RESUMO
Fractional laser therapy improves skin texture, range of motion, and quality of life for patients with traumatic scars. Nevertheless, anecdotal evidence suggests declining insurance coverage for laser therapy. We aimed to characterize the landscape of insurance coverage for fractional laser therapy present our six-year reimbursement trends. We cross-sectionally analyzed the 60 largest American health insurers by enrollee size and market share. For each, we identified their laser therapy policy for scar revision and extracted their documentation, prior, and continuing authorization requirements and treatment guidelines. We also collected retrospective institutional claims data from 2017 to 2022 to investigate trends in reimbursement. Of the 60 largest health insurers, we identified 11 (18.3%) policies on scar revision and 40 policies (66.7%) on reconstructive surgery, including scar revision. Nineteen policies considered laser therapy medically necessary with evidence of functional impairment refractory to prior treatment. Three insurers denied laser coverage under any circumstance. Of the 1,531 claims submitted by our institution for burn scar laser therapy, 13.8% were denied. Patients with Medicare (ORadj, 3.78) or Medicaid (ORadj, 2.80) had significantly greater odds of coverage than privately insured patients (p<0.01). There was a 14.5% annual reduction in the odds of reimbursement during the study period (ORadj, 0.86, p < 0.01). Laser therapy is a powerful treatment that is not widely available to patients with traumatic scars. Our institutional data suggest this access may be further eclipsed by decreasing trends in coverage since 2017. Strategies are needed to protect patient access to this life-changing treatment.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The frequency of bedside percutaneous tracheostomies is increasing in intensive care medicine, and both safety and efficiency of care are critical elements in continuing success of this procedure. Prioritizing patient safety, a tracheostomy team was created at our institution to provide bedside expertise in surgery, anesthesiology, respiratory, and technical support. This study was performed to evaluate the metrics of patient outcome, efficiency of care, and cost-benefit analysis of the multidisciplinary Johns Hopkins Percutaneous Tracheostomy Program. DESIGN: A review was performed for patients who received tracheostomies in 2004, the year before the Johns Hopkins Percutaneous Tracheostomy Program was established, and those who received tracheostomies in 2008, the year following the program's establishment. Comparative outcomes were evaluated, including the efficiency of procedure and intensive care unit length of stay, complication rate including bleeding, hypoxia, loss of airway, and a financial cost-benefit analysis. SETTING: Single-center, major university hospital. PATIENTS: The sample consisted of 363 patients who received a tracheostomy in the years 2004 and 2008. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The number of percutaneous procedures increased from 59 of 126 tracheostomy patients in 2004, to 183 of 237 in 2008. There were significant decreases in the prevalence of procedural complications, particularly in the realm of airway injuries and physiologic disturbances. Regarding efficiency, the structured program reduced the time to tracheostomy and overall procedural time. The intensive care unit length of stay in nonpulmonary patients and improvement in intensive care unit and operating room back-fill efficiency contributed to an overall institutional financial benefit. CONCLUSIONS: An institutionally subsidized, multi-disciplinary percutaneous tracheostomy program can improve the quality of care in a cost-effective manner by decreasing the incidence of tracheostomy complications and improving both the time to tracheostomy, duration of procedure, and postprocedural intensive care unit stay.