Exploring the rapid expansion of office-based laboratories and peripheral vascular interventions across the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the relationship between office-based laboratory (OBL) use and Medicare payments for peripheral vascular interventions (PVI). METHODS: Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Provider Utilization and Payment Data Public Use Files from 2014 to 2017, we identified providers who performed percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, stent placement, and atherectomy. Procedures were aggregated at the provider and hospital referral region (HRR) level. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2017, 2641 providers performed 308,247 procedures. The mean payment for OBL stent placement in 2017 was $4383.39, and mean payment for OBL atherectomy was $13,079.63. The change in the mean payment amount varied significantly, from a decrease of $16.97 in HRR 146 to an increase of $43.77 per beneficiary over the study period in HRR 11. The change in the rate of PVI also varied substantially, and moderately correlated with change in payment across HRRs (R2 = 0.40; P < .001). The majority of HRRs experienced an increase in rate of PVI within OBLs, which strongly correlated with changes in payments (R2 = 0.85; P < .001). Furthermore, 85% of the variance in change in payment was explained by increases in OBL atherectomy (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A rapid shift into the office setting for PVIs occurred within some HRRs, which was highly geographically variable and was strongly correlated with payments. Policymakers should revisit the current payment structure for OBL use and, in particular atherectomy, to better align the policy with its intended goals.

Practice Patterns of Vascular Surgery's "1%".

BACKGROUND: Public focus on health care spending has increased attention on variation in practice patterns and overutilization of high-cost services. Mainstream news reports have revealed that a small number of providers account for a disproportionate amount of total Medicare payments. Here, we explore variation in Medicare payments among vascular surgeons and compare practice patterns of the most highly reimbursed surgeons to the rest of the workforce. METHODS: 2016 Medicare Provider Utilization Data were queried to identify procedure, charge, and payment data to vascular surgeons, identified by National Provider Identification taxonomy. Commonly performed services (>10/year) were stratified into categories (endovascular, open surgery, varicose vein, evaluation and management, etc.). Practice patterns of vascular surgeons comprising the top 1% Medicare payments (n = 31) were compared with the remainder of the workforce (n = 3,104). RESULTS: In 2016, Medicare payments to vascular surgeons totaled $589 M. 31 vascular surgeons-1% of the workforce-received $91 million (15% of total payments). Practice patterns of the 1% differed significantly from the remainder of vascular surgeons (P < 0.05), with endovascular procedures accounting for 85% of their reimbursement. Specifically, the 1% received 49% of total Medicare payments for atherectomy ($121 M), 98% of which were performed in the office setting. CONCLUSIONS: One percentage of vascular surgeons receive an inordinate amount of total Medicare payments to the specialty. This discrepancy is due to variations in volume, utilization, and site of service. Disproportionate use of outpatient atherectomy in a small number of providers, for example, raises concerns regarding appropriateness and overutilization. Given current scrutiny over health care spending, these findings should prompt serious discussion regarding the utility of personal and societal self-regulation.

Provider Trends in Atherectomy Volume between Office-Based Laboratories and Traditional Facilities.

BACKGROUND: As patient care is being increasingly transitioned out of the hospital and into the outpatient setting, there is a growing interest in developing office-based angiography suites, that is, office-based laboratories. Office-based care has been associated with increased efficiency and greater patient satisfaction, with substantially higher reimbursement directly to the physicians providing care. Prior studies have demonstrated a shift of revascularization procedures to office-based laboratories with a concomitant increase in atherectomy use, a procedure with disproportionately high reimbursement in comparison to other peripheral revascularization techniques. We sought to determine provider trends in endovascular procedure volume, settings, and shifts in practice over time, specific to atherectomy. METHODS: Using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider Utilization and Payment Data Public Use Files from 2013 to 2015, we identified providers who performed diagnostic angiography (DA), percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), stent placement (stent), and atherectomy, and procedures were aggregated at the provider level. Trends in procedures performed in office-based laboratory and facility-based settings were analyzed. Atherectomy was specifically analyzed using the total number and proportion of office-based laboratory procedures, and providers were stratified into quintiles by case volume. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2015, 5,298 providers were identified. Over this time period, the number of providers performing atherectomy increased 25.7%, with the highest quintile of atherectomy providers performing an average of 263 cases (range 109-1,455). The proportion of physicians who performed atherectomy only in the office increased from 39.8% to 50.7% from 2013 to 2015, whereas only 20.8% of physicians who performed DA, PTA, or stent in 2015 did so only in an office-based laboratory. Of the physicians with the highest atherectomy volume, 77.8% operated only in the office in 2015, and these physicians increased their atherectomy volume to 114.1% during the study period. Of those physicians who transitioned to a solely office-based laboratory practice over the study period, atherectomy volume increased 63.4%, which was disproportionate compared with the growth of their DA, PTA, and stent volume. CONCLUSIONS: Over this short study period, a rapid shift into the office setting for peripheral intervention occurred, with a concomitant increase in atherectomy volume that was disproportionate to the increase in other peripheral interventions. This increase in office-based laboratory atherectomy occurred in the setting of increased reimbursement for the procedure and despite a lack of data supporting superiority over PTA/stent.

Directional Atherectomy Is Associated with Better Long-Term Efficiency Compared with Angioplasty for Common Femoral Artery Occlusive Disease in Rutherford 2-4 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Despite increased interest in treating common femoral artery (CFA) with endovascular technology, there are little data regarding the long-term outcomes of different endovascular treatment modalities. We report the results after endovascular therapy of symptomatic obstructions of the CFA in a single center. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of consecutive patients with eligible CFA lesions who were treated with endovascular methods between 2011 and 2013. The preoperative demographic operative details and postoperative outcomes were compared and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: Ninety patients with CFA lesions were treated, and 76 (84.4%) completed a follow-up. Claudication was present in 62 of 76 (81.6%) patients, and stenosis was present in 60 of 76 (78.9%) patients. Angioplasty was performed in 45 patients, and atherectomy was performed in 31 patients. There was no significant difference in the preoperative demographic data, procedure time, contrast administration, or length of hospital stay between the 2 groups. In-hospital treatment costs were significantly higher in the atherectomy group (69,822 RenMinBi Yuan vs. 49,078 RenMinBi Yuan; P = 0.043). During the 4-year primary patency, for whole group or bifurcated/claudicant subgroup, all patients within the atherectomy group were significantly better than those in the angioplasty group. CONCLUSIONS: Atherectomy may be a better alternative to angioplasty for CFA atherosclerotic obstructions lesions. Compared with angioplasty, atherectomy seems to have better results in bifurcated lesions or claudicant patients. In diabetic patients, no superiority was found on either patency or improvement in walking distance.

The disproportionate growth of office-based atherectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the trends in procedure volume, clinical sites of care, and Medicare expenditure for peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) for lower extremity occlusive disease since the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services instituted reimbursement policy changes that broadened payment for procedures performed in physician-owned office-based laboratories (OBLs). METHODS: We analyzed fee-for-service Medicare claims data from 2011 to 2014 to obtain the frequency of use of PVI by type, care setting, and physician specialty. We also assessed changes in the total Medicare cost for PVI by setting. RESULTS: There was a 60% increase in atherectomy cases among Medicare beneficiaries between 2011 and 2014. During the same period, OBLs experienced a 298% increase in atherectomy volume vs a 27% increase in hospital outpatient settings and an 11% decrease for inpatient hospital settings. In 2014, OBLs were the most common setting for atherectomy. Nonatherectomy PVIs grew more modestly at just 3% but also experienced site of care shifts. Vascular surgeons and cardiologists accounted for the majority of office-based PVIs in 2014. Total Medicare costs for PVIs increased 18% from 2011 to 2014. Hospital inpatient costs declined 1%, whereas costs for hospital outpatient PVIs increased by 41% and physician office costs increased by 258%. CONCLUSIONS: The migration of revascularization procedures for lower extremity peripheral arterial occlusive disease continues from the inpatient to the outpatient setting and especially to OBLs. Increased use of atherectomy in all segments of the lower extremity arterial system has been observed, particularly in OBLs, without substantial evidence in the literature of increased efficacy compared with standard angioplasty with or without stenting. Generous Medicare reimbursement for in-office atherectomy procedures is likely contributing to the volume shifts observed.

Saving lives, money and resources: drug and CABG/PCI use after myocardial infarction in a Swedish record-linkage study.

BACKGROUND: Drug costs are increasing despite the introduction of cheaper generic drugs. The aim of the present study was to analyse the entire costs of hospital care, out-patient care, and the cost of drugs for 16 months following a myocardial infarction (MI) to see to what extent drug costs contribute to the overall costs of care. METHODS: Diagnoses and costs for care as well as mortality data obtained from the Västra Götaland Region, Sweden, and drug costs from the Swedish Board of Health and Welfare, were merged in a computer file. Patients registered from 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006 were followed from 28 days after an MI, with follow-up until 31 October 2006. RESULTS: Of 4,725 patients, 711 died before the start of the study and 721 during follow-up. Higher age [hazard ratio (HR, 95%CI) = 1.06 (1.05-1.07)], previous MI [HR = 1.31 (1.13-1.53)] and diabetes mellitus [HR = 1.34 (1.13-1.58)] were associated with increased mortality, which decreased with coronary interventions: CABG/PCI [HR = 0.19 (0.14-0.27)]. In a multivariable analysis, mortality was lower for patients taking simvastatin [HR = 0.62 (0.50-0.76)] and clopidogrel [HR = 0.58 (0.46-0.74)]. CONCLUSION: Costs for out-patient care accounted for 25% and drugs for 5% of total costs. If patients not treated with simvastatin or clopidogrel had received these drugs, an additional 154-306 lives might have been saved. Drug costs would be higher, but total costs lower. Thus, even expensive drugs may reduce overall costs.

Lower extremity endovascular interventions: can we improve cost-efficiency?

OBJECTIVE: Management of lower extremity arterial disease with endovascular intervention is on the rise. Current practice patterns vary widely across and within specialty practices that perform endovascular intervention. This study evaluated reimbursement and costs of different approaches for offering endovascular intervention and identified strategies to improve cost-efficiency. METHODS: The medical records of all patients admitted to a university health system during 2005 for an endovascular intervention were retrospectively reviewed. Procedure type, setting, admission status, and financial data were recorded. Groups were compared using analysis of variance, Student t test for independent samples, and chi2. RESULTS: A total of 296 endovascular interventions were completed, and 184 (62%) met inclusion criteria. Atherectomy and stenting were significantly more costly when performed in the operating room than in the radiology suite: atherectomy, dollars 6596 vs dollars 4867 (P = .002); stent, dollars 5884 vs dollars 3292, (P < .001); angioplasty, dollars 2251 vs dollars 1881 (P = .46). Reimbursement was significantly higher for inpatient vs ambulatory admissions (P < .001). Costs were lowest when the endovascular intervention was done in the radiology suite on an ambulatory basis and highest when done as an inpatient in the operating room (dollars 5714 vs dollars 12,278; P < .001). Contribution margins were significantly higher for inpatients. Net profit was appreciated only for interventions done as an inpatient in the radiology suite. Reimbursement, contribution margins, and net profit were significantly lower among private pay patients in both the ambulatory and inpatient setting. The 30-day hospital readmission after ambulatory procedures was seven patients (6%). CONCLUSIONS: Practice patterns for endovascular interventions differ considerably. Costs vary by procedure and setting, and reimbursement depends on admission status and accurate documentation; these dynamics affect affordability. Organizing vascular services within a hub will ensure that care is delivered in the most cost-efficient manner. Guidelines may include designating the radiology suite as the primary venue for endovascular interventions because it is less costly than the operating room. Selective stenting policies should be considered. Contracts with private insurers must include carve-outs for stent costs and commensurate reimbursement for ambulatory procedures, and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT; American Medical Association, Chicago, Ill) coding must be proficient to make ambulatory endovascular interventions fiscally acceptable.

Examining the economic impact of restenosis: implications for the cost-effectiveness of an antiproliferative stent.

Over the past decade, coronary stenting has been shown to reduce the rates of angiographic and clinical restenosis compared with conventional balloon angioplasty. Despite these improved outcomes, however, coronary stenting is still hampered by a high incidence of restenosis, with important clinical and economic consequences. Recently, the development of antiproliferative, drug-eluting stents has emerged as a promising solution for the primary prevention of restenosis. This paper summarizes the current evidence on the economic impact of coronary restenosis and explores the potential impact of introducing an antiproliferative stent on the cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary revascularization. A decision-analytic model based on current clinical and cost data is used to examine the potential cost-effectiveness of such stents. Although prospectively designed studies will be critical to define the true impact of drug-eluting stents on long-term survival, quality of life, and costs in a broad patient population our decision analytic model suggests that as long as these stents are reasonably priced, they may be cost saving for certain patients and cost-effective for virtually all patients undergoing PCI--at least within the U.S. healthcare system.

Endovascular-assisted versus conventional in situ saphenous vein bypass grafting: cumulative patency, limb salvage, and cost results in a 39-month multicenter study.

OBJECTIVE: In this retrospective multicenter study, the results of a minimally invasive method of endovascular-assisted in situ bypass grafting (EISB) versus "open" conventional in situ bypass grafting (CISB) were evaluated with a comparison of primary and secondary patency, limb salvage, and cost. METHODS: Enrolled in this study were 273 patients: 117 underwent CISB (42 femoropopliteal, 75 femorocrural) and 156 underwent EISB (41 femoropopliteal, 115 femorocrural). EISB was performed with an angioscopic Side Branch Occlusion system and an angioscopically guided valvulotome. All the patients underwent follow-up examination with serial color-flow ultrasound scanning. RESULTS: Both groups had similar comorbid risk factors for diabetes mellitus, coronary artery heart disease, hypertension, and cigarette smoking. The primary patency rates (CISB, 78.2% +/- 5% [SE]; EISB, 70.5% +/- 5%; P =.156), the secondary patency rates (CISB, 84.1% +/- 4%; EISB, 82.9% +/- 5%; P =.26), and the limb salvage rates (CISB, 85.8%; EISB, 88.4%; P =.127) were statistically similar, with a follow-up period that extended to 39 months (mean, 16.6 months; range, 1 to 40 months). In veins that were less than 2.5 to 3.0 mm in diameter, the EISB grafts fared poorly, with an increased incidence of early (12-month) graft thromboses (CISB, 10 grafts, 8.5%; EISB, 24 grafts, 15.3%). However, wound complications (CISB, 23%; EISB, 4%; P =.003), mean hospital length of stay (CISB, 6.5 days +/- 4.83; EISB, 3.2 days +/- 3.19; P =.001), and mean hospital charges (CISB, $25,349 +/- $19,476; EISB, $18,096 +/- $14,573; P =.001) were all significantly reduced in the EISB group. CONCLUSION: The CISB and EISB midterm primary and secondary patency and limb salvage rates were statistically similar. In smaller veins (< 2.5 to 3.0 mm in diameter), however, EISB is not appropriate because overly aggressive instrumentation may cause intimal trauma, with resultant early graft failure. With the avoidance of a long leg incision in the EISB group, wound complications and hospital length of stay were significantly reduced, which lowered hospital charges and justified the additional cost of the endovascular instruments. When in situ bypass grafting is contemplated, EISB in appropriate patients is a safe, minimally invasive, and cost-effective alternative to CISB.