The Evaluation of Payment for Obstetric and Gynecology Services: From ACOG.

PURPOSE: To perform an environmental scan of the current status of reimbursement for obstetric and gynecology services and identify problematic issues and opportunities for change. The areas that were evaluated include the American Medical Association (AMA) relative value unit assignment process, payer rates (where available), and trends in employment and salary determination for obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns). METHODS: This report was developed by members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) Committee on Health Economics and Coding using public-facing payment data from the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and state Medicaid programs, as well as published research and commentary on payment for physicians, maternal health, and gynecologic surgery. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were used to describe typical patient characteristics, and practice survey reports from the AMA were analyzed. Finally, an anonymous online survey was distributed to 27,854 members of ACOG in March 2022, with a response rate of 10.8% (3,018 members) and a CI of ±1.7%. FINDINGS: The evaluation found that payment for ob-gyns is heavily influenced by the values and rates set by third-party payers, a patient case-mix that includes a higher-than-average number of patients with Medicaid insurance, and the increase of employed physicians reliant on salary contracts that include productivity requirements and bonuses. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Committee identified action items, including payment reform for obstetric services; advocating for gynecologic surgery time as a priority for hospital administration; developing resources to assist employed physicians with payment, practice, and business management; developing a business and coding curriculum for students and early-career physicians; and continued advocacy with private and public policymakers who influence physician payment.

Gynecologic oncology treatment modifications or delays in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in a publicly funded versus privately funded North American tertiary cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: To compare gynecologic oncology surgical treatment modifications and delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between a publicly funded Canadian versus a privately funded American cancer center. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all planned gynecologic oncology surgeries at University Health Network (UHN) in Toronto, Canada and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston, USA, between March 22,020 and July 302,020. Surgical treatment delays and modifications at both centers were compared to standard recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 450 surgical gynecologic oncology patients were included; 215 at UHN and 235 at BWH. There was a significant difference in median time from decision-to-treat to treatment (23 vs 15 days, p < 0.01) between UHN and BWH and a significant difference in treatment delays (32.56% vs 18.29%; p < 0.01) and modifications (8.37% vs 0.85%; p < 0.01), respectively. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race, treatment site and surgical priority status, treatment at UHN was an independent predictor of treatment modification (OR = 9.43,95% CI 1.81-49.05, p < 0.01). Treatment delays were higher at UHN (OR = 1.96,95% CI 1.14-3.36 p = 0.03) and for uterine disease (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.11-5.33, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: During the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, gynecologic oncology patients treated at a publicly funded Canadian center were 9.43 times more likely to have a surgical treatment modification and 1.96 times more likely to have a surgical delay compared to an equal volume privately funded center in the United States.

Current Trends in Compensation for Fellowship in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery Graduates: A 6-Year Follow-Up.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To present updated information regarding compensation patterns for Fellowship in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery (FMIGS)-graduated physicians in the United States beginning practice during the last 10 years, focusing on the variables that have an impact on differences in salary, including gender, fellowship duration, geographic region, practice setting, and practice mix. DESIGN: An online survey was sent to FMIGS graduates between March 15, 2019 and April 12, 2019. Information on physicians' demographics, compensation (on the basis of location, practice model, productivity benchmarks, academic rank, and years in practice), and attitudes toward fairness in compensation was collected. SETTING: Online survey. PARTICIPANTS: FMIGS graduates practicing in the United States. INTERVENTION: E-mail survey. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We surveyed 298 US FMIGS surgeons who had graduated during the last 10 years (2009-2018). The response rate was 48.7%. Most of the respondents were women (69%). Most of the graduates (84.8%) completed 2- or 3-year fellowship programs. After adjustment for inflation, the median starting salary for the first postfellowship job was $252 074 ($223 986-$279 983) (Table 1). The median time spent in the first job was 2.6 years, and the median total salary at the current year rose to $278 379.4 ($241 437-$350 976). The median salary for respondents entering a second postfellowship job started at $280 945 ($261 409-$329 603). Significantly lower compensation was reported for female FMIGS graduates in their initial postfellowship jobs and was consistently lower than for that of men over time. Most FMIGS graduates (59.7%) reported feeling inadequately compensated for their level of specialization. CONCLUSION: A trend toward higher self-reported salaries is noted for FMIGS graduates in recent years, with significant differences in compensation between men and women. Among obstetrics and gynecology subspecialists, FMIGS graduates earn significantly less than other fellowship-trained physicians, with median salaries that are lower than those of generalist obstetrics and gynecology physicians.

Discrepancies between author- and industry-reported disclosures of financial relationships at an annual gynecologic oncology research meeting.

OBJECTIVE: Trillions of dollars pass to physicians from industry-related businesses annually, leading to many opportunities for financial conflicts of interest. The Open Payments Database (OPD) was created to ensure transparency. We describe the industry relationships as reported in the OPD for presenters at the 2019 Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Annual Meeting and evaluate concordance between author disclosures of their financial interests and information provided by the OPD. METHODS: This is an observational, cross-sectional study. Disclosure data were collected from authors with oral and featured abstract presentations in the 2019 SGO annual conference. These disclosures were compared to data available for each author in the 2018 OPD, which included the amount and nature of industry payments. RESULTS: We examined the disclosures of 301 authors who met inclusion criteria. Of 161 authors who had disclosure statements on their presentations,147 reported "no disclosures," and 14 disclosed industry relationships. The remaining 140 did not list any disclosure information. Sixty percent (184/301) of authors had industry relationships in the 2018 OPD, including 173 of 287 (60.3%) of authors who either reported no disclosures or did not have disclosure data available in their presentations. These transactions totaled over 43 million USD from 122 different companies, with most payments (46%) categorized as "Research or Associated Research." Accurate disclosure reporting was associated with receiving higher payments or research payments, and being a presenting author. CONCLUSIONS: Most authors at the SGO annual conference did not correctly disclose their industry relationships when compared with their entries in the OPD.

Real world experience of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor use in a community oncology practice.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the real-world experience, including the clinical and financial burden, associated with PARP inhibitors in a large community oncology practice. METHODS: Retrospective chart review identified patients prescribed olaparib, niraparib or rucaparib for maintenance therapy or treatment of recurrent ovarian, primary peritoneal or fallopian tube cancer across twelve gynecologic oncologists between December 2016 and November 2018. Demographic, financial and clinical data were extracted. One PARP cycle was defined as a single 28-day period. For patients treated with more than one PARPi, each course was described separately. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients and 506 PARP cycles were identified (122 olaparib, 24%; 89 rucaparib, 18%; 294 niraparib, 58%). Incidence of grade ≥ 3 adverse events were similar to previously reported. Toxicity resulted in dose interruption, reduction and discontinuation in 69%, 63% and 29% respectively. Dose interruptions were most frequent for niraparib but resulted in fewer discontinuations (p-value 0.01). Mean duration of use was 7.46 cycles (olaparib 10.52, rucaparib 4.68, niraparib 7.34). Average cost of PARPi therapy was $8018 per cycle. A total of 711 phone calls were documented (call rate 1.4 calls/cycle) with the highest call volume required for care coordination, lab results and toxicity management. CONCLUSIONS: Although the toxicity profile was similar to randomized clinical trials, this real-world experience demonstrated more dose modifications and discontinuations for toxicity management than previously reported. Furthermore, the clinical and financial burden of PARP inhibitors may be significant and future studies should assess the impact on patient outcomes.

Clinical implications and economic effects of the Coronavirus pandemic on gynecology, obstetrics and reproductive medicine in Germany: learning from Italy.

The infection with the novel SARS Cov-2 Coronavirus, the cause of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, possessing its origin in the Chinese province Hubei, has reached the extent of a global pandemic within a few months. After aerosol infection, most people experience mild respiratory infection with cold symptoms such as cough and fever, and healing within two weeks. In about 5% of those infected, however, a severe course develops with the occurrence of multiple subpleural bronchopulmonary infiltrates and even death as a result of respiratory failure. The Coronavirus pandemic has multiple impacts on social life that have not been seen before. For example, the government adopted measures to curb the exponential spread of the virus, which included a significant reduction in social contacts. Furthermore, the specialist societies recommended that no elective treatments be carried out during the pandemic period. This review article considers epidemiological aspects of novel Coronavirus infection and presents both the clinical as well the possible economic effects of the pandemic on gynecology, obstetrics and reproductive medicine in Germany in the past, present and future. In addition, useful preventive measures for daily clinical work and the previously known scientific findings dealing with the impact of Coronavirus on pregnancy and birth are discussed.

Cost and reimbursement of providing routine vaccines in outpatient obstetrician/gynecologist settings.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the costs and reimbursement associated with running a vaccine program in 5 obstetrics/gynecology practices in Colorado that had participated in a 3-year randomized, controlled trial focused on increasing vaccination in this setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a secondary analysis on costs from 5 clinics participating in a cluster-randomized controlled trial that assessed the effectiveness of a multimodal intervention to improve vaccination rates in outpatient obstetrics/gynecology clinics in central Colorado. The intervention included designation of an immunization champion within the practice, purchasing recommended vaccines for the practice, guidance on storage and management, implementing practices for routine identification of eligible patients for vaccination using the medical record, implementation of standing orders for vaccination, and vaccine administration to patients. Data on costs were gathered from office invoices, claims data, surveys and in-person observations during the course of the trial. These data incorporated supply and personnel costs for administering vaccines to individual patients that were derived from a combination of time-motion studies of staff and provider clinical activity, and practice reports, as well as costs related to maintaining the vaccination program at the practice level, which were derived from practice reports and invoices. Cost data for personnel time during visits in which vaccination was assessed and/or discussed, but no vaccine was given to the patient were also included in the main analysis. Data on practice revenue were derived from practice reimbursement records. All costs were described in 2014 dollars. The primary analysis was the proportion of costs for the program that were reimbursed, aggregated over all years of the study and combining all vaccines and practices, separated by obstetrics vs gynecology patients. RESULTS: Collectively the 5 clinics served >40,000 patient during the study period and served a population that was 16% Medicaid. Over the 3-year observation period, there were 6573 vaccination claims made collectively by the practices (4657 for obstetric patients, 1916 for gynecology patients). The most expensive component of the program was the material costs of the vaccines themselves, which ranged from a low of $9.67 for influenza vaccines, to a high of $141.40 for human papillomavirus vaccine. Staff costs for assessing and delivering vaccines during patient visits were minimal ($0.09-$1.24 per patient visit depending on the practice and whether an obstetrics or gynecology visit was being assessed) compared with staff costs for maintaining the program at a practice level (ie, assessing inventory, ordering and stocking vaccines; $0.89-$105.89 per vaccine dose given). When assessing all costs compared with all reimbursement, we found that vaccines for obstetrics patients were reimbursed at 159% of the costs over the study period, and for gynecology patients at 97% of the costs. Overall, the vaccination program was financially favorable across the practices, averaging 125% reimbursement of costs across the three study years. CONCLUSION: Providing routine vaccines to patients in the ambulatory obstetrics/gynecology setting is generally not financially prohibitive for practices, and may even be financially beneficial, though there is variability between practices that can affect the overall reimbursement margin.

Gender variation in Medicare utilization and payments in gynecologic oncology.

OBJECTIVES: The Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File (POSPUF) and Medicare Physician and Other Supplier National Provider Identifier (POS NPI) Aggregate Report are publicly available files from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services that include payments to providers who care for fee-for-service Medicare recipients. The aim of this study was to analyze variability in gynecologic oncologists' Medicare reimbursements, with attention to differences in provider gender and time in practice. METHODS: The 2015 POSPUF and POS NPI were analyzed with respect to gynecologic oncologists. We searched external publicly available data sources to confirm subspecialty and to determine each provider's number of years in practice. Evaluation and management (E&M) and procedure/surgery codes were analyzed; drug delivery codes were excluded due to variability in billing by facility/hospital. RESULTS: The POS NPI file included 733 gynecologic oncologist providers receiving $55,626,739 in total payments. Female providers comprised 39% of gynecologic oncologists and received 31% of reimbursements (30% of E&M reimbursements and 24% of surgical reimbursements). During the first ten years in practice, female providers comprised 58% of providers and accounted for 52% of reimbursed services, compared to 38% of providers/26% of reimbursed services (11-20 years), and 18% of providers/19% of reimbursed services (>20 years). CONCLUSION: Male gynecologic oncologists perform more Medicare services than their female counterparts. There is a comparable number of services performed between genders among both the most senior and the most junior providers, with a gender gap in services and reimbursements among mid-career providers.

Surgical Equipment Price Awareness Amongst Obstetrician-Gynecologists.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Physicians typically have little information of surgical device pricing, although this trend has not been studied in the field of obstetrics and gynecology. We therefore aimed to determine how accurately obstetrician-gynecologists estimate surgical device prices, and to identify factors associated with accuracy. METHODS: An anonymous survey was emailed to all obstetrician-gynecologist attendings, fellows, and residents at 3 teaching hospitals in a single healthcare system in Arizona. We obtained demographic data, perceptions of price transparency and self-rated price knowledge, and price estimates for 31 surgical devices. RESULTS: After participants provided consent and demographics, they then estimated the purchasing price of 31 devices. We defined price accuracy as being within ±10% of the hospital's purchasing price. Fifty-six of the 170 (32.9%) invitees completed the survey and 48 (28.2%) provided price estimates. On average, participants identified 1.9 items correctly (6.1%; range, 0-7 items) out of 31 with no difference in accuracy based on seniority, surgical volume, physician reimbursement structure, nor subspecialty practice-focus. All (100%) respondents felt pricing should be transparent, and only 1.8% felt it is at least somewhat transparent. CONCLUSION: We found that price-estimate accuracy was very low and had no association with any of the demographics. Also notable was the perception that pricing is not transparent despite a unanimous desire for transparency. Although physicians reported a preference for using less-expensive surgical devices, we conclude that physicians are unequipped to make cost-conscious decisions highlighting a large potential for education.

Heterogeneity of cost estimates in health economic evaluation research. A systematic review of stress urinary incontinence studies.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There is increased demand for an international overview of cost estimates and insight into the variation affecting these estimates. Understanding of these costs is useful for cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) research into new treatment modalities and for clinical guideline development. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE & other non-indexed materials and Ovid Embase for articles published between 1995 and 2017. The National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS-EED) filter and the McMaster sensitive therapy filter were combined with a bespoke search strategy for stress urinary incontinence (SUI). We extracted unit cost estimates, assessed variability and methodology, and determined transferability. RESULTS: We included 37 studies in this review. Four hundred and eighty-two cost estimates from 13 countries worldwide were extracted. Descriptive analysis shows that hospital stay in gynecology ranged between €82 and €1,292 per day. Costs of gynecological consultation range from €30 in France to €158 in Sweden. In the UK, costs are estimated at €228 per hour. Costs of a tension-free vaginal tape (TVT) device range from €431 in Finland to €994 in Canada. TVT surgery per minute costs €25 in France and €82 in Sweden. Total costs of TVT range from €1,224 in Ireland to €5,809 for inpatient care in France. Variation was explored. CONCLUSIONS: Heterogeneity was observed in cost estimates for all units at all levels of health care. CEAs of SUI interventions cannot be interpreted without bias when the base of these analyses-namely costs-cannot be compared and generalized.

Industry Payments to Obstetricians and Gynecologists Under the Sunshine Act.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate financial relationships between obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns) and industry, including the prevalence, magnitude, and the nature of payments. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in which we obtained a list of industry contributions to U.S. obstetricians and gynecologists through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database from August 1, 2013, to December 31, 2015. These data were cross-referenced with the entire cohort of practicing obstetricians and gynecologists, who were identified using the National Provider Identification database, because not all practicing ob-gyns received payments. These payments were analyzed with respect to 1) types of payments, 2) demographic attributes of health care providers receiving payments, and 3) comparisons between obstetrician and gynecologist subspecialties. Continuous data were compared using the Mann-Whitney test for variables that were not normally distributed and with the t test for variables that are normally distributed. RESULTS: A total of 517,077 nonresearch payments, totaling $79,965,244, were made to 23,292 ob-gyns. Physicians receiving payments were predominantly female, younger than 65 years old, allopathic physicians who graduated from U.S. medical schools in the late 1990s, and were board-certified subspecialists (P<.001 for all). Half of all ob-gyns received payments of varying amounts from drug manufacturers, device manufacturers, or both, with most of the payments for honoraria, faculty compensation, or consulting. Female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery physicians received the largest median dollar amount; maternal-fetal medicine physicians received the smallest. CONCLUSION: Obstetricians and gynecologists receive a substantial amount of payments from industry. Most of these payments were for honoraria, faculty compensation, or consulting and totaled less than $400 per health care provider. Although this total amount is less than typically received by surgical providers, including orthopedic surgeons who account for the highest compensated group in total and mean industry payments, the median payment value for obstetrics and gynecology subspecialists surpasses the median payment to orthopedic surgeons. These financial relationships warrant further exploration with future research.

The opinions and practices of providers toward the sexual issues of cervical cancer patients undergoing treatment.

OBJECTIVES: Cervical cancer and its treatments impair women's sexual function. These complications may or may not be regarded when clinicians develop treatment plans. We aim to investigate the considerations of providers toward the sex life of cervical cancer patients. METHODS: All members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncology received a questionnaire assessing their opinions and practices toward specific questions regarding the sexual functioning of their patients. RESULTS: Of the 124 providers who completed the survey, the majority were Board Certified Gynecologic Oncologists (56%) with an average of 15years in training. Approximately 23% received training about sexual dysfunction. Providers without formal training were more likely to agree that: "Information regarding sexual function in patients undergoing treatment for cervical cancer is lacking" (p=0.02). Providers with over 10years of experience were more likely to agree that "sex is private and discussing it with patients will interfere with our provider-patient relationship" (p=0.03). International clinicians were more likely to agree that: "I feel uncomfortable initiating discussions regarding sexual function with patients" (p=0.03), "Sex is private and discussing it with patients will interfere in our provider-patient relationship" (p=0.02), and "If a patient has a sexual problem, they will raise the subject" (p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Years of clinical experience, provider age, a history of training on regarding sexual dysfunction and an international setting of practice affect providers' opinions and practices toward sexual issues of cervical cancer patients. More formal, relevant training regarding sexual dysfunction is warranted for clinicians who treat cervical cancer patients.

Sister Society Meeting on Global Education Development and Collaboration: Meeting Report.

OBJECTIVES: To identify common barriers to teaching and training and to identify strategies that would be useful in developing future training programs in gynecologic oncology in low- and middle- income countries. METHODS: There is a lack of overall strategy to meet the needs of education and training in gynecologic oncology in low- and middle- income countries, the leaderships of sister societies and global health volunteers met at the European Society of Gynecologic Oncology in October 23, 2015. The challenges of the training programs supported by gynecologic oncology societies, major universities and individual efforts were presented and discussed. Strategies to improve education and training were identified. RESULTS: Major challenges include language barriers, limited surgical equipment, inadequate internet access, lack of local support for sustainability in training programs, inadequate pathology and radiation oncology, finance and a global deficiency in identifying sites and personnel in partnering or developing training programs. The leaderships identified various key components including consultation with the local Ministry of Health, local educational institutions; inclusion of the program into existing local programs, a needs assessment, and the development of curriculum and regional centers of excellence. CONCLUSIONS: Proper preparation of training sites and trainers, the development of global curriculum, the establishment of centers of excellence, and the ability to measure outcomes are important to improve education and training in gynecologic oncology in low- and middle- income countries.

Cancer and the world's poor: What's a gynecologic cancer specialist to do?

Women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face a drastically increased burden of cervical cancer and the same burden of other gynecologic cancers as do women in high-income countries, yet there are few resources or specialists to meet their needs. 85% of deaths from cervical cancer occur in LMICs. As the population of these regions age, and as death from infectious diseases decrease, this burden will increase further without strong intervention. There are few cancer specialists in LMICs and training in gynecologic cancer care is rare. Gynecologic cancer specialists are uniquely positioned to meet this challenge as advocates, educators and experts. On behalf of the SGO International Committee, we call on our colleagues to meet this historic challenge.

Interactions with industry under the Sunshine Act: an example from gynecologic oncology.

THE PROBLEM: Clinicians may be unaware that industry payments to physicians are now publicly searchable under the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. Furthermore, the extent of industry's financial involvement in subspecialty practice has not been previously accessible. As an example, 6948 direct, research-unrelated payments totaling $1,957,004 were made to 765 gynecologic oncologists in 2014, the first full year of data available. A total of 153 companies reported at least 1 payment; however, the 10 manufacturers reporting the highest total payment amount accounted for 82% of all payments to physicians. In all, 48 gynecologic oncologists received >$10,000 from manufacturers, accounting for $1,202,228, or 61%, of total payments. A SOLUTION: Obstetrician-gynecologists, including gynecologic oncologists, should be aware of their publicly reported payments from industry and ensure reports' accuracy. Professional organizations, including the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO), should strongly consider proactively developing guidelines regarding interactions with industry for their general memberships.