The Society for Vascular Surgery Alternative Payment Model Task Force report on opportunities for value-based reimbursement in care for patients with peripheral artery disease.

The Society for Vascular Surgery Alternative Payment Model (APM) Taskforce document explores the drivers and implications for developing objective value-based reimbursement plans for the care of patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). The APM is a payment approach that highlights high-quality and cost-efficient care and is a financially incentivized pathway for participation in the Quality Payment Program, which aims to replace the traditional fee-for-service payment method. At present, the participation of vascular specialists in APMs is hampered owing to the absence of dedicated models. The increasing prevalence of PAD diagnosis, technological advances in therapeutic devices, and the increasing cost of care of the affected patients have financial consequences on care delivery models and population health. The document summarizes the existing measurement methods of cost, care processes, and outcomes using payor data, patient-reported outcomes, and registry participation. The document also evaluates the existing challenges in the evaluation of PAD care, including intervention overuse, treatment disparities, varied clinical presentations, and the effects of multiple comorbid conditions on the cost potentially attributable to the vascular interventionalist. Medicare reimbursement data analysis also confirmed the prolonged need for additional healthcare services after vascular interventions. The Society for Vascular Surgery proposes that a PAD APM should provide patients with comprehensive care using a longitudinal approach with integration of multiple key medical and surgical services. It should maintain appropriate access to diagnostic and therapeutic advancements and eliminate unnecessary interventions. It should also decrease the variability in care but must also consider the varying complexity of the presenting PAD conditions. Enhanced quality of care and physician innovation should be rewarded. In addition, provisions should be present within an APM for high-risk patients who carry the risk of exclusion from care because of the naturally associated high costs. Although the document demonstrates clear opportunities for quality improvement and cost savings in PAD care, continued PAD APM development requires the assessment of more granular data for accurate risk adjustment, in addition to largescale testing before public release. Collaboration between payors and physician specialty societies remains key.

The financial evolution of endovascular aneurysm repair delivery in contemporary practice.

OBJECTIVE: The fiscal impact of endovascular repair (EVR) of aortic aneurysms and the requisite device costs have previously highlighted the tenuous long-term financial sustainability among Medicare beneficiaries. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services have since reclassified EVR remuneration paradigms with new Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Groups (MS-DRGs) intended to better address the procedure's cost profile. The impact of this change remains unknown. The purpose of this analysis was to compare EVR-specific costs and revenue among Medicare beneficiaries both before and after this change. METHODS: All infrarenal EVRs performed in fiscal years (FYs) 2014 and 2015, before the MS-DRG change, and those performed in FYs 2017 and 2018, after the MS-DRG change, were identified using the DRG codes 238 (n = 108) and 269 (n = 84), respectively. We then identified those who were treated according to the instructions for use guidelines with a single manufacturer's device and billed to Medicare (n = 23 in FY14-15; n = 22 in FY17-18). From these cohorts, we determined total procedure technical costs, technical revenue, and net technical margin in conjunction with the hospital finance department. Results were then compared between these two groups. RESULTS: The two cohorts demonstrated similar demographic profiles (FY14-15 vs FY17-18 cohort: age, 78 years vs 74 years; median length of stay, 1.0 day vs 1.0 day). Mean total technical costs were slightly higher in the FY17-18 group ($24,511 in FY14-15 vs $26,445 in FY17-18). Graft implants continued to account for a significant portion of the total cost, with the device cost accounting for 56% of the total procedure costs in both cohorts. Net revenue was greater in the FY17-18 group by $5800 ($30,698 in FY14-15 vs $36,498 in FY17-18), resulting in an increased overall margin in the FY17-18 group compared with the FY14-15 group ($6188 in FY14-15 vs $10,053 in FY17-18). CONCLUSIONS: Device costs remain the single greatest cost driver associated with EVR delivery. DRG reclassification of EVR to address total procedure and implant costs appears to better address the requisite associated procedure costs and may thereby better support long-term fiscal sustainability of this procedure for hospitals and health systems alike.

Medicare reimbursement of lower extremity bypass does not cover cost of care for most patients with critical limb ischemia.

OBJECTIVE: Lower extremity bypass surgery remains an important treatment option for patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI), but is resource intensive. We sought to evaluate the cost and Medicare reimbursement for lower extremity bypass surgery in patients with CLI. METHODS: Hospital cost accounting systems were queried for total technical and professional costs incurred and reimbursement received for patients with CLI undergoing lower extremity bypass at our center between 2011 and 2017. Patients were identified by assignment to Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) 252, 253, or 254 (other vascular procedure with major complication/comorbidity, with complication/comorbidity, and without complication/comorbidity, respectively). Additional clinical data were incorporated from the Vascular Quality Initiative clinical registry. For non-Medicare patients, reimbursement was indexed to Medicare rates. Contribution margins (reimbursement minus cost) from technical and professional services were analyzed for each patient and summarized by DRG. We compared technical, professional, and total costs; reimbursement; and contribution margins across DRGs using univariate statistics and evaluated factors associated with total contribution margin using median quantile regression. RESULTS: We analyzed 68 patients with hemodynamically confirmed CLI (46% rest pain, 54% tissue loss), of whom 25% received a prosthetic graft. Mean age was 66.1 ± 11.6 years, 69% were male, 49% diabetic, 44% current smokers, and 4% on dialysis. In general, total infrainguinal bypass cost was adequately compensated for patients assigned only the most complex DRG 252 (median, $2490; interquartile range [IQR], -$1,621 to $10,080). In the majority of patients with less complex DRG 253 (median, -$3,100; IQR, -$8499 to $109) and DRG 254 (median, -$4902; IQR, -$9259 to $1059), reimbursement did not cover the cost of care. Both technical costs and professional costs varied significantly with the complexity of DRG. Although reimbursement from technical services increased alongside increasing complexity of DRG, there was insignificant variation in professional reimbursement as DRG complexity increased. On multivariable modeling, longer length of stay (-$2547 per additional day) and preoperative dialysis (-$5555) were significantly associated with negative margins. CONCLUSIONS: For the majority of patients with CLI, current Medicare reimbursement does not adequately cover the cost of providing care after open bypass surgery. As commercial insurers move toward Medicare reimbursement rates, more granular risk stratification profiles are needed to ensure open surgical care for patients with CLI remains financially sustainable.

Reimbursement in hospital-based vascular surgery: Physician and practice perspective.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine change in value of a vascular surgery division to the health care system during 6 years at a hospital-based academic practice and to compare physician vs hospital revenue earned during this period. METHODS: Total revenue generated by the vascular surgery service line at an academic medical center from 2010 through 2015 was evaluated. Total revenue was measured as the sum of physician (professional) and hospital (technical) net revenue for all vascular-related patient care. Adjustments were made for work performed, case complexity, and inflation. To reflect the effect of these variables, net revenue was indexed to work relative value units (wRVUs), case mix index, and consumer price index, which adjusted for work, case complexity, and inflation, respectively. Differences in physician and hospital net revenue were compared over time. RESULTS: Physician work, measured in RVUs per year, increased by 4%; case complexity, assessed with case mix index, increased by 10% for the 6-year measurement period. Despite stability in payer mix at 64% to 69% Medicare, both physician and hospital vascular-related revenue/wRVU decreased during this period. Unadjusted professional revenue/wRVU declined by 14.1% (P = .09); when considering case complexity, physician revenue/wRVU declined by 20.6% (P = .09). Taking into account both case complexity and inflation, physician revenue declined by 27.0% (P = .04). Comparatively, hospital revenue for vascular surgery services decreased by 13.8% (P = .07) when adjusting for unit work, complexity, and inflation. CONCLUSIONS: At medical centers where vascular surgeons are hospital based, vascular care reimbursement decreased substantially from 2010 to 2015 when case complexity and inflation were considered. Physician reimbursement (professional fees) decreased at a significantly greater rate than hospital reimbursement for vascular care. This trend has significant implications for salaried vascular surgeons in hospital-based settings, where the majority of revenue generated by vascular surgery care is the technical component received by the facility. Appropriate care for patients with vascular disease is increasingly resource intensive, and as a corollary, reimbursement levels must reflect this situation if high-quality care is to be maintained.

The financial implications of endovascular aneurysm repair in the cost containment era.

OBJECTIVE: Endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is associated with significant direct device costs. Such costs place EVAR at odds with efforts to constrain healthcare expenditures. This study examines the procedure-associated costs and operating margins associated with EVAR at a tertiary care academic medical center. METHODS: All infrarenal EVARs performed from April 2011 to March 2012 were identified (n = 127). Among this cohort, 49 patients met standard commercial instruction for use guidelines, were treated using a single manufacturer device, and billed to Medicare diagnosis-related group (DRG) 238. Of these 49 patients, net technical operating margins (technical revenue minus technical cost) were calculated in conjunction with the hospital finance department. EVAR implant costs were determined for each procedure. DRG 238-associated costs and length of stay were benchmarked against other academic medical centers using University Health System Consortium 2012 data. RESULTS: Among the studied EVAR cohort (age 75, 82% male, mean length of stay, 1.7 days), mean technical costs totaled $31,672. Graft implants accounted for 52% of the allocated technical costs. Institutional overhead was 17% ($5495) of total technical costs. Net mean total technical EVAR-associated operating margins were -$4015 per procedure. Our institutional costs and length of stay, when benchmarked against comparable centers, remained in the lowest quartile nationally using University Health System Consortium costs for DRG 238. Stent graft price did not correlate with total EVAR market share. CONCLUSIONS: EVAR is currently associated with significant negative operating margins among Medicare beneficiaries. Currently, device costs account for over 50% of EVAR-associated technical costs and did not impact EVAR market share, reflecting an unawareness of cost differential among surgeons. These data indicate that EVAR must undergo dramatic care delivery redesign for this practice to remain sustainable.

National trends in lower extremity bypass surgery, endovascular interventions, and major amputations.

INTRODUCTION: Advances in endovascular interventions have expanded the options available for the invasive treatment of lower extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Whether endovascular interventions substitute for conventional bypass surgery or are simply additive has not been investigated, and their effect on amputation rates is unknown. METHODS: We sought to analyze trends in lower extremity endovascular interventions (angioplasty and atherectomy), lower extremity bypass surgery, and major amputation (above and below-knee) in Medicare beneficiaries between 1996 and 2006. We used 100% samples of Medicare Part B claims to calculate annual procedure rates of lower extremity bypass surgery, endovascular interventions (angioplasty and atherectomy), and major amputation between 1996 and 2006. Using physician specialty identifiers, we also examined trends in the specialty performing the primary procedure. RESULTS: Between 1996 and 2006, the rate of major lower extremity amputation declined significantly (263 to 188 per 100,000; risk ratio [RR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6-0.8). Endovascular interventions increased more than threefold (from 138 to 455 per 100,000; RR = 3.30; 95% CI: 2.9-3.7) while bypass surgery decreased by 42% (219 to 126 per 100,000; RR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.5-0.7). The increase in endovascular interventions consisted both of a growth in peripheral angioplasty (from 135 to 337 procedures per 100,000; RR = 2.49; 95% CI: 2.2-2.8) and the advent of percutaneous atherectomy (from 3 to 118 per 100,000; RR = 43.12; 95% CI: 34.8-52.0). While radiologists performed the majority of endovascular interventions in 1996, more than 80% were performed by cardiologists and vascular surgeons by 2006. Overall, the total number of all lower extremity vascular procedures almost doubled over the decade (from 357 to 581 per 100,000; RR = 1.63; 95% CI: 1.5-1.8). CONCLUSION: Endovascular interventions are now performed much more commonly than bypass surgery in the treatment of lower extremity PAD. These changes far exceed simple substitution, as more than three additional endovascular interventions were performed for every one procedure declined in lower extremity bypass surgery. During this same time period, major lower extremity amputation rates have fallen by more than 25%. However, further study is needed before any causal link can be established between lower extremity vascular procedures and improved rates of limb salvage in patients with PAD.

Office-based vascular lab: is it worth the effort?

The vascular laboratory is an essential part of any contemporary clinical vascular practice. The prototype of the vascular laboratory consisted mainly of instruments designed to understand the hemodynamics of the vascular tree. Earlier versions also played important roles in clinical research. Currently, sophisticated imaging equipments enable clinicians to evaluate the whole range of arterial and venous diseases in the outpatient setting. Both patients and physicians have found this to be very practical and convenient. Furthermore, income generated from performing diagnostic tests in the vascular laboratory helps support a variety of clinical activities and research. However, recent cost-cutting measures by medical insurance carriers are threatening the viability of office-based vascular laboratories

Evolution of carotid stenting: payment issues.

Carotid stent placement received assignment of two Category I Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes in 2005, based on the collaborative efforts of 10 medical, surgical, and radiological specialty societies. One code is used to report stent placement with embolic protection, the other without embolic protection. The codes are unusual for interventional procedures because they include all associated catheterizations, diagnostic imaging, angioplasty, and radiologic supervision and interpretation. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a coverage policy for carotid stenting in March 2005, imposing major limitations on eligibility. First, the Agency will only pay for carotid stents performed with embolic protection. In addition, each patient must meet three separate criteria to achieve Medicare coverage: (1) lateralizing transient ischemic attack, transient monocular blindness, or minor stroke with Rankin score <3; (2) an angiographically documented stenosis >or=70%, and (3) physiologic or anatomic criteria to indicate the patient is at high risk for carotid endarterectomy. No asymptomatic patients are covered under the current Medicare policy, but coverage criteria are currently under reconsideration. Finally, CMS restricts carotid stent coverage to facilities that meet its certification requirements.

Reimbursement for carotid stenting: unique challenges for medical centers and physicians.

Carotid artery stenting has been identified as an important therapeutic option for patients with atherosclerotic occlusive disease of the extracranial carotid artery. While the preferred application of this technology remains an area of active clinical investigation and its optimal role may continue to evolve, a preponderance of opinion supports its present application in carefully selected patients. Enabling the introduction of this technology into the broader patient community mandated a consensus between a large number of specialty societies and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to define both currently acceptable procedures to be performed and appropriate clinical criteria for its suitable application. This report reviews the collaborative process, which evolved to achieve this consensus and the current guidelines for procedural coding, facility accreditation, and reimbursement for carotid artery stenting. Related requirements for Medicare coverage of patients in clinical trials and registries are also discussed.

Current hospital costs and medicare reimbursement for endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to analyze the current inpatient hospital cost and Medicare reimbursement of endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) at different hospitals. METHODS: The cost of EVAR from October 2000 to October 2001 with two commercially available endografts (Ancure, Guidant Endovascular Solutions, Menlo Park, Calif; and AneuRx, Medtronic AVE, Santa Rosa, Calif) was retrospectively analyzed at seven hospitals. Three university (n = 111) and four community hospitals (n = 110) from different regions of the country participated in the survey. Consecutive cases with complete financial records were included. Hospital finance departments provided their best estimates of hospital costs, including overhead for operating room, endograft, medical supply, bed, radiology, laboratory, and pharmacy services and reimbursement on the basis of hospital-specific Diagnostic Related Groups (DRG) 110 or 111. Detailed hospital charges and International Clinical Diagnosis codes also were reviewed from Universal Billing-92 forms submitted to Medicare. An additional cost analysis was performed by the authors to validate the estimates of the hospital financial departments. Outliers of more than three standard deviations from the mean were excluded. RESULTS: The mean total hospital cost was $22,999, and mean reimbursement, weighted by case mix, was $20,837, resulting in a net loss of $2162. The majority of EVAR cost was from the device (57%) and other medical supplies (16%). EVAR was reimbursed on the basis of DRG 110 in 78% of cases and of DRG 111 in 22%. Reimbursement varied widely by hospital and location (mean, $20,837; range, $14,818 to $35,343; standard deviation, $5450). With the exclusion of one hospital where reimbursement was not based on the DRG, cases reimbursed with DRG 110 resulted in an average loss of $2200, while the average loss was $9198 with DRG 111. The mean net loss for hospitals reimbursed with the DRG system was $3898. CONCLUSION: EVAR reimbursement is presently inadequate to cover hospital expenses. Substantial financial losses occurred at four of the participating centers. University hospitals fared surprisingly better because of higher reimbursement.