American Insurance Coverage of Endovenous Ablation for Greater and Lesser Saphenous Varicose Veins.

GOALS/PURPOSE: Severe cases of varicose veins can cause psychological distress as well as physical symptoms including skin discoloration, wounds and burning sensations. One intervention, endovenous laser/radiofrequency ablation, is variably covered by insurance. Insurance coverage for this procedure was assessed for all indications of endovenous laser/radiofrequency ablation as medically necessity criteria. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted of 57 insurance policies for endovenous laser/radiofrequency ablation. The insurance companies were selected based on the greatest state enrollment and market share. A web-based search and telephone interviews were utilized to identify the policies. Medically necessary criteria were then extracted from the publicly available policies. RESULTS: Fifty-seven (57) insurance policies were assessed, with 36 (63.2%) of these policies providing coverage for endovenous radiofrequency or laser ablation. Six indications existed for coverage, with the most common indication being the demonstration of valvular reflux (n=29, 80.6%). Of the 29 companies that indicated coverage for valvular reflux, 19 (52.8%) specifically required saphenous reflux. Significantly more companies required saphenous reflux vs other specified types of valvular reflux (52.8% vs 8.3%, p<0.001 for saphenous vs junctional reflux and 52.8% vs 16.7%, p <0.003 for saphenous vs nonspecific). Prior to proceeding with endovenous laser or radiofrequency ablation, up to 33% of insurance companies required a trial of conservative management as medically necessary. CONCLUSION: There is a great discrepancy in insurance policy criteria for coverage of endovenous laser/radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of varicose veins, particularly regarding the requirements for valvular reflux and a trial of conservative therapy.

A Cross-Sectional Analysis of American Insurance Coverage of Prominauris Otoplasty.

BACKGROUND: Prominent ears affect up to 5% of the population and can lead to social and psychological concerns at a critical time of social development. It can be addressed with an otoplasty, which is often considered a cosmetic procedure. The authors assessed insurance coverage of all indications of otoplasty and their medical necessity criteria. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted of 58 insurance policies for otoplasty. The insurance companies were selected based on their state enrolment and market share. A web-based search and telephone interviews were utilized to identify the policies. Medically necessary criteria were then abstracted from the publicly available policies. RESULTS: Of the 58 insurance policies assessed, 25 (43%) provide coverage of otoplasty. There were 2 indications for coverage: hearing loss (n = 20, 80%) and normal approximation (n = 14, 56%), which would encompass prominent ears. Normal approximation was a covered indication for significantly fewer insurers than hearing loss (56% versus 80%, P = 0.0013). Of all the otoplasty policies which covered normal approximation, 21% (n = 3) addressed protruding ears as an etiology. Prominent ears were not included in any policies which covered hearing loss. All policies inclusive of prominent ears required a protrusion of >20 mm from the temporal surface of the head (n = 3, 100%). CONCLUSIONS: There is a great discrepancy in insurance coverage of otoplasty. A greater proportion of policies cover hearing loss compared to normal approximation. The authors encourage plastic surgeons to advocate for the necessity and coverage of normal approximation by insurers.