Trends in Billing and Medicare Reimbursement for In-Office Cerumen Removal by Otolaryngologists and Other Providers.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze trends in billing patterns, Medicare reimbursement, and practice-setting for otolaryngologists (ORLs) and other provider types performing in-office cerumen removal. METHODS: This retrospective study included data on Medicare-billing providers from the Medicare Part B: Provider Utilization and Payment Datafiles (2012-2018). Number of providers performing in-office cerumen removal, total sums and medians for Medicare reimbursements and services, and services per patient were gathered along with geographic distributions. RESULTS: There have been near linear declines in number of general physicians and other provider types performing cerumen extractions with 42.6% and 40.7% declines, respectively, and near linear growth in number of ORLs and advanced practice providers (APPs) with 9.7% and 51.1% growth, respectively. At the median, general physicians, APPs, and other provider types have been billing for a similar and constant number of cerumen extractions per provider, while ORLs have seen a 10.6% increase. Total Medicare reimbursement to general physicians and other provider types has fallen 45.0% and 32.5%, respectively, and to ORLs and APPs has grown 16.9% and 103.4%, respectively. Compared to non-ORLs, ORLs tend to bill for cerumen extraction out of an urban setting rather than a rural setting (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: General physicians and other provider types are increasingly referring cerumen disimpaction patients to ORL physicians and allowing APPs to perform these procedures, indicating a change in landscape of medical practice among these providers. General physicians may be filling a need in the rural setting, where there are fewer ORLs practicing.

Medicare Utilization and Reimbursement Variation Between Rural and Urban Otolaryngologists.

OBJECTIVE: To compare billing practices, reimbursement rates, and patient populations of otolaryngology (ORL) physicians practicing in rural and urban settings. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Data. METHODS: Medicare-allowed payments, number of services, and number of patients were gathered along with patient population comorbidity statistics, including average hierarchical condition category risk scores. RESULTS: In 2019, 92% of the overall total 8959 ORL physicians practiced in an urban setting. These 8243 urban ORL physicians, on average, billed for 51 (interquartile range [IQR], 31-67) unique Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes, cared for 393 (IQR, 172-535) Medicare patients, performed 1761 (IQR, 502-2070) services, and collected $139,957 (IQR, $55,527-$178,479) per provider. In contrast, the 704 rural ORL physicians, on average, billed for a greater number of unique HCPCS codes (59; IQR, 37-77; P < .001), treated more Medicare patients (445; IQR, 242-614; P < .001), and performed more services (2330; IQR, 694-2748; P < .001) but collected about the same per provider ($141,035; IQR, $56,555-$172,864; P = .426). Older age was associated with rural practice (P = .027). Among both urban and rural ORL physicians, the variety and complexity of procedures and patient comorbidity profiles were comparable. CONCLUSION: Most ORL physicians practice in large urban settings, a finding potentially related to financial sustainability and career opportunity. With an already small workforce, the aging rural ORL physician population is an identifiable weak point in the otolaryngology specialty that must be addressed with geo-specific recruitment campaigns, rural work incentivization, and the development of career advancement opportunities in rural areas.