Physician Reimbursement for Vascular Surgery Procedures and Vascular Laboratory Studies Before and After the Affordable Care Act.

OBJECTIVES: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), fully implemented by 2015, has significantly increased the number of Americans with health insurance. However, its impact on physician reimbursement (PR) is not well studied. Our objective was to determine the ACA's impact on the professional component of PR for selected vascular surgery (VS) procedures and vascular laboratory (VL) studies at our institution. METHODS: PR for the following 5 VS procedures and 4 VL studies were obtained from our billing department: CPT 34803 (Endovascular aortic repair, EVAR), 35301 (carotid endarterectomy, CEA), 35656 (lower extremity bypass, LEB), 36010 (introduction of catheter into vena cava, ICVC), 36200 first, 93922 (ankle brachial index, ABI), 93925 (lower extremity arterial duplex, LEA duplex), 93970 (lower extremity venous duplex, LEV Duplex), and 93990 (hemodialysis duplex). The data was organized by payer: Medicare, Medicaid, Commercial Insurers (CI), and Other. PR was studied pre-ACA (January 2008 through December 2009) and post-ACA (January 2015 through December 2016). The post-ACA PR and inflation adjusted reimbursement (IAR) in 2016 dollars using the consumer price index (CPI) were calculated and compared using one-sample t-test. The percent difference between the post-ACA PR and IAR was also compared. RESULTS: PR for 1,637 VS procedures and 16,333 VL studies was analyzed. The post-ACA PR was significantly lower than the IAR for most Medicare and Medicaid procedures. For EVAR, post-ACA reimbursement was overall on par with the IAR but significantly lower for Medicare. For CEA, post-ACA reimbursement was overall lower than IAR. For LEB, overall average PR was lower than IAR, with statistically significant lower Medicare and Medicaid (P < 0.001) payments. For ICAo, overall PR was significantly lower than the IAR and this was true across all insurance types. In contrast, for ICV, the post-ACA reimbursement was higher than IAR for all payers but did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.25). The post-ACA PR was significantly higher than the IAR for most VL studies, except for Medicare PR. The percent change for VS procedures were mostly negative for the Medicaid and Medicare groups. This results in potential annual shortcomings of $2, 862 and $20,923 respectively. CONCLUSION: When comparing reimbursement before and after ACA implementation, Medicare and Medicaid PR for most VS procedures has not kept up with inflation. However, for most VL procedures, PR has exceeded inflation. Further efforts are needed to support Vascular Surgery reimbursement including higher valuation of the Medicare Conversion factor.

Addition of Efficiency Measures to Current Accuracy Measures in the Vascular Laboratory Can Be Used for Future Accreditation and Payment Models.

BACKGROUND: The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) brings with it increased regulatory requirements not traditionally addressed by standard vascular laboratory accreditation, which is based on accuracy. The new quality improvement project of the Intersocietal Accreditation Commission (IAC) may satisfy an improvement activity (IA) of the MACRA. We hypothesize that other IAs in the MACRA such as timeliness of test results or patient care quality performance requirements can be met by analyzing data already being collected by the vascular laboratory. After a process improvement strategy, we chose to review progress in our vascular laboratory related to time to interpretation (TI), patient check-in to study completion (study time), wait time for first available outpatient venous duplex scan (wait time), technologist productivity, and critical results reporting. METHODS: Data from our hospital-based vascular laboratory were collected from 2010 to 2016. TI was collected through our reporting software VascuPro (Consensus Medical), and study time and wait time were obtained from electronic medical records (EMR) (Epic). Technologist productivity was calculated by commercially available productivity tools, and compliance with critical results reporting was calculated quarterly as per our quality assurance program. Appropriateness of carotid duplex scan testing was performed by expert review of International Classification of Disease codes used to request the test. RESULTS: TI analysis comprised 91,352 studies with a mean of 3.3 hr between test completion and final interpretation. The TI improved from 5.0 to 2.1 hr on weekdays and was longer on weekends (4.9 hr; P < 0.001). The study time improved from 29.8 to 27.2 min and was 14.9 min shorter on the weekends (P < 0.001). The wait time ranged from a mean of 1-2.08 days. Technologist productivity improved from 90.7% to 93.6%. Critical results reporting quarterly audits showed a 100% compliance rate. On expert review, the International Classification of Disease code on carotid duplex scan requests in the EMR was deemed inaccurate in 17.4% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: TI and study time improved; wait time and critical results reporting remained steady. Most of the data are readily available in a vascular laboratory standard EMR. The plan-do-study-act (PDSA or Shewhart Cycle) principle is critical to process improvement and needed as we transition from traditional accreditation mostly based on test accuracy to one demanding efficiency, timeliness, patient satisfaction, productivity, accountability, and appropriateness of testing. Process improvement studies will improve patient care and satisfaction, increase efficiency and throughput, while satisfying changing IAC standards and preparing for upcoming regulatory requirements of the MACRA.

Comparison of time utilization in an academic inpatient versus an outpatient vascular laboratory.

PURPOSE: Efficient, cost-effective services in vascular laboratories (VLs) will be required in tomorrow's health care environment. Inpatient VLs (IPVL) are burdened with complex patients, excessive workload, and a high percentage of bedside tests. Outpatient VLs (OPVL) are therefore presumed to be more productive and efficient. We compared time utilization in OPVLs and IPVL to test this hypothesis. METHODS: Vascular sonographers at an academic IPVL and OPVL were asked to track their daily activities during five consecutive weekdays. Test type, scan time, delays in patient arrival, preparation for the test, computer entry, and administrative time (patient- and non-patient-related) were logged. RESULTS: Delay in patient arrival and non-patient-related administration activities were both significantly greater in the OPVL (p < 0.01 and 0.03, respectively). Actual scan time occupied only 38.8% of the technologist's day, with the rest spent on patient- and non-patient-related activities. CONCLUSIONS: No appreciable differences were noted between IPVL and OPVL in most of the efficiency parameters measured. General administration time and delay in patient arrival were greater in the OPVL. Thus, OPVL were not more efficient than IPVL. In order to maximize efficiency in the OPVL, non-patient-related activities, which occupy over a quarter of the daily workday, must be shifted from technologists to support staff. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Ultrasound 44:540-544, 2016.

Elimination of medically unnecessary duplex venous scanning based on an established algorithm can result in significant cost savings under Medicare for the institution and the taxpayer.

OBJECTIVE: The utility of duplex venous scanning (DVS) for suspected deep venous thrombosis in the emergency department (ED) remains controversial. We aimed to measure potential cost savings and economic impact in our institution and nationally for unnecessary DVS in Medicare patients seen in the ED. METHODS: We have previously calculated that 15.3% of DVS studies can safely be avoided in patients with suspected deep venous thrombosis in our ED with adherence to our protocol. The Medicare database was queried for the number of DVS studies performed in the ED and charges/payments made in 2011. Cost savings at our institution and nationally by Medicare were computed with the 15.3% number. RESULTS: In the study period, 2087 DVS studies were performed in our ED across all payers; 572 Medicare patients had 249 (43%) bilateral and 323 (57%) unilateral studies. Annual savings at our institution, with use of our protocol, were estimated at $113,778. Eliminating unnecessary after-hours DVS for 306,307 Medicare beneficiaries would result in $5,285,090 savings annually. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing pressure for cost containment under a value-based payment model necessitates critical evaluation of resource utilization. Applying this schema for all noninvasive vascular tests is an opportunity for responsible management of finite resources, reducing wasteful care, and significant cost containment.