Trends in Patient Complexity, Practice Setting, and Surgeon Reimbursement for Urolithiasis: Do Rural Urologists Pay the Price?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between patient complexity, practice setting, and surgeon reimbursement for ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). METHODS: The "2021 Medicare Physician and Other Provider" file was used to collect Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes and hierarchical condition category (HCC) scores of urologists. Higher HCC score corresponds to higher medical complexity and higher RUCA code corresponds to a more rural area. Medicare reimbursement for ureteroscopy and PCNL were collected. Linear regressions were performed to predict change in reimbursement based on RUCA and HCC scores. RESULTS: In 2021, 52,816 procedures under Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 52356 (ureteroscopy) and 1649 procedures under 50080 or 50081 (PCNL) were billed to Medicare. Mean reimbursement was $338.24 for ureteroscopy and $957.89 for PCNL. For ureteroscopy, higher HCC score predicted lower reimbursement (P <.001). Higher HCC score predicted higher reimbursement for PCNL (P <.01). Average RUCA for ureteroscopy was higher than for PCNL (P = .02). Rural location predicted lower reimbursement for ureteroscopy (P <.001), however, there was no association for PCNL. CONCLUSION: For ureteroscopy, higher-risk patients are associated with lower reimbursement while the opposite holds true for PCNL. Rural practices were associated with lower reimbursement for ureteroscopy, but there was no association between location and PCNL reimbursement. Together, these findings suggest practice pattern variation between ureteroscopy and PCNL and highlight gaps in reimbursement policy. Risk-adjusted reimbursement should be considered to incentivize urologists to treat complex patients within their practice scope.

Assessment of the gender gap in urology industry payments: An Open Payments Program data analysis.

PURPOSE: The Open Payments Program (OPP), established in 2013 under the Sunshine Act, mandated medical device and pharmaceutical manufacturers to submit records of financial incentives given to physicians for public availability. The study aims to characterize the gap in real general and real research payments between man and woman urologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study sample included all urologists in the United States who received at least one general or research payment in the OPP database from 2015 to 2021. Recipients were identified using the National Provider Identifier and National Downloadable File datasets. Payments were analyzed by geography, year, payment type, and years since graduation. Multivariable analysis on odds of being in above the median in terms of money received was done with gender as a covariate. This analysis was also completed for all academic urologists. RESULTS: There was a total of 15,980 urologists; 13.6% were woman, and 86.4% were man. Compared to man urologists, woman urologists were less likely to be in the top half of total payments received (odds ratio [OR] 0.62) when adjusted for other variables. When looking at academic urologists, 18.1% were woman and 81.9% were man. However, woman academic urologists were even less likely to be in the top 50% of payments received (OR 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to characterize the difference in industry payments between man and woman urologists. The results should be utilized to educate physicians and industry, in order to achieve equitable engagement and funding for woman urologists.

Value-based payment models and management of newly diagnosed prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of urologist participation in value-based payment models on the initial management of men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries with prostate cancer diagnosed between 2017 and 2019, with 1 year of follow-up, were assigned to their primary urologist, each of whom was then aligned to a value-based payment model (the merit-based incentive payment system [MIPS], accountable care organization [ACO] without financial risk, and ACO with risk). Multivariable mixed-effects logistic regression was used to measure the association between payment model participation and treatment of prostate cancer. Additional models estimated the effects of payment model participation on use of treatment in men with very high risk (i.e., >75%) of non-cancer mortality within 10 years of diagnosis (i.e., a group of men for whom treatment is generally not recommended) and price-standardized prostate cancer spending in the 12 months after diagnosis. RESULTS: Treatment did not vary by payment model, both overall (MIPS-67% [95% CI 66%-68%], ACOs without risk-66% [95% CI 66%-68%], ACOs with risk-66% [95% CI 64%-68%]). Similarly, treatment did not vary among men with very high risk of non-cancer mortality by payment model (MIPS-52% [95% CI 50%-55%], ACOs without risk-52% [95% CI 50%-55%], ACOs with risk-51% [95% CI 45%-56%]). Adjusted spending was similar across payment models (MIPS-$16,501 [95% CI $16,222-$16,780], ACOs without risk-$16,140 [95% CI $15,852-$16,429], ACOs with risk-$16,117 [95% CI $15,585-$16,649]). CONCLUSIONS: How urologists participate in value-based payment models is not associated with treatment, potential overtreatment, and prostate cancer spending in men with newly diagnosed disease.

Association between Industry Payments and Published Position on Use of Devices for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of industry payments to authors of opinion articles on the Urolift and Rezum devices. We also examined the extent to which authors omitted acknowledgements of financial conflicts-of-interest. METHODS: We searched Google Scholar for all articles that cite either of the respective pivotal trials for these devices. 2 blinded urologists coded the articles as favorable or neutral. A separate blinded researcher recorded industry payments from the manufacturers using the Open Payments Program database. RESULTS: We identified 29 articles written by 27 unique authors from an initial screening list of 235 articles. Of these articles, 15 (52%) were coded as positive and 14 (48%) were coded as neutral. 20 (74%) authors have accepted payments from the manufacturer of the device. Since 2014, these authors have collectively received $270,000 from NeoTract and $314,000 from Boston Scientific. Of the 20 authors with payments, 9 (45%) received more than $10,000 from either manufacturer. Of authors with payments, 65% (13/20) contributed to only positive articles. Authors who received payments had more than 4 times the number of article contributions than did authors without payments (42 vs 10). Authors of at least one favorable article were more likely to have received payments from the device manufacturers than authors of neutral articles (P = .014, Chi-squared test). Most (80%, 16/20) authors with payments did not report a relevant conflict-of-interest within any of their articles. CONCLUSION: These data suggest a relationship between payments from a manufacturer and positive published position on that company's device. There may be a critical lack of published editorial pieces by authors without financial conflicts of interest.

Vasectomy Reversal Online Marketing Practices: What Are We Putting Out There?

OBJECTIVE: To determine characteristics of providers marketing vasectomy reversal (VR) online, degree of information available online, the ease with which patients can compare providers, and the differences in VR practice patterns between academic and private practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified VR practices operating within the top 50 most populous metropolitan areas in the US. Practice websites were reviewed to obtain information such as provider educational background, level of magnification, ability to perform vasoepididymostomy, surgical volume, and cost. Based on information available, providers were assigned a novel REVERSAL score created by the authors. Descriptive statistics were used to compare results. RESULTS: Of the 107 providers identified (29 academic, 78 private), the majority were male urologists with a Doctor of Medicine degree. Academic providers were more likely to have fellowship training than private practice providers, 96.6 vs 43.6%, respectively (P = 0.00001). Compared to non-urologists, urologists were less likely to purchase online ads or disclose cost. Non-urologists charged significantly less than urologists, $3,584 ± 1,554 and $6,591 ± 1,518, respectively (P = 0.00001). Only one provider provided complete information as defined by REVERSAL score of 12, with the majority (61.7%) of providers achieving score ≤6. CONCLUSION: There is significant lack of transparency in publicly available information from VR practices. Practices should implement measures to improve dissemination of information to the public, so that patients can more easily compare providers and make informed decisions regarding VR.

Current and Future Status of Merit-Based Incentive Payment Systems.

The Quality Payment Program was established by the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) legislation in response to repeated efforts to create a permanent so-called doc fix in response to the failures of the sustainable growth formula. This article examines the history leading up to MACRA, the current pathways associated with the Quality Payment Program, and future expectation both from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, stakeholders, and patients.

Finance 101 for Physicians.

Although physicians enjoy extensive educational backgrounds, financial planning typically is not a significant component of the curricula they have completed. As a result, many physicians could benefit from greater financial acumen, and their preparation for retirement might be lacking in light of their relatively high-income levels. This article by a private wealth advisor with 29 years of industry experience provides physicians with the basic building blocks to understand and manage their finances. It focuses on 3 pillars of financial planning: (1) protecting themselves, their families, and their assets; (2) reducing their taxes; and (3) growing their wealth.

Promotional Payments Made to Urologists by the Pharmaceutical Industry and Prescribing Patterns for Targeted Therapies.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the association between market-level promotional payments to urologists by the manufacturers of abiraterone and enzalutamide and national prescribing patterns. METHODS: A 20% national sample of the 2015 Part D event file was used to identify patients filling their first prescription for abiraterone and enzalutamide and their prescribing physicians. The 2015 Open Payments data were used to characterize promotional payments made to physicians at the market level. Generalized linear models were then used to measure the relationship between market-level payments to urologists and the physician specialty prescribing abiraterone or enzalutamide for the first time RESULTS: In 2015, 2318 men filled a prescription for abiraterone or enzalutamide by a urologist or medical oncologist. Increasing market-level promotional payments to urologists for abiraterone or enzalutamide was strongly associated with a urologist prescribing either drug-24.3% versus 5.8% of those residing in the markets with highest and lowest level of promotional payments to urologists, respectively (P <.01). Neither the number of urologists residing in a market nor other promotional payment measures (ie, to medical oncologists for these drugs, or to all physicians for all other drugs) were associated with a urologist prescribing either drug. CONCLUSION: Promotional payments to urologists at the market level are strongly associated with the specialty of the physician prescribing abiraterone or enzalutamide for the first time. Future work should elucidate the effects of the shift in prescribing patterns on quality of care and financial hardship for men with advanced prostate cancer.

Patterns of Industry Payments to Urologists From 2014-2018.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the patterns of financial transaction between industry and urologists in the first 5 years of reporting in the Open Payments Program (OPP) by comparing transactions over time, between academic and nonacademic urologists, and by provider characteristics among academic urologists. METHODS: The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services OPP database was queried for General Payments to urologists from 2014-2018. Faculty at ACGME-accredited urology training programs were identified and characterized via publicly available websites. Industry transfers were analyzed by year, practice setting (academic vs nonacademic), provider characteristics, and AUA section. Payment nature and individual corporate contributions were also summarized. RESULTS: A total of 12,521 urologists - representing 75% of the urology workforce in any given year - received $168 million from industry over the study period. There was no significant trend in payments by year (P = .162). Urologists received a median of $1602 over the study period, though 14% received >$10,000. Payment varied significantly by practice setting (P <.001), with nonacademic urologists receiving more but smaller payments than academic urologists. Among academic urologists, gender (P <.001), department chair status (P <.001), fellowship training (P <.001), and subspecialty (P <.001) were significantly associated with amount of payment from industry. Annual payments from industry varied significantly by AUA section. CONCLUSION: Reporting of physician-industry transactions has not led to a sustained decline in transactions with urologists. Significant differences in industry interaction exist between academic and nonacademic urologists, and values transferred to academic urologists varied by gender, chair status, subspecialty, and AUA section.

Gender Gap in Industry Relationships and Scholarly Impact Among Academic Urologists in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the distribution of industry payments to male and female academic urologists and the relationship between industry funding, academic rank, and scholarly impact. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Academic urologists from 131 programs with publicly available websites were compiled. Gender, rank, fellowship training, and scholarly impact metrics were recorded. Data from the 2016 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database were paired with faculty names. Comparisons were made using Fisher's Exact, Wilcoxon Rank Sum, and Spearman's Rank-Order tests. Multivariable logistic regression modeling identified predictors of receiving payments in the top quintile. RESULTS: Among 1,657 academic urologists, males comprised 84%. While there were no gender differences in the number of urologists listed in the Open Payments Database, males received more total funding (P < .001) and higher median general payments per capita (P < .03). Males also received higher proportions of research funding (P = .002), speaker fees (P = .03), education fees (P = .03) and higher median consulting fees (P = .003). Overall, males had higher scholarly impact (P < .001), which correlated with total industry payments (rho = 0.27, P < .001). Predictors of accepting the top quintile payments include male gender, associate professorship and H-index score ≥10. CONCLUSION: Most academic urologists accepted at least one industry payment in 2016, but males received more funding than females. There is a positive correlation between total industry payments, H-index, and total publications. More research is needed to understand why gender and scholarly productivity are associated with higher payouts. This is another important area that may influence career advancement and compensation for female urologists.

Variation in Practice Patterns and Reimbursements Between Female and Male Urologists for Medicare Beneficiaries.

Importance: Previous assessments of practice patterns and reimbursements for female urologists relied on surveys or board certification logs. A current evaluation of the geographic distribution and practice patterns by female urologists would reveal contemporary patterns of access for Medicare beneficiaries. Objective: To characterize the variation in practice patterns and reimbursements by urologist sex and the regional deficiencies in care provided by female urologists. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study used the publicly available Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider Payment database to evaluate payments for US urologists. The cohort (n = 8665) included urologists who provided and were paid for 11 or more services to Medicare beneficiaries in 2016. Data collection and analysis were performed from October 3, 2018, through June 19, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of female-specific services, payments per beneficiary, and payments per work relative value unit (wRVU) by urologist sex were assessed. Density of female urologists across hospital markets was also identified. Results: Among the 8665 urologists who received payments in 2016, 7944 (91.7%) were men and 721 (8.3%) were women. Female urologists, compared with male urologists, saw a lower proportion of patients with cancer (mean [SD], 16.3% [9.2%] vs 22.7% [8.8%]; P < .001) and a greater proportion of female Medicare beneficiaries (mean [SD], 52.8% [23.2%] vs 24.4% [10.3%]; P < .001). Female urologists generated a greater proportion of wRVU from urodynamics (median [IQR], 2.88% [1.26%-4.84%] vs 1.07% [0.31%-2.26%]; P < .001) and gynecological operations (median [IQR], 0.68% [0.45%-1.07%] vs 0.41% [0.20%-0.81%]; P < .001) than male urologists. In addition, female urologists, compared with their male counterparts, received lower median payments per beneficiary seen ($70.12 [interquartile range (IQR), $60.00-$84.81] vs $72.37 [IQR, $59.63-$89.29]; P = .03) and lower payments per wRVU ($58.25 [IQR, $48.39-65.26] vs $60.04 [IQR, $51.93-$67.88]; P < .001). One-third (103 [33.7%]) of 306 hospital referral regions had 0 female urologists, and 80 (26.1%) had only 1 female urologist. Conclusions and Relevance: Female urologists were more likely to provide care for female Medicare beneficiaries, to receive lower payments per wRVU generated and beneficiaries seen, and to be difficult to access in certain geographic areas; these findings have policy-related implications and highlight the regional deficiencies in urological care and reimbursement discrepancies according to urologist sex.

Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Urology Clinical Practice Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have highlighted the presence of disclosed and undisclosed financial conflicts of interest among authors of clinical practice guidelines. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine to what extent urology guideline authors receive and report industry payments in accordance with the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We selected the 13 urology guidelines that were published by the American Urological Association (AUA) after disclosure was mandated by the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. Payments received by guideline authors were searched independently by two investigators using the Open Payments database. OUTCOME MEASURES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Our primary outcome measure was the number of authors receiving payments from industry, stratified by amount thresholds. Our secondary outcome measure was the number of authors with accurate conflict of interest disclosure statements. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified a total of 54 author disclosures. Thirty-two authors (59.3%) received at least one payment from industry. Twenty (37.0%) received >$10 000 and six (11.1%) received >$50 000. Median total payments were $578 (interquartile range $0-19 228). Twenty (37.0%) disclosure statements were inaccurate. Via Dollars for Docs, we identified $74 195.13 paid for drugs and devices directly related to guideline recommendations. We were limited in our ability to determine when authors began working on guideline panels, as this information was not provided, and by the lack of specificity in Dollars for Docs. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the AUA guideline authors received payments from industry, some in excess of $50 000. A significant portion of disclosure statements were inaccurate, indicating a need for more stringent enforcement of the AUA disclosure policy. PATIENT SUMMARY: Pharmaceutical company payments to doctors have been shown to influence how doctors treat patients. If these doctors are charged with making clinical recommendations to other doctors, in the form of clinical practice guidelines, the issue of industry payments becomes more severe. We found that many urologists on guideline panels receive money from industry and that a significant portion did not disclose all payments received.