Reimbursement Trends in Reduction Mammoplasty: A Single-Center Analysis of Insurance Reimbursements From 2012 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: Medicare reimbursement for plastic surgery procedures increased by 2% while inflation increased by 19% in the past decade. Given increasing national breast reduction case volume and the negative impact decreased reimbursements have on surgeon well-being, we sought to evaluate actual surgeon reimbursements for bilateral breast reduction over a decade. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed including all identifiable breast reduction procedures (Current Procedure Terminology 19318) performed at a tertiary academic hospital between October 2011 and September 2021 (fiscal year 2012-2021). The annual number of patients undergoing breast reduction, the payor, and average yearly amounts reimbursed were evaluated and trended over time. Percent change from Medicare average yearly reimbursements was evaluated and trended over time. All values were adjusted to 2021 US dollars. RESULTS: During our study period, there were 486 bilateral breast reduction procedures with 36 outlier payments; therefore, 450 reimbursements were included in the study. There were 5 payors, and the average adjusted reimbursement amount was $2418.74 ± $1123.83. All private payors had significantly higher average reimbursement than Medicare ( P < 0.0001), and Medicare was the only payor with significant decrease in reimbursement over time (-$58.58 per year, 95% confidence interval, -$110.80 to -$6.33, P = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that a difference exists between public and private payors for bilateral breast reduction procedures. Private payor reimbursements outpaced inflation. Medicare is an unreliable benchmark that may indirectly lead to declining reimbursements over time.

Conflicts of Interest in Studies Related to Mesh Use in Ventral Hernia Repair and Abdominal Wall Reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the accuracy of the reporting of conflicts of interest (COI) among studies related to mesh use in ventral hernia repair and abdominal wall reconstruction. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Accurate declaration of COI is integral to ensuring transparency of study results. Multiple studies have demonstrated undeclared COI are prevalent in surgical literature. METHODS: Studies with at least 1 American author accepted between 2014 and 2018 in 12 major, peer-reviewed general surgery and plastic surgery journals were included. Declared COI were compared with payments listed in the "Open Payments" database [maintained by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)] during the year of acceptance and 1 year prior. Studies and authors were considered to have a COI if they received payments from any of 8 major mesh companies totaling >$100.00 from each company. Risk factors for undeclared COI were determined at the study and author levels. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-six studies (553 authors) were included. One hundred two studies (81.0%) had one or more authors who received payments from industry and inaccurately declared their COI. Two hundred forty-eight authors (44.8%) did not declare their COI accurately. On multivariate analysis, last authors were found to be at highest risk for undeclared payments (OR 3.59, 95%CI 2.02-6.20), whereas middle authors were at significantly higher risk for undeclared payments than first authors (OR 1.64, 95%CI 1.04-2.56). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of studies investigating the use of mesh in ventral hernia repairs and abdominal wall reconstructions did not accurately declare COI. Last authors are at highest risk of undisclosed payments. Current policies on disclosing COI seem to be insufficient to ensure transparency of publications.

Assessment of Financial Conflicts of Interest Related to the Use of Dermal Substitutes in Burn Management.

This study aims to systematically review the accuracy of the self-reporting of conflicts of interest (COIs) among studies related to the use of dermal substitute products in burn management and evaluate factors associated with increased discrepancies. To do so, a literature search was done to identify studies investigating the use of dermal substitutes in burn management published between 2015 and 2019. Industry payments were collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. Declared COIs were then compared with the listed payments. Studies and authors were considered to have a COI if they received payments totaling more than $100 for each company. A total of 51 studies (322 authors) were included for analysis. Forty studies and 104 authors received at least one payment from the industry. Of these studies, 38 (95%) studies and 91 (88%) authors were found to have a COI discrepancy. From 2015 to 2019, 1391 general payments (totaling $1,696,848) and 108 research payments (totaling $1,849,537) were made by 82 companies. When increasing the threshold on what would be considered an undisclosed payment, the proportion of authors with discrepancies gradually decreased, from 88% of authors with undisclosed payments more than $100 to 27% of authors with undisclosed payments more than $10,000. Author order, journal impact factor, and study type were not significantly associated with increased risk of discrepancy. We found that the majority of studies investigating the use of dermal substitute products for burn management did not accurately declare COI, highlighting the need for a uniform declaration process and greater transparency of industry sponsorship by authors when publishing peer-reviewed burn surgery research papers.