Medical center reimbursement for vascular procedures has increased over time while professional reimbursement has declined.

OBJECTIVE: The United States healthcare system uses different methods for assigning medical center reimbursement (MCR) and professional reimbursement (PR) for clinical services. We hypothesized that PR has not increased proportionately to MCR for the same vascular services. METHODS: MCR and PR were compared for commonly performed inpatient and outpatient vascular procedures between 2012 and 2021. MCR was calculated using the Medicare inpatient prospective payment system and outpatient prospective payment system. MCR is based on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services definition and criteria for comorbidities and the occurrence of complications; thus, changes in MCR were reported as a range based on the degree of comorbidities and complications using the Diagnosis Related Group. PR was calculated using the Medicare physician fee schedule, which assigns a numerical work relative value unit to each surgical service, with final compensation determined by an annually adjusted conversion factor to yield a final dollar amount. The expected reimbursement based on the observed inflation during the study period using the consumer price index was calculated and compared to the actual reimbursement. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2021, MCR for inpatient procedures increased 20% to 26% for carotid endarterectomy, 24% to 27% for femoral endarterectomy, 24% to 27% for femoropopliteal bypass with vein, 14% to 19% for thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and 15% for aortobifemoral bypass. During the same period, PR increased 3.3% for carotid endarterectomy but decreased for femoral endarterectomy (-5.0%), femoropopliteal bypass (-4.6%), thoracic endovascular aortic repair (-4.2%), and aortobifemoral bypass (-5.0%). Comparing the expected reimbursement, adjusted for inflation, to the actual reimbursement, PR experienced a 10% to 17% reduction but MCR outpaced inflation by 3.7% to 10%. For outpatient procedures, MCR increased 117% for tibial angioplasty, 24% for superficial femoral artery (SFA) stenting, 62% for tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC) insertion, and 24% for iliac stenting but decreased 0.43% for arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation and 7.6% for radiofrequency ablation (RFA). PR increased 0.91% for SFA stenting but decreased for tibial angioplasty (-17%), AVF creation (-6.4%), TDC insertion (-7.1%), iliac stenting (-3.8%), and RFA (-22%). Comparing the expected reimbursement, adjusted for inflation, to the actual reimbursement, PR experienced a 13% to 32% reduction. In contrast, MCR outpaced inflation 7.5% to 88% for tibial angioplasty, SFA stenting, TDC insertion, and iliac stenting but experienced a reduction for AVF (-13%) and RFA (-19%). CONCLUSIONS: MCR for commonly performed vascular procedures has increased and outpaced inflation. In contrast, PR for these same services has decreased across all procedure types. This decrease in PR was exacerbated when adjusted for inflation. This inequity in the reimbursement methods between MCR and PR poses a threat to the viability of the physician workforce. Either changes to the reimbursement methods or a reallocation of reimbursement to physicians are imperative to sustain physician practices.

Financial implications of coronavirus disease 2019 on a tertiary academic vascular surgery practice.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on the healthcare system in the United States. The redistribution of resources and suspension of elective procedures and other services has resulted in financial stress across all service lines. The financial effects on the practice of vascular surgery have not yet been quantified. We hypothesized that vascular surgery divisions have experienced losses affecting the hospital and professional sides that will not be recoupable without significant productivity increases. METHODS: Administrative claims data for clinical services performed by the vascular surgery division at a tertiary medical center for March and April 2019 and for March and April 2020 were analyzed. These claims were separated into two categories: hospital claims (inpatient and outpatient) and professional claims (professional reimbursement for all services provided). Medicare reimbursement methods were used to assign financial value: diagnosis-related group for inpatient services, ambulatory payment classification for outpatient services, and the Medicare physician fee schedule for professional reimbursement and work relative value units (wRVUs). Reimbursements and productivity (wRVUs) were compared between the two periods. A financial model was created to determine the increase in future productivity over baseline required to mitigate the losses incurred during the pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 11,317 vascular surgery claims were reviewed. Hospital reimbursement during the pandemic decreased from $4,982,114 to $2,649,521 (-47%) overall (inpatient, from $3,505,775 to $2,128,133 [-39%]; outpatient, from $1,476,339 to $521,388 [-65%]) and professional reimbursement decreased from $933,897 to $430,967 (-54%) compared with the same period in 2019. Professional productivity as measured by wRVUs sustained a similar decline from 10,478 wRVUs to 5386 wRVUs (-51%). Modeling sensitivity analyses demonstrated that if a vascular division were able to increase inpatient and outpatient revenue to greater than prepandemic levels by 10%, 5%, or 3%, it would take 9, 19, or 31 months, respectively, for the hospital to recover their pandemic-associated losses. Similarly, professional reimbursement recovery would require 11, 20, or 36 months with corresponding increases in productivity. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound and lasting effects on the world in terms of lives lost and financial hardships. The financial effects on vascular surgery divisions has resulted in losses ranging from 39% to 65% compared with the prepandemic period in the previous year. Because the complete mitigation of losses is not feasible in the short term, alternative and novel strategies are needed to financially sustain the vascular division and hospital during a prolonged recovery period.

Managing central venous access during a health care crisis.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, central venous access line teams were implemented at many hospitals throughout the world to provide access for critically ill patients. The objective of this study was to describe the structure, practice patterns, and outcomes of these vascular access teams during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, self-reported study of central venous access line teams in hospitals afflicted with the COVID-19 pandemic. To participate in the study, hospitals were required to meet one of the following criteria: development of a formal plan for a central venous access line team during the pandemic; implementation of a central venous access line team during the pandemic; placement of central venous access by a designated practice group during the pandemic as part of routine clinical practice; or management of an iatrogenic complication related to central venous access in a patient with COVID-19. RESULTS: Participants from 60 hospitals in 13 countries contributed data to the study. Central venous line teams were most commonly composed of vascular surgery and general surgery attending physicians and trainees. Twenty sites had 2657 lines placed by their central venous access line team or designated practice group. During that time, there were 11 (0.4%) iatrogenic complications associated with central venous access procedures performed by the line team or group at those 20 sites. Triple lumen catheters, Cordis (Santa Clara, Calif) catheters, and nontunneled hemodialysis catheters were the most common types of central venous lines placed by the teams. Eight (14%) sites reported experience in placing central venous lines in prone, ventilated patients with COVID-19. A dedicated line cart was used by 35 (59%) of the hospitals. Less than 50% (24 [41%]) of the participating sites reported managing thrombosed central lines in COVID-19 patients. Twenty-three of the sites managed 48 iatrogenic complications in patients with COVID-19 (including complications caused by providers outside of the line team or designated practice group). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a dedicated central venous access line team during a pandemic or other health care crisis is a way by which physicians trained in central venous access can contribute their expertise to a stressed health care system. A line team composed of physicians with vascular skill sets provides relief to resource-constrained intensive care unit, ward, and emergency medicine teams with a low rate of iatrogenic complications relative to historical reports. We recommend that a plan for central venous access line team implementation be in place for future health care crises.

A physician-led initiative to improve clinical documentation results in improved health care documentation, case mix index, and increased contribution margin.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical documentation is the key determinant of inpatient acuity of illness and payer reimbursement. Every inpatient hospitalization is placed into a diagnosis related group with a relative value based on documented procedures, conditions, comorbidities and complications. The Case Mix Index (CMI) is an average of these diagnosis related groups and directly impacts physician profiling, medical center profiling, reimbursement, and quality reporting. We hypothesize that a focused, physician-led initiative to improve clinical documentation of vascular surgery inpatients results in increased CMI and contribution margin. METHODS: A physician-led coding initiative to educate physicians on the documentation of comorbidities and conditions was initiated with concurrent chart review sessions with coding specialists for 3 months, and then as needed, after the creation of a vascular surgery documentation guide. Clinical documentation and billing for all carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and open infrainguinal procedures (OIPs) performed between January 2013 and July 2016 were stratified into precoding and postcoding initiative groups. Age, duration of stay, direct costs, actual reimbursements, contribution margin (CM), CMI, rate of complication or comorbidity, major complication or comorbidity, severity of illness, and risk of mortality assigned to each discharge were abstracted. Data were compared over time by standardizing Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) values for each diagnosis related group and using a CMS base rate reimbursement. RESULTS: Among 458 CEA admissions, postcoding initiative CEA patients (n = 253) had a significantly higher CMI (1.36 vs 1.25; P = .03), CM ($7859 vs $6650; P = .048), and CMS base rate reimbursement ($8955 vs $8258; P = .03) than precoding initiative CEA patients (n = 205). The proportion of admissions with a documented major complication or comorbidity and complication or comorbidity was significantly higher after the coding initiative (43% vs 27%; P < .01). Among 504 OIPs, postcoding initiative patients (n = 227) had a significantly higher CMI (2.23 vs 2.05; P < .01), actual reimbursement ($23,203 vs $19,909; P < .01), CM ($12,165 vs $8840; P < .01), and CMS base rate reimbursement ($14,649 vs $13,496; P < .01) than precoding initiative patients (n = 277). The proportion of admissions with a documented major complication or comorbidity and complication or comorbidity was significantly higher after the coding initiative (61% vs 43%; P < .01). For both CEA and OIPs, there were no differences in age, duration of stay, total direct costs, or primary insurance status between the precoding and postcoding patient groups. CONCLUSIONS: Accurate and detailed clinical documentation is required for key stakeholders to characterize the acuity of inpatient admissions and ensure appropriate reimbursement; it is also a key component of risk-adjustment methods for assessing quality of care. A physician-led documentation initiative significantly increased CMI and CM.

Increasing the number of integrated vascular surgery residency positions is important to address the impending shortage of vascular surgeons in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The demand for vascular surgeons is expected to far exceed the current supply. In an attempt to decrease the training duration and to address the impending shortage, integrated vascular surgery residencies were approved and have expanded nationally. Meanwhile, vascular fellowships have continued to matriculate approximately 120 trainees annually. We sought to evaluate the supply and demand for integrated vascular residency positions as well as changes in the quality of applicants. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of national data compiled by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the National Resident Matching Program regarding integrated vascular surgery residency programs (2008-2015) and fellowships (2007-2016). Variables reviewed included the total number of applicants, sex, U.S. vs international medical school enrollment, applications per program, and applicants per position. In addition, we conducted a retrospective review of applicants to the University of Massachusetts Medical School integrated vascular surgery residency program from 2008 to 2015 to examine these variables and United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 and Step 2 CK scores over time. RESULTS: The number of vascular surgery integrated residency positions increased from 4 in 2008 to 56 in 2015. Concurrently, the number of integrated residency applicants grew from 112 in 2008 to 434 in 2015. This increase has been predominantly driven by a 575% increase in U.S. graduate applicants and a 170% increase in women applicants. The percentage of international medical graduates has decreased by 17% during the study period. The total number of applicants per residency position increased from 5.9 to 7.8. Meanwhile, the number of vascular surgery fellowship positions remained stable with an applicant to position ratio near 1:1. At the University of Massachusetts Medical School, the mean United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 (226 to 235) and Step 2 CK (237 to 243) scores among integrated residency applicants have improved annually and typically exceed the national average among U.S. applicants who have matched in their preferred specialty. CONCLUSIONS: Since the approval of a primary certificate in vascular surgery and the subsequent rollout of integrated vascular residency programs, the number of residency programs and the quality of residency applicants have continued to increase. Demand from medical school applicants vastly outweighs the current supply of training positions by eightfold. In contrast, demand from fellowship applicants matches the supply of fellowship positions. The matriculation of additional trainees must be met with continued expansion of the integrated vascular surgery residency pathway to manage future public health needs.

A multidisciplinary approach to vascular surgery procedure coding improves coding accuracy, work relative value unit assignment, and reimbursement.

BACKGROUND: Vascular surgery procedural reimbursement depends on accurate procedural coding and documentation. Despite the critical importance of correct coding, there has been a paucity of research focused on the effect of direct physician involvement. We hypothesize that direct physician involvement in procedural coding will lead to improved coding accuracy, increased work relative value unit (wRVU) assignment, and increased physician reimbursement. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study evaluated procedural coding accuracy of fistulograms at an academic medical institution (January-June 2014). All fistulograms were coded by institutional coders (traditional coding) and by a single vascular surgeon whose codes were verified by two institution coders (multidisciplinary coding). The coding methods were compared, and differences were translated into revenue and wRVUs using the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Comparison between traditional and multidisciplinary coding was performed for three discrete study periods: baseline (period 1), after a coding education session for physicians and coders (period 2), and after a coding education session with implementation of an operative dictation template (period 3). The accuracy of surgeon operative dictations during each study period was also assessed. An external validation at a second academic institution was performed during period 1 to assess and compare coding accuracy. RESULTS: During period 1, traditional coding resulted in a 4.4% (P = .004) loss in reimbursement and a 5.4% (P = .01) loss in wRVUs compared with multidisciplinary coding. During period 2, no significant difference was found between traditional and multidisciplinary coding in reimbursement (1.3% loss; P = .24) or wRVUs (1.8% loss; P = .20). During period 3, traditional coding yielded a higher overall reimbursement (1.3% gain; P = .26) than multidisciplinary coding. This increase, however, was due to errors by institution coders, with six inappropriately used codes resulting in a higher overall reimbursement that was subsequently corrected. Assessment of physician documentation showed improvement, with decreased documentation errors at each period (11% vs 3.1% vs 0.6%; P = .02). Overall, between period 1 and period 3, multidisciplinary coding resulted in a significant increase in additional reimbursement ($17.63 per procedure; P = .004) and wRVUs (0.50 per procedure; P = .01). External validation at a second academic institution was performed to assess coding accuracy during period 1. Similar to institution 1, traditional coding revealed an 11% loss in reimbursement ($13,178 vs $14,630; P = .007) and a 12% loss in wRVU (293 vs 329; P = .01) compared with multidisciplinary coding. CONCLUSIONS: Physician involvement in the coding of endovascular procedures leads to improved procedural coding accuracy, increased wRVU assignments, and increased physician reimbursement.