Association Between Individual Primary Care Physician Merit-based Incentive Payment System Score and Measures of Process and Patient Outcomes.

Importance: The Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) influences reimbursement for hundreds of thousands of US physicians, but little is known about whether program performance accurately captures the quality of care they provide. Objective: To examine whether primary care physicians' MIPS scores are associated with performance on process and outcome measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of 80 246 US primary care physicians participating in the MIPS program in 2019. Exposures: MIPS score. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association between physician MIPS scores and performance on 5 unadjusted process measures, 6 adjusted outcome measures, and a composite outcome measure. Results: The study population included 3.4 million patients attributed to 80 246 primary care physicians, including 4773 physicians with low MIPS scores (≤30), 6151 physicians with medium MIPS scores (>30-75), and 69 322 physicians with high MIPS scores (>75). Compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly worse mean performance on 3 of 5 process measures: diabetic eye examinations (56.1% vs 63.2%; difference, -7.1 percentage points [95% CI, -8.0 to -6.2]; P < .001), diabetic HbA1c screening (84.6% vs 89.4%; difference, -4.8 percentage points [95% CI, -5.4 to -4.2]; P < .001), and mammography screening (58.2% vs 70.4%; difference, -12.2 percentage points [95% CI, -13.1 to -11.4]; P < .001) but significantly better mean performance on rates of influenza vaccination (78.0% vs 76.8%; difference, 1.2 percentage points [95% CI, 0.0 to 2.5]; P = .045] and tobacco screening (95.0% vs 94.1%; difference, 0.9 percentage points [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5]; P = .001). MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with risk-adjusted patient outcomes: compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly better mean performance on 1 outcome (307.6 vs 316.4 emergency department visits per 1000 patients; difference, -8.9 [95% CI, -13.7 to -4.1]; P < .001), worse performance on 1 outcome (255.4 vs 225.2 all-cause hospitalizations per 1000 patients; difference, 30.2 [95% CI, 24.8 to 35.7]; P < .001), and did not have significantly different performance on 4 ambulatory care-sensitive admission outcomes. Nineteen percent of physicians with low MIPS scores had composite outcomes performance in the top quintile, while 21% of physicians with high MIPS scores had outcomes in the bottom quintile. Physicians with low MIPS scores but superior outcomes cared for more medically complex and socially vulnerable patients, compared with physicians with low MIPS scores and poor outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among US primary care physicians in 2019, MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with performance on process and outcome measures. These findings suggest that the MIPS program may be ineffective at measuring and incentivizing quality improvement among US physicians.

Quantifying The Costs of Creating and Maintaining Hemodialysis Access in An All-Payer Rate-Controlled Health System.

OBJECTIVES: The creation and maintenance of durable hemodialysis access is critically important for reducing patient morbidity and controlling overall costs within health systems. Our objective was to quantify the costs associated with hemodialysis access creation and its maintenance over time within a rate-controlled health system where charges equate to payments. METHODS: The Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission administrative claims database was used to identify patients who underwent first-time access creation from 2012-2020. Patients were identified using CPT codes for access creation, and costs were accrued for the initial encounter and all subsequent outpatient access-related encounters. T-tests and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare reinterventions and access-related costs ($USD) between arteriovenous fistulae (AVF) and arteriovenous grafts (AVG). Multivariable modeling was used to quantify the association of access type with charge variation. RESULTS: Overall, 12,716 patients underwent first-time access creation (69.3% AVF vs. 30.7% AVG). There was no difference in freedom from reintervention between the two access types at any point following creation (HR: 1.03, 95%CI: 0.97-1.10); however, AVF were associated with a lower number of cumulative reinterventions (1.50 vs. 2.24) compared to AVG (P<0.0001). AVF was associated with lower overall costs in the year of creation ($9,388 vs. $13,539, P<0.0001), a difference that remained significant over the subsequent 3 years. The lower costs associated with AVF were present both in the costs associated with creation and subsequent maintenance. On multivariable analysis, AVF was associated with a $3,557 reduction in total access-related costs versus AVG (95%CI -$3828, -3287). CONCLUSION: AVF require fewer interventions and are associated with lower costs at placement and over the first three years of maintenance compared to AVG. The use of AVF for first-time hemodialysis access represents an opportunity for healthcare savings in appropriately selected patients with a high preoperative likelihood of AVF maturation.

Analysis of Medicare Payments and Patient Outcomes With Pre-Operative Imaging for Carotid Endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The use of radiographic evaluation of carotid disease may vary, and current guidelines do not strongly recommend the use of cross-sectional imaging (CSI) prior to surgical intervention. We sought to describe the trends in preoperative carotid imaging and evaluate the associated clinical outcomes and Medicare payments for patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for asymptomatic carotid disease. METHODS: We used a 20% Medicare sample from 2006 to 2014 identifying patients undergoing CEA for asymptomatic disease. We evaluated preoperative carotid ultrasound and CSI use: CT or MRI of the neck prior to CEA. We calculated average payments of each study from the carrier file and revenue center file. Imaging payments included both the professional component (PC) and the technical component (TC). Claims with a reimbursement of $0 and studies where payment for both the TC and PC could not be identified were excluded from the overall calculation to determine average payment per study. Inpatient reimbursements according to DRG 37-39 were calculated. We compared hospital length of stay (LOS), in hospital stroke, carotid re-exploration, and mortality according to CSI use. RESULTS: A total of 58,993 CEAs were identified with pre-operative carotid imaging. The average age was 74.8 ± 7.5 years, and 56.0% were men. A total of 19,678 (33%) patients had ultrasound alone with an average of (2.4 ± 1.9) exams prior to CEA. A total of 39,315 patients underwent CSI prior to CEA with 2.5 ± 2.1 ultrasounds, 0.95 ± 0.86 neck CTs and 0.47 ± 0.7 MRIs per patient. The average payment for ultrasound was $140 ± 40, $282 ± 94 for CT and $410 ± 146 for MRI. The average inpatient reimbursements were $7,413 ± 4,215 for patients without CSI compared with $7,792 ± 3,921 for patients with CSI, P < 0.001. The average LOS during CEA admission was 2.5 ± 3.7days. Patients with CSI had a slightly lower percentage of patients being discharged by postoperative day 2 compared with ultrasound alone (88.9% vs. 91.5%, respectively, P < 0.001). The overall in-hospital stroke rate was 0.38% and carotid re-exploration rate was 1.0% and there was no statistical significant difference between groups. Median follow-up was 3.9 years, and mortality at 8 years was 50% and did not statistically differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis found preoperative imaging to include CSI in nearly two-thirds of patients prior to CEA for asymptomatic disease. As imaging and inpatient payments were higher with patients with CSI further work is needed to understand when CSI is appropriate prior to surgical intervention to appropriately allocate healthcare resources.

Health care utilisation and costs associated with different treatment protocols for newly diagnosed childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia: A population-based study in Ontario, Canada.

BACKGROUND: Although different treatment protocols for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (ALL) all achieve high cure rates, their health care utilisation and costs have not been rigorously compared. METHODS: Disease, treatment, and outcome data were chart abstracted for all children with ALL in Ontario, Canada, diagnosed 2002-2012. Linkage to population-based databases identified health care utilisation. Utilisation-associated costs were determined through validated algorithms. Chemotherapy-associated costs were calculated separately. Health care utilisation and costs were compared between patients receiving Children's Oncology Group (COG) versus Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI)-based treatment. FINDINGS: Of 802 patients, 146 (18.2%) were treated on DFCI-based protocols. COG patients experienced significantly higher rates of emergency department (ED) visits (adjusted rate ratio [aRR]: 1.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.1-1.5; p = 0·01), whereas outpatient visit rates were 60% higher among DFCI patients (aRR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.5-1.7, p < 0.0001). In adjusted analyses, DFCI-associated cost intensity was 70% higher (aRR: 1.7, 95% CI: 1.5-1.9; p < 0.0001), mainly attributable to outpatient visit costs. Total chemotherapy costs were higher among COG-treated patients ($39,400 ± $1100 versus $33,400 ± $2800; p = 0.02). Among PEG-ASNase-treated patients, total chemotherapy costs were highest among DFCI patients (median $54,200 ± $7400; p = 0.003 versus COG patients). INTERPRETATION: COG and DFCI treatments were associated with higher ED visit rates and higher outpatient visit rates, respectively. Overall utilisation-associated costs were increased in DFCI-treated patients. Administration of some intravenous chemotherapy at home and decreases in PEG-ASNase cost would decrease health care utilisation and costs for all patients and mitigate differences between COG and DFCI protocols. FUNDING: C17 Research Network.

Defining the 90-day cost structure of lower extremity revascularization for alternative payment model assessment.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. healthcare system is undergoing a broad transformation from the traditional fee-for-service model to value-based payments. The changes introduced by the Medicare Quality Payment Program, including the establishment of Alternative Payment Models, ensure that the practice of vascular surgery is likely to face significant reimbursement changes as payments transition to favor these models. The Society for Vascular Surgery Alternative Payment Model taskforce was formed to explore the opportunities to develop a physician-focused payment model that will allow vascular surgeons to continue to deliver the complex care required for peripheral arterial disease (PAD). METHODS: A financial analysis was performed based on Medicare beneficiaries who had undergone qualifying index procedures during fiscal year 2016 through the third quarter of 2017. Index procedures were defined using a list of Healthcare Common Procedural Coding (HCPC) procedure codes that represent open and endovascular PAD interventions. Inpatient procedures were mapped to three diagnosis-related group (DRG) families consistent with PAD conditions: other vascular procedures (codes, 252-254), aortic and heart assist procedures (codes, 268, 269), and other major vascular procedures (codes, 270-272). Patients undergoing outpatient or office-based procedures were included if the claims data were inclusive of the HCPC procedure codes. Emergent procedures, patients with end-stage renal disease, and patients undergoing interventions within the 30 days preceding the index procedure were excluded. The analysis included usage of postacute care services (PACS) and 90-day postdischarge events (PDEs). PACS are defined as rehabilitation, skilled nursing facility, and home health services. PDEs included emergency department visits, observation stays, inpatient readmissions, and reinterventions. RESULTS: A total of 123,180 cases were included. Of these 123,180 cases, 82% had been performed in the outpatient setting. The Medicare expenditures for all periprocedural services provided at the index procedure (ie, professional, technical, and facility fees) were higher in the inpatient setting, with an average reimbursement per index case of $18,755, $34,600, and $25,245 for DRG codes 252 to 254, DRG codes 268 and 269, and DRG codes 270 to 272, respectively. Outpatient facility interventions had an average reimbursement of $11,458, and office-based index procedures had costs of $11,533. PACS were more commonly used after inpatient index procedures. In the inpatient setting, PACS usage and reimbursement were 58.6% ($5338), 57.2% ($4192), and 55.9% ($5275) for DRG codes 252 to 254, DRG codes 268 and 269, and DRG codes 270 to 272, respectively. Outpatient facility cases required PACS for 13.7% of cases (average cost, $1352), and office-based procedures required PACS in 15% of cases (average cost, $1467). The 90-day PDEs were frequent across all sites of service (range, 38.9%-50.2%) and carried significant costs. Readmission was associated with the highest average PDE expenditure (range, $13,950-$18.934). The average readmission Medicare reimbursement exceeded that of the index procedures performed in the outpatient setting. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of PAD interventions extends beyond the index procedure and includes relevant spending during the long postoperative period. Despite the analysis challenges related to the breadth of vascular procedures and the site of service variability, the data identified potential cost-saving opportunities in the management of costly PDEs. Because of the vulnerability of the PAD patient population, alternative payment modeling using a bundled value-based approach will require reallocation of resources to provide longitudinal patient care extending beyond the initial intervention.

Medicare costs for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment in the Vascular Quality Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Reintervention after endovascular repair (EVR) of abdominal aortic aneurysms is common. However, the cumulative financial impact of reintervention after EVR on a national scale is poorly defined. Our objective was to describe the cost to Medicare for aneurysm treatment (EVR plus reinterventions) among a cohort of patients with known follow-up for 5 years after repair. METHODS: We identified patients who underwent EVR within the Vascular Quality Initiative who were linked to their respective Medicare claims file (n = 13,995). We excluded patients who underwent EVR after September 30, 2010, and those who had incomplete Medicare coverage (n = 12,788). The remaining cohort (n = 1207) had complete follow-up until death or 5 years (Medicare data available through September 30, 2015). We then obtained and compiled the corresponding Medicare reimbursement data for the index EVR hospitalization and all subsequent reinterventions. RESULTS: We studied 1207 Medicare patients who underwent EVR and had known follow-up for reinterventions for 5 years. The mean age was 76.2 years (±7.1 years), 21.6% of patients were female, and 91.1% of procedures were elective. The Kaplan-Meier reintervention rate at 5 years was 18%. Among patients who underwent reintervention, 154 (73.7%) had a single reintervention, 40 (19.1%) had two reinterventions, and 15 (7.2%) had three or more reinterventions. The median cost to Medicare for the index EVR hospitalization was $25,745 (interquartile range, $21,131-$28,774). The median cost for subsequent reinterventions was $22,165 (interquartile range, $17,152-$29,605). The cumulative cost to Medicare of aneurysm treatment (EVR plus reinterventions) increased in a stepwise fashion among patients who underwent multiple reinterventions, with each reintervention being similar in cost to the index EVR. CONCLUSIONS: The overall cost incurred by Medicare to reimburse for each reintervention after EVR is roughly the same as for the initial procedure itself, meaning that Medicare cost projections would be greater than $100,000 for any individual who undergoes an EVR with three reinterventions. The long-term financial impact of EVR must be considered by surgeons, patients, and healthcare systems alike as these cumulative costs may hinder the fiscal viability of an EVR-first therapeutic approach and highlight the need for judicious patient selection paradigms.

Financial viability of endovascular aortic repair in the modern era.

BACKGROUND: In the current era of cost containment, the financial impact of high-cost procedures such as endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remains an area of intensive interest. Previous reports suggested slim to negative operating margins with EVAR, prompting widespread initiatives to reduce cost and to improve reimbursement. In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the reclassification of EVAR to more specific diagnosis-related group (DRG) coding and predicted an overall increase in hospital reimbursement. The potential impact of this change has not been described. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective EVAR at a single institution between January 2014 and December 2018 were identified retrospectively, then stratified by date. Group 1 patients underwent EVAR before DRG change in 2015 and were classified with DRG 237/238, major cardiovascular procedure. Group 2 patients underwent EVAR after the change and were classified as DRG 268/269, aortic/heart assist procedures. The total direct cost included implant cost, operating room (OR) labor, room and board, and other supply costs. Net revenue reflected real payer mix values without extrapolation based on standard Medicare rates. Hospital profit was defined as the contribution to indirect (CTI), subtracting total direct cost from net revenue. RESULTS: A total of 188 encounters were included, 67 (36%) in group 1 and 121 (64%) in group 2. Medicare patients composed 84% of group 1 and 81% of group 2. CTI (profit) increased by $4447 (+123%) from $3615 in group 1 to $8062 in group 2. Net revenue per encounter increased by $2054 (+7.1%). In group 1, the higher reimbursement DRG code 237 was applied in 5 of 67 (7.5%) patients, whereas DRG code 268 was assigned in 19 of 121 (15.1%) patients in group 2. Total direct cost per encounter decreased by $2012 (-7.9%). This decrease in cost was driven by a reduction in implant cost, from a mean $16,914 per encounter in group 1 to a mean $15,655 in group 2 (-$1259 or -7.4% per encounter) and by a decrease in OR labor cost, $2838 in group 1 to $2361 in group 2 (-$477 or -17.0% per encounter). CONCLUSIONS: A significant improvement in hospital CTI was observed for elective EVAR during the course of the study. The increased DRG reimbursement after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coding changes in 2015 was a major driver of this salutary change. Notably, efforts to reduce implant and OR cost as well as to improve coding and documentation accuracy over time had an equally important impact on financial return.

The financial evolution of endovascular aneurysm repair delivery in contemporary practice.

OBJECTIVE: The fiscal impact of endovascular repair (EVR) of aortic aneurysms and the requisite device costs have previously highlighted the tenuous long-term financial sustainability among Medicare beneficiaries. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have since reclassified EVR remuneration paradigms with new Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Groups (MS-DRGs) intended to better address the procedure's cost profile. The impact of this change remains unknown. The purpose of this analysis was to compare EVR-specific costs and revenue among Medicare beneficiaries both before and after this change. METHODS: All infrarenal EVRs performed in fiscal years (FYs) 2014 and 2015, before the MS-DRG change, and those performed in FYs 2017 and 2018, after the MS-DRG change, were identified using the DRG codes 238 (n = 108) and 269 (n = 84), respectively. We then identified those who were treated according to the instructions for use guidelines with a single manufacturer's device and billed to Medicare (n = 23 in FY14-15; n = 22 in FY17-18). From these cohorts, we determined total procedure technical costs, technical revenue, and net technical margin in conjunction with the hospital finance department. Results were then compared between these two groups. RESULTS: The two cohorts demonstrated similar demographic profiles (FY14-15 vs FY17-18 cohort: age, 78 years vs 74 years; median length of stay, 1.0 day vs 1.0 day). Mean total technical costs were slightly higher in the FY17-18 group ($24,511 in FY14-15 vs $26,445 in FY17-18). Graft implants continued to account for a significant portion of the total cost, with the device cost accounting for 56% of the total procedure costs in both cohorts. Net revenue was greater in the FY17-18 group by $5800 ($30,698 in FY14-15 vs $36,498 in FY17-18), resulting in an increased overall margin in the FY17-18 group compared with the FY14-15 group ($6188 in FY14-15 vs $10,053 in FY17-18). CONCLUSIONS: Device costs remain the single greatest cost driver associated with EVR delivery. DRG reclassification of EVR to address total procedure and implant costs appears to better address the requisite associated procedure costs and may thereby better support long-term fiscal sustainability of this procedure for hospitals and health systems alike.

Improving Quality of Carotid Interventions: Identifying Hospital-Level Structural Factors that can Improve Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: "Structural factors" relating to organization of hospitals may affect procedural outcomes. This study's aim was to clarify associations between structural factors and outcomes after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and carotid endarterectomy stenting (CAS). METHODS: A systematic review of studies published in English since 2005 was conducted. Structural factors assessed were as follows: population size served by the vascular department; number of hospital beds; availability of dedicated vascular beds; established clinical pathways; surgical intensive care unit (SICU) size; and specialty of surgeon/interventionalist. Primary outcomes were as follows: mortality; stroke; cardiac complications; length of hospital stay (LOS); and cost. RESULTS: There were 11 studies (n = 95,100 patients) included in this systematic review. For CEA, reduced mortality (P < 0.0001) and stroke rates (P = 0.001) were associated with vascular departments serving >75,000 people. Larger hospitals were associated with lower mortality, stroke rate, and cardiac events, compared with smaller hospitals (less than 130 beds). Provision of vascular beds after CEA was associated with lower mortality (P = 0.0008) and fewer cardiac events (P = 0.03). Adherence to established clinical pathways was associated with reduced stroke and cardiac event rates while reducing CEA costs. Large SICUs (≥7 beds) and dedicated intensivists were associated with decreased mortality after CEA while a large SICU was associated with reduced stroke rate (P = 0.001). Vascular surgeons performing CEA were associated with lower stroke rates and shorter LOS (P = 0.0001) than other specialists. CAS outcomes were not influenced by specialty but costless when performed by vascular surgeons (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Structural factors affect CEA outcomes, but data on CAS were limited. These findings may inform reconfiguration of vascular services, reducing risks and costs associated with carotid interventions.

Vascular Surgery Practice Guidelines during COVID-19 Pandemic in a Setting of High Work Volume Against Limited Resources: Perspective of a Developing Country.

BACKGROUND: The situation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the Indian subcontinent is worsening. In Bangladesh, rate of new infection has been on the rise despite limited testing facility. Constraint of resources in the health care sector makes the fight against COVID-19 more challenging for a developing country like Bangladesh. Vascular surgeons find themselves in a precarious situation while delivering professional services during this crisis. With the limited number of dedicated vascular surgeons in Bangladesh, it is important to safeguard these professionals without compromising emergency vascular care services in the long term. To this end, we at the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases and Hospital, Dhaka, have developed a working guideline for our vascular surgeons to follow during the COVID-19 pandemic. The guideline takes into account high vascular work volume against limited resources in the country. METHODS: A total of 307 emergency vascular patients were dealt with in the first 4 COVID-19 months (March through June 2020) according to the working guideline, and the results were compared with the 4 pre-COVID-19 months. Vascular trauma, dialysis access complications, and chronic limb-threatening ischemia formed the main bulk of the patient population. Vascular health care workers were regularly screened for COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: There was a 38% decrease in the number of patients in the COVID-19 period. Treatment outcome in COVID-19 months were comparable with that in the pre-COVID-19 months except that limb loss in the chronic limb-threatening ischemia patients was higher. COVID-19 infection among the vascular health care professionals was low. CONCLUSIONS: Vascular surgery practice guidelines customized for the high work volume and limited resources of the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases and Hospital, Dhaka were effective in delivering emergency care during COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring safety of the caregivers. Despite the fact that similar guidelines exist in different parts of the world, we believe that the present one is still relevant on the premises of a deepening COVID-19 crisis in a developing country like Bangladesh.

Determinants of Value in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

Background Over 180 000 coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) procedures are performed annually, accounting for $7 to $10 billion in episode expenditures. Assessing tradeoffs between spending and quality contributing to value during 90-day episodes has not been conducted but is essential for success in bundled reimbursement models. We, therefore, identified determinants of variability in hospital 90-day episode value for CABG. Methods Medicare and private payor admissions for isolated CABG from 2014 to 2016 were retrospectively linked to clinical registry data for 33 nonfederal hospitals in Michigan. Hospital composite risk-adjusted complication rates (≥1 National Quality Forum-endorsed, Society of Thoracic Surgeons measure: deep sternal wound infection, renal failure, prolonged ventilation >24 hours, stroke, re-exploration, and operative mortality) and 90-day risk-adjusted, price-standardized episode payments were used to categorize hospitals by value by defining the intersection between complications and spending. Results Among 2573 total patients, those at low- versus high-value hospitals had a higher percentage of prolonged length of stay >14 days (9.3% versus 2.4%, P=0.006), prolonged ventilation (17.6% versus 4.8%, P<0.001), and operative mortality (4.8% versus 0.6%, P=0.001). Mean total episode payments were $51 509 at low-compared with $45 526 at high-value hospitals (P<0.001), driven by higher readmission ($3675 versus $2177, P=0.005), professional ($7462 versus $6090, P<0.001), postacute care ($7315 versus $5947, P=0.031), and index hospitalization payments ($33 474 versus $30 800, P<0.001). Among patients not experiencing a complication or 30-day readmission (1923/2573, 74.7%), low-value hospitals had higher inpatient evaluation and management payments ($1405 versus $752, P<0.001) and higher utilization of inpatient rehabilitation (7% versus 2%, P<0.001), but lower utilization of home health (66% versus 73%, P=0.016) and emergency department services (13% versus 17%, P=0.034). Conclusions To succeed in emerging bundled reimbursement programs for CABG, hospitals and physicians should identify strategies to minimize complications while optimizing inpatient evaluation and management spending and use of inpatient rehabilitation, home health, and emergency department services.

Impact of Medicare's Bundled Payments Initiative on Patient Selection, Payments, and Outcomes for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

BACKGROUND: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation launched the Bundled Payments for Care Initiative (BPCI) in 2013. Its effect on payments and outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used Medicare inpatient files to identify index admissions for PCI and CABG from 2013 through 2016 at BPCI hospitals and matched control hospitals and difference in differences models to compare the 2 groups. Our primary outcome was the change in standardized Medicare-allowed payments per 90-day episode. Secondary outcomes included changes in patient selection, discharge to postacute care, length of stay, emergency department use, readmissions, and mortality. Forty-two hospitals joined BPCI for PCI and 46 for CABG. There were no differential changes in patient selection between BPCI and control hospitals. Baseline Medicare payments per episode for PCI were $20 164 at BPCI hospitals and $19 955 at control hospitals. For PCI, payments increased at both BPCI and control hospitals during the intervention period, such that there was no significant difference in differences (BPCI hospitals +$673, P=0.048; control hospitals +$551, P=0.022; difference in differences $122, P=0.768). For CABG, payments at both BPCI and control hospitals decreased during the intervention period (BPCI baseline, $36 925, change -$2918, P<0.001; control baseline, $36 877, change -$2618, P<0.001; difference in differences, $300; P=0.730). For both PCI and CABG, BPCI participation was not associated with changes in mortality, readmissions, or length of stay. Among BPCI hospitals, emergency department use differentially increased for patients undergoing PCI and decreased for patients undergoing CABG. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in episode-based payment for PCI and CABG was not associated with changes in patient selection, payments, length of stay, or clinical outcomes.

A Cost Analysis of Pathology Evaluation of Carotid Plaque after Endarterectomy.

BACKGROUND: Overtreatment and overuse of resources are leading causes of rising health care costs. Identification and elimination process of low value services is important in reducing such costs. At many institutions it is routine to send excised plaque after carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for pathology evaluation. With more than 140,000 CEAs performed annually in the United States, this represents an opportunity for potential cost savings. We set out to examine the cost and clinical use of pathology evaluation of plaque after CEA. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients undergoing CEA at a single institution from 2016 to 2019. Patients were excluded if they had a prolonged postoperative length of stay or if they had a preoperative stroke. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, and billing costs were recorded. RESULTS: We identified 82 total CEAs, of which 42 were excluded according to the aforementioned exclusion criteria. We reviewed 40 CEAs. Mean age of this cohort was 67.2 (±8.3) years. Most (72.5%) were asymptomatic at the time of admission, whereas 27.5% presented with a transient ischemic attack. Mean postoperative length of stay was 1.8 days. The primary insurers were 39.5% private, 39.5% Medicare, and 21.1% Medicaid. Mean total charges for the hospitalization were $83,367 (±$42,874). Of this total, professional fees were $3,512 (±$980) and facility fees were $80,395 (±$42,886). Mean pathology charges were $285 (±$88). The pathology professional fee was $61 (±$27), which represented 1.82% (±0.88) of the professional costs. Reimbursement for the facility pathology charge was $229 (±$57) and for the professional pathology charge was $25 (±$14). All plaque samples were submitted for gross examination and hematoxylin and eosin staining. The correlation rate for the clinical and pathologic diagnosis was 100%. The pathology reports simply read "atherosclerotic plaque" and "calcific plaque" in 32.5% and 45% of samples. For the remaining plaques, 12.5% and 10% of reports also noted fibrosis and degenerative changes, respectively. There were no clinical implications or decisions made based on the pathology reports. Cost of pathology evaluation was on average $285, with an average reimbursement of $235. With 140,000 CEAs done annually, this represents a potential $32.9-$39.9 million saved to the health care system. CONCLUSIONS: Pathology evaluation of carotid plaque incurs significant costs to the health care system with no clear value for the postoperative care of the patient. Hospital policy regarding mandatory pathologic examination and surgeon preferences regarding plaque analysis should be more closely examined.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations in Vascular Surgery.

BACKGROUND: With increasing healthcare costs and the emergence of new technologies in vascular surgery, economic evaluations play a critical role in informing decision-making that optimizes patient outcomes while minimizing per capita costs. The objective of this systematic review is to describe all English published economic evaluations in vascular surgery and to identify any significant gaps in the literature. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive English literature review of EMBASE, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Ovid Health Star, and Business Source Complete from inception until December 1, 2018. Two independent reviewers screened articles for eligibility using predetermined inclusion criteria and subsequently extracted data. Articles were included if they compared 2 or more vascular surgery interventions using either a partial economic evaluation (cost analysis) or full economic evaluation (cost-utility, cost-benefit, and/or cost-effectiveness analysis). Data extracted included publishing journal, date of publication, country of origin of authors, type of economic evaluation, and domain of vascular surgery. RESULTS: A total of 234 papers were included in the analysis. The majority of the papers included only a cost analysis (183, 78%), and there were only 51 papers that conducted a full economic analysis (22%). The 51 papers conducted a total of 69 economic analyses. This consisted of 32 cost-effectiveness analyses, 29 cost-utility analyses, and 8 cost-benefit analyses. The most common domains studied were aneurysmal disease (89, 38%) and peripheral vascular disease (50, 21%). Economic evaluations were commonly published in the Journal of Vascular Surgery (83, 35%) and Annals of Vascular Surgery (32, 14%), with most study authors located in the United States (127, 54%). There was a trend of economic evaluations being published more frequently in recent years. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of vascular surgery economic evaluations used only a cost analysis, rather than a full economic evaluation, which may not be ideal in pursuing interventions that simultaneously optimize cost and patient outcomes. The literature is lacking in full economic evaluations-a trend persistent in other surgical specialties-and there is a need for full economic evaluations to be conducted in the field of vascular surgery.

Assessment of the Accuracy and Reliability of Vascular Surgery Quality Metrics.

BACKGROUND: Health care quality metrics are crucial to medical institutions, payers, and patients. Obtaining current and reliable quality data is challenging, as publicly reported databases lag by several years. Vizient Clinical Data Base (previously University Health Consortium) is utilized by over 5,000 academic and community medical centers to benchmark health care metrics with results based on predetermined Vizient service lines. We sought to assess the accuracy and reliability of vascular surgery service line metrics, as determined by Vizient. METHODS: Vizient utilizes encounter data submitted by participating medical centers and generates a diverse array of health care metrics ranging from mortality to costs. All inpatient cases captured by Vizient under the vascular surgery service line were identified at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center (fiscal year 2016). Each case within the service line was reviewed and categorized as "vascular" or "nonvascular" based on care provided by UMass vascular surgery faculty: vascular = vascular surgery was integral part of care, nonvascular = vascular surgery had minimal or no involvement. Statistical analysis comparing length of stay (LOS), cost, readmission, mortality, and complication rates between vascular and nonvascular cohorts was performed. All inpatient cases discharged by a vascular surgeon National Provider Identifier number were also reviewed and categorized according to Vizient service lines. RESULTS: Vizient's vascular surgery service line identified 696 cases, of which 556 (80%) were vascular and 140 (20%) were nonvascular. When comparing these 2 cohorts, vascular cases had a significantly lower LOS (3.4 vs. 8.7 days; P < 0.0001), cost ($8,535 vs. $16,498; P < 0.0001), and complication rate (6.5% vs. 18%; P < 0.0001) than nonvascular. Mortality was also lower (1.6% vs. 5.7%; P < 0.01), but after risk-adjustment, this difference was not significant. When discharging vascular surgeon National Provider Identifier was used to identify vascular surgery cases, only 69% of these cases were placed within the vascular surgery service line. CONCLUSIONS: Health care quality metrics play an important role for all stakeholders but obtaining accurate and reliable data to implement improvements is challenging. In this single institution experience, inpatient cases that were not under the direction or care of a vascular surgeon resulted in significantly negative impacts on LOS, cost, complication rate, and mortality to the vascular surgery service line, as defined by a national clinical database. Therefore, clinicians must understand the data abstracting and reporting process before implementing effective strategic plans.

Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair is financially viable at a high-volume medical center with positive hospital contribution margins and physician payment.

OBJECTIVE: To examine hospital finances and physician payment associated with fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) for complex aortic disease at a high-volume center and to compare the costs and reimbursements for FEVAR with open repair, and their trends over time. METHODS: Clinical and financial data were collected retrospectively from electronic medical and administrative records. Data for each patient included inpatient and outpatient encounters 3 months before and 12 months after the primary aneurysm operation. RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2017, 157 and 71 patients were treated with physician-modified endograft (PMEG) and Cook Zenith Fenestrated (ZFEN) repair, respectively. Twenty-one patients who were evaluated for FEVAR underwent open repair instead. The 228 FEVAR patients provided a total positive contribution margin (reimbursements minus direct costs) of $2.65 million. The index encounter (the primary aneurysm operation and hospitalization) accounted for the majority (90.6%) of the total contribution margin. The largest component (50.3%) of direct cost for FEVAR from the index encounter was implant/graft expenses. The average direct costs for FEVAR and for open repair from the index encounter were $34,688 and $35,020, respectively. The average contribution margins for FEVAR and for open repair were approximately $10,548 and $21,349, respectively, attributable to differences in reimbursement. The average direct cost for FEVAR trended down over time as cumulative experience increased. Average reimbursement for FEVAR increased after Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved payments with the Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) trial for PMEG in 2011, and a new technology add-on payment for ZFEN in 2012. These factors transitioned the average contribution margin from negative to positive in 2012. The average physician payments for PMEG increased from $128 to $5848 after the start of the IDE trial. The average physician payments for ZFEN and for open repair between 2011 and 2017 were $7597 and $7781, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: FEVAR can be performed at a high-volume medical center with positive contribution margins and with comparable physician payments to open repair. At this institution, hospital reimbursement and physician payments improved for PMEG with participation in an IDE trial, while hospital direct costs decreased for both PMEG and ZFEN with accumulated experience.

Hemodialysis access cost comparisons among incident tunneled catheter patients.

BACKGROUND: Arteriovenous fistula is the ideal hemodialysis access, but most patients start with tunneled dialysis catheter. Arteriovenous fistula and arteriovenous graft surgery may reduce tunneled dialysis catheter use and also increase procedural expenses. We compared Medicare costs associated with arteriovenous fistula, arteriovenous graft, and tunneled dialysis catheter. METHODS: Using the US Renal Data System, we identified incident hemodialysis patients in 2008 who started with tunneled dialysis catheter, survived at least 90 days, and had adequate Medicare records for analysis. We followed them until death or end of 2011; access modality was based on billing evidence of arteriovenous fistula or arteriovenous graft creation. We assumed patients without such records remained with tunneled dialysis catheter. We generated multivariate linear regression models predicting Medicare expenditures, censoring costs when patients died; we included all payments to physicians and institutions. We also created algorithms to identify access-related costs. RESULTS: There were 113,505 patients in the US Renal Data System who started hemodialysis in 2008, of whom 51,002 Medicare patients met inclusion criteria. Of that group, 41,532 (81%) began with tunneled dialysis catheter; 27,064 patients were in the final analysis file. In the first 90 days after hemodialysis initiation, 6100 (22.5%) received arteriovenous fistula, 1813 (6.7%) arteriovenous graft, and 19,151 (70.8%) stayed with tunneled dialysis catheter. Annualized access costs by modality were tunneled dialysis catheter US$13,625 (95% confidence interval: US$13,426-US$13,285); arteriovenous fistula US$16,864 (95% confidence interval: US$16,533-US$17,194); and arteriovenous graft US$20,961 (95% confidence interval: US$20,967-US$21,654; p < .001). Multivariate linear regression demonstrated that staying with tunneled dialysis catheter had lowest access-related costs, arteriovenous fistula was intermediate, and those who underwent arteriovenous graft surgery were highest (p < .021). Access type was not significantly associated with total costs. Additional arteriovenous fistula and arteriovenous graft creation (US$3525 and US$3804 per access per year, respectively) and open and endovascular access-related interventions (US$3102 and US$3569 per procedure per year, respectively; all p < .001) were important predictors of increased cost. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients starting hemodialysis with tunneled dialysis catheter, continued tunneled dialysis catheter use is associated with lowest access-related cost. Both endovascular and open interventions are associated with significant additional costs. Further investigation is warranted to develop efficient patient-centered strategies for hemodialysis access.

Comparison of perioperative costs with fast-track vs standard endovascular aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative health care utilization and costs in patients undergoing elective fast-track vs standard endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remain unclear. METHODS: The fast-track EVAR group included patients treated with a 14 Fr stent graft, bilateral percutaneous access, no general anesthesia or intensive care monitoring, and next-day hospital discharge. The standard EVAR group was identified from Medicare administrative claims using a matching algorithm to adjust for imbalances in patient characteristics. Hospital outcomes included operating room time, intensive care monitoring, hospital stay, secondary interventions, and major adverse events (MAEs). Perioperative outcomes occurring from hospital discharge to 30 days postdischarge included MAE, secondary interventions, and unrelated readmissions. RESULTS: Among 1000 matched patients (250 fast-track; 750 standard), hospital outcomes favored the fast-track EVAR group, including shorter operating room time (2.30 vs 2.83 hrs, P<0.001), shorter hospital stay (1.16 vs 1.69 d, P<0.001), less need for intensive care monitoring (4.4% vs 48.0%, P<0.001), and lower secondary intervention rate (0% vs 2.4%, P=0.01). Postdischarge outcomes also favored fast-track EVAR with a lower rate of MAE (0% vs 7.2%, P<0.001) and all-cause readmission (1.6% vs 6.8%, P=0.001). The total cost to the health care system during the perioperative period was $26,730 with fast-track EVAR vs $30,730 with standard EVAR. Total perioperative health care costs were $4000 (95% CI: $3130-$4830) lower with fast-track EVAR vs standard EVAR, with $2980 in savings to hospitals and $1030 savings to health care payers. CONCLUSION: A fast-track EVAR protocol using a 14 Fr stent graft resulted in shorter procedure time, lower intensive care utilization, faster discharge, lower incidence of MAE, lower readmission rates, and lower perioperative costs compared to standard EVAR.

Is the MitraClip® procedure profitable in a high-volume French hospital?

BACKGROUND: Mitral regurgitation is the second most frequent valvulopathy managed by surgery in Europe. For patients who have a contraindication to surgery or a high surgical risk, the percutaneous MitraClip® implantation procedure has emerged as a favourable alternative approach, but elevated procedural costs are a medicoeconomic concern. AIM: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the MitraClip® procedure is profitable in a high-volume French hospital. METHODS: Patients eligible for mitral valve repair with a MitraClip® device, and covered by the French National Health Service, were included retrospectively in this single-centre study between September 2016 and June 2018. Subgroups were considered based on medicoeconomic severity level. The study primary endpoint was the difference between hospital costs and revenues, calculated for each patient. Secondary endpoints included profit based on severity level, breakdown of costs and adverse events during hospitalization. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were included in the study. The mean hospital cost and revenue were €30,039±2476 and €30,331±2720 per patient, respectively, resulting in a profit of €292±2039 per patient. The total estimated profit was €6429 for the whole study period. The largest benefits were observed for patients assigned to the higher medicoeconomic severity levels (levels 2 and 3). Profit increased following a reduction in the device cost (€1136±2415 per patient). The price of the device represented 78% of the total costs. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous MitraClip implantation is a financially neutral procedure for a French university hospital, but this depends on patient severity level.

Determinants of healthcare utilization and costs in COPD patients: first longitudinal results from the German COPD cohort COSYCONET.

Background: In light of overall increasing healthcare expenditures, it is mandatory to study determinants of future costs in chronic diseases. This study reports the first longitudinal results on healthcare utilization and associated costs from the German chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) cohort COSYCONET. Material and methods: Based on self-reported data of 1904 patients with COPD who attended the baseline and 18-month follow-up visits, direct costs were calculated for the 12 months preceding both examinations. Direct costs at follow-up were regressed on baseline disease severity and other co-variables to identify determinants of future costs. Change score models were developed to identify predictors of cost increases over 18 months. As possible predictors, models included GOLD grade, age, sex, education, smoking status, body mass index, comorbidity, years since COPD diagnosis, presence of symptoms, and exacerbation history. Results: Inflation-adjusted mean annual direct costs increased by 5% (n.s., €6,739 to €7,091) between the two visits. Annual future costs were significantly higher in baseline GOLD grades 2, 3, and 4 (factors 1.24, 95%-confidence interval [1.07-1.43], 1.27 [1.09-1.48], 1.57 [1.27-1.93]). A history of moderate or severe exacerbations within 12 months, a comorbidity count >3, and the presence of dyspnea and underweight were significant predictors of cost increase (estimates ranging between + €887 and + €3,679, all p<0.05). Conclusions: Higher GOLD grade, comorbidity burden, dyspnea and moderate or severe exacerbations were determinants of elevated future costs and cost increases in COPD. In addition we identified underweight as independent risk factor for an increase in direct healthcare costs over time.