Correlation between Relative Value Units and Operative Time for Flap-Based Reconstruction Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Procedures performed by plastic surgeons tend to generate lower work relative value units (RVUs) compared to other surgical specialties despite their major contributions to hospital revenue. The authors aimed to compare work RVUs allocated to all free flap and pedicled flap reconstruction procedures based on their associated median operative times and discuss implications of these compensation disparities. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of deidentified patient data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was performed, and relevant CPT codes for flap-based reconstruction were identified from 2011 to 2018. RVU data were assessed using the 2020 National Physician Fee Schedule Relative Value File. The work RVU per unit time was calculated using the median operative time for each procedure. RESULTS: A total of 3991 procedures were included in analysis. With increased operative time and surgical complexity, work RVU per minute trended downward. Free-fascial flaps with microvascular anastomosis generated the highest work RVUs per minute among all free flaps (0.114 work RVU/minute). Free-muscle/myocutaneous flap reconstruction generated the least work RVUs per minute (0.0877 work RVU/minute) among all flap reconstruction procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Longer operative procedures for flap-based reconstruction were designated with higher work RVU. Surgeons were reimbursed less per operative unit time for these surgical procedures, however. Specifically, free flaps resulted in reduced compensation in work RVUs per minute compared to pedicled flaps, except in breast reconstruction. More challenging operations have surprisingly resulted in lower compensation, demonstrating the inequalities in reimbursement within and between surgical specialties. Plastic surgeons should be aware of these discrepancies to appropriately advocate for themselves.

Breast Implant-Related Adverse Events During Mammography: An Assessment of the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience Database.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events arising in patients with breast implants during mammography reported by the Food and Drug Administration include implant rupture, pain, and impaired visualization. However, data supporting these claims were collected in 2004, and since, newer implant generations have been developed with overall rate of implantation increasing by 48%. OBJECTIVES: This article aims to determine the current incidence of implant-related adverse events arising during mammography. METHODS: We analyzed reports regarding silicone and saline breast implants published in the Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database between 2008 and November 2018. Search terms included "mammogram," "mammography," "radiograph," "breast cancer screening," "breast cancer test," and "x-ray." RESULTS: Of the 20 539 implant-related adverse events available in the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database, 427 were retrieved using our search strategy and 41 were related to mammography. Thirty-five of identified cases (85.4%) reported implant rupture, of which 19 (54.3%) were confirmed by a healthcare professional, 9 (25.7%) were clinically confirmed by saline implant deflation, and 7 (20.0%) were unverified reports by patients. Sixteen ruptures (45.7%) occurred with silicone implants, whereas 19 ruptures (54.3%) occurred with saline. Other adverse events included pain (29.3%), change in implant appearance (14.6%), and swelling (7.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Although implant rupture, pain, change in implant appearance, and swelling may occur, minimal implant-related adverse events arise during mammography. Given the extremely low reported risk of implant rupture, this should neither prevent patients from adhering to breast cancer screening programs nor deter patients from seeking breast implants. Patients should be aware of these reported risks and discuss screening options with their breast cancer screening team.

Working Smarter, Not Harder: Using Data-Driven Strategies to Generate Front-End Cost Savings through Price Negotiation and Supply Chain Optimization.

BACKGROUND: Supply chain optimization is an effective method of generating front-end cost savings and increasing hospital profits. Through the negotiation and renegotiation of supply chain contracts, plastic surgeons can dramatically change the price at which they purchase surgical supplies and implants. This study characterizes the potential impact of supply chain optimization and puts forth a generalizable, systematic approach for successful sourcing. METHODS: From October of 2017 to September of 2018, the authors examined all patients taken to the operating room for either a facial fracture or a hand fracture. Cost data were collected, Supply Chain Information Management numbers were used to determine whether each item used during the study period was under contract, and cost savings based on contract negotiation were calculated. Potential cost savings were calculated using the BillOnly calculator. RESULTS: For the 77 facial trauma cases and 63 hand trauma cases performed, a total of 330 items (70 distinct items) were used, 47 percent of which were under contract (47 percent contract use), with an average negotiated discount of 49 percent. Based on BillOnly material cost estimates, the authors' institution would need to increase its contract use to 70 percent to achieve a net savings of 19 percent, and to 90 percent to achieve a net savings of 39 percent. The authors also estimated that if contract use increased to 90 percent, net savings would increase commensurately with increases in the average discount negotiated. CONCLUSION: Supply chain optimization offers plastic surgeons the potential to significantly decrease surgical costs while maintaining surgical quality.

Bringing Your Idea to the Market: A Primer for Plastic Surgeons.

SUMMARY: The progress of biotechnology, medical instruments, and applied sciences contributes to a rapidly expanding space for the advancement of the medical field. Surgeons experience first-hand the limitations of current medical devices and thus have unique insight into problems that could be solved with new products. The process of turning an idea into a product capable of success in the marketplace, however, is often unfamiliar to surgeons. The authors seek to illuminate this process and provide an ordered list of tasks that can make bringing ideas to market more achievable for surgeons. The first step in this process is the generation and protection of a new idea. Next, the process of making an idea into a product is outlined. This phase involves team assembly, business planning, and product development. Market research and valuation are key to understanding how a product can be applied in the market, and meticulous research during this phase allows for informed decision-making that will help secure funding down the road. Finally, various options for financing are discussed and compared to help surgeon-entrepreneurs find an option that best fits their project, and steps to maximize leverage are described. The development of new products can be a complicated process for surgeons. Organized into four phases, with ordered instructional steps to advance through each phase, the process of bringing an idea to the market is clarified. Facilitating this process will possibly contribute to the continual improvement of medical and surgical abilities through the introduction of new devices and technologies.

Carving Out Financial Success: The Power of Insurance Carve-Outs in a Private Plastic Surgery Practice.

BACKGROUND: Since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law, there has been a push away from fee-for-service payment models. The rise of bundled payments has drastically impacted plastic surgeons' incomes, especially nonsalaried surgeons in private practice. As a result, physicians must now attempt to optimize contractual reimbursement agreements (carve-outs) with insurance providers. The aim of this article is to explain the economics behind negotiating carve-outs and to offer a how-to guide for plastic surgeons to use in such negotiations. METHODS: Based on work relative value units, Medicare reimbursement, overhead expenses, physician workload, and desired income, the authors present an approach that allows surgeons to evaluate the reimbursement they receive for various procedures. The authors then review factors that influence whether a carve-out can be pursued. Finally, the authors consider relevant nuances of negotiating with insurance companies. RESULTS: Using tissue expander insertion (CPT 19357) as an example, the authors review the mathematics, thought process required, and necessary steps in determining whether a carve-out should be pursued. Strategies for negotiation with insurance companies were identified. The presented approach can be used to potentially negotiate a carve-out for any reconstructive procedure that meets appropriate financial criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding practice costs will allow plastic surgeons to evaluate the true value of insurance reimbursements and determine whether a carve-out is worth pursuing. Plastic surgeons must be prepared to negotiate adequate reimbursement carve-outs whenever possible. Ultimately, by aligning the best quality patient care with insurance companies' financial motivations, plastic surgeons have the opportunity to improve reimbursement for some reconstructive procedures.

Financial Analysis of Operating a Resident Aesthetic Clinic.

BACKGROUND: Recent changes to the plastic surgery residency training requirements along with a general call for expanded education in cosmetic surgery have encouraged many institutions to incorporate resident aesthetic clinics into their curricula. Although the safety and satisfaction rates of resident aesthetic clinics have been well-studied, their financial viability has not. This study reviews the financial viability of the resident aesthetic clinic at the authors' institution through a cost analysis. METHODS: Billing data were analyzed for all patient visits to the resident aesthetic clinic of the authors' institution during calendar year 2018. Data were extracted, including type and anatomical location of each procedure, charges collected, and supplies used. A financial analysis was performed based on fixed and variable costs and gross revenue. RESULTS: A total of 100 unique patients were seen in the clinic over a 1-year period, resulting in 53 operations. This included 15 face, four breast, and 34 body contouring procedures. In addition, 160 cosmetic injections were performed. The gross revenue was $69,955 and the net revenue was $36,600. CONCLUSIONS: The resident aesthetic clinic at the authors' institution proved to be financially viable. The authors encourage other institutions to more closely examine the financial state of their resident aesthetic clinics as well. Furthermore, the authors hope that this analysis demonstrates to other programs that, with certain practice models, cost should not be a barrier to initiating and maintaining this valuable training tool.