Association of Surprise-Billing Legislation with Prices Paid to In-Network and Out-of-Network Anesthesiologists in California, Florida, and New York: An Economic Analysis.

Importance: Several states have passed surprise-billing legislation to protect patients from unanticipated out-of-network medical bills, yet little is known about how state laws influence out-of-network prices and whether spillovers exist to in-network prices. Objective: To identify any changes in prices paid to out-of-network anesthesiologists at in-network facilities and to in-network anesthesiologists before and after states passed surprise-billing legislation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective economic analysis used difference-in-differences methods to compare price changes before and after the passage of legislation in California, Florida, and New York, which passed comprehensive surprise-billing legislation between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2017, to 45 states that did not. Commercial claims data from the Health Care Cost Institute were used to identify prices paid to anesthesiologists in hospital outpatient departments and ambulatory surgery centers. The final analytic sample comprised 2 713 913 anesthesia claims across the 3 treated states and the 45 control states. Exposures: Temporal and state-level variation in exposure to surprise-billing legislation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The unit price (allowed amounts standardized per unit of service) paid to out-of-network anesthesiologists at in-network facilities and to in-network anesthesiologists. Results: This retrospective economic analysis of 2 713 913 anesthesia claims found that after surprise-billing laws were passed in 3 states, the unit price paid to out-of-network anesthesiologists at in-network facilities decreased significantly in 2 of them: California, -$12.71 (95% CI, -$25.70 to -$0.27; P = .05) and Florida, -$35.67 (95% CI, -$46.27 to -$25.07; P < .001). In New York, a decline in the overall out-of-network price was not statistically significant (-$7.91; 95% CI, -$17.48 to -$1.68; P = .10); however, by the fourth quarter of 2017, the decline was -$41.28 (95% CI, -$70.24 to -$12.33; P = .01). In-network prices decreased in California by -$10.68 (95% CI, -$12.70 to -$8.66; P < .001); in Florida, -$3.18 (95% CI, -$5.17 to -$1.19; P = .002); and in New York, -$8.05 (95% CI, -$11.46 to -$4.64; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This retrospective study found that prices paid to in-network and out-of-network anesthesiologists in hospital outpatient departments and ambulatory surgery centers decreased after the introduction of surprise-billing legislation, providing early insights into how prices may change under the federal No Surprises Act and in states that have recently passed their own legislation.

Gender Differences in Compensation in Anesthesiology in the United States: Results of a National Survey of Anesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND: A gender-based compensation gap among physicians is well documented. Even after adjusting for age, experience, work hours, productivity, and academic rank, the gender gap remained and widened over the course of a physician's career. This study aimed to examine if a significant gender pay gap still existed for anesthesiologists in the United States. METHODS: In 2018, we surveyed 28,812 physician members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists to assess the association of compensation with gender and to identify possible causes of wage disparities. Gender was the primary variable examined in the model, and compensation by gender was the primary outcome. Compensation was defined as the amount reported as direct compensation on a W-2, 1099, or K-1, plus all voluntary salary reductions (eg, 401[k], health insurance). The survey directed respondents to include salary, bonuses, incentive payments, research stipends, honoraria, and distribution of profits to employees. Respondents had the option of providing a point estimate of their compensation or selecting a range in $50,000 increments. Potential confounding variables that could affect compensation were identified based on a scoping literature review and the consensus expertise of the authors. We fitted a generalized ordinal logistic regression with 7 ranges of compensation. For the sensitivity analyses, we used linear regressions of log-transformed compensation based on respondent point estimates and imputed values. RESULTS: The final analytic sample consisted of 2081 observations (response rate, 7.2%). This sample represented a higher percentage of women and younger physicians compared to the demographic makeup of anesthesiologists in the United States. The adjusted odds ratio associated with gender equal to woman was an estimated 0.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.53), indicating that for a given compensation range, women had a 56% lower odds than men of being in a higher compensation range. Sensitivity analyses found the relative percentage difference in compensation for women compared to men ranged from -8.3 to -8.9. In the sensitivity analysis based on the subset of respondents (n = 1036) who provided a point estimate of compensation, the relative percentage difference (-8.3%; 95% confidence interval, -4.7 to -11.7) reflected a $32,617 lower compensation for women than men, holding other covariates at their means. CONCLUSIONS: Compensation for anesthesiologists showed a significant pay gap that was associated with gender even after adjusting for potential confounding factors, including age, hours worked, geographic practice region, practice type, position, and job selection criteria.

Determinants of Work-Related Quality of Life in French Anesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND: Little evidence is available regarding work-related quality of life (WRQoL) for anesthesiologists. We aimed to explore factors associated with WRQoL among French anesthesiologists. METHODS: The study surveyed French anesthesiologists qualified for more than 2 years. The primary objective was the determination of factors associated with WRQoL. Factors analyzed included demographic characteristics, lifestyle, financial status, personality traits, professional relations, management and organization, and occupational tasks when at work. Statistical analyses were performed using a multivariable quantile regression model. RESULTS: Overall, 2040 anesthesiologists responded to the survey and 1922 responses were analyzed. The latter represents 19% of practicing French anesthesiologists. The following factors were independently associated with increased WRQoL: family income, long-term employment, organizational and managerial factors (lesser weekly workload, the belief of providing high quality, safe health care services, team management, and operating theatre organization), human relations (satisfaction with workplace ambiance and relations with hospital management and colleagues), and occupational tasks (participation in team activities). Three personality traits were found to be significantly associated with increased WRQoL: extraversion, conscientiousness, and openness. Neuroticism was associated with reduced WRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrates exogenous and endogenous factors associated with increased WRQoL in anesthesiologists. Results should be considered as explorative and provide hypotheses for further research in this domain.

Procedural sedation for direct current cardioversion: a feasibility study between two management strategies in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: A cardiologist-only approach to procedural sedation with midazolam in the setting of elective cardioversion (DCC) for AF has already been proven as safe as sedation with propofol and anaesthesiologist assistance. No data exist regarding the safety of such a strategy during emergency procedures. The aim of this study is to compare the feasibility of sedation with midazolam, administered by a cardiologist, to an anaesthesiologist-assisted protocol with propofol in emergency DCC. METHODS: Single centre, prospective, open blinded, randomized study including all consecutive patients admitted to the Emergency Department requiring urgent or emergency DCC. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either propofol or midazolam treatment arm. Patients in the midazolam group were managed by the cardiologist only, while patients treated with propofol group underwent DCC with anaesthesiologist assistance. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were enrolled and split into two groups. Eighteen patients (26.1%) experienced peri-procedural adverse events (bradycardia, severe hypotension and severe hypoxia), which were similar between the two groups and all successfully managed by the cardiologist. No deaths, stroke or need for invasive ventilation were registered. Patients treated with propofol experienced a greater decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure when compared with those treated with midazolam. As the procedure was shorter when midazolam was used, the median cost of urgent/emergency DCC with midazolam was estimated to be 129.0 € (1st-3rd quartiles 114.6-151.6) and 195.6 € (1st-3rd quartiles 147.3-726.7) with propofol (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Procedural sedation with midazolam given by the cardiologist alone was feasible, well-tolerated and cost-effective in emergency DCC.

Measuring the migration of surgical specialists.

BACKGROUND: The lack of access to essential surgical care in low-income countries is aggravated by emigration of locally-trained surgical specialists to more affluent regions. Yet, the global diaspora of surgeons, obstetricians, and anesthesiologists from low-income and middle-income countries has never been fully described and compared with those who have remained in their country of origin. It is also unclear whether the surgical workforce is more affected by international migration than other medical specialists. In this study, we aimed to quantify the proportion of surgical specialists originating from low-income and middle-income countries that currently work in high-income countries. METHODS: We retrieved surgical workforce data from 48 high-income countries and 102 low-income and middle-income countries using the database of the World Health Organization Global Surgical Workforce. We then compared this domestic workforce with more granular data on the country of initial medical qualification of all surgeons, anesthesiologists, and obstetricians made available for 14 selected high-income countries to calculate the proportion of surgical specialists working abroad. RESULTS: We identified 1,118,804 specialist surgeons, anesthesiologists, or obstetricians from 102 low-income and middle-income countries, of whom 33,021 (3.0%) worked in the 14 included high-income countries. The proportion of surgical specialists abroad was greatest for the African and South East Asian regions (12.8% and 12.1%). The proportion of specialists abroad was not greater for surgeons, anesthesiologists, or obstetricians than for physicians and other medical specialists (P = .465). Overall, the countries with the lowest remaining density of surgical specialists were also the countries from which the largest proportion of graduates were now working in high-income countries (P = .011). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of all surgeons, anesthesiologists, and obstetricians from low-income and middle-income countries currently work in high-income countries. In addition to decreasing migration from areas of surgical need, innovative strategies to retain and strengthen the surgical workforce could involve engaging this large international pool of surgical specialists and instructors.

Retention and Migration of Rwandan Anesthesiologists: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Health care professional migration continues to challenge countries where the lack of surgical and anesthesia specialists results in being unable to address the global burden of surgical disease in their populations. Medical migration is particularly damaging to health care systems that are just beginning to scale up capacity building of human resources for health. Anesthesiologists are scarce in low-resource settings. Defining reasons why anesthesiologists leave their country of training through in-depth interviews may provide guidance to policy makers and academic organizations on how to retain valuable health professionals. METHODS: There were 24 anesthesiologists eligible to participate in this qualitative interview study, 15 of whom are currently practicing in Rwanda and 9 had left the country. From the eligible group, interviews were conducted with 13 currently practicing in Rwanda and 2 who had left to practice elsewhere. In-depth interviews of approximately 60 minutes were used to define themes influencing retention and migration among anesthesiologists in Rwanda. Interviews were conducted using a semistructured guide and continued until theoretical sufficiency was reached. Thematic analysis was done by 4 members of the research team using open coding to inductively identify themes. RESULTS: Interpretation of results used the framework categorizing themes into push, pull, stick, and stay to describe factors that influence migration, or the potential for migration, of anesthesiologists in Rwanda. While adequate salary is essential to retention of anesthesiologists in Rwanda, other factors such as lack of equipment and medication for safe anesthesia, isolation, and demoralization are strong push factors. Conversely, a rich academic life and optimism for the future encourage anesthesiologists to stay. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that better clinical resources and equipment, a more supportive community of practice, and advocacy by mentors and academic partners could encourage more staff anesthesiologists to stay and work in Rwanda.

Out-of-Network Bills for Privately Insured Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery With In-Network Primary Surgeons and Facilities.

Importance: Privately insured patients who receive care from in-network physicians may receive unexpected out-of-network bills ("surprise bills") from out-of-network clinicians they did not choose. In elective surgery, this can occur if patients choose in-network surgeons and hospitals but receive out-of-network bills from other involved clinicians. Objective: To evaluate out-of-network billing across common elective operations performed with in-network primary surgeons and facilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective analysis of claims data from a large US commercial insurer, representing 347 356 patients who had undergone 1 of 7 common elective operations (arthroscopic meniscal repair [116 749]; laparoscopic cholecystectomy [82 372]; hysterectomy [67 452]; total knee replacement [42 313]; breast lumpectomy [18 018]; colectomy [14 074]; coronary artery bypass graft surgery [6378]) by an in-network primary surgeon at an in-network facility between January 1, 2012, and September 30, 2017. Follow-up ended November 8, 2017. Exposure: Patient, clinician, and insurance factors potentially related to out-of-network bills. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of episodes with out-of-network bills. The secondary outcome was the estimated potential balance bill associated with out-of-network bills from each surgical procedure, calculated as total out-of-network charges less the typical in-network price for the same service. Results: Among 347 356 patients (mean age, 48 [SD, 11] years; 66% women) who underwent surgery with in-network primary surgeons and facilities, 20.5% of episodes (95% CI, 19.4%-21.7%) had an out-of-network bill. In these episodes, the mean potential balance bill per episode was $2011 (95% CI, $1866-$2157) when present. Out-of-network bills were associated with surgical assistants in 37% of these episodes; when present, the mean potential balance bill was $3633 (95% CI, $3384-$3883). Out-of-network bills were associated with anesthesiologists in 37% of episodes; when present, the mean potential balance bill was $1219 (95% CI, $1049-$1388). Membership in health insurance exchange plans, compared with nonexchange plans, was associated with a significantly higher risk of out-of-network bills (27% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 6% [95% CI, 3.9%-8.9%]; P < .001). Surgical complications were associated with a significantly higher risk of out-of-network bills, compared with episodes with no complications (28% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 7% [95% CI, 5.8%-8.8%]; P < .001). Among 83 021 procedures performed at ambulatory surgery centers with in-network primary surgeons, 6.7% (95% CI, 5.8%-7.7%) included an out-of-network facility bill and 17.2% (95% CI, 15.7%-18.8%) included an out-of-network professional bill. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective analysis of commercially insured patients who had undergone elective surgery at in-network facilities with in-network primary surgeons, a substantial proportion of operations were associated with out-of-network bills.

American Society of Anesthesiologists' Status Association With Cost and Length of Stay in Lumbar Laminectomy and Fusion: Results From an Institutional Database.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize the costs associated with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, and to determine the extent to which ASA status is a predictor of increased cost and LOS following lumbar laminectomy and fusion (LLF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal fusion accounts for the highest hospital costs of any surgical procedure performed in the United States, and ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) status is a known risk factor for cost and length of stay (LOS) in the orthopedic literature. There is a paucity of literature that directly addresses the influence of ASA status on cost and LOS following LLF. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of an institutional database of patients undergoing single-level LLF at an academic tertiary care facility from 2006 to 2016. Univariate comparisons were made using χ tests for categorical variables and t tests for continuous variables. Multivariate linear regression was utilized to estimate regression coefficients, and to determine whether ASA status is an independent risk factor for cost and LOS. RESULTS: A total of 1849 patients met inclusion criteria. For every one-point increase in ASA score, intensive care unit (ICU) LOS increased by 0.518 days (P < 0.001), and hospital length of stay increased by 1.93 days (P < 0.001). For every one-point increase in ASA score, direct cost increased by $7474.62 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ASA status is a predictor of hospital LOS, ICU LOS, and direct cost. Consideration of the ways in which ASA status contributes to increased cost and prolonged LOS can allow for more accurate reimbursement adjustment and more precise targeting of efficiency and cost effectiveness initiatives. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Advocacy, Research, and Anesthesia Practice Models: Key Studies of Safety and Cost-Effectiveness.

The practice of anesthesia includes multiple competing practice models, including services delivered by anesthesiologists, independent practice by certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), and team-based approaches incorporating anesthesiologist supervision or direction of CRNAs. Despite data demonstrating very low risk of death and complications associated with anesthesia, debate among professional societies and policymakers persists over the superiority or equivalence among these models. The American Society of Anesthesiologists uses published findings as evidence for claims that anesthesia is safer when anesthesiologists lead in providing care. The American Association of Nurse Anesthetists cites its own research on safety and cost-efficiency outcomes to defend against these claims. We review and critique studies of the safety outcomes and cost-effectiveness of anesthesia delivery that have been cited in the Federal Trade Commission comment letters related to competition in health care, where each profession has laid out their case for how they ought to be recognized in the market for anesthesia services. The Federal Trade Commission has a role in protecting consumers from anticompetitive conduct that has the potential to impact quality and cost in health care. Thus, it is important to evaluate the evidence used to make claims about these topics. We argue that while research in this area is imperfect, the strong safety record of anesthesia in general and CRNAs in particular suggest that politics and professional interests are the main drivers of supervision policy in anesthesia delivery.

Intraoperative Transesophageal Echocardiography During Cardiovascular Surgery in China.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a comprehensive nationwide survey of more than 90% of all cardiovascular hospitals in China to assess the current 2018 status of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) equipment, operating physicians, education, impact on surgery, and reimbursement. DESIGN: In this nationwide survey, 716 cardiovascular hospitals in mainland China were included. A 15-question electronic survey was sent to these hospitals and the data were received directly from the questionnaire website for analysis. SETTING: Cardiovascular hospitals in mainland China. PARTICIPANTS: Departments of anesthesiology in cardiovascular hospitals in mainland China. INTERVENTIONS: Answer a 15-question survey. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: About 90% of hospitals have acquired machines to perform TEEs with most of the machines controlled by the ultrasound department. Anesthesiologists performed intraoperative TEEs in 45% of the hospitals, but only 15% of the hospitals have anesthesiologists who have met the basic TEE training requirements. Most anesthesiologists (68%) believed TEE significantly contributed to patient care during cardiovascular surgeries. The overwhelming majority of surveyed hospital staff (93%) stated that they were planning to continue or start intraoperative TEE examinations in the future. CONCLUSION: Many hospitals in China have acquired equipment to perform intraoperative TEE examinations during cardiovascular surgeries. However, the number of anesthesiologists who can perform TEEs independently still is not adequate. Standardized trainings, a formal certification process, and governmental payment model changes must be provided to ensure high-quality TEE services and better surgical outcomes in China.

A medicolegal analysis of malpractice claims involving anesthesiologists in the gastrointestinal endoscopy suite (2007-2016).

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Gastrointestinal endoscopy cases make up the largest portion of out of operating room malpractice claims involving anesthesiologists. To date, there has been no closed claims analysis specifically focusing on the claims from the endoscopy suite. We aim to identify associated case characteristics and contributing factors. DESIGN: Retrospective review of closed claims. SETTING: Multi-institutional setting of hospitals that submit data to the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO) Comparative Benchmarking System, a database representing approximately 30% of annual malpractice cases in the United States. PATIENTS: A total of 58 claims in the gastrointestinal endoscopy suite between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2016. INTERVENTIONS: Gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. MEASUREMENTS: We analyzed associated factors for each case as well as payments, and severity scores. MAIN RESULTS: There was a difference in the percent of cases that resulted in payment by procedure type, with 91% of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) cases resulting in payment compared with 37.5% of colonoscopy cases, 25% of combined esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)/colonoscopy cases, 21.4% of EGD cases and 0.0% of endoscopic ultrasound cases (P = 0.0008). Oversedation was a possible contributing factor in 62.5% of cases. The mean payment for all claims involving anesthesiologists in the endoscopy suite was $99,754. CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in the rates of payment of malpractice claims between procedures. ERCPs made up a disproportionate percentage of the total amount paid to patients. While a significant percent of cases involved possible oversedation, these errors were compounded by other factors, such as failure to resuscitate or recognize the acute clinical change. With medically complex patients undergoing endoscopic procedures, it is critical to have well prepared anesthesia providers.

Twenty Years of Collaboration Between Belgium and Benin in Training Anesthesiologists for Africa.

Belgium has been collaborating for 20 years with Abomey-Calavi University in Cotonou, Republic of Benin, to train anesthesiologists for Sub-Saharan, French-speaking African countries. With 123 graduates from 15 countries and 46 residents still in training, this program has succeeded in reversing the trend of a decreasing anesthesiology workforce in those countries, thus improving the quality of anesthesia and patient safety. Belgian government sources, as well as hospitals and anesthesia teams, provided most of the financial resources. Reasons for success, positive outcomes, and shortcomings are discussed, as well as future perspectives and threats. Failure to enroll enough female residents (15%) and brain drain (18% of alumni) are of concern. Alumni are capable of importing and adapting modern technology and practice. Graduates increase the impact of the Cotonou program by getting involved in teaching nonphysician anesthesia providers and by supporting new anesthesiology training programs being launched in several countries. Other African countries with training programs, by following this example, could accelerate anesthesiology progress by accepting foreign residents from the region. The role of anesthesiologists as anesthesia team leaders must be better defined, and residency training programs adapted accordingly. Continuing international support remains of critical importance, especially in the form of resident rotations to high-income countries. The development of structured anesthesiology programs should be encouraged by African governments as developing anesthesia is a prerequisite for surgical development in every discipline.

Sources of Variation in Anesthetic Drug Costs.

BACKGROUND: Increasing attention has been focused on health care expenditures, which include anesthetic-related drug costs. Using data from 2 large academic medical centers, we sought to identify significant contributors to anesthetic drug cost variation. METHODS: Using anesthesia information management systems, we calculated volatile and intravenous drug costs for 8 types of inpatient surgical procedures performed from July 1, 2009, to December 31, 2011. For each case, we determined patient age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status, gender, institution, case duration, in-room provider, and attending anesthesiologist. These variables were then entered into 2 fixed-effects linear regression models, both with logarithmically transformed case cost as the outcome variable. The first model included duration, attending anesthesiologist, patient age, ASA physical status, and patient gender as independent variables. The second model included case type, institution, patient age, ASA physical status, and patient gender as independent variables. When all variables were entered into 1 model, redundancy analyses showed that case type was highly correlated (R = 0.92) with the other variables in the model. More specifically, a model that included case type was no better at predicting cost than a model without the variable, as long as that model contained the combination of attending anesthesiologist and case duration. Therefore, because we were interested in determining the effect both variables had on cost, 2 models were created instead of 1. The average change in cost resulting from each variable compared to the average cost of the reference category was calculated by first exponentiating the ß coefficient and subtracting 1 to get the percent difference in cost. We then multiplied that value by the mean cost of the associated reference group. RESULTS: A total of 5504 records were identified, of which 4856 were analyzed. The median anesthetic drug cost was $38.45 (25th percentile = $23.23, 75th percentile = $63.82). The majority of the variation was not described by our models-35.2% was explained in the model containing case duration, and 32.3% was explained in the model containing case type. However, the largest sources of variation our models identified were attending anesthesiologist, case type, and procedure duration. With all else held constant, the average change in cost between attending anesthesiologists ranged from a cost decrease of $41.25 to a cost increase of $95.67 (10th percentile = -$19.96, 90th percentile = +$20.20) when compared to the provider with the median value for mean cost per case. The average change in cost between institutions was significant but minor ($5.73). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of the variation was not described by the models, possibly indicating high per-case random variation. The largest sources of variation identified by our models included attending anesthesiologist, procedure type, and case duration. The difference in cost between institutions was statistically significant but was minor. While many prior studies have found significant savings resulting from cost-reducing interventions, our findings suggest that because the overall cost of anesthetic drugs was small, the savings resulting from interventions focused on the clinical practice of attending anesthesiologists may be negligible, especially in institutions where access to more expensive drugs is already limited. Thus, cost-saving efforts may be better focused elsewhere.