Insurance Coverage of Pediatric Bariatric Surgery: a Cross-Sectional Analysis of the USA.

PURPOSE: Pediatric bariatric surgery is increasingly recognized as a safe and effective option for the management of obesity and obesity-related conditions. However, insurance coverage is a key barrier to accessing these procedures. Criteria are variable and often not evidence-based. In an effort to characterize common patterns in insurance coverage, we report coverage criteria for adolescents relative to adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We surveyed medical policies of the 50 highest market share health insurance providers in the USA. Private insurer coverage criteria included age, Tanner staging, skeletal maturity, body mass index, procedures covered, medical weight management requirements, co-morbidities, and multidisciplinary team criteria. These were then compared to the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) guidelines. RESULTS: Two thirds (n = 33, 66%) of companies provided inclusion criteria for adolescents. All policies covered RYGB (n = 33), most covered sleeve gastrectomy (n = 32, 97.0%). Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) (n = 32, 97%), hypertension (HTN) (n = 27, 81.8%), and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) (n = 11, 33.3%) were the three most commonly cited co-morbidities used as inclusion criteria. Tanner staging or skeletal maturity were most commonly used (n = 10, 30.3%). Similarly, twenty (60.6%) insurers required medical weight management programs. Multi-disciplinary teams were required by 81.8% of adolescent policies (n = 27) as described by the ASMBS. Seventeen (51.5%) policies defined providers for these teams, and 10 (30.3%) provided other defined criteria. CONCLUSION: Contrary to ASMBS guidelines, companies commonly require Tanner staging and/or skeletal maturity criteria as well as participation in medical weight management programs. Also, multi-disciplinary team are frequently required but not well defined.

Trends in the research profile of matched independent plastic surgery fellows.

ABSTRACT: The independent plastic surgery pathway recruits candidates with 5 years of surgical training who are typically more advanced in research than their integrated counterparts. Research productivity helps to discriminate between applicants. However, no studies exist detailing the academic attributes of matched independent plastic surgery candidates.We performed a cohort study of 161 independent plastic surgery fellows from accredited residency programs from the 2015 to 2017 application cycles. We performed a bibliometric analysis utilizing Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar to identify research output measures at the time of application.The cohort was predominantly men (66%) with a median of 3 articles and a H-index of 1 at the time of application. Interestingly, 16% of successful candidates had no published articles at the time of application, and this did not change significantly over time (P = .0740). Although the H-index remained stable (R 0.13, P = .1095), the number of published journal articles per candidate significantly decreased over 3 consecutive application cycles (R -0.16, P = .0484). Analysis of article types demonstrated a significant increase in basic science articles (R 0.18, P = .0366) and a concurrent decrease in editorial-type publications (R = -0.18, P = .0374).Despite the decline in publication volume of matched independent plastic surgery fellows, the quality of their research portfolio has remained constant. Matched applicants appear to be shifting focus from faster-to-publish articles to longer but higher impact projects. In selecting a training route, applicants must weigh the highly competitive integrated path against the dwindling number of independent positions.

Follow the money: Investigating gender disparity in industry payments among senior academics and leaders in plastic surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Differences in academic qualifications are cited as the reason behind the documented gender gap in industry sponsorship to academic plastic surgeons. Gendered imbalances in academic metrics narrow among senior academic plastic surgeons. However, it is unknown whether this gender parity translates to industry payments. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of industry payments disbursed to plastic surgeons in 2018. Inclusion criteria encompassed (i) faculty with the rank of professor or a departmental leadership position. Exclusion criteria included faculty (i) who belonged to a speciality besides plastic surgery; (ii) whose gender could not be determined; or (iii) whose name could not be located on the Open Payment Database. Faculty and title were identified using departmental listings of ACGME plastic surgery residency programs. We extracted industry payment data through the Open Payment Database. We also collected details on H-index and time in practice. Statistical analysis included odds ratios (OR) and Pearson's correlation coefficient (R). RESULTS: We identified 316 senior academic plastic surgeons. The cohort was predominately male (88%) and 91% held a leadership role. Among departmental leaders, women were more likely to be an assistant professor (OR 3.9, p = 0.0003) and heads of subdivision (OR 2.1, p = 0.0382) than men. Industry payments were distributed equally to male and female senior plastic surgeons except for speakerships where women received smaller amounts compared to their male counterparts (median payments of $3,675 vs $7,134 for women and men respectively, p<0.0001). Career length and H-index were positively associated with dollar value of total industry payments (R = 0.17, p = 0.0291, and R = 0.14, p = 0.0405, respectively). CONCLUSION: Disparity in industry funding narrows at senior levels in academic plastic surgery. At higher academic levels, industry sponsorship may preferentially fund individuals based on academic productivity and career length. Increased transparency in selection criteria for speakerships is warranted.

A Review of Insurance Coverage of Gender-Affirming Genital Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Despite the multiple benefits of gender-affirming surgery for treatment of gender dysphoria, research shows that barriers to care still exist. Third-party payers play a pivotal role in enabling access to transition-related care. The authors assessed insurance coverage of genital reconstructive ("bottom") surgery and evaluated the differences between policy criteria and international standards of care. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for coverage of bottom surgery was conducted. Insurance companies were selected based on their state enrollment data and market share. A Web-based search and telephone interviews were performed to identify the policies and coverage status. Medical necessity criteria were abstracted from publicly available policies. RESULTS: Fifty-seven insurers met inclusion criteria. Almost one in 10 providers did not hold a favorable policy for bottom surgery. Of the 52 insurers who provided coverage, 17 percent held criteria that matched international recommendations. No single criterion was universally required by insurers. Minimum age and definition of gender dysphoria were the requirements with most variation across policies. Almost one in five insurers used proof of legal name change as a coverage requirement. Ten percent would provide coverage for fertility preservation, while 17 percent would cover reversal of the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the medical necessity, legislative mandates, and economic benefits, global provision of gender-affirming genital surgery is not in place. Furthermore, there is variable adherence to international standards of care. Use of surplus criteria, such as legal name change, may act as an additional barrier to care even when insurance coverage is provided.

Gender Surgery Beyond Chest and Genitals: Current Insurance Landscape.

BACKGROUND: Plastic surgery plays an essential role in the treatment of gender dysphoria. International standards of care currently consider genital and chest surgeries to be medically necessary. Ancillary procedures such as facial surgery, chondrolaryngoplasty, hair restoration/removal, and body contouring are considered cosmetic surgeries except in individual circumstances. OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to assess the frequency of coverage provision for ancillary transition-related surgeries through a cross-sectional analysis of US insurance policies. METHODS: The authors selected insurance companies based on state enrollment data and market share. Policies were identified through web-based search and telephone interviews. A list of eligible procedures was compiled and grouped into 5 categories: body masculinization, body feminization, facial procedures, hair restoration/removal, and chondrolaryngoplasty. Medical necessity criteria from publicly accessible policies were then abstracted. RESULTS: Sixty-one insurance companies held an established policy. One-third of these policies offered favorable coverage for at least 1 ancillary procedure. Chondrolaryngoplasty was the most covered category (26%, n = 16), whereas body masculinization was the least covered (8%, n = 5). Almost two-thirds of the companies with favorable policies listed coverage criteria. We identified 4 recurring requirements: age, hormone therapy, continuous living in a congruent gender role, and referral from a mental health professional. CONCLUSIONS: There is a low prevalence of US insurance coverage for ancillary gender surgeries and wide variability in coverage criteria. Reevaluation of ancillary transition-related procedures from cosmetic to medically necessary based on clinical judgement or establishment of defined coverage criteria may augment coverage and better address the needs of transgender patients.

Health Insurance Coverage of Gender-Affirming Top Surgery in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Despite the medical necessity, legislative mandates, and economic benefits of gender-affirming surgery, access to treatment remains limited. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) has proposed guidelines for transition-related surgery in conjunction with criteria to delineate medical necessity. The authors assessed insurance coverage of "top" gender-affirming surgery and evaluated the differences between insurance policy criteria and WPATH recommendations. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for coverage of top gender-affirming surgery. Insurance companies were selected based on their state enrollment data and market share. A Web-based search and individual telephone interviews were conducted to identify the policy. Medical necessity criteria were abstracted from publicly available policies. RESULTS: Of the 57 insurers evaluated, bilateral mastectomy (transmasculine) was covered by significantly more insurers than breast augmentation (transfeminine) (96 percent versus 68 percent; p < 0.0001). Only 4 percent of companies used WPATH-consistent criteria. No criterion was universally required by insurers. Additional prerequisites for coverage that extended beyond WPATH guidelines for top surgery were continuous living in congruent gender role, two referring mental health professionals, and hormone therapy before surgery. Hormone therapy was required in a significantly higher proportion of transfeminine policies compared with transmasculine policies (90 percent versus 21 percent; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In addition to the marked intercompany variation in criteria for insurance coverage that often deviated from WPATH recommendations, there are health care insurers who categorically deny access to top gender-affirming surgery. A greater evidence base is needed to provide further support for the medical necessity criteria in current use.