Trends of Medicare Reimbursement Rates for Gender-Affirming Surgery Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Awareness of Medicare reimbursement is important for gender-affirming surgeons who treat transgender patients with Medicare. In 2014, Medicare began to provide coverage for medically necessary transition-related surgery. The purpose of this study was to analyze trends in Medicare reimbursement rates for gender-affirming surgery procedures from 2014 to 2022. METHODS: The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was used, and the Current Procedural Terminology codes for 43 gender-affirming surgery services were obtained. Monetary units, conversion factors, relative value units (RVUs) for work, facility, and malpractice costs for 30 transmasculine and 13 transfeminine procedures were analyzed. Descriptive statistics were performed to account for inflation and to determine the relative differences between 2014 and 2022. RESULTS: For all gender-affirming surgery procedures covered by Medicare, the average relative difference of monetary units decreased by 2.99% between 2014 and 2022. On average, there was a 3.97% decrease of work-based RVU charges for transmasculine procedures and a 1.73% decrease of work-based RVU charges for transfeminine procedures. After adjusting for inflation, the average relative difference of monetary units for all gender-affirming surgery procedures decreased by 23.42% between 2014 and 2022. CONCLUSIONS: Reimbursement rates for gender-affirming surgery procedures covered under Medicare have decreased over the observed period, and trends in reimbursement rates have not kept up with consumer price index inflation. Gender-affirming surgeons should be conscious of these changes in reimbursement rates and advocate for fairer compensation to promote medical care among an underserved population.

Unveiling the Hidden Discrepancies Between Medicare Physician Reimbursement Rates and Inflation Across Different Surgical Specialties.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the trends of Medicare physician reimbursement from 2011 to 2021 and compare the rates across different surgical specialties. BACKGROUND: Knowledge of Medicare is essential because of its significant contribution in physician reimbursements. Previous studies across surgical specialties have demonstrated that Medicare, despite keeping up with inflation in some areas, has remained flat when accounting for physician reimbursement. STUDY DESIGN: The Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary data for the calendar year 2021 were queried to extract the top 50% of Current Procedural Terminology codes based on case volume. The Physician Fee Schedule look-up tool was accessed, and the physician reimbursement fee was abstracted. Weighted mean reimbursement was adjusted for inflation. Growth rate and compound annual growth rate were calculated. Projection of future inflation and reimbursement rates were also calculated using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. RESULTS: After adjusting for inflation, the weighted mean reimbursement across surgical specialties decreased by -22.5%. The largest reimbursement decrease was within the field of general surgery (-33.3%), followed by otolaryngology (-31.5%), vascular surgery (-23.3%), and plastic surgery (-22.8%). There was a significant decrease in median case volume across all specialties between 2011 and 2021 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that, when adjusted for inflation, over the study period, there has been a consistent decrease in reimbursement for all specialties analyzed. Awareness of the current downward trends in Medicare physician reimbursement should be a priority for all surgeons, as means of advocating for compensation and to maintain surgical care feasible and accessible to all patients.

Quantified trends in provider reimbursement and utilization volume in colorectal cancer screenings: analysis of Medicare claims from 2000 to 2019.

AIM: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates in the United States remain persistently below guideline targets, partly due to suboptimal patient utilization and provider reimbursement. To guide long-term national utilization estimates and set reasonable screening adherence targets, this study aimed to quantify trends in utilization of and reimbursement for CRC screenings using Medicare claims. METHOD: Inflation-adjusted reimbursements and utilization volume associated with each CRC screening code were abstracted from Medicare claims between 2000 and 2019. Screenings, screenings/100 000 enrolees and reimbursement/screening were analysed with linear regression and compared with the equality of slopes tests. Average reimbursement per screening was compared using analysis of variance with Dunnett's T3 multiple comparisons test. RESULTS: The growth rate of multitarget stool DNA tests (mt-sDNA)/100 000 was the highest at 170.4 screenings/year (R2 = 0.99, p ≤ 0.001), while that of faecal occult blood tests/100 000 was the lowest at -446.4 screenings/year (R2 = 0.90, p ≤ 0.001) (p ≤ 0.001). Provider reimbursements averaged $546.95 (95% CI $520.12-$573.78) per mt-sDNA screening, significantly higher than reimbursements for all invasive screenings. Only FOBTs significantly increased in reimbursement per screening at $0.62/year (R2 = 0.91, p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: We derived forecastable trend numbers for utilization and provider reimbursement. Faecal immunochemical tests/100 000 and mt-sDNA screenings/100 000 increased most rapidly during the entire study period. The number of nearly all invasive screenings/100 000 decreased rapidly; the number of colonoscopies/100 000 increased slightly, probably due to superior diagnostic strength. These trends indicate the that replacement of other invasive modalities with accessible noninvasive screenings will account for much of future screening behaviour and thus reductions in CRC incidence and mortality, especially given providers' reimbursement incentive to screen average-risk patients with stool-based tests.

Concordance of Disclosed Hospital Prices With Total Reimbursements for Hospital-Based Care Among Commercially Insured Patients in the US.

Importance: To improve health care price transparency and promote cost-conscious selection of health care organizations and practitioners, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) required that hospitals share payer-specific negotiated prices for selected shoppable health services by January 2021. While this regulation improves price transparency, it is unclear whether disclosed prices reflect total costs of care, since many hospital-based services are delivered and billed separately by independent practitioners or other health care entities. Objective: To assess the extent to which prices disclosed under the new hospital price transparency regulation are correlated with total costs of care among commercially insured individuals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used a large database of commercial claims from 2018 to analyze encounters at US hospitals for shoppable health care services for which price disclosure is required by CMS. Data were analyzed from November 2020 to February 2021. Exposures: Whether the service was billed by the hospital or another entity. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were the percentage of encounters with at least 1 service billed by an entity other than the hospital providing care, number of billing entities, amounts billed by nonhospital entities, and the correlation between hospital and nonhospital reimbursements. Results: The study analyzed 4 545 809 encounters for shoppable care. Independent health care entities were involved in 7.6% (95% CI, 6.7% to 8.4%) to 42.4% (95% CI, 39.1% to 45.6%) of evaluation and management encounters, 15.9% (95% CI, 15.8% to 16%) to 22.2% (95% CI, 22% to 22.4%) of laboratory and pathology services, 64.9% (95% CI, 64.2% to 65.7%) to 87.2% (95% CI, 87.1% to 87.3%) of radiology services, and more than 80% of most medicine and surgery services. The median (IQR) reimbursement of independent practitioners ranged from $61 ($52-$102) to $412 ($331-$466) for evaluation and management, $5 ($4-$6) to $7 ($4-$12) for laboratory and pathology, $26 ($20-$32) to $210 ($170-$268) for radiology, and $47 ($21-$103) to $9545 ($7750-$18 277) for medicine and surgery. The reimbursement for services billed by the hospital was not strongly correlated with the reimbursement of independent clinicians, ranging from r = -0.11 (95% CI, -0.69 to 0.56) to r = 0.53 (95% CI, 0.13 to 0.78). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that independent practitioners were frequently involved in the delivery of shoppable hospital-based care, and their reimbursement may have represented a substantial portion of total costs of care. These findings suggest that disclosed hospital reimbursement was usually not correlated with total cost of care, limiting the potential benefits of the hospital price transparency rule for improving consumer decision-making.

Financial Burden of Discarded Weight-based Antineoplastic Drugs to Payers and Patients in the Private Insurance Market.

Background: Our study estimated insurance payments and patient out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses associated with discarded weight-based intravenous antineoplastic drugs for privately insured US adult patients with cancer. Methods: We identified patients who received weight-based antineoplastic drugs from a 2017 MarketScan health risk assessment (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY) linked to claims data. Using weight information in the health risk assessment, we derived the recommended dose and calculated the percentage of drugs discarded. We applied ß-regression to determine factors associated with the discarded percentages. To compare patients with and without high-deductible plans, we employed a generalized linear model and a 2-part model to examine insurance payment and OOP expense, respectively. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: Of 27 350 claims for 58 weight-based antineoplastic drugs from 1970 patients, the median discarded percentage was 9.8% (mean [SD] = 12.8% [10.5%]). Aside from drug and tumor type, statistically significantly higher discarded percentages were found for patients in the lowest weight group (5.5% [95% confidence interval = 4.7% to 6.4%]; P < .001; weight <150 lb [68.0 kg] vs ≥200 lb [90.7 kg]). Private payers spent $5090 per patient in 2017 on discarded weight-based antineoplastic drugs, and patients' mean OOP expense on discarded drugs was $63. In total, 39.7% of patients had high-deductible plans. The adjusted mean OOP expense for discarded drugs was statistically significantly higher for those in high-deductible plans ($95 vs $47; P < .001). Conclusions: Private insurers incurred substantial financial burden from discarded weight-based antineoplastic drugs. Although the OOP expenses of discarded drugs were modest for most privately insured patients with cancer, approximately 5% spent more than $400 on the discarded drugs. Policies designed to reduce drug waste from single-dose, weight-based antineoplastic drugs should evaluate their financial consequences for payers and patients.

Changes in Korean National Healthcare Insurance Policy and Breast Cancer Surgery Trend in Korea.

BACKGROUND: Since April 2015, the Korean National Health Insurance (NHI) has reimbursed breast cancer patients, approximately 50% of the cost of the breast reconstruction (BR) procedure. We aimed to investigate NHI reimbursement policy influence on the rate of immediate BR (IBR) following total mastectomy (TM). METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed breast cancer data between April 2011 and June 2016. We divided patients who underwent IBR following TM for primary breast cancer into "uninsured" and "insured" groups using their NHI statuses at the time of surgery. Univariate analyses determined the insurance influence on the decision to undergo IBR. RESULTS: Of 2,897 breast cancer patients, fewer uninsured patients (n = 625) underwent IBR compared with those insured (n = 325) (30.0% vs. 39.8%, P < 0.001). Uninsured patients were younger than those insured (median age [range], 43 [38-48] vs. 45 [40-50] years; P < 0.001). Pathologic breast cancer stage did not differ between the groups (P = 0.383). More insured patients underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (P = 0.011), adjuvant radiotherapy (P < 0.001), and IBR with tissue expander insertion (P = 0.005) compared with those uninsured. CONCLUSION: IBR rate in patients undergoing TM increased after NHI reimbursement.

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.

Improving clinical documentation of evaluation and management care and patient acuity improves reimbursement as well as quality metrics.

OBJECTIVE: Accurate documentation of patient care and acuity is essential to determine appropriate reimbursement as well as accuracy of key publicly reported quality metrics. We sought to investigate the impact of standardized note templates by inpatient advanced practice providers (APPs) on evaluation and management (E/M) charge capture, including outside of the global surgical package (GSP), and quality metrics including case mix index (CMI) and mortality index (MI). We hypothesized this clinical documentation initiative as well as improved coding of E/M services would result in increased reimbursement and quality metrics. METHODS: A documentation and coding initiative on the heart and vascular service line was initiated in 2016 with focus on improving inpatient E/M capture by APPs outside the GSP. Comprehensive training sessions and standardized documentation templates were created and implemented in the electronic medical record. Subsequent hospital care E/M (current procedural terminology codes 99231, 99232, 99233) from the years 2015 to 2017 were audited and analyzed for charge capture rates, collections, work relative value units (wRVUs), and billing complexity. Data were compared over time by standardizing CMS values and reimbursement rates. In addition, overall CMI and MI were calculated each year. RESULTS: One year following the documentation initiative, E/M charges on the vascular surgery service line increased by 78.5% with a corresponding increase in APP charges from 0.4% of billable E/M services to 70.4% when compared with pre-initiative data. The charge capture of E/M services among all inpatients rose from 21.4% to 37.9%. Additionally, reimbursement from CMS increased by 65% as total work relative value units generated from E/M services rose by 78.4% (797 to 1422). The MI decreased over the study period by 25.4%. Additionally, there was a corresponding 5.6% increase in the cohort CMI. Distribution of E/M encounter charges did not vary significantly. Meanwhile, the prevalence of 14 clinical comorbidities in our cohort as well as length of stay (P = .88) remained non-statistically different throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate clinical documentation of E/M care and ultimately inpatient acuity is critical in determining quality metrics that serve as important measures of overall hospital quality for CMS value-based payments and rankings. A system-based documentation initiative and expanded role of inpatient APPs on vascular surgery teams significantly improved charge capture and reimbursement outside the GSP as well as CMI and MI in a consistently complex patient population.

Prevalence of Immature Survival Data for Anti-Cancer Drugs Presented to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and Impact on Decision Making.

OBJECTIVES: This research aims to explore how often the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) uses immature overall survival data to inform reimbursement decisions on cancer treatments, and the implications of this for resource allocation decisions. METHODS: NICE cancer technology appraisals published between 2015 and 2017 were reviewed to determine the prevalence of using immature survival data. A case study was used to demonstrate the potential impact of basing decisions on immature data. The economic model submitted by the company was reconstructed and was populated first using survival data available at the time of the appraisal, and then using data from an updated data cut published after the appraisal concluded. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) obtained using the different data cuts were compared. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was undertaken and expected value of perfect information estimated. RESULTS: Forty-one percent of NICE cancer technology appraisals used immature data to inform reimbursement decisions. In the case study, NICE gave a positive recommendation for a limited patient subgroup, with ICERs too high in the complete patient population. ICERs were dramatically lower when the final data cut was used, irrespective of the parametric model used to model survival. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and expected value of perfect information may not have fully characterized uncertainty, because as they did not account for structural uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Analyses of cancer treatments using immature survival data may result in incorrect estimates of survival benefit and cost-effectiveness, potentially leading to inappropriate funding decisions. This research highlights the importance of revisiting past decisions when updated data cuts become available.

Procedure Reimbursement, Inflation, and the Declining Buying Power of the Vascular Surgeon (2011-2021).

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate trends in Medicare reimbursement for common vascular procedures over the last decade. To enrich the context of this analysis, vascular procedure reimbursement is directly compared to inflation-adjusted changes in other surgical specialties. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary file was utilized to identify the 20 procedures most commonly performed by vascular surgeons from 2011-2021. A similar analysis was performed for orthopedic, general, and neurological surgeons. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician-Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool was queried for each procedure, and reimbursement data was extracted. All monetary data was adjusted for inflation to 2021 dollars utilizing the consumer price index. Average year-over-year and total percentage change in reimbursement were calculated based on adjusted data for included procedures. Comparisons to other specialty data were made with ANOVA. RESULTS: From 2011-2021, the average, unadjusted change in reimbursement for vascular procedures was -7.2%. Accounting for inflation, the average procedural reimbursement declined by 20.1%. The greatest decline was observed in phlebectomy of varicose veins (-50.6%). Open arteriovenous fistula revision was the only vascular procedure with an increase in inflation-adjusted reimbursement (+7.5%). Year-over-year, inflation-adjusted reimbursement for common vascular procedures decreased by 2.0% per year. Venous procedures experienced the largest decrease in average adjusted reimbursement (-42.4%), followed by endovascular (-20.1%) and open procedures (-13.9%). These changes were significantly different across procedural subgroups (P < 0.001). During the same period, the average adjusted change in reimbursement for the 20 most common procedures in orthopedic surgery, general surgery, and neurosurgery was -11.6% vs. -20.1% for vascular surgery (P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Medicare reimbursement for common surgical procedures has declined over the last decade. While absolute reimbursement has remained relatively stable for several procedures, accounting for a decade of inflation demonstrates the true diminution of buying power for equivalent work. The most alarming observation is that vascular surgeons have faced a disproportionate decrease in inflation-adjusted reimbursement in comparison to other surgical specialists. Awareness of these trends is a crucial first step towards improved advocacy and efforts to ensure the "value" of vascular surgery does not continue to erode.

Inflation-Adjusted Medicare Reimbursement for Revision Hip Arthroplasty: Study Showing Significant Decrease from 2002 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Investigations into reimbursement trends for primary and revision arthroplasty procedures have demonstrated a steady decline over the past several years. Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) due to infection (rTHA-I) has been associated with higher resource utilization and complexity, but long-term inflation-adjusted data have yet to be compared between rTHA-I and rTHA due to aseptic complications (rTHA-A). The present study was performed to analyze temporal reimbursement trends regarding rTHA-I procedures compared with those for rTHA-A procedures. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool was used to extract Medicare reimbursements associated with 1-stage and 2-stage rTHA-I as well as 1-stage rTHA-A procedures from 2002 to 2019. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for rTHA were grouped according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons coding reference guide. Monetary values were adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; reported as 2019 U.S. dollars) and used to calculate the cumulative and average annual percent changes in reimbursement. RESULTS: Following inflation adjustment, the physician fee reimbursement for rTHA-A decreased by a mean [and standard deviation] of 27.26% ± 3.57% (from $2,209.11 in 2002 to $1,603.20 in 2019) for femoral component revision, 27.41% ± 3.57% (from $2,130.55 to $1,542.91) for acetabular component revision, and 27.50% ± 2.56% (from $2,775.53 to $2,007.61) for both-component revision. Similarly, for a 2-stage rTHA-I, the mean reimbursement declined by 18.74% ± 3.87% (from $2,063.36 in 2002 to $1,673.36 in 2019) and 24.45% ± 3.69% (from $2,328.79 to $1,755.45) for the explantation and reimplantation stages, respectively. The total decline in physician fee reimbursement for rTHA-I ($1,020.64 ± $233.72) was significantly greater than that for rTHA-A ($580.72 ± $107.22; p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated a consistent devaluation of both rTHA-I and rTHA-A procedures from 2002 to 2019, with a larger deficit seen for rTHA-I. A continuation of this trend could create substantial disincentives for physicians to perform such procedures and limit access to care at the population level. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Private payers' varicose vein policies are inaccurate, disparate, and not evidence based, which mandates a proposal for a reasonable and responsible policy for the treatment of venous disease.

Varicose veins afflict more than one in five Americans, and although varicose veins may be an asymptomatic cosmetic concern in some, many others experience symptoms of pain, aching, heaviness, itching, and swelling. More advanced venous disease can result from untreated venous insufficiency. The complications of chronic venous disease, including bleeding, thrombosis, and ulceration, are seen in up to 2 million Americans annually. Numerous reports have documented venous disease adversely affects quality of life and that treatment of venous disease can improve quality of life. It has previously been documented that private insurers, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services subcontractors for that matter, have disparate policies that in many instances are self-serving, contain mistakes, use outdated evidence, and disregard evidence-based guidelines. The two leading venous medical societies, the American Venous Forum and the American Venous and Lymphatic Society, have come together to review the varicose vein coverage policies of seven major U.S. private medical insurance carriers whose policies cover more than 150 million Americans. The authors reviewed the policies for venous disease and, if significant gaps or inconsistencies are found, we hope to point them out, and, finally, to propose a thoughtful and reasonable policy based on the best available evidence.

Patient cost sharing during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment in ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: More patients with ovarian cancer are being treated with poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors because regulatory agencies have granted these drugs new approvals for a variety of treatment indications. However, poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors are expensive. When administered as a maintenance therapy, these drugs may be administered for months or years. How much of this cost patients experience as out-of-pocket spending is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the out-of-pocket spending that patients experience during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment and to characterize which healthcare services account for that spending. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was performed with a sample of patients with ovarian cancer treated between 2014 and 2017 with olaparib, niraparib, or rucaparib. Patients were identified using MarketScan, a health insurance claims database. All insurance claims during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment were collected. The primary outcome variable was the patients' out-of-pocket spending (copayment, coinsurance, and deductibles) during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment for the medication itself. Other outcomes of interest included out-of-pocket spending for other healthcare services, the types and frequency of other healthcare services used, health plan spending, the estimated proportion of patients' household income used each month for healthcare, and patients' out-of-pocket spending immediately before poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment. RESULTS: We identified 503 patients with ovarian cancer with a median age of 55 years (interquartile range, 50-62 years); 83% of those had out-of-pocket spendings during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment. The median treatment duration was 124 days (interquartile range, 66-240 days). The mean out-of-pocket spending for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors was $305 (standard deviation, $2275) per month. On average, this accounted for 44.8% (standard deviation, 34.8%) of the patients' overall monthly out-of-pocket spending. The mean out-of-pocket spending for other healthcare services was $165 (standard deviation, $769) per month. Health plans spent, on average, $12,661 (standard deviation, $15,668) per month for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors and $7108 (standard deviation, $15,254) per month for all other healthcare services. The cost sharing for office visits, laboratory tests, and imaging studies represented the majority of non-poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment out-of-pocket spending. The average amount patients paid for all healthcare services per month during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment was $470 (standard deviation, $2407), which was estimated to be 8.7% of the patients' monthly household income. The mean out-of-pocket spending in the 12 months before poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment was $3110 (standard deviation, $6987). CONCLUSION: Patients can face high out-of-pocket costs for poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, although the sum of cost sharing for other healthcare services used during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment is often higher. The spending on healthcare costs consumes a large proportion of these patients' household income. Patients with ovarian cancer experience high out-of-pocket costs for healthcare, both before and during poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor treatment.

Cost-effectiveness of a hybrid emergency room system for severe trauma: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the third-party payer in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid emergency room (ER) systems, consisting of an angiography-computed tomography (CT) machine in a trauma resuscitation room, are reported to be effective for reducing death from exsanguination in trauma patients. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a hybrid ER system in severe trauma patients without severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis comparing the hybrid ER system to the conventional ER system from the perspective of the third-party healthcare payer in Japan. A short-term decision tree and a long-term Markov model using a lifetime time horizon were constructed to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and associated lifetime healthcare costs. Short-term mortality and healthcare costs were derived from medical records and claims data in a tertiary care hospital with a hybrid ER. Long-term mortality and utilities were extrapolated from the literature. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $47,619 per QALY gained and the discount rate was 2%. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The hybrid ER system was associated with a gain of 1.03 QALYs and an increment of $33,591 lifetime costs compared to the conventional ER system, resulting in an ICER of $32,522 per QALY gained. The ICER was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold if the odds ratio of 28-day mortality was < 0.66. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the hybrid ER system was cost-effective with a 79.3% probability. CONCLUSION: The present study suggested that the hybrid ER system is a likely cost-effective strategy for treating severe trauma patients without severe TBI.

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.

Trends in reimbursement for primary and revision total elbow arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Relative value units (RVUs) are an essential component of reimbursement calculations from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. RVUs are calculated based on physician work, practice expense, and professional liability insurance. Procedures that are more complex, such as revision arthroplasty, require greater levels of physician work and should therefore be assigned a greater RVU. The purpose of this study is to compare RVUs assigned for primary and revision total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to collect all primary and revision total elbow arthroplasties performed between January 2015 and December 2017. Variables collected included age at time of surgery, RVUs assigned for the procedure, and operative time. RESULTS: A total of 359 cases (282 primary TEA, 77 revision TEA) were included in this study. Mean RVUs for primary TEA was 21.4 (2.0 standard deviation [SD]) vs. 24.4 (1.7 SD) for revision arthroplasty (P < .001). Mean operative time for primary TEA was 137.9 minutes (24.4 SD) vs. 185.5 minutes (99.7 SD) for revision TEA (P < .001). The RVU per minute for primary TEA was 0.16 and revision TEA was 0.13 (P < .001). This amounts to a yearly reimbursement difference of $71,024 in favor of primary TEA over revision TEA. CONCLUSION: The current reimbursement model does not adequately account for increased operative time, technical demand, and pre- and postoperative care associated with revision elbow arthroplasty compared with primary TEA. This leads to a financial advantage on performing primary TEA.

Public health insurance and cancer-specific mortality risk among patients with breast cancer: A prospective cohort study in China.

Little is known about how health insurance policies, particularly in developing countries, influence breast cancer prognosis. Here, we examined the association between individual health insurance and breast cancer-specific mortality in China. We included 7436 women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 2009 and 2016, at West China Hospital, Sichuan University. The health insurance plan of patient was classified as either urban or rural schemes and was also categorized as reimbursement rate (ie, the covered/total charge) below or above the median. Breast cancer-specific mortality was the primary outcome. Using Cox proportional hazards models, we calculated hazard ratios (HRs) for cancer-specific mortality, contrasting rates among patients with a rural insurance scheme or low reimbursement rate to that of those with an urban insurance scheme or high reimbursement rate, respectively. During a median follow-up of 3.1 years, we identified 326 deaths due to breast cancer. Compared to patients covered by urban insurance schemes, patients covered by rural insurance schemes had a 29% increased cancer-specific mortality (95% CI 0%-65%) after adjusting for demographics, tumor characteristics and treatment modes. Reimbursement rate below the median was associated with a 42% increased rate of cancer-specific mortality (95% CI 11%-82%). Every 10% increase in the reimbursement rate is associated with a 7% (95% CI 2%-12%) reduction in cancer-specific mortality risk, particularly in patients covered by rural insurance schemes (26%, 95% CI 9%-39%). Our findings suggest that underinsured patients face a higher risk of breast cancer-specific mortality in developing countries.