Changes in the National Endovascular Management of Femoropopliteal Arterial Disease: An Analysis of the 2011-2019 Medicare Data.

PURPOSE: To describe national trends in the utilization of endovascular approaches (including balloon angioplasty, atherectomy, and stent placement) for the management of femoropopliteal peripheral arterial disease (PAD). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary dataset containing 100% of Part B claims was interrogated for years 2011-2019. The Current Procedural Terminology codes specific for femoropopliteal angioplasty, stent placement, and atherectomy were used to create summary statistics for utilization by year, place of service (hospital inpatient, hospital outpatient, and office-based laboratory), and provider specialty (cardiology, radiology, and surgery). RESULTS: The use of atherectomy increased from 34,732 (33%) procedures in 2011 to 75,435 (53%) procedures in 2019, and atherectomy became the dominant treatment strategy for femoropopliteal PAD. The relative utilization of stent placement (36,793 [35%] to 28,899 [20%]) and angioplasty only (34,398 [32%] to 38,228 [27%]) decreased concomitantly from 2011 to 2019. By 2019, the use of atherectomy was twofold higher in office-based laboratories than in the outpatient hospital setting (44,767 and 20,901, respectively). Treatment strategy varied by provider specialty in 2011 when cardiologists used atherectomy most frequently (17,925 [43%]), whereas radiologists used angioplasty alone (5,928 [6%]) and surgeons stented (18,009 [37%]) most frequently. By 2019, all specialties utilized atherectomy most frequently (29,564 [59%] for cardiology, 10,912 [58%] radiology, and 33,649 [47%] surgery). CONCLUSIONS: The national approach to endovascular management of femoropopliteal PAD has changed since 2011 toward an implant-free strategy, including a multifold increase in the use of atherectomy. Discordant rates of atherectomy use between the ambulatory hospital and office-based settings highlight the need for comparative effectiveness studies to guide management.

Recent Trends in Clinical Setting and Provider Specialty for Endovascular Peripheral Artery Disease Interventions for the Medicare Population.

PURPOSE: To describe national trends in peripheral endovascular interventions by physician specialty, anatomic segment of disease, and clinical location of service. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify claims for peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) in 2011-2017 Physician Supplier Procedure Summary master files, which contain 100% Part B Medicare billing. Market share was defined as enrollment-adjusted proportion of billed PVI services for each specialty. Annual volume of billed services was additionally evaluated by clinical location (inpatient, outpatient, office-based laboratories) and anatomic segment of disease (iliac, femoral/popliteal, infrapopliteal). RESULTS: Aggregate PVI claims increased 31.3%, from 227,091 in 2011 to 298,127 in 2017. Annual market share remained relatively stable for all specialties: surgery, 48.3%-49.6%; cardiology, 37.2%-35.1%; radiology, 12.8%-13.3%. Accounting for Medicare enrollment, the volume of iliac interventions decreased by 18% over the study period, while femoral/popliteal interventions increased modestly (+7.5%) and infrapopliteal interventions increased (+46%). The greatest proportional increase in infrapopliteal claims occurred among radiologists (surgeons +40.4%, cardiologists +32.1%, radiologists +106.6%). Adjusting for enrollment, claims from office-based laboratories increased substantially (+305.7%), while hospital-based billing decreased (inpatient -25.7%, outpatient -12.9%). Office-based laboratory utilization increased dramatically with all specialties (surgery +331.8%, cardiology +256.0%, radiology +475.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of PVIs continues to increase, while specialty market shares have stabilized since 2011, leaving surgeons and cardiologists as the major providers of endovascular peripheral artery disease care. The greatest relative increases are occurring in infrapopliteal interventions and office-based laboratory procedures, where radiologist involvement has increased dramatically.

A Cross-Sectional Survey of Interventional Radiologists and Vascular Surgeons Regarding the Cost and Reimbursement of Common Devices and Procedures.

PURPOSE: To evaluate knowledge of interventional radiologists (IRs) and vascular surgeons (VSs) on the cost of common devices and procedures and to determine factors associated with differences in understanding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was administered to US faculty IRs and VSs. Demographic information and physicians' opinions on hospital costs were elicited. Respondents were asked to estimate the average price of 15 commonly used devices and to estimate the work relative value units (wRVUs) and average Medicare reimbursements for 10 procedures. Answer estimates were deemed correct if values were ± 25% of the actual costs. Multivariate logistical regression was used to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Of the 4,926 participants contacted, 1,090 (22.1%) completed the questionnaire. Overall, 19.8%, 22.8%, and 31.9% were accurate in price estimations of devices, Medicare reimbursement, and wRVUs for procedures. Physicians who thought themselves adequately educated about wRVUs were more accurate in predicting procedural costs in wRVUs than physicians who responded otherwise (odds ratio = 1.40, 95% confidence interval, 1.29-1.52; P < .0001). Estimation accuracies for procedures showed a positive trend in more experienced physicians (≥ 16 y), private practice physicians, and physicians who practice in rural areas. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that IRs and VSs have limited knowledge regarding device costs. Given the current health care environment, more attention should be placed on cost education and awareness so that physicians can provide the most cost-effective care.

Standardized Reporting in IR: A Prospective Multi-Institutional Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: To assess adoption and survey-based satisfaction rates following deployment of standardized interventional radiology (IR) procedure reports across multiple institutions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Standardized reporting templates for 5 common interventional procedures (central venous access, inferior vena cava [IVC] filter insertion, IVC filter removal, uterine artery embolization, and vertebral augmentation) were distributed to 20 IR practices in a prospective quality-improvement study. Participating sites edited the reports according to institutional preferences and deployed them for a 1-year pilot study concluding in July 2015. Study compliance was measured by sampling 20 reports of each procedure type at each institution, and surveys of interventionalists and referring physicians were performed. Modifications to the standardized reporting templates at each site were analyzed. RESULTS: Ten institutions deployed the standardized reports, with 8 achieving deployment of 3-12 months. The mean report usage rate was 57%. Each site modified the original reports, with 26% mean reduction in length, 18% mean reduction in wordiness, and 60% mean reduction in the number of forced fill-in fields requiring user input. Linear-regression analysis revealed that reduced number of forced fill-in fields correlated significantly with increased usage rate (R2 = 0.444; P = .05). Surveys revealed high satisfaction rates among referring physicians but lower satisfaction rates among interventional radiologists. CONCLUSIONS: Standardized report adoption rates increased when reports were simplified by reducing the number of forced fill-in fields. Referring physicians preferred the standardized reports, whereas interventional radiologists preferred standard narrative reports.

A single-center experience in capturing inpatient evaluation and management for an IR practice.

PURPOSE: To demonstrate that interventional radiologists can capture work relative value units (wRVUs) for the work that is already being performed providing evaluation and management (E&M) clinical services. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A team approach was implemented to optimize revenue capture for inpatient E&M. Structured templates were created for inpatient documentation to ensure that maximum wRVUs were captured. Inpatient billing was audited from fiscal year 2011 (1 year before meeting and structured template creation) through fiscal year 2014. Specifically, data were collected on total charges, collections, wRVUs and total number of inpatient E&M encounters, and the level of the billed encounter. RESULTS: Retrospective annual audits revealed that overall inpatient E&M billing charges increased by 722%, whereas collections increased by 831% from 2011 to 2014. The wRVUs increased in 2011 from 181.74 to 1,396.9 (669% increase) in 2014, and the number of inpatient E&M encounters billed increased from 130 to 693 (433% increase) over that same time period. Lower level billing (level I) declined from 30% to 19%, and complex billing levels (level II or higher) increased from 70% to 81%. CONCLUSIONS: By implementing a systems approach to revenue management, which includes physician and billing staff meetings and the use of structured templates, billing capture from inpatient E&M services can be improved.

Current State of Private Practice and Academic Interventional Radiology: Differences in Practice Structure, Case Mix, and Productivity.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether private practice interventional radiology (IR) groups self-report higher overall productivity given differing case mix and more diagnostic radiology interpretation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 60-question survey was distributed to 3,159 self-identified US IR physicians via the Society of Interventional Radiologists member search engine, with 357 responses (11.3% response rate). Of these responses, there were 258 unique practices from 34 US states. RESULTS: Out of 84 IR group responses, private practice IR (PPIR) physicians reported a minimal trend for higher annual work relative value units (wRVUs) per clinical full-time equivalent compared with academic IR physicians (8,000 versus 7,140, P = .202), but this did not reach statistical significance. PPIR groups reported fewer median weekly hours (50 versus 52), more frequent call (every 6 versus every 5 days), and significantly higher median tenured compensation ($573,000 versus $451,000, P = .000). Out of 179 responses, academic practices reported significantly higher case percentages of interventional oncology and complex hepatobiliary intervention (P <.001), and private practices reported significantly higher percentages of musculoskeletal intervention (P < .001) with a nonsignificant trend for stroke or neurologic intervention (P = .010). Private practices reported more wRVUs from the interpretation of diagnostic imaging, at 26% of total wRVU production compared with 7% of total wRVU production for academic practices (P < .001; n = 131). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported data from private and academic IR groups suggest minimally higher wRVUs per clinical full-time equivalent among PPIRs with lower weekly work hours, more frequent call, differing case mix, and significantly higher tenured compensation among PPIR groups.

Procedural Coding for Interventional Pain Management.

Interventional radiologists' involvement in pain service lines continues to increase. While clinical and technical acumen is an obvious prerequisite, understanding the coding related to these procedures is also a must. The pain specialist's practice is largely outpatient based, therefore, the coding and subsequent billing for outpatient clinic visits may be an important revenue generator. A brief review of the evaluation and management (E&M) coding, as well as review of procedural CPT coding for pain interventions is discussed herein. While not overly difficult, there are certain nuances regarding the coding and reporting of these procedures. Developing an understanding of the proper use of CPT coding involved in pain procedures will allow the interventionalist to accurately capture the work performed and further support a pain service line. Case examples are used to reinforce certain points.

Cost and Morbidity Analysis of Chest Port Insertion: Interventional Radiology Suite Versus Operating Room.

PURPOSE: To compare complications and cost, from a hospital perspective, of chest port insertions performed in an interventional radiology (IR) suite versus in surgery in an operating room (OR). METHODS: This study was approved by an institutional review board and is HIPAA compliant. Medical records were retrospectively searched on consecutive chest port placement procedures, in the IR suite and the OR, between October 22, 2010 and February 26, 2013, to determine patients' demographic information and chest port-related complications and/or infections. A total of 478 charts were reviewed (age range: 21-85 years; 309 women, 169 men). Univariate and bivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors associated with an increased complication rate. Cost data on 149 consecutive Medicare outpatients (100 treated in the IR suite; 49 treated in the OR) who had isolated chest port insertions between March 2012 and February 2013 were obtained for both the operative services and pharmacy. Nonparametric tests for heterogeneity were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis method. RESULTS: Early complications occurred in 9.2% (22 of 239) of the IR patients versus 13.4% (32 of 239) of the OR patients. Of the 478 implanted chest ports, 9 placed in IR and 18 placed in surgery required early removal. Infections from the ports placed in IR versus the OR were 0.25 versus 0.18 infections per 1000 catheters, respectively. Overall mean costs for chest port insertion were significantly higher in the OR, for both room and pharmacy costs (P < .0001). Overall average cost to place chest ports in an OR setting was almost twice that of placement in the IR suite. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital costs to place a chest port were significantly lower in the IR suite than in the OR, whereas radiology and surgery patients did not show a significantly different rate of complications and/or infections.