Procedure Reimbursement, Inflation, and the Declining Buying Power of the Vascular Surgeon (2011-2021).

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate trends in Medicare reimbursement for common vascular procedures over the last decade. To enrich the context of this analysis, vascular procedure reimbursement is directly compared to inflation-adjusted changes in other surgical specialties. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary file was utilized to identify the 20 procedures most commonly performed by vascular surgeons from 2011-2021. A similar analysis was performed for orthopedic, general, and neurological surgeons. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician-Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool was queried for each procedure, and reimbursement data was extracted. All monetary data was adjusted for inflation to 2021 dollars utilizing the consumer price index. Average year-over-year and total percentage change in reimbursement were calculated based on adjusted data for included procedures. Comparisons to other specialty data were made with ANOVA. RESULTS: From 2011-2021, the average, unadjusted change in reimbursement for vascular procedures was -7.2%. Accounting for inflation, the average procedural reimbursement declined by 20.1%. The greatest decline was observed in phlebectomy of varicose veins (-50.6%). Open arteriovenous fistula revision was the only vascular procedure with an increase in inflation-adjusted reimbursement (+7.5%). Year-over-year, inflation-adjusted reimbursement for common vascular procedures decreased by 2.0% per year. Venous procedures experienced the largest decrease in average adjusted reimbursement (-42.4%), followed by endovascular (-20.1%) and open procedures (-13.9%). These changes were significantly different across procedural subgroups (P < 0.001). During the same period, the average adjusted change in reimbursement for the 20 most common procedures in orthopedic surgery, general surgery, and neurosurgery was -11.6% vs. -20.1% for vascular surgery (P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Medicare reimbursement for common surgical procedures has declined over the last decade. While absolute reimbursement has remained relatively stable for several procedures, accounting for a decade of inflation demonstrates the true diminution of buying power for equivalent work. The most alarming observation is that vascular surgeons have faced a disproportionate decrease in inflation-adjusted reimbursement in comparison to other surgical specialists. Awareness of these trends is a crucial first step towards improved advocacy and efforts to ensure the "value" of vascular surgery does not continue to erode.

Exploring the rapid expansion of office-based laboratories and peripheral vascular interventions across the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the relationship between office-based laboratory (OBL) use and Medicare payments for peripheral vascular interventions (PVI). METHODS: Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Provider Utilization and Payment Data Public Use Files from 2014 to 2017, we identified providers who performed percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, stent placement, and atherectomy. Procedures were aggregated at the provider and hospital referral region (HRR) level. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2017, 2641 providers performed 308,247 procedures. The mean payment for OBL stent placement in 2017 was $4383.39, and mean payment for OBL atherectomy was $13,079.63. The change in the mean payment amount varied significantly, from a decrease of $16.97 in HRR 146 to an increase of $43.77 per beneficiary over the study period in HRR 11. The change in the rate of PVI also varied substantially, and moderately correlated with change in payment across HRRs (R2 = 0.40; P < .001). The majority of HRRs experienced an increase in rate of PVI within OBLs, which strongly correlated with changes in payments (R2 = 0.85; P < .001). Furthermore, 85% of the variance in change in payment was explained by increases in OBL atherectomy (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A rapid shift into the office setting for PVIs occurred within some HRRs, which was highly geographically variable and was strongly correlated with payments. Policymakers should revisit the current payment structure for OBL use and, in particular atherectomy, to better align the policy with its intended goals.

Medicare Reimbursement Trends for Interventional Radiology Procedures: 2012 to 2020.

PURPOSE: To investigate the reimbursement trends for interventional radiology (IR) procedures from 2012 to 2020. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Reimbursement data from the Physician Fee Schedule look-up tool from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was compiled for 20 common IR procedures. The authors then investigated compensation trends after adjusting for inflation and from the unadjusted data between 2012 and 2020. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2020, the mean unadjusted reimbursement for procedures decreased by -6.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], -13.5% to -0.34%). This trend was even more profound after inflation was taken into account, with a mean decline in adjusted reimbursement of -18.7% (95% CI, -24.4% to -12.9%) during the study period, with a mean yearly decline of -2.8%. The difference between the mean unadjusted and adjusted payment amounts was significant (P = .012). Similarly, linear regression analysis of the adjusted average reimbursement across all procedures revealed an overall decline from 2012 to 2020 (R2 = 0.97), indicating a steady decline in reimbursement over time. CONCLUSIONS: In just under a decade, IR has experienced significant reimbursement cuts by Medicare, as demonstrated by both the unadjusted and inflation-adjusted payment trends. Knowledge of these trends is critically important for practicing interventional radiologists, leaders within the field, and legislators, who may play a role in formulating future reimbursement schedules for IR. These data may be used to help support more amenable reimbursement plans to sustain and facilitate the growth of the specialty.

Trends in Medicare Reimbursement for Reconstructive Plastic Surgery Procedures: 2000 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: An understanding of financial trends is important to advance agreeable reimbursement models in plastic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate trends in Medicare reimbursement rates for the 20 most commonly billed reconstructive plastic surgery procedures from 2000 to 2019. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was used to identify the 20 reconstructive procedures most commonly billed to Medicare by plastic surgeons in 2016. Reimbursement data were extracted from The Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for each CPT code. Monetary data were adjusted for inflation to 2019 U.S. dollars. Average annual and total percentage changes in reimbursement were calculated based on these adjusted trends. RESULTS: The average adjusted reimbursement for all procedures decreased by 14.0 percent from 2000 to 2019. The greatest mean decrease was observed in complex wound repair of the scalp, arms, or legs (-33.2 percent). The only procedure with an increased adjusted reimbursement rate was layer-closure of the scalp, axillae, trunk, and/or extremities (6.5 percent). From 2000 to 2019, the adjusted reimbursement rate for all procedures decreased by an average of 0.8 percent annually. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive study evaluating trends in Medicare reimbursement in plastic surgery. When adjusted for inflation, Medicare reimbursement for the included procedures has steadily decreased from 2000 to 2019. Increased consideration of these trends will be important for U.S. policymakers, hospitals, and surgeons to ensure continued access to meaningful reconstructive plastic surgery care.

Industry Payment to Vascular Neurologists: A 6-Year Analysis of the Open Payments Program From 2013 Through 2018.

Background and Purpose- Industry payments to physicians raise concerns regarding conflicts of interest that could impact patient care. We explored nonresearch and nonownership payments from industry to vascular neurologists to identify trends in compensation. Methods- Using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology data, we explored financial relationships between industry and US vascular neurologists from 2013 to 2018. We analyzed payment characteristics, including payment categories, payment distribution among physicians, regional trends, and biomedical manufacturers. Furthermore, we analyzed the top 1% (by compensation) of vascular neurologists with detailed payment categories, their position, and their contribution to stroke guidelines. Results- The number of board certified vascular neurologist increased from 1169 in 2013 to 1746 in 2018. The total payments to vascular neurologist increased from $99 749 in 2013 to $1 032 302 in 2018. During the study period, 16% to 17% of vascular neurologists received industry payments. Total payments from industry and mean physician payments increased yearly over this period, with consulting fee (31.1%) and compensation for services other than consulting (30.7%) being the highest paid categories. The top 10 manufacturers made the majority of the payments, and the top 10 products changed from drug or biological products to devices. Physicians from south region of the United States received the highest total payment (38.72%), which steadily increased. Payments to top 1% vascular neurologists increased from 64% to 79% over the period as payments became less evenly distributed. Among the top 1%, 42% specialized in neuro intervention, 11% contributed to American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, and around 75% were key leaders in the field. Conclusions- A small proportion of US vascular neurologists consistently received the majority of industry payments, the value of which grew over the study period. Only 11% of the top 1% receiving industry payments have authored American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, but ≈75% seem to be key leaders in the field. Whether this influences clinical practice and behavior requires further investigation.

Persistent geographic variations in availability and quality of nursing home care in the United States: 1996 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: Availability of nursing home care has declined and national efforts have been initiated to improve the quality of nursing home care in the U.S. Yet, data are limited on whether there are geographic variations in declines of availability and quality of nursing home care, and whether variations persist over time. We sought to assess geographic variation in availability and quality of nursing home care. METHODS: Retrospective study using Medicaid/Medicare-certified nursing home data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 1996-2016. Outcomes were 1) availability of all nursing home care (1996-2016), measured by the number of Medicaid/Medicare-certified beds for a given county per 100,000 population aged ≥65 years, regardless of nursing home star rating; 2) availability of 5-star nursing home care, measured by the number of Medicaid/Medicare-certified beds provided by 5-star nursing homes; and 3) utilization of nursing home beds, defined as the rate of occupied Medicaid/Medicare-certified beds among the total Medicaid/Medicare-certified beds. RESULTS: From 1999 to 2016, availability of all nursing home care declined from 4882 (standard deviation: 931) to 3480 (912) beds, per 100,000 population aged ≥65 years. Persistent geographic variation in availability of nursing home care was observed; the correlation coefficient of county-specific availabilities from 1996 to 2016 was 0.78 (95% CI 0.77-0.79). From 2011 to 2016, availability of 5-star nursing home beds increased from 658 (303) to 895 (661) per 100,000 population aged ≥65 years. The correlation coefficient for county-specific availabilities from 2011 to 2016 was 0.54 (95% CI 0.51-0.56). Availability and quality of nursing home care were not highly correlated. In 2016, the correlation coefficient for county-specific availabilities between all nursing home and 5-star nursing home beds was 0.33 (95% CI 0.30-0.36). From 1996 to 2016, the utilization of certified beds declined from 78.5 to 72.2%. This decline was consistent across all census divisions, but most pronounced in the Mountain division and less in the South-Atlantic division. CONCLUSION: We observed persistent geographic variations in availability and quality of nursing home care. Availability of all nursing home care declined but availability of 5-star nursing home care increased. Availability and quality of nursing home care were not highly correlated.

Improving The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule: Make It Part Of Value-Based Payment.

Alternative Payment Models (APMs) can address the limitations inherent in fee-for-service payment to support new approaches to health care delivery that produce greater value. But the models being tested are directly layered on top of fee-for-service architecture, specifically the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Shoring up that architecture to produce greater value, in combination with APMs, should be considered an integral part of the movement to value-based payment. We propose ending the split within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services between the people managing the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and those creating and testing APMs, with both groups advised by a revamped Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee that covers both dimensions of creating greater value.

Provider Trends in Atherectomy Volume between Office-Based Laboratories and Traditional Facilities.

BACKGROUND: As patient care is being increasingly transitioned out of the hospital and into the outpatient setting, there is a growing interest in developing office-based angiography suites, that is, office-based laboratories. Office-based care has been associated with increased efficiency and greater patient satisfaction, with substantially higher reimbursement directly to the physicians providing care. Prior studies have demonstrated a shift of revascularization procedures to office-based laboratories with a concomitant increase in atherectomy use, a procedure with disproportionately high reimbursement in comparison to other peripheral revascularization techniques. We sought to determine provider trends in endovascular procedure volume, settings, and shifts in practice over time, specific to atherectomy. METHODS: Using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider Utilization and Payment Data Public Use Files from 2013 to 2015, we identified providers who performed diagnostic angiography (DA), percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), stent placement (stent), and atherectomy, and procedures were aggregated at the provider level. Trends in procedures performed in office-based laboratory and facility-based settings were analyzed. Atherectomy was specifically analyzed using the total number and proportion of office-based laboratory procedures, and providers were stratified into quintiles by case volume. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2015, 5,298 providers were identified. Over this time period, the number of providers performing atherectomy increased 25.7%, with the highest quintile of atherectomy providers performing an average of 263 cases (range 109-1,455). The proportion of physicians who performed atherectomy only in the office increased from 39.8% to 50.7% from 2013 to 2015, whereas only 20.8% of physicians who performed DA, PTA, or stent in 2015 did so only in an office-based laboratory. Of the physicians with the highest atherectomy volume, 77.8% operated only in the office in 2015, and these physicians increased their atherectomy volume to 114.1% during the study period. Of those physicians who transitioned to a solely office-based laboratory practice over the study period, atherectomy volume increased 63.4%, which was disproportionate compared with the growth of their DA, PTA, and stent volume. CONCLUSIONS: Over this short study period, a rapid shift into the office setting for peripheral intervention occurred, with a concomitant increase in atherectomy volume that was disproportionate to the increase in other peripheral interventions. This increase in office-based laboratory atherectomy occurred in the setting of increased reimbursement for the procedure and despite a lack of data supporting superiority over PTA/stent.

Coverage of Novel Therapeutic Agents by Medicare Prescription Drug Plans Following FDA Approval.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory approval of novel therapies by the FDA does not guarantee insurance coverage requisite for most clinical use. In the United States, the largest health insurance payer is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which provides Part D prescription drug benefits to over 43 million Americans. While the FDA and CMS have implemented policies to improve the availability of novel therapies to patients, the time required to secure Medicare prescription drug benefit coverage-and accompanying restrictions-has not been previously described. OBJECTIVE: To characterize Medicare prescription drug plan coverage of novel therapeutic agents approved by the FDA between 2006 and 2012. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of drug coverage using Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit plan data from 2007 to 2015. Drug coverage was defined as inclusion of a drug on a plan formulary, evaluated at 1 and 3 years after FDA approval. For covered drugs, coverage was categorized as unrestrictive or restrictive, which was defined as requiring step therapy or prior authorization. Median coverage was estimated at 1 and 3 years after FDA approval, overall, and compared with a number of drug characteristics, including year of approval, CMS-protected class status, biologics versus small molecules, therapeutic area, orphan drug status, FDA priority review, and FDA-accelerated approval. RESULTS: Among 144 novel therapeutic agents approved by the FDA between 2006 and 2012, 14% (20 of 144) were biologics; 40% (57 of 144) were included in a CMS-protected class; 31% (45 of 144) were approved under an orphan drug designation; 42% (60 of 144) received priority review; and 11% (16 of 144) received accelerated approval. The proportion of novel therapeutics covered by at least 1 Medicare prescription drug plan was 90% (129 of 144) and 97% (140 of 144) at 1 year and 3 years after approval, respectively. At 3 years after approval, 28% (40 of 144) of novel therapeutics were covered by all plans. Novel therapeutic agents were covered by a median of 61% (interquartile range [IQR] = 39%-90%) of plans at 1 year and 79% (IQR = 57%-100%) at 3 years (P < 0.001). When novel therapeutics were covered, many plans restricted coverage through prior authorization or step therapy requirements. The median proportion of unrestrictive coverage was 29% (IQR = 13%-54%) at 3 years. Several drug characteristics, including therapeutic area, FDA priority review, FDA-accelerated approval, and CMS-protected drug class, were associated with higher rates of coverage, whereas year of approval, drug type, and orphan drug status were not. CONCLUSIONS: Most Medicare prescription drug plans covered the majority of novel therapeutics in the year following FDA approval, although access was often restricted through prior authorization or step therapy and was dependent on plan choice. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was contributed by a student research grant awarded to Shaw and provided by the Yale School of Medicine Office of Student Research under National Institutes of Health training grant award T35DK104689. Ross reports research grants to Yale University from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (U01FD005938, U01FD004585), Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (HHSM-500-2013-13018I), Blue Cross-Blue Shield Association, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), and National Institutes of Health (R01HS025164), unrelated to this study. Dhruva has nothing to disclose. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

MACRA 2.5: the legislation moves forward.

The Medicare and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 remains the payment policy law of the land. 2017 was the first year in which performance reporting will tangibly impact future physician payments. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) considers 2017 and 2018 transitional years before full implementation in 2019. As such, 2018 increases the reporting requirements over 2017 in the form of a gradual phase-in while introducing several key changes and new elements. Indeed, it is the nature of the transition itself that led to the somewhat unique title of this manuscript, i.e., MACRA 2.5. Stakeholder feedback to the CMS regarding the program has ranged widely from the elimination of core components to expanding reporting to non-government payers. This article explores the potential impact on neurointerventional physicians.

Interhospital Transfer and Receipt of Specialty Procedures.

The practice of transferring patients between acute care hospitals is variable and largely nonstandardized. Although often-cited reasons for transfer include providing patients access to specialty services only available at the receiving institution, little is known about whether and when patients receive such specialty care during the transfer continuum. We performed a retrospective analysis using 2013 100% Master Beneficiary Summary and Inpatient claims files from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Beneficiaries were included if they were aged =65 years, continuously enrolled in Medicare A and B, with an acute care hospitalization claim, and transferred to another acute care hospital with a primary diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, gastrointestinal bleed, renal failure, or hip fracture/dislocation. Associated specialty procedure codes (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification) were identified for each diagnosis. We performed descriptive analyses to compare receipt of specialty procedural services between transferring and receiving hospitals, stratified by diagnosis. Across the 19,613 included beneficiaries, receipt of associated specialty procedures was more common at the receiving than the transferring hospital, with the exception of patients with a diagnosis of gastrointestinal bleed. Depending on primary diagnosis, between 32.4% and 89.1% of patients did not receive any associated specialty procedure at the receiving hospital. Our results demonstrate variable receipt of specialty procedural care across the transfer continuum, implying the likelihood of alternate drivers of interhospital transfer other than solely receipt of specialty procedural care.

Drivers of Medicare Reimbursement for Thoracolumbar Fusion: An Analysis of Data From The Centers For Medicare and Medicaid Services.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to examine the variation in thoracolumbar fusion (TLF) payment and determine the drivers of this variation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As health care spending continues to increase, variation in surgical procedures reimbursements has come under more scrutiny. TLF is an example of a high-cost, proven-benefit procedure that is often the focus of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) administrators. There is a wide variation in TLF charges, but the drivers for this variation are not clear. METHODS: Claims for TLF were identified in the CMS data by analyzing Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) number 460 ("Spinal Fusion Except Cervical without Major Complications or Comorbidities"). Data on factors that may impact cost of care were collected from four sources: the United States Census Bureau, CMS, the Dartmouth Atlas, and WWAMI Rural Health Research Center. These were then grouped into seven categories: quality, supply, demand, substitute treatment availability, patient characteristics, competitive factors, and provider characteristics. Predictive reimbursement models were created from the data using multivariate linear regression to understand the factors that influence TLF reimbursement. RESULTS: There was significant geographic variability in reimbursement. The largest contribution to reimbursement variation came from variables in the demand (ΔR = 13.4%, P < 0.001), supply (ΔR = 9.2%, P < 0.001), and competitive factor domains (ΔR = 9.1%, P < 0.001). The top three drivers that increased reimbursement were provider charges (ß = 0.37, P < 0.001), total Medicare reimbursement in the region (ß = 0.19, P < 0.001), and the number of spinal surgeries per 1000 patients in that region (ß = 0.06, P = 0.02). Institutional volume, a surrogate for quality was negatively associated with TLF reimbursement. CONCLUSION: There was wide variation in reimbursement for TLF across the U.S. The variables that drive TLF reimbursement variation include supply, demand, and competition. Interestingly, quality of care was not associated with increased TLF reimbursement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

CMS Nonpayment Policy, Quality Improvement, and Hospital-Acquired Conditions: An Integrative Review.

This integrative review synthesized evidence on the consequences of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) nonpayment policy on quality improvement initiatives and hospital-acquired conditions. Fourteen articles were included. This review presents strong evidence that the CMS policy has spurred quality improvement initiatives; however, the relationships between the CMS policy and hospital-acquired conditions are inconclusive. In future research, a comprehensive model of implementation of the CMS nonpayment policy would help us understand the effectiveness of this policy.

MACRA 2.0: are you ready for MIPS?

The annual cost of healthcare delivery in the USA now exceeds US$3 trillion. Fee for service methodology is often implicated as a cause of this exceedingly high figure. The Affordable Care Act created the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) to pilot test value based alternative payments for reimbursing physician services. In 2015, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) was passed into law. MACRA has dramatic implications for all US based healthcare providers. MACRA permanently repealed the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate so as to stabilize physician part B Medicare payments, consolidated pre-existing federal performance programs into the Merit based Incentive Payments System (MIPS), and legislatively mandated new approaches to paying clinicians. Neurointerventionalists will predominantly participate in MIPS. MIPS unifies, updates, and streamlines previously existing federal performance programs, thereby reducing onerous redundancies and overall administrative burden, while consolidating performance based payment adjustments. While MIPS may be perceived as a straightforward continuation of fee for service methodology with performance modifiers, MIPS is better viewed as a stepping stone toward eventually adopting alternative payment models in later years. In October 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a final rule for MACRA implementation, providing greater clarity regarding 2017 requirements. The final rule provides a range of options for easing MIPS reporting requirements in the first performance year. Nonetheless, taking the newly offered 'minimum possible' approach toward meeting the requirements will still have negative consequences for providers.

Eligibility For And Enrollment In Medicare Part D Medication Therapy Management Programs Varies By Plan Sponsor.

Medicare Part D prescription drug plans must offer medication therapy management to beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions and high drug expenditures. However, plan sponsors have considerable latitude in setting eligibility criteria. Newly available data indicate that enrollment rates in medication therapy management among stand-alone prescription drug plans and Medicare Advantage drug plans averaged only 10 percent in 2012. The enrollment variation across plan sponsors-from less than 0.2 percent to more than 57.0 percent-was associated with the restrictiveness of their eligibility criteria. For example, enrollment was 16.4 percent in plans requiring two chronic conditions versus 9.2 percent in plans requiring three, and 12.7 percent in plans requiring the use of any Part D drug versus 4.4 percent in plans requiring the use of drugs in specific classes. This variation represents inequities in access to medication therapy management across plans and results in missed opportunities for interventions that might improve therapeutic outcomes and reduce spending. The new Part D Enhanced Medication Therapy Management model of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has the potential to significantly increase the impact of medication therapy management by aligning financial incentives with improvements in medication use and encouraging innovation.

National Health Expenditure Projections, 2015-25: Economy, Prices, And Aging Expected To Shape Spending And Enrollment.

Health spending growth in the United States for 2015-25 is projected to average 5.8 percent-1.3 percentage points faster than growth in the gross domestic product-and to represent 20.1 percent of the total economy by 2025. As the initial impacts associated with the Affordable Care Act's coverage expansions fade, growth in health spending is expected to be influenced by changes in economic growth, faster growth in medical prices, and population aging. Projected national health spending growth, though faster than observed in the recent history, is slower than in the two decades before the recent Great Recession, in part because of trends such as increasing cost sharing in private health insurance plans and various Medicare payment update provisions. In addition, the share of total health expenditures paid for by federal, state, and local governments is projected to increase to 47 percent by 2025.

The Effect of "Opt-Out" Regulation on Access to Surgical Care for Urgent Cases in the United States: Evidence from the National Inpatient Sample.

BACKGROUND: In 2001, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a rule permitting states to "opt-out" of federal regulations requiring physician supervision of nurse anesthetists. We examined the extent to which this rule increased access to anesthesia care for urgent cases. METHODS: Using data from a national sample of inpatient discharges, we examined whether opt-out was associated with an increase in the percentage of patients receiving a therapeutic procedure among patients admitted for appendicitis, bowel obstruction, choledocholithiasis, or hip fracture. We chose these 4 diagnoses because they represent instances where urgent access to a procedure requiring anesthesia is often indicated. In addition, we examined whether opt-out was associated with a reduction in the number of appendicitis patients who presented with a ruptured appendix. In addition to controlling for patient morbidities and demographics, our analysis incorporated a difference-in-differences approach, with additional controls for state-year trends, to reduce confounding. RESULTS: Across all 4 diagnoses, opt-out was not associated with a statistically significant change in the percentage of patients who received a procedure (0.0315 percentage point increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.843 to 0.906 percentage point increase). When broken down by diagnosis, opt-out was also not associated with statistically significant changes in the percentage of patients who received a procedure for bowel obstruction (0.511 percentage point decrease, 95% CI -2.28 to 1.26), choledocholithiasis (2.78 percentage point decrease, 95% CI -6.12 to 0.565), and hip fracture (0.291 percentage point increase, 95% CI -1.76 to 2.94). Opt-out was associated with a small but statistically significant increase in the percentage of appendicitis patients receiving an appendectomy (0.876 percentage point increase, 95% CI 0.194 to 1.56); however, there was no significant change in the percentage of patients presenting with a ruptured appendix (-0.914 percentage point decrease, 95% CI -2.41 to 0.582). Subanalyses showed that the effects of opt-out did not differ in rural versus urban areas. CONCLUSIONS: Based on 2 measures of access, opt-out does not appear to have significantly increased access to anesthesia for urgent inpatient conditions.