Variation in Treatment Charges and Reimbursement Among Individual Thoracic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Health care use and costs have undergone an increase in public scrutiny. Other specialties have evaluated practice patterns of their most highly reimbursed surgeons and found unique billing and procedure overuse. In this study, we evaluate Medicare payments to general thoracic surgeons and evaluate those with the highest reimbursements. METHODS: The 2018 Medicare Provider Utilization Data were queried to identify thoracic surgeons. Services were grouped into common categories: Evaluation and Management, Lung/Pleura, Foregut, Chest Wall, Airway, Diaphragm, Mediastinum, Endoscopy, and Transplant. Payment data were analyzed for surgeons receiving the top 1% of Medicare payments and the remainder of the workforce. RESULTS: In 2018, 2000 unique self-identified thoracic surgeons received a total of $54,734,736 in payments from Medicare for thoracic-related services. The top 1% of thoracic surgeons (n = 20) received $4,607,561, or 8.4% of total payments. Inpatient Evaluation and Management was the leading payment category for the top 1% (48.5% of payments), whereas Outpatient Evaluation and Management led for the remaining workforce (43.5% of payments). Whereas the surgical procedure code with overall highest reimbursement for both groups was Current Procedural Terminology (American Medical Association) 32663 (video-assisted thoracic surgery lobectomy), there was a difference with an increased use of high relative value unit unbundled Current Procedural Terminology codes in the highest earners. CONCLUSIONS: A disproportionate amount of Medicare reimbursement went to top 1%. The highest earners appeared to earn the most from inpatient treatment codes and also used unbundled codes more often. Because billing code use is not regulated and often subjective, a deeper evaluation by the major surgical societies may be warranted.

Health Insurance Literacy Improvements Among Recently Diagnosed Adolescents and Young Adults With Cancer: Results From a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Adolescents and young adults (AYAs; age 18-39 years) with cancer report needing support with health insurance. We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a virtual health insurance navigation intervention (HIAYA CHAT) to improve health insurance literacy (HIL), awareness of Affordable Care Act (ACA) protections, financial toxicity, and stress. MATERIALS AND METHODS: HIAYA CHAT is a four-session navigator delivered program; it includes psychoeducation on insurance, navigating one's plan, insurance-related laws, and managing costs. Participants were eligible if they could access an internet-capable device, were <1 year from diagnosis, and received treatment from University of Utah Healthcare or Intermountain Health systems. We assessed the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of HIAYA CHAT compared with usual navigation care, including HIL (nine items), insurance knowledge (13 items), ACA protections (eight items), COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST; 11 items), and Perceived Stress Scale (PSS; four items), using t tests and Cohen's d. RESULTS: From November 2020 to December 2021, N = 86 AYAs enrolled (44.6% participation) and 89.3% completed the 5-month follow-up survey; 68.6% were female, 72.1% were White, 23.3% were Hispanic, 65.1% were age 26-39 years, and 87.2% were privately insured. Of intervention participants (n = 45), 67.4% completed all four sessions; among an exit interview subset (n = 10), all endorsed the program (100%). At follow-up, compared with usual navigation care, intervention participants had greater improvements in HIL, insurance and ACA protections knowledge, and PSS; effect sizes ranged from moderate to large (0.42-0.77). COST did not differ. CONCLUSION: The results support the feasibility and acceptability of HIAYA CHAT with related improvements in HIL.

Variability in Excess Lobectomy Billing Among US Thoracic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Transparency in physician billing practices in the United States is lacking. Often, charges may vary substantially between providers and excess charges may be passed on to the patient. In this study, we evaluate Medicare charges and payments for minimally invasive lobectomy to obtain a sense of national billing practices and evaluate for predictors of higher charges. METHODS: The 2018 Medicare Provider Utilization Data was queried to identify surgeons submitting charges for Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy. Excess charges were determined by each provider. Additional demographic variables were collected including geographic region for general surgery and cardiothoracic surgery training, years in practice, and current practice setting. A multivariate gamma regression was utilized to determine predictors of high billing practices. RESULTS: A total of 307 unique providers submitted charges ranging from $1,104 to $25,128 with a median of $4,265. The average Medicare Payment amount ranged from $163 to $1,409, with a median of $1,056. Male surgeons were estimated to charge 1.3 times more than female surgeons, while those in an academic setting were estimated to charge 1.4 times more than private practice (p < 0.01). Surgeons practicing in the South or West were estimated to charge 0.76 and 0.81 times as much as those practicing in the Northeast (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Billing practices vary widely across the United States. Charges submitted to Medicare likely represent a provider's charges across all payers. In today's healthcare economy, it is important for patients to understand the true cost of care and for providers to be mindful of reasonable and appropriate charges.

HIAYA CHAT study protocol: a randomized controlled trial of a health insurance education intervention for newly diagnosed adolescent and young adult cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: For adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients aged 18 to 39 years, health insurance literacy is crucial for an effective use of the health care system. AYAs often face high out-of-pocket costs or have unmet health care needs due to costs. Improving health insurance literacy could help AYAs obtain appropriate and affordable health care. This protocol illustrates a randomized controlled trial testing a virtual health insurance education intervention among AYA patients. METHODS: This is a two-arm multisite randomized controlled trial. A total of 80 AYAs diagnosed with cancer in the Mountain West region will be allocated to either usual navigation care or tailored health insurance education intervention with a patient navigator that includes usual care. All participants will complete a baseline and follow-up survey 5 months apart. The primary outcomes are feasibility (number enrolled and number of sessions completed) and acceptability (5-point scale on survey measuring satisfaction of the intervention). The secondary outcomes are preliminary efficacy measured by the Health Insurance Literacy Measure and the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity. DISCUSSION: This trial makes a timely contribution to test the feasibility and acceptability of a virtual AYA-centered health insurance education program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04448678. Registered on June 26, 2020.

A Veterans' Healthcare Administration (VHA) antibiotic stewardship intervention to improve outpatient antibiotic use for acute respiratory infections: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The Core Elements of Outpatient Antibiotic Stewardship provides a framework to improve antibiotic use, but cost-effectiveness data on implementation of outpatient antibiotic stewardship interventions are limited. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Core Element implementation in the outpatient setting. METHODS: An economic simulation model from the health-system perspective was developed for patients presenting to outpatient settings with uncomplicated acute respiratory tract infections (ARI). Effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost and utility parameters for antibiotic treatment, adverse drug events (ADEs), and healthcare utilization were obtained from the literature. Probabilities for antibiotic treatment and appropriateness, ADEs, hospitalization, and return ARI visits were estimated from 16,712 and 51,275 patient visits in intervention and control sites during the pre- and post-implementation periods, respectively. Data for materials and labor to perform the stewardship activities were used to estimate intervention cost. We performed a one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) using 1,000,000 second-order Monte Carlo simulations on input parameters. RESULTS: The proportion of ARI patient-visits with antibiotics prescribed in intervention sites was lower (62% vs 74%) and appropriate treatment higher (51% vs 41%) after implementation, compared to control sites. The estimated intervention cost over a 2-year period was $133,604 (2018 US dollars). The intervention had lower mean costs ($528 vs $565) and similar mean QALYs (0.869 vs 0.868) per patient compared to usual care. In the PSA, the intervention was dominant in 63% of iterations. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the CDC Core Elements in the outpatient setting was a cost-effective strategy.