Surgeon Gender-Related Differences in Operative Coding in Plastic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies in the medical and surgical literature have discussed the income gap between male and female physicians, but none has adequately accounted for the disparity. METHODS: This study was performed to determine whether gender-related billing and coding differences may be related to the income gap. A 10 percent minimum difference was set a priori as statistically significant. A cohort of 1036 candidates' 9-month case lists for the American Board of Plastic Surgery over a 5-year span (2014 to 2018) was evaluated for relationships between surgeon gender and work relative value units, coding information, major and minor cases performed, and work setting. Data were deidentified by the American Board of Plastic Surgery before evaluation. The authors hypothesized that work relative value units, average codes per case, major cases, and minor cases would be at least 10 percent higher for male than for female physicians. RESULTS: Significant differences were found between male and female surgeons in work relative value units billed, work relative value units billed per case, and the numbers of major cases performed. The average total work relative value units for male surgeons was 19.34 percent higher than for female surgeons [3253.2 (95 percent CI, 3090.5 to 3425.8) versus 2624.1 (95 percent CI, 2435.2 to 2829.6)]. Male surgeons performed 14.28 percent more major cases than female surgeons [77.6 percent (95 percent CI, 72.7 to 82.7 percent) versus 90.5 percent (95 percent CI, 86.3 to 94.9 percent); p = 0.0002]. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' findings support the hypothesis that billing and coding practices can, in part, account for income differences between male and female plastic surgeons. Potential explanations include practices focusing on larger and more complex operative cases and differences in coding practices.

The next generation of therapy for multiple myeloma: a review of ongoing clinical trials utilizing ClinicalTrials.gov.

The therapeutic armamentarium for multiple myeloma has grown significantly over the past decade. We characterized ongoing multiple myeloma clinical trials utilizing ClinicalTrials.gov . A search of ClinicalTrials.gov on 21 April 2017 returned 239 therapeutic interventional trials in multiple myeloma. A majority (84.1%) of trials are early-phase (I/II). Immunotherapies are significantly more likely to be studied in Phase I trials than Phase II trials (p = 0.0049). Primary sponsor (academic, cooperative group, industry) is significantly associated with phase of trial (p = 0.0334). Quality of life assessment is included as a secondary objective in only 10.1% of trials. Areas of need are continued advancement of immunotherapies, late-phase studies utilizing a triplet control group, and an objective focus on quality of life.

Orthopaedic Resident Preparation and Confidence in Treating On-Field Injuries.

BACKGROUND: Orthopaedic surgery residents may cover athletic events, although the training provided to prepare residents for this role and oversight from attending physicians during these activities is not well understood. PURPOSE: To survey orthopaedic residents about the training provided by their residency program for on-field athletic coverage and to understand their levels of preparation for this role and confidence in treating commonly encountered on-field conditions. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive epidemiology study. METHODS: An anonymous survey was emailed to residents in all American College of Graduate Medical Education-accredited, allopathic, nonmilitary orthopaedic surgery residency programs. This survey queried residents about their demographics, the opportunities their residencies require or allow for athletic coverage, their level of preparation for serving an on-field physician, and their comfort level with treating a number of on-field conditions. Likert-type scales were used to assess resident comfort level for treating 13 orthopaedic and nonorthopaedic conditions as well as their perceived level of preparedness. RESULTS: Of 148 residency programs contacted, 57 programs responded (39%). Of the 57 programs responding, 51 (89.5%) allowed or required residents to cover athletic events, and 27 of 51 (52.9%) reported that training to prepare for this role was provided. Only 6 of 24 programs without training available (25%) had direct attending supervision of residents at all athletic events. Residents who answered that their residency programs mandate training prior to their participation in athletic coverage activities reported a higher level of preparation for this role than those with no training, optional training, or those who were unsure of their training requirement (P < .0001, P = .035, and P = .013, respectively). In addition, the more senior the resident was, the higher the level of confidence was in treating all orthopaedic and some nonorthopaedic conditions. Residents who had mandatory training displayed a higher comfort level in treating on-field orthopaedic and nonorthopaedic conditions than those without training. CONCLUSION: Formal training of orthopaedic residents prior to their covering athletic events can improve confidence in treating orthopaedic and nonorthopaedic conditions. Many programs do not ensure that residents are familiar with key and potentially life-saving equipment. An opportunity exists to improve resident education.