Trends of Surgery, Patient, and Surgeon Characteristics for Corneal Transplants in the Medicare Population From 2011 to 2020.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe recent trends in corneal transplants and patient and surgeon characteristics for corneal transplants that occurred in the Medicare population. METHODS: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study using Current Procedural Terminology codes. We identified Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) claims for different types of corneal transplant procedures performed on Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older from 2011 to 2020. Number and types of corneal transplants performed each year and patient and surgeon demographics and characteristics were analyzed. RESULTS: We analyzed 148,981 corneal transplants performed by 2972 surgeons within the study period. Most corneal transplants performed were endothelial keratoplasties (70.1%). Most patients were women (60.3%) and White (85.8%). 18.2% of patients lived in a rural area, whereas only 3.5% of transplants occurred in a rural area and 5% of surgeons practiced in a rural area. Male surgeons represented 77.8% of all surgeons and performed 84.9% of all corneal transplants in the study period. The proportion of corneal transplants performed by female surgeons gradually increased over time, from 12.1% in 2011 to 19.0% in 2020. The proportion of female surgeons also increased from 16.2% in 2011 to 23.8% in 2020. Most surgeons (67%) performed <6 corneal transplants per year. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of female corneal transplant surgeons has increased over time, women remain underrepresented in the surgical workforce. Further investigation should be conducted to identify the underlying reason and address the identified disparities within the landscape of corneal transplantation.

Trends in US Ambulatory Care Patterns During the COVID-19 Pandemic, 2019-2021.

Importance: Following reductions in US ambulatory care early in the pandemic, it remains unclear whether care consistently returned to expected rates across insurance types and services. Objective: To assess whether patients with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility had significantly lower than expected return to use of ambulatory care rates than patients with commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service insurance. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective cohort study examining ambulatory care service patterns from January 1, 2019, through February 28, 2021, claims data from multiple US payers were combined using the Milliman MedInsight research database. Using a difference-in-differences design, the extent to which utilization during the pandemic differed from expected rates had the pandemic not occurred was estimated. Changes in utilization rates between January and February 2020 and each subsequent 2-month time frame during the pandemic were compared with the changes in the corresponding months from the year prior. Age- and sex-adjusted Poisson regression models of monthly utilization counts were used, offsetting for total patient-months and stratifying by service and insurance type. Exposures: Patients with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility compared with patients with commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service insurance, respectively. Main Outcomes and Measures: Utilization rates per 100 people for 6 services: emergency department, office and urgent care, behavioral health, screening colonoscopies, screening mammograms, and contraception counseling or HIV screening. Results: More than 14.5 million US adults were included (mean age, 52.7 years; 54.9% women). In the March-April 2020 time frame, the combined use of 6 ambulatory services declined to 67.0% (95% CI, 66.9%-67.1%) of expected rates, but returned to 96.7% (95% CI, 96.6%-96.8%) of expected rates by the November-December 2020 time frame. During the second COVID-19 wave in the January-February 2021 time frame, overall utilization again declined to 86.2% (95% CI, 86.1%-86.3%) of expected rates, with colonoscopy remaining at 65.0% (95% CI, 64.1%-65.9%) and mammography at 79.2% (95% CI, 78.5%-79.8%) of expected rates. By the January-February 2021 time frame, overall utilization returned to expected rates as follows: patients with Medicaid at 78.4% (95% CI, 78.2%-78.7%), Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility at 73.3% (95% CI, 72.8%-73.8%), commercial at 90.7% (95% CI, 90.5%-90.9%), Medicare Advantage at 83.2% (95% CI, 81.7%-82.2%), and Medicare fee-for-service at 82.0% (95% CI, 81.7%-82.2%; P < .001; comparing return to expected utilization rates among patients with Medicaid and Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility, respectively, with each of the other insurance types). Conclusions and Relevance: Between March 2020 and February 2021, aggregate use of 6 ambulatory care services increased after the preceding decrease in utilization that followed the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the rate of increase in use of these ambulatory care services was significantly lower for participants with Medicaid or Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility than for those insured by commercial, Medicare Advantage, or Medicare fee-for-service.

Plastic Surgeon Financial Compensation-Incentivization Models in Surgical Care Delivery: The Past, Present, and Future.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons are critical for the success of any health care enterprise. However, few studies have examined the potential impact of value-based care on surgeon compensation. METHODS: This review presents value-based financial incentive models that will shape the future of surgeon compensation. The following incentivization models will be discussed: pay-for-reporting, pay-for-performance, pay-for-patient-safety, bundled payments, and pay-for-academic-productivity. Moreover, the authors suggest the application of the congruence model-a model developed to help business leaders understand the interplay of forces that shape the performance of their organizations-to determine surgeon compensation methods applicable in value-based care-centric environments. RESULTS: The application of research in organizational behavior can assist health care leaders in developing surgeon compensation models optimized for value-based care. Health care leaders can utilize the congruence model to determine total surgeon compensation, proportion of compensation that is short term versus long term, proportion of compensation that is fixed versus variable, and proportion of compensation based on seniority versus performance. CONCLUSION: This review provides a framework extensively studied by researchers in organizational behavior that can be utilized when designing surgeon financial compensation plans for any health care entity shifting toward value-based care.

Progression of Changes in Vascular Surgery Practices during the Novel Corona Virus SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) has spread rapidly since it was identified. We sought to understand its effects on vascular surgery practices stratified by VASCON surgical readiness level and determine how these effects have changed during the course of the pandemic. METHODS: All members of the Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Society were sent electronic surveys questioning the effects of COVID-19 on their practices in the early pandemic in April (EP) and four months later in the pandemic in August (LP) 2020. RESULTS: Response rates were 206/731 (28%) in the EP group and 108/731 (15%) in the LP group (P < 0.0001). Most EP respondents reported VASCON levels less than 3 (168/206,82%), indicating increased hospital limitations while 6/108 (6%) in the LP group reported this level (P < 0.0001). The EP group was more likely to report a lower VASCON level (increased resource limitations), and decreased clinic, hospital and emergency room consults. Despite an increase of average cases/week to pre-COVID-19 levels, 46/108 (43%) of LP report continued decreased compensation, with 57% reporting more than 10% decrease. Respondents in the decreased compensation group were more likely to have reported a VASCON level 3 or lower earlier in the pandemic (P = 0.018). 91/108(84%) of LP group have treated COVID-19 patients for thromboembolic events, most commonly acute limb ischemia (76/108) and acute DVT (76/108). While the majority of respondents are no longer delaying the vascular surgery cases, 76/108 (70%) feel that vascular patient care has suffered due to earlier delays, and 36/108 (33%) report a backlog of cases caused by the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 had a profound effect on vascular surgery practices earlier in the pandemic, resulting in continued detrimental effects on the provision of vascular care as well as compensation received by vascular surgeons.

Trends in Use of Low-Value Care in Traditional Fee-for-Service Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

Importance: Decreasing use of low-value care is a major goal for Medicare given the potential to decrease costs and harms. Compared with traditional fee-for-service Medicare (TM), Medicare Advantage (MA) is more strongly financially incentivized to decrease use of low-value care. Objectives: To compare use of low-value care among individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA overall and to examine trends in use of low-value care in both programs from 2006 to 2015. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed individuals enrolled in TM and MA using data from the 2006 to 2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. To account for differences in characteristics between individuals enrolled in TM and those enrolled in MA, a propensity score-based approach was used. Data were analyzed from August 2020 through January 2021. Exposures: Being enrolled in MA or TM. Main Outcomes and Measures: Binary measures of use were collected for 13 low-value services in 4 categories (ie, [1] cancer screening: cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening in older adults; [2] antibiotic use: antibiotic for acute upper respiratory infection and antibiotic for influenza; [3] medication: anxiolytic, sedative, or hypnotic in an adult older than 65 years; benzodiazepine for depression; opioid for headache; opioid for back pain; and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug [NSAID] for hypertension, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease; and [4] imaging: magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or computed tomography [CT] for back pain, radiograph for back pain, and MRI or CT for headache) and 4 low-value composites corresponding to the categories (ie, cancer screening composite, antibiotic use composite, medication composite, and imaging composite). Results: Among 11 677 individuals enrolled in TM and 5164 individuals enrolled in MA, 9429 (56.0%) were women and the mean (SD) age was 74.5 (6.3) years. Of 13 low-value services and 4 low-value composites, statistically significant differences were found in 2 measures. For the low-value medication composite, 2054 of 11 636 eligible individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 17.6%; 95% CI, 16.8%-18.3%) received the care, and 981 of 5141 eligible individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 19.7%; 95% CI, 18.3%-21.2%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.2 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5-3.8 percentage points; P = .02). For the NSAID use for hypertension, heart failure, or kidney disease metric, 807 of 7832 individuals enrolled in TM (adjusted mean, 10.0%; 95% CI, 9.2%-10.8%) received the care, and 447 of 3566 individuals enrolled in MA (adjusted mean, 12.9%; 95% CI, 19.7%-27.1%) received the care, for a rate of use that was significantly higher among individuals enrolled in MA, by 2.9 percentage points (95% CI, 1.3-4.6 percentage points; P = .001). Overall, there were no decreases in use of low-value care in TM or MA over time. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that use of low-value care was similarly prevalent in MA and TM, suggesting that MA enrollment was not associated with decreased provision of low-value care compared with TM.

Recent Trends in Medicare Utilization and Reimbursement for Orthopaedic Procedures Performed at Ambulatory Surgery Centers.

BACKGROUND: As part of a market-driven response to the increasing costs of hospital-based surgical care, an increasing volume of orthopaedic procedures are being performed in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). The purpose of the present study was to identify recent trends in orthopaedic ASC procedure volume, utilization, and reimbursements in the Medicare system between 2012 and 2017. METHODS: This cross-sectional, national study tracked annual Medicare claims and payments and aggregated data at the county level. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression models were used to evaluate trends in procedure volume, utilization rates, and reimbursement rates, and to identify demographic predictors of ASC utilization. RESULTS: A total of 1,914,905 orthopaedic procedures were performed at ASCs in the Medicare population between 2012 and 2017, with an 8.8% increase in annual procedure volume and a 10.5% increase in average reimbursements per case. ASC orthopaedic procedure utilization, including utilization across all subspecialties, is strongly associated with metropolitan areas compared with rural areas. In addition, orthopaedic procedure utilization, including for sports and hand procedures, was found to be significantly higher in wealthier counties (measured by average household income) and in counties located in the South. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated increasing orthopaedic ASC procedure volume in recent years, driven by increases in hand procedure volume. Medicare reimbursements per case have steadily risen and outpaced the rate of inflation over the study period. However, as orthopaedic practice overhead continues to increase, other Medicare expenditures such as hospital payments and operational and implant costs also must be evaluated. These findings may provide a source of information that can be used by orthopaedic surgeons, policy makers, investors, and other stakeholders to make informed decisions regarding the costs and benefits of the use of ASCs for orthopaedic procedures.

Drivers of Medicare Spending: A 15-Year Review of Radiation Oncology Charges Allowed by the Medicare Physician/Supplier Fee-for-Service Program Compared With Other Specialties.

PURPOSE: In 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services proposed a new radiation oncology alternative payment model aimed at reducing expenditures. We examined changes in aggregate physician Medicare charges allowed per specialty to provide contemporary context to proposed changes and hypothesize that radiation oncology charges remained stable through 2017. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Medicare physician/supplier utilization, program payments, and balance billing for original Medicare beneficiaries, by physician specialty, were analyzed from 2002 to 2017. Total allowed charges under the physician/supplier fee-for-service program, inflation-adjusted charges, and percent of total charges billed per specialty were examined. We adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index for medical care from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. RESULTS: Total allowed charges increased from $83 billion in 2002 to $138 billion in 2017. The specialties accounting for the most charges billed to Medicare were internal medicine and ophthalmology. Radiation oncology charges accounted for 1.2%, 1.6%, and 1.4% of total charges allowed by Medicare in 2002, 2012, and 2017, respectively. Radiation oncology charges allowed increased 44% from 2002 to 2012 ($987.6 million to $1.42 billion) but decreased by 19% from 2012 to 2017 ($1.15 billion), adjusted for inflation. Total charges allowed by internal medicine decreased 2% from 2002 to 2012 ($8.53 to $8.36 billion), adjusted for inflation, and decreased 16% from 2012 to 2017 ($7.05 billion). When adjusting for inflation, ophthalmology charges increased 18% from 2002 to 2012 ($4.53 to $5.36 billion) and increased 3% from 2012 to 2017 ($5.5 billion). CONCLUSIONS: Radiation oncology physician charges represent a small fraction of total Medicare expenses and are not a driver for Medicare spending. Aggregate inflation-adjusted charges by radiation oncology have dramatically declined in the past 5 years and represent a stable fraction of total Medicare charges. The need to target radiation oncology with cost-cutting measures may be overstated.

Differences in High- and Low-Value Cardiovascular Testing by Health Insurance Provider.

Background Quality of care incentives and reimbursements for cardiovascular testing differ between insurance providers. We hypothesized that there are differences in the use of guideline-concordant testing between Medicaid versus commercial insurance patients <65 years, and between Medicare Advantage versus Medicare fee-for-service patients ≥65 years. Methods and Results Using data from the Colorado All-Payer Claims Database from 2015 to 2018, we identified patients eligible to receive a high-value test recommended by guidelines: assessment of left ventricular function among patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction or incident heart failure, or a low-value test that provides minimal patient benefit: stress testing prior to low-risk surgery or routine stress testing within 2 years of percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Among 145 616 eligible patients, 37% had fee-for-service Medicare, 18% Medicare Advantage, 22% Medicaid, and 23% commercial insurance. Using multilevel logistic regression models adjusted for patient characteristics, Medicaid patients were less likely to receive high-value testing for acute myocardial infarction (odds ratio [OR], 0.84 [0.73-0.98]; P=0.03) and heart failure (OR, 0.59 [0.51-0.70]; P<0.01) compared with commercially insured patients. Medicare Advantage patients were more likely to receive high-value testing for acute myocardial infarction (OR, 1.35 [1.15-1.59]; P<0.01) and less likely to receive low-value testing after percutaneous coronary intervention/ coronary artery bypass graft (OR, 0.63 [0.55-0.72]; P<0.01) compared with Medicare fee-for-service patients. Conclusions Guideline-concordant testing was less likely to occur among patients with Medicaid compared with commercial insurance, and more likely to occur among patients with Medicare Advantage compared with fee-for-service Medicare. Insurance plan features may provide valuable targets to improve guideline-concordant testing.

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.

Contemporary Trends in Physician Utilization Rates of CEA and CAS for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis among Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Carotid revascularization for asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis (ACAS) has become increasingly controversial in the past few decades as the best medical therapy has improved. The aim of this study was to assess and define contemporary trends in the rate of carotid revascularization procedures for ACAS in the United States and to characterize outlier physicians performing a higher rate of asymptomatic revascularization compared to their peers. METHODS: We used 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims to identify all patients who were newly diagnosed with ACAS between 01/2011-06/2018. Patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis, those with prior carotid revascularization, and surgeons who performed ≤10 CEAs during the study period were excluded. We used a hierarchical multivariable logistic regression model to evaluate patient and physician characteristics associated with undergoing a carotid endarterectomy or carotid artery stent procedure within 3 months after the initial diagnosis of ACAS. We also assessed temporal trends in carotid revascularization rates over time using the Cochran-Armitage Trend Test. RESULTS: Overall, 795,512 patients (median age 73.9 years, 50.9% male, 87.6% white) had a first-time diagnosis of ACAS during the study period, of which 23,481 (3.0%) underwent carotid revascularization within 3 months. There was a significant decline in overall carotid artery revascularization rates over time (2011: 3.2% vs. 2018: 2.1%; P < 0.001). The median and mean physician-specific carotid revascularization rates were 2.0% (IQR 0.0%-6.3%) and 4.7% ± 7.1%, respectively. Three-hundred and fifty physicians (5.2%) had carotid revascularization rates ≥19%, which was more than 2 standard deviations above the mean. After adjusting for patient-level characteristics, physician-level variables associated with carotid revascularization for newly diagnosed ACAS included male sex (adjusted OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.35-1.89), more years in practice (≥31 vs. <10 years, aOR 1.64, 95% CI 1.32-2.04), rural practice location (aOR 1.34, 95% CI 1.18-1.52), Southern region practice location (versus Northeast, aOR 1.54, 95% CI 1.39-1.69), and lower volume of ACAS patients (lower versus upper tertile, aOR 2.62, 95% CI 2.39-2.89). Cardiothoracic surgeons had a 1.52-fold higher odds of carotid revascularization compared to vascular surgeons (95% CI 1.36-1.68), whereas cardiologists and radiologists had lower intervention rates (both, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The current early revascularization rate for newly diagnosed ACAS is <5% among proceduralists in the United States, and has been decreasing steadily since 2014. There are particular physician-level characteristics that are associated with higher rates of carotid revascularization that cannot be fully contextualized without high-level contemporary outcomes data to guide decision making in ACAS.

Association of Neurosurgical Work Relative Value Units with Objective Markers of Operative Complexity.

OBJECTIVE: Relative value units (RVUs) form the backbone of health care service reimbursement calculation in the United States. However, it remains unclear how well RVUs align with objective measures of procedural complexity within neurosurgery. METHODS: The 2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for neurosurgical procedures with >50 patients, using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Length of stay (LOS), operative time, mortality, and readmission and reoperation rates were collected for each code and a univariate correlation analysis was performed, with significant predictors entered into a multivariate logistic regression model, which generated predicted work RVUs, which were compared with actual RVUs to identify undervalued and overvalued procedures. RESULTS: Among 64 CPT codes, LOS, operative time, mortality, readmission, and reoperation were significant independent predictors of work RVUs and together explained 76% of RVU variance in a multivariate model (R2 = 0.76). Using a difference of >1.5 standard deviations from the mean, procedures associated with greater than predicted RVU included surgery for intracranial carotid circulation aneurysms (CPTs 61697 and 61700; residual RVU = 12.94 and 15.07, respectively), and infratemporal preauricular approaches to middle cranial fossa (CPT 61590; residual RVU = 15.39). Conversely, laminectomy/foraminotomy for decompression of additional spinal cord, cauda equina, and/or nerve root segments (CPT 63048; residual RVU = -21.30), transtemporal craniotomy for cerebellopontine angle tumor resection (CPT 61526; residual RVU = -9.95), and brachial plexus neuroplasty (CPT 64713; residual RVU = -11.29) were associated with lower than predicted RVU. CONCLUSIONS: Work RVUs for neurosurgical procedures are largely predictive of objective measures of surgical complexity, with few notable exceptions.

Vascular Surgeons Are Not Adequately Valued by Traditional Productivity Metrics.

BACKGROUND: Reimbursements for professional services performed by clinicians are under constant scrutiny. The value of a vascular surgeon's services as measured by work relative value units (wRVUs) and professional reimbursement has decreased for some of the most common procedures performed. Hospital reimbursements, however, often remain stable or increases. We sought to evaluate fistulagrams as a case study and hypothesized that while wRVUs and professional reimbursements decrease, hospital reimbursements for these services increased over the same time period. METHODS: Medicare 5% claims data were reviewed to identify all fistulagrams with or without angioplasty or stenting performed between 2015 and 2018 using current procedural terminology codes. Reimbursements were classified into 3 categories: medical center (reimbursements made to a hospital for a fistulagram performed as an outpatient procedure), professional (reimbursement for fistulagrams based on compensation for procedures: work RVUs, practice expense RVU, malpractice expense RVU), and office-based laboratory (OBL, reimbursement for fistulagrams performed in an OBL setting). Medicare's Physician Fee Schedule was used to calculate wRVU and professional reimbursement. Medicare's Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System-Ambulatory Payment Classification was used to calculate hospital outpatient reimbursement. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2018, we identified 1,326,993 fistulagrams. During this study period, vascular surgeons experienced a 25% increase in market share for diagnostic fistulagrams. Compared with 2015, total professional reimbursements from 2017 to 2018 for all fistulagram procedures decreased by 41% (-$10.3 million) while OBL reimbursement decreased 29% (-$42.5 million) and wRVU decreased 36%. During the same period, medical center reimbursement increased by 6.6% (+$14.1 million). CONCLUSIONS: Vascular surgeons' contribution to a hospital may not be accurately reflected through traditional RVU metrics alone. Vascular surgeons performed an increasing volume of fistulagram procedures while experiencing marked reductions in wRVU and reimbursement. Medical centers, on the other hand, experienced an overall increase in reimbursement during the same time period. This study highlights that professional reimbursements, taken in isolation and without consideration of medical center reimbursement, undervalues the services and contributions provided by vascular surgeons.

Financial Effect of Unbundling Moderate Sedation from Procedural Codes in Radiology.

PURPOSE: To assess and quantify the financial effect of unbundling newly unbundled moderate sedation codes across major payors at an academic radiology practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Billing and reimbursement data for 23 months of unbundled moderate sedation codes were analyzed for reimbursement rates and trends. This included 10,481 and 28,189 units billed and $443,257 and $226,444 total receipts for codes 99152 (initial 15 minutes of moderate sedation) and 99153 (each subsequent 15 minute increment of moderate sedation), respectively. Five index procedures-(i) central venous port placement, (ii) endovascular tumor embolization, (iii) tunneled central venous catheter placement, (iv) percutaneous gastrostomy placement, and (v) percutaneous nephrostomy placement-were identified, and moderate sedation reimbursements for Medicare and the dominant private payor were calculated and compared to pre-bundled reimbursements. Revenue variation models across different patient insurance mixes were then created using averages from 4 common practice settings among radiologists (independent practices, all hospitals, safety-net hospitals, and non-safety-net hospitals). RESULTS: Departmental reimbursement for unbundled moderate sedation in FY2018 and FY2019 totaled $669,701.34, with high per-unit variability across payors, especially for code 99153. Across the 5 index procedures, moderate sedation reimbursement decreased 1.3% after unbundling and accounted for 3.9% of procedural revenue from Medicare and increased 11.9% and accounted for 5.5% of procedural revenue from the dominant private payor. Between different patient insurance mix models, estimated reimbursement from moderate sedation varied by as much as 29.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Departmental reimbursement from billing the new unbundled moderate sedation codes was sizable and heterogeneous, highlighting the need for consistent and accurate reporting of moderate sedation. Total collections vary by case mix, patient insurance mix, and negotiated reimbursement rates.

The Economic Burden of Out-of-Pocket Expenses for Plastic Surgery Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Health insurance reimbursement structure has evolved, with patients becoming increasingly responsible for their health care costs through rising out-of-pocket expenses. High levels of cost sharing can lead to delays in access to care, influence treatment decisions, and cause financial distress for patients. METHODS: Patients undergoing the most common outpatient reconstructive plastic surgery operations were identified using Truven MarketScan databases from 2009 to 2017. Total cost of the surgery paid to the insurer and out-of-pocket expenses, including deductible, copayment, and coinsurance, were calculated. Multivariable generalized linear modeling with log link and gamma distribution was used to predict adjusted total and out-of-pocket expenses. All costs were inflation-adjusted to 2017 dollars. RESULTS: The authors evaluated 3,165,913 outpatient plastic and reconstructive surgical procedures between 2009 and 2017. From 2009 to 2017, total costs had a significant increase of 25 percent, and out-of-pocket expenses had a significant increase of 54 percent. Using generalized linear modeling, procedures performed in outpatient hospitals conferred an additional $1999 in total costs (95 percent CI, $1978 to $2020) and $259 in out-of-pocket expenses (95 percent CI, $254 to $264) compared with office procedures. Ambulatory surgical center procedures conferred an additional $1698 in total costs (95 percent CI, $1677 to $1718) and $279 in out-of-pocket expenses (95 percent CI, $273 to $285) compared with office procedures. CONCLUSIONS: For outpatient plastic surgery procedures, out-of-pocket expenses are increasing at a faster rate than total costs, which may have implications for access to care and timing of surgery. Providers should realize the increasing burden of out-of-pocket expenses and the effect of surgical location on patients' costs when possible.

Initial financial impact of office-based laboratories on Medicare payments for percutaneous interventions for peripheral artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous interventions for peripheral artery disease (PAD) are transitioning away from hospital-based settings to office-based laboratories (OBLs). Those in favor of OBL use reference lower hospitalization rates and high efficiency; however, critics claim financial incentives may lead to multiple procedures and higher atherectomy use. We sought to determine how Medicare payments are affected by OBL use. METHODS: We identified physicians performing percutaneous interventions for PAD from 2006 to 2013 in a 20% Medicare sample. Physicians performing a majority of interventions at OBLs were classified as high OBL users; control physicians performed interventions at hospital-based settings. The primary outcomes were total Medicare payments at 30 days and 1 year. Generalized log-gamma regression models were used to evaluate factors influencing payments reported as a percentage change and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). A secondary analysis was performed of physicians who transitioned from hospital-based settings to OBLs, "switch physicians." A multivariate model with difference-in-differences regression was used to evaluate the effects of transitioning to OBLs. RESULTS: A total of 89 high OBL users performed percutaneous interventions on 887 patients, and 3715 control physicians treated 54,213 patients during the time period. Payments for patients treated by high OBL users were significantly higher compared with control physicians at 30 days ($4465), 90 days ($8925), and 1 year ($27,436). Major factors increasing payments at 1 year were treatment by a high OBL user (49%; 95% CI, 42%-56%), hospital admissions (127%; 95% CI, 123%-131%), repeated lower extremity procedures (41%; 95% CI, 39%-43%), and lower extremity wound (20%; 95% CI,18%-22%). Factors decreasing payments at 1 year were living in a rural setting (8%; 95% CI, 7%-9%) and dementia (5%; 95% CI, 3%-7%). Analysis of 292 switch physicians identified 3888 patients treated before OBLs (pre-switch) and 3246 after OBLs (post-switch). Transitioning to OBLs was associated with higher payments at 30 days and 90 days, and this increase was higher compared with control physicians. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight that OBL use for PAD interventions significantly influences Medicare payments, and its widespread adaptation should be made with caution. The main factors driving payments were hospitalization admissions, repeated lower extremity procedures, and wound status. Further work is needed to evaluate the appropriate use of OBLs to optimize patient outcomes and resource allocations.

Characterizing Reimbursements for Medicare Patients Receiving Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair at Vascular Quality Initiative Centers.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVR) has a major financial impact on health care systems. We characterized reimbursement for index EVR hospitalizations among Medicare beneficiaries having surgery at Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) centers. METHODS: We linked Medicare claims to VQI clinical registry data for patients undergoing EVR from 2003 to 2015. Analysis was limited to patients fully covered by fee-for-service Medicare parts A and B in the year of their operation and assigned a corresponding diagnosis-related group for EVR. The primary outcome was Medicare's reimbursement for inpatient hospital and professional services, adjusted to 2015 dollars. We performed descriptive analysis of reimbursement over time and univariate analysis to evaluate patient demographics, clinical characteristics, procedural variables, and postoperative events associated with reimbursement. This informed a multilevel regression model used to identify factors independently associated with EVR reimbursement and quantify VQI center-level variation in reimbursement. RESULTS: We studied 9,403 Medicare patients who underwent EVR at VQI centers during the study period. Reimbursements declined from $37,450 ± $9,350 (mean ± standard deviation) in 2003 to $27,723 ± $10,613 in 2015 (test for trend, P < 0.001). For patients experiencing a complication (n = 773; 8.2%), mean reimbursement for EVR was $44,858 ± $23,825 versus $28,857 ± $9,258 for those without complications (P < 0.001). Intestinal ischemia, new dialysis requirement, and respiratory compromise each doubled Medicare's average reimbursement for EVR. After adjusting for diagnosis-related group, several patient-level factors were independently associated with higher Medicare reimbursement; these included ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (+$2,372), additional day in length of stay (+$1,275), and being unfit for open repair (+$501). Controlling for patient-level factors, 4-fold variation in average reimbursement was seen across VQI centers. CONCLUSIONS: Reimbursement for EVR declined between 2003 and 2015. We identified preoperative clinical factors independently associated with reimbursement and quantified the impact of different postoperative complications on reimbursement. More work is needed to better understand the substantial variation observed in reimbursement at the center level.

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.

Significant physician practice variability in the utilization of endovenous thermal ablation in the 2017 Medicare population.

BACKGROUND: There has been a substantial increase in the use of procedures to treat lower extremity venous disease in the United States over the past decade. A specialty society-selected metric was applied to evaluate the use of endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA) in Medicare beneficiaries and factors associated with physician practice variations. We used confidential physician reports of this benchmark data to increase physician recognition of individualized usage relative to their peers. METHODS: We used 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims data to identify all patients 18 years of age and older who underwent at least one lower extremity EVTA over a 1-year period (January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017). A physician-specific annual rate of EVTA performed per patient was calculated. Individual physician results were shared confidentially with each provider billing Medicare for more than 10 ablations during the study period by mail, benchmarked to the distribution of use by their peers nationally. Hierarchical multivariable linear regression was used to identify patient and provider characteristics associated with high rates of thermal ablations per patient. RESULTS: A total of 102,145 Medicare beneficiaries (median age, 72.1 years; 67.8% female) underwent an EVTA by 2462 physicians during the study period. The majority (96.4%) of patients underwent 1 to 5 ablations, 3.3% underwent 6 to 10 ablations, and 0.3% underwent 11 or more ablations. The median and mean physician ablation rates were 1.6 (interquartile range, 1.3-2.2) and 1.9 ± 0.8 ablations per patient annually, respectively. There were 106 physicians (4.3%) who had an ablation rate of 3.4 or greater, which is two or more standard deviations above the national mean. After adjusting for patient-level variables, characteristics independently associated with outlier physicians included specialties other than vascular surgery, fewer years in practice, and higher overall venous ablation practice volume (P ≤ .03). CONCLUSIONS: Using a physician-generated metric of performance, the physician use EVTA performed annually per patient is highly variable, and this variability correlated with physician discipline, years in practice, and is more common in physicians who perform ablation the most. Our data show that there is considerable variability in the use of EVTA in Medicare beneficiaries, and that outlier physicians performing a high number of venous ablation procedures per patient are identifiable using a peer-benchmarked practice pattern measure via claims-based data.

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.

Exnovation of Low Value Care: A Decade of Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening Practices.

OBJECTIVES: To examine prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening practice change in subgroups of men defined in guidelines and in various regions and to identify factors associated with change in screening practices. DESIGN: Observational study using serial cross-sections, 2003 to 2013. SETTING: National fee-for-service Medicare. PARTICIPANTS: Men aged 68 and older eligible for prostate cancer screening. MEASUREMENTS: National PSA screening practices in men aged 68 and older from 2003 to 2013 and change in regional screening rates in men aged 75 and older. RESULTS: The PSA screening rate in men aged 68 and older was 17.2% in 2003, 22.3% in 2008, and 18.6% in 2013 (p < .001 for all differences); rates ended slightly lower than rates in 2003 only in men 80 and older. Racial disparities in screening became less pronounced over this period. In men aged 75 and older, change in regional screening rates varied widely, with absolute rates growing by 15 per 100 enrollees in some areas and declining by the same amount in others. Areas with high social capital, a measure associated with diffusion of new ideas, were more likely to decline; malpractice intensity and managed care penetration had no effect. CONCLUSION: Studying Medicare enrollees over time, we found little reduction in PSA screening and even increases according to race and in some regions. The heterogeneous changes across regions suggest that consistent reduction in the use of low-value care may require change strategies that go beyond evidence and guidelines to include monitoring and feedback on performance. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:29-36, 2019.