). CONCLUSION: Nonelective spinal surgery is an independent preoperative predictor of negative financial performance in BPCIA. Nonelective spinal surgeries are more likely than elective surgeries to have higher length of stay, nonhome discharge, 90-day hospital readmission, 90-day additional nonspine surgeries, and less time spent at home during the bundled period, all of which contribute to higher health care utilization. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should consider incorporating nonelective spine surgery into risk-adjustment models.

Emerging Nurse Billing and Reimbursement Models.

OBJECTIVES: To explore and make recommendations to implement direct billing and reimbursement models for nursing care in the United States. BACKGROUND: Nurses make up the largest group of healthcare professionals and within hospitals, nurses represent approximately a quarter of all resources and associated costs of patient care. This care is mostly hidden in daily room and board charges. METHODS: The authors surveyed the recent and historical literature related to costing and billing for nursing care. These results were synthesized and led to the recommendation of several new models to cost, bill, and pay for nursing care provided by nurses who are not currently billing for their services. RESULTS: Two basic billing models are proposed: the 1st is to remove nursing care out of the current daily room or facility-based charges and allocate nursing care time provided to each patient during each day of stay. The 2nd is to expand existing Current Procedural Terminology codes to bill for specific activities and interventions by nurses in all settings where nursing care is delivered. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to implement the proposed methods to identify patient-level nursing intensity, cost, services, and interventions provided by individual nurses in all healthcare settings.

Impact of Site-Neutral Payments for Commercial and Employer-Sponsored Plans.

Site-neutral payment is a policy created by federal rule making and implemented by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that aims to reduce healthcare costs by aligning payment rates for certain services provided in multiple care settings. Site-neutral payments are intended to eliminate the incentive for providers to acquire facilities, such as physician offices or ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), that Medicare reimburses at the lower non-facility rate and convert those settings into hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs), where Medicare reimburses at the higher facility rate. Although initiated by Congress to address payment disparities in Medicare, similar payment discrepancies can be seen in the commercial market where individual and employer-sponsored health plans often pay more for certain outpatient services depending on their location. This analysis presents a simulation of the impact of applying site-neutral payments to the commercial market with respect to overall potential savings for consumers, health plans and the federal government. To conduct the analysis, we use an all-payer claims data base generalizable to the United States. The analysis focused on a select group of outpatient services identified by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). We mapped the MedPAC identified 68 Ambulatory Payment Classifications (APCs), the codes Medicare uses to reimburse facilities for outpatient services, to the relevant CPT4/HCPCS codes, which the commercial market uses for billing. The potential cost savings of applying the site-neutral payment policy to the commercial insurance market to be $58 billion for year 2022. We estimate the 10-year total (2024-2033) employer market premium reduction ranges from 5.35% to 5.0% and found that those premium reductions would result in employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) tax subsidy savings of $140 billion to the federal government over a 10-year period (2024-2033).

Market Factors, Not Quality, Influence Reimbursement for Pancreaticoduodenectomy in an Era of Price Transparency.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) price transparency rule tries to facilitate cost-conscious decision-making. For surgical services, such as pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), factors mediating transparency and real-world reimbursement are not well described. METHODS: The Leapfrog Survey was used to identify United States hospitals performing PD. Financial and operational data were obtained from Turquoise Health and CMS Cost Reports. Chi-square tests and modified Poisson regression evaluated associations with reimbursement disclosure. Two-part logistic and gamma regression models estimated effects of hospital factors on commercial, Medicare, and self-pay reimbursements for PD. RESULTS: Of 452 Leapfrog hospitals, 295 (65%) disclosed PD hospital or procedure reimbursements. Disclosing hospitals were larger (beds > 200: 81.0% vs. 71.3%, p = 0.04), reported higher net margins (0.7% vs. - 2.1%, p = 0.04), more likely for-profit (26.1% vs. 6.4%, p < 0.001), and teaching-affiliated (82.0% vs. 65.6%, p < 0.001). Nonprofit status conferred hospitalization reimbursement increases of $8683-$12,329, while moderate market concentration predicted savings up to $5066. Teaching affiliation conferred reimbursement increases of $4589-$16,393 for hospitalizations and $644 for procedures. Top Leapfrog volume ratings predicted an increase of up to $7795 for only Medicare hospitalization reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Nondisclosure of hospital and procedural reimbursements for PD remains a major issue. Transparency was noted in hospitals with higher margins, size, and academic affiliation. Factors associated with higher reimbursement were non-profit status, academic affiliation, and more equitable market share. Reimbursement inconsistently tracked with PD quality or volume measures. Policy changes may be required to incentivize reimbursement disclosure and translate transparency into increased value for patients.

Evolving Economics: The Erosion of Medicare Reimbursement in Breast Surgery (2003-2023).

INTRODUCTION: Medicare significantly influences reimbursement rates, setting a standard that impacts private insurance policies. Despite declining rates in various specialties, the magnitude of these trends has not been examined in breast surgery. This study examines Medicare reimbursement trends for breast surgery operations. METHODS: Data for 10 breast operations from 2003 to 2023 were collected from the Medicare Physician Fee Look-Up Tool and yearly reimbursement was computed using the conversion factor. The year-to-year percentage change in reimbursement was calculated, and the overall median change was compared with the consumer price index (CPI) for inflation evaluation. All data were adjusted to 2023 United States dollars. The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) was calculated using inflation-adjusted data. RESULTS: Over the study period, reimbursement for the 10 breast operations had a mean unadjusted percentage increase of + 25.17%, while the CPI increased by 69.15% (p < 0.001). However, after adjustment, overall reimbursement decreased by - 20.70%. Only two operations (lumpectomy and simple mastectomy) saw increased inflation-adjusted Medicare reimbursement (+ 0.37% and + 3.58%, respectively). The CAGR was - 1.54% overall but remained positive for the same two operations (+ 0.02% and + 0.18%, respectively). Based on these findings, breast surgeons were estimated to be reimbursed $107,605,444 less in 2023 than if rates had kept pace with inflation over the past decade. CONCLUSION: Inflation-adjusted Medicare reimbursement rates for breast surgeries have declined from 2003 to 2023. This downward trend may strain resources, potentially leading to compromises in care quality. Surgeons, administrators, and policymakers must take proactive measures to address these issues and ensure the ongoing accessibility and quality of breast surgery.

Rebuilding the Relative Value Unit-Based Physician Payment System.

This Viewpoint explores the use of relative value units assigned by the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale in US physician payment systems and the need to rebuild this scale to reflect changes in modern clinical practice.

Unveiling the Hidden Discrepancies Between Medicare Physician Reimbursement Rates and Inflation Across Different Surgical Specialties.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the trends of Medicare physician reimbursement from 2011 to 2021 and compare the rates across different surgical specialties. BACKGROUND: Knowledge of Medicare is essential because of its significant contribution in physician reimbursements. Previous studies across surgical specialties have demonstrated that Medicare, despite keeping up with inflation in some areas, has remained flat when accounting for physician reimbursement. STUDY DESIGN: The Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary data for the calendar year 2021 were queried to extract the top 50% of Current Procedural Terminology codes based on case volume. The Physician Fee Schedule look-up tool was accessed, and the physician reimbursement fee was abstracted. Weighted mean reimbursement was adjusted for inflation. Growth rate and compound annual growth rate were calculated. Projection of future inflation and reimbursement rates were also calculated using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. RESULTS: After adjusting for inflation, the weighted mean reimbursement across surgical specialties decreased by -22.5%. The largest reimbursement decrease was within the field of general surgery (-33.3%), followed by otolaryngology (-31.5%), vascular surgery (-23.3%), and plastic surgery (-22.8%). There was a significant decrease in median case volume across all specialties between 2011 and 2021 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that, when adjusted for inflation, over the study period, there has been a consistent decrease in reimbursement for all specialties analyzed. Awareness of the current downward trends in Medicare physician reimbursement should be a priority for all surgeons, as means of advocating for compensation and to maintain surgical care feasible and accessible to all patients.

Medicare's Post-Acute Care Reimbursement Models as of 2023: Past, Present, and Future.

ABSTRACT: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is continually working to mitigate unnecessary expenditures, particularly in post-acute care (PAC). Medicare reimburses for orthopaedic surgeon services in varied models, including fee-for-service, bundled payments, and merit-based incentive payment systems. The goal of these models is to improve the quality of care, reduce health-care costs, and encourage providers to adopt innovative and efficient health-care practices.This article delves into the implications of each payment model for the field of orthopaedic surgery, highlighting their unique features, incentives, and potential impact in the PAC setting. By considering the historical, current, and future Medicare reimbursement models, we hope to provide an understanding of the optimal payment model based on the specific needs of patients and providers in the PAC setting.

Association of Launch Price and Clinical Value With Reimbursement Decisions for Anticancer Drugs in China.

BACKGROUND: The potential role played by launch price and clinical value in reimbursement decisions has not been sufficiently established in China. This study aimed to investigate the association of launch price and clinical value with reimbursement decisions for anticancer drugs after the implementation of reimbursement-linked price negotiation in China. METHODS: Anticancer drugs approved by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) of China from January 2017 to June 2022 were eligible for inclusion. Approval and reimbursement dates of included drug indications were retrieved from publicly available resources. We collected measures of clinical value, including survival, quality of life (QoL), and overall response rate from pivotal clinical trials and calculated treatment price at launch. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were employed to estimate the association between launch price, clinical value, and reimbursement decisions of anticancer drugs in China. RESULTS: The median reimbursement lag was 579 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 402-936) for 93 indications supported by randomized controlled trials and 637 days (IQR: 373-858) for 42 indications supported by single-arm clinical trials. Reimbursement was granted to 60 (65%) and 23 (55%) indications supported by randomized controlled and single-arm clinical trials, respectively. The launch price of anticancer drugs was not associated with reimbursement decisions in multivariate regression analyses. Indications supported by randomized controlled trials with higher clinical value were more likely to be reimbursed (hazard ratio [HR] for survival=1.07, 95% CI: 1.00-1.15, P=.037), while the overall response rate of indications supported by single-arm clinical trials was not associated with the likelihood of being reimbursed (HR=2.09, 95% CI: 0.14-32.28, P=.595). CONCLUSION: The launch price of anticancer drugs may not have a significant impact on reimbursement decisions, while the implementation of reimbursement-linked price negotiation in China has prioritized anticancer drugs with higher clinical value, but only for indications supported by randomized controlled trials. Efforts are needed to prioritize indications supported by single-arm clinical trials that have higher value during the process of price negotiation.

Reimbursement for a Broader Array of Services in Coordinated Specialty Care for Early Psychosis.

Despite the growing evidence supporting the benefits of coordinated specialty care (CSC) for early psychosis, access to this multimodal, evidence-based program in the United States has been hindered by a lack of funding for core CSC services and activities. The recent approval of team-based reimbursement codes by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has the potential to fund substantially more CSC services for clients with insurance coverage that accepts the new team-based billing codes. This streamlined and more inclusive billing strategy may reduce administrative burden and support the financial viability of CSC programs.

Examining the Impact of the Current Reimbursement Regulation on Patient Access to Innovative Medical Devices in Taiwan: Insights From 8 Years' Reimbursement Data.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the impact of the reimbursement regulation of medical devices (Regulation), introduced by the National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA) in 2013, on patients' access to innovative medical devices in Taiwan. METHODS: Analysis of the amount of time needed from application for NHIA reimbursement for new medical devices to receiving the decision from NHIA was done using the nonreimbursement product list featured on the NHIA website. Additionally, Welch analysis of variance was used to compare the amount of time it took from application to NHIA with reimbursement decisions made by the NHIA for different nonreimbursement code categories. Further, related Pharmaceutical Benefit Reimbursement Scheme meeting minutes were analyzed to obtain more detailed information concerning medical devices' reimbursement or not. RESULTS: From December 2012 to June 2021, the overall reimbursement percentage was 56.7%, and the average amount of time between application and reimbursement was 856.7 ± 474.7 days. The mandatory reimbursement rate was about 45%. NHIA reimbursement decisions as special medical devices also take a longer amount of time, because the applicants need to agree to the decision (P < .05). The NHIA decision-making process for nonreimbursement medical devices requires a significantly longer amount of time than for general materials (eg, suture, etc) decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Although the Regulation resolves payment issues, it also increases the amount of time to reach reimbursement decisions, thus hindering patient access to innovative medical devices. The study suggests that the review process needs to be simplified concerning reimbursement notification, using local real-world data to support reimbursement decisions.

Administrator Perspectives on the Impact of COVID-19 on the Administration of the Patient Driven Payment Model in U.S. Skilled Nursing Facilities.

The Patient Driven Payment Model (PDPM) was implemented in U.S. skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) in October 2019, shortly before COVID-19. This new payment model aimed to reimburse SNFs for patients' nursing needs rather than the previous model which reimbursed based on the volume of therapy received. Through 156 semi-structured interviews with 40 SNF administrators from July 2020 to December 2021, this qualitative study clarifies the impact of COVID-19 on the administration of PDPM at SNFs. Interview data were analyzed using modified grounded theory and thematic analysis. Our findings show that SNF administrators shifted focus from management of the PDPM to COVID-19-related delivery of care adaptations, staff shortfalls, and decreased admissions. As the pandemic abated, administrators re-focused their attention to PDPM. Policy makers should consider the continued impacts of the pandemic at SNFs, particularly on delivery of care, admissions, and staffing, on the ability of SNF administrators to administer a new payment model.

Policy and Payment Decisions on Peritoneal Dialysis in the United States: A Review.

End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) accounts for a sizable proportion of Medicare spending. Peritoneal dialysis remains an underutilized treatment modality for ESKD despite its quality of life and cost-saving benefits. Medicare policy on reimbursements and patient eligibility for dialysis coverage has been amended numerous times since its inception in 1972. Over the last two decades, Medicare policy on ESKD reimbursements has evolved from a primarily fee-for-service model to a prospective payment system, and within the past few years, it has begun including more experimental payment structures. While prior work has explored the evolution of Medicare's ESKD policy as a whole, we specifically outline the impact of Medicare policy changes on peritoneal dialysis reimbursement rates, uptake by physicians and dialysis facilities, and accessibility to patients. This narrative review offers historical insights, an overview of modern ESKD policy, actionable strategies, and policy opportunities to increase the accessibility of this treatment modality.

Alternative Payment Models in Pregnancy to Improve Outcomes and Advance Equity.

This Viewpoint reviews the state of alternative payment models (APMs) applied to pregnancy and proposes clinical and policy objectives that could guide model design going forward.