Insurance Coverage of Prophylactic Mastectomies: A National Review of the United States.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is associated with a multitude of risk factors, such as genetic predisposition and mutations, family history, personal medical history, or previous radiotherapy. A prophylactic mastectomy (PM) may be considered a suitable risk-reducing procedure in some cases. However, there are significant discrepancies between national society recommendations and insurance company requirements for PM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for a PM. One-hundred companies were selected based on the greatest state enrolment and market share. Their policies were identified through a Web-based search and telephone interviews, and their medical necessity criteria were extracted. RESULTS: Preauthorized coverage of PMs was provided by 39% of insurance policies (n = 39) and 5 indications were identified. There was consensus amongst these policies to cover a PM for BRCA1/2 mutations (n = 39, 100%), but was more variable for other genetic mutations (15%-90%). Coverage of PM for the remaining indications varied among insurers: previous radiotherapy (92%), pathological changes in the breast (3%-92%), personal history of cancer (64%) and family history risk factors (39%-51%). CONCLUSION: There is a marked level of variability in both the indications and medical necessity criteria for PM insurance policies. The decision to undergo a PM must be carefully considered with a patient's care team and should not be affected by insurance coverage status.

In vitro fertilization: a cross-sectional analysis of 58 US insurance companies.

PURPOSE: Infertility affects one in eight women in the USA. In vitro fertilization (IVF) is an effective but costly treatment that lacks uniform insurance coverage. We evaluated the current insurance coverage landscape for IVF in America. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 58 insurance companies with the greatest state enrollment and market share, calculated to represent the majority of Americans with health insurance. Individual companies were evaluated for a publicly available policy on IVF services by web-based search, telephone interview, or email to the insurer. Coverage status, required criteria, qualifying risk factors, and contraindications to coverage were extracted from available policies. RESULTS: Fifty-one (88%) of the fifty-eight companies had a policy for IVF services. Thirty-five (69%) of these policies extended coverage. Case-by-case coverage was stated in seven policies (14%), while coverage was denied in the remaining nine (18%). The most common criterion to receive coverage was a documented diagnosis of infertility (n = 23, 66%), followed by care from a reproductive endocrinologist (n = 9, 26%). Twenty-three (45%) of the companies with a policy had at least one contraindication to coverage. Three companies (6%) limited the number of IVF cycles to be covered, capping payments after 3-4 lifetime cycles. CONCLUSION: Most Americans with health insurance are provided a public policy regarding IVF. However, there is great variation in coverage and requirements to receive coverage between insurers. Coupled with inconsistencies in state-level mandates and available choices for employer-sponsored plans, this may limit coverage of IVF services and, therefore, access to infertility treatment.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in the setting of breast cancer diagnosis and their insurance coverage in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) is more common in the United States than the rest of the world. However, the benefit of this procedure is still under question in many breast cancer scenarios. CPM utilization in the United States is in part dependent on a patient's health insurance coverage of breast oncology surgery and any desired reconstruction. However, there are great discrepancies in the coverage provided by insurers. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for a CPM in the setting of diagnosed breast cancer. One hundred companies were selected based on their state enrollment and market share. Their policies were identified through a Web-based search and telephone interviews, and their medical necessity criteria were extracted. RESULTS: Of the 100 companies assessed, 36 (36%) had a policy for CPM. Within those, significantly more provided coverage than denied the procedure (72% vs. 25%, p < 0.0001), with the remainder providing case-by-case coverage. Eleven criteria were identified from preauthorized policies, the most common prerequisite was breast cancer diagnosis under 45 years old (n = 9, 35%). Most policies did not differentiate between gender in their policies (n = 25, 69%), but of those that did, 100% (n = 11) provided coverage for men and women, with 82% (n = 9) requiring further criteria from the female patients. CONCLUSION: The coverage of CPM in the United States varies from complete denial to unrestricted approval. This may be due to conflicting reports in the literature as to the utility of the procedure. The decision to undergo this procedure must be taken with thoughtful consideration and the support of a multidisciplinary approach.

A National Review of Insurance Coverage of Noncancerous Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction is commonly performed for a multitude of noncancerous indications, such as correction of congenital deformities, acquired tissue disease, burns, and trauma. However, breast reconstruction for noncancerous indications is often considered cosmetic or not explicitly mentioned in insurance policies. The goal of this study was to assess variability in insurance coverage of breast reconstruction for noncancerous indications. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 102 US insurance companies, including Medicare and Medicaid, for coverage of breast reconstruction for noncancerous indications (Poland syndrome, fibrocystic breast disease, burns and trauma). 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: Half of the insurers (49%, n = 50) had no policy for Poland syndrome, 46% (n = 47) had no policy for burns and trauma, and 82% (n = 84) had no policy for fibrocystic breast disease. Fifty-two percent (n = 22) of policies providing coverage for Poland syndrome, 24% (n = 13) of policies providing coverage for burns and trauma, and 58% (n = 7) of policies providing coverage for fibrocystic breast disease had specific, stringent criteria for medical necessity. Thirty-six percent (n = 15) of policies covering Poland syndrome, 47% (n = 26) of policies covering burns and trauma, and 33% (n = 4) of policies covering fibrocystic breast disease include coverage of the contralateral breast. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of publicly available information on insurance coverage of breast reconstruction for noncancerous indications and a lack of consensus between top US insurance companies on what constitutes medical necessity for surgical correction.

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.

Academic Productivity Among Plastic Surgery Subspecialty Fellowship Applicants.

INTRODUCTION: Plastic surgery subspecialty fellowships are highly competitive. Academic productivity is an objective metric that can be used to compare candidates. This study aims to evaluate intersubspecialty differences in academic profiles of plastic surgery fellows. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the plastic surgery fellows in the United States from 2015 to 2019. We used the San Francisco Match website and individual program websites to obtain details of fellowship programs (microsurgery, aesthetic, hand, and craniofacial) and plastic surgery fellows. Bibliometric data at the time of fellowship application were obtained for each fellow. RESULTS: A total of 235 fellows were included. There was a significant difference in the median number of publications (P = 0.0067) and h-index (P = 0.0229) across subspecialties. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that dedicated research time was predictive for a high publication count (odds ratio [OR], 3.59; P = 0.0007) and h-index (OR, 4.88; P < 0.0001) at the time of fellowship application. Although international residency and aesthetic fellowship application were predictive of a reduced number of publications (OR, 0.17; P < 0.0001, and OR, 0.43; P = 0.0190, respectively), H-index was increased by possession of an advanced degree (OR, 2.00; P = 0.0291) and decreased with international residency (OR, 0.26, P = 0.0021). CONCLUSIONS: All plastic surgery fellows have highly qualified academic profiles at the time of fellowship application. Academic productivity differs between subspecialty fellowships. Those wishing to match into competitive subspecialties should consider taking dedicated time for research or attaining an advanced degree.

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.

Navigating the Insurance Landscape for Coverage of Reduction Mammaplasty.

BACKGROUND: Reduction mammaplasty provides symptomatic relief to patients with macromastia. Insurance companies act as gatekeepers of health care by determining the medical necessity of surgical procedures, including reduction mammaplasty. The authors sought to evaluate insurance coverage and policy criteria for reduction mammaplasty. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of U.S. insurance policies on reduction mammaplasty. Insurance providers were selected based on their enrolment data and market share. The authors conducted telephone interviews and Web-based searches to identify the policies. Medical necessity criteria were abstracted from the publicly available policies that offered coverage. RESULTS: The authors reviewed 63 insurers. One in 10 insurers had no established policy for reduction mammaplasty. Of the 48 publicly available policies, shoulder pain and backache were the most common symptoms required for preapproval (98 percent and 98 percent). A minimum resection volume was requested by 88 percent of policies. One-third of policies (31 percent) offered a choice between removal of a minimum weight per breast or a volume based on body surface area. Over half of companies (54 percent) used body surface area calculations to predict minimum resection volume. Medical necessity that extended beyond national recommendations included trial of weight loss (23 percent) and nipple position (10 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Insurance policy criteria for reduction mammaplasty are discordant with current national recommendations and current clinical evidence. Many policies use outdated criteria that do not correlate with symptom relief and consequently limit access to reduction mammaplasty. Here, the authors propose a comprehensive guideline to maximize coverage of reduction mammaplasty.

Outpatient Reduction Mammaplasty Offers Significantly Lower Costs with Comparable Outcomes: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of 18,780 Cases.

BACKGROUND: Breast reduction mammaplasty is a common plastic surgery operation. Although many contemporary surgeons provide breast reduction mammaplasty as an outpatient procedure, roughly 15 percent of patients are still observed postoperatively. The authors hypothesize that observation confers no safety benefit but engenders significant cost. METHODS: The authors reviewed cases of breast reduction mammaplasty in a commercial database and formulated three propensity score-matched cohorts: inpatient, 23-hour observation, and outpatient. Comparisons were made between inpatients and outpatients and between 23-hour observation patients and outpatients. The primary outcome variable was 14-day re-presentation rate to the emergency department or readmission. Financial data were also collected. RESULTS: Comparison of inpatients and outpatients included 1237 patients each (n = 2474 total patients). The 23-hour observation-outpatient comparison included 8153 patients each (n = 16,306 total patients). For inpatients versus outpatients, the 14-day re-presentation rate was 1.4 percent for inpatients and 0.3 percent for outpatients (p < 0.01). The overall surgical complication rate was higher for inpatients (7.8 percent) than for outpatients (4.9 percent) (p < 0.01). Comparing outpatients to 23-hour observation patients, the 14-day re-presentation rate was similar (0.5 percent observation versus 0.3 percent outpatient; p = 0.10). The complication rate was higher for 23-hour observation patients (4.8 percent) than for outpatients (3.2 percent) (p < 0.01). When compared with outpatients (median, $9077), inpatients (median, $19,975) generated $10,898 more in costs. Similarly, 23-hour observation patients (median, $12,451) generated $4050 more in costs than outpatients (median, $8401) (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient breast reduction mammaplasty is equally safe when compared to observation or admission. Non-outpatient breast reduction mammaplasty had median costs of 148 to 220 percent that of outpatient breast reduction mammaplasty. In an era of cost consciousness, ambulatory reduction mammaplasty may offer a relatively simple method of decreasing expenditures. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Sex Disparity in Academic Rank and Industry Payments to Plastic Surgeons.

INTRODUCTION: Despite increasing representation in surgery, women continue to lag behind men in important metrics. Little is known on how industry funding may also contribute to this ongoing disparity. This article seeks to quantify industry payments to academic plastic surgeons (APSs) by sex and examine the relationship between funding and academic achievement. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of industry payments disbursed to APSs in 2017. Faculty were identified using departmental listings of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education plastic surgery residency programs. Payments were identified via the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services open payment database. Academic achievement was assessed using rank (eg, assistant professor), leadership designation (eg, division head), and Scopus H-index and then controlled for time in practice. RESULTS: Of the 805 APSs, the majority were male (82% male vs 18% female, P < 0.0001). Significant sex differences emerged in average yearly industry contributions (men, US $3202, vs women, US $707; P < 0.0001). Across all academic ranks, men received significantly higher payments than women (P < 0.0500). Men constituted 93% of full professors and were almost twice as likely to hold additional leadership positions compared with women (odds ratio, 1.82; P = 0.0143). After adjustment for time in practice, there was no difference in H-indices between male and female APSs, although payment disparity persisted (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial sex-based disparities exist among APSs' academic rank and leadership attainment, which is not attributed to differences in academic qualifications or experience. To better elucidate the sources of this disparity, future studies should assess sexed differences in payment types. Furthermore, we urge for increased transparency in the selection process for industry payments.

Surgical Management of Diastasis Recti: A Systematic Review of Insurance Coverage in the United States.

BACKGROUND: As elective surgery becomes more popular, the stringency of insurance coverage policies has increased exponentially. Many patients with diastasis recti (DR) are denied coverage of the corrective surgery that has been shown to improve function and quality of life in this patient population. Plastic surgeons are frustrated by the lack of guidelines and sparsity of coverage for surgical correction of DR. METHODS: Fifty-four US insurance companies and Medicare were reviewed to determine their policies of coverage. These policies were compared with the guidelines set forth by the American Society of Plastic surgery and current literature on DR. RESULTS: Insurance company policy for DR repair is not clear nor well established. Of the 55 policies reviewed in this study, 51 had an established policy. Forty of these companies would not cover abdominoplasty to repair DR under any circumstances. Eleven companies required preauthorization to ensure that the patient met the requirements of medical necessity. These requirements differed from company to company. A comprehensive list was compiled of details required for preauthorization. CONCLUSIONS: Insurance company policies do not recognize the spectrum of patients with DR and the necessity of abdominoplasty to relieve symptoms of patients with severe debilitation. The current Common Procedural Terminology coding classifies abdominoplasty to repair DR solely as a cosmetic procedure. Policies for DR repair should be amended to include a functional procedure reimbursement for severe DR and include detailed guidelines for coverage requirements to simplify the reimbursement process.

Surgical Management of Gynecomastia: A Review of the Current Insurance Coverage Criteria.

BACKGROUND: Gynecomastia is a common condition that can be corrected with surgical excision of the breast tissue. Unlike the policies available for reduction mammaplasty in women, gynecomastia policies are variable and not based on strong scientific evidence. This study reviews U.S. insurance policies for coverage of gynecomastia surgery and compares these policies to the guidelines put forth by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. METHODS: Sixty U.S. insurance companies were selected based on their market share value. Medicare was also evaluated. The policy for each company was identified using a Web-based search or by contacting the company directly. Policies were reviewed to abstract coverage criteria. All information gathered was compared to national recommendations. RESULTS: Of the 61 companies evaluated, 38% did not have a well-defined policy for gynecomastia surgery and assessed each request on a case-by-case basis with no defined criteria. The remaining 62% of providers held a defined policy. Companies often required thorough documentation of breast size, body mass index, extent and duration of symptoms, and prior treatments, but requirements varied between insurers. Many of these policies were limited in their coverage, e.g. they would cover tissue excision but not liposuction. Fourteen companies would consider of coverage for patients younger than 18 years. CONCLUSIONS: Coverage of gynecomastia surgery varies across insurers. Insurance company considerations do not often align with patient concerns and physician recommendations on gynecomastia and its treatment options. Coverage criteria should be reevaluated and universally established, to expand access to care and improve treatment efficiency.

What Do Plastic Surgery Patients Think of Financial Conflicts of Interest and the Sunshine Act?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate patients' views of conflicts of interest (COI) and their comprehension of recent legislation known as the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. This report constitutes the first evaluation of plastic surgery patients' views on COI and the government-mandated Sunshine Act. METHODS: This cross-sectional study invited patients at an academic, general plastic surgery outpatient clinic to complete an anonymous survey. The survey contained 25 questions that assessed respondents' perceptions of physician COI and awareness of the Sunshine Act. Analyses were performed to examine whether perspectives on COI and the Sunshine Act varied by level of education or age. RESULTS: A total of 361 individuals completed the survey (90% response rate). More than half of respondents with an opinion believed that COI would affect their physician's clinical decision-making (n = 152, 52.9%). Although almost three fourths (n = 196, 71.2%) believed that COI should be regulated and COI information reported to a government agency, the majority were not aware of the Sunshine Act before this survey (n = 277, 81.2%) and had never accessed the database (n = 327, 95.9%). More than half of patients (n = 161, 59.2%) stated that they would access a publicly available database with physicians' COI information. A larger proportion of older and educated patients believed that regulation of physicians' COI was important (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of and access to plastic surgeon COI information is low among plastic surgery patients. Older and more educated patients believed that transparency regarding COI is important with regard to their clinical care.

The Perception and Costs of the Interview Process for Plastic Surgery Residency Programs: Can the Process Be Streamlined?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess applicant perceptions and costs associated with the interview process for plastic surgery residency positions. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of applicants to the integrated- and independent-track residencies at the authors' institution. All applicants who were interviewed were invited to complete a Web-based survey on costs and perceptions of various components of the interview process. Descriptive and bivariate statistics were computed to compare applicants to the two program tracks. RESULTS: Fifty-three applicants were interviewed for residency positions; 48 completed a survey (90.5 percent response rate). Thirty-four applicants were candidates for the integrated program; 16 applicants were candidates for the independent program. The program spent $2763 per applicant interviewed; 63 percent of applicants spent more than $5000 on the interview process. More than 70 percent of applicants missed more than 7 days of work to attend interviews. Independent applicants felt less strongly that interviews were critical to the selection process and placed less value on physically visiting the hospital and direct, in-person interaction. Applicants placed little value on program informational talks. Applicants who had experience with virtual interviews felt more positively about the format of a video interview relative to those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: The residency interview process is resource intensive for programs and applicants. Removing informational talks may improve the process. Making physical tours and in-person interviews optional are other alternatives that merit future study.