Trends in Billing and Medicare Reimbursement for In-Office Cerumen Removal by Otolaryngologists and Other Providers.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze trends in billing patterns, Medicare reimbursement, and practice-setting for otolaryngologists (ORLs) and other provider types performing in-office cerumen removal. METHODS: This retrospective study included data on Medicare-billing providers from the Medicare Part B: Provider Utilization and Payment Datafiles (2012-2018). Number of providers performing in-office cerumen removal, total sums and medians for Medicare reimbursements and services, and services per patient were gathered along with geographic distributions. RESULTS: There have been near linear declines in number of general physicians and other provider types performing cerumen extractions with 42.6% and 40.7% declines, respectively, and near linear growth in number of ORLs and advanced practice providers (APPs) with 9.7% and 51.1% growth, respectively. At the median, general physicians, APPs, and other provider types have been billing for a similar and constant number of cerumen extractions per provider, while ORLs have seen a 10.6% increase. Total Medicare reimbursement to general physicians and other provider types has fallen 45.0% and 32.5%, respectively, and to ORLs and APPs has grown 16.9% and 103.4%, respectively. Compared to non-ORLs, ORLs tend to bill for cerumen extraction out of an urban setting rather than a rural setting (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: General physicians and other provider types are increasingly referring cerumen disimpaction patients to ORL physicians and allowing APPs to perform these procedures, indicating a change in landscape of medical practice among these providers. General physicians may be filling a need in the rural setting, where there are fewer ORLs practicing.

Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 in the Cerumen of COVID-19-Positive Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus in the cerumen of patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A prospective study was conducted in a tertiary care pandemic hospital. Sixty COVID-19 patients with cerumen in their external auditory canals were included in the study. Swabs were taken from the external auditory canal of the patients by an experienced otolaryngologist with the test swab. Sampling was done by rotating the sample swab 360° 10 times in each external auditory canal for a total of 20 times. After collection, swabs were placed into 2 mL of the sterile viral transport medium (various manufacturers), then transported and tested as soon as possible after collection. RESULTS: SARS-CoV-2 was not detected in the cerumen polymerase chain reaction (PCR) samples of any of the 60 patients with positive nasopharyngeal/oropharyngeal swabs. CONCLUSION: Cerumen cleaning is one of the most common procedures performed by otolaryngologists, and care should be taken during the procedure or due to the possibility of infection from the resulting contaminants. The cerumen contains the secretions of the glands in the external auditory canal and may contain certain pathogens that are actively found in the body. The presence of hepatitis B virus in the cerumen was examined and isolated in the cerumen. In our study, the presence of SARS-CoV-2 virus in the cerumen was evaluated in SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive patients. SARS-CoV-2 virus was not detected in the cerumen samples of any of the patients.

Economic and Demographic Characteristics of Cerumen Extraction Claims to Medicare.

IMPORTANCE: Cerumen extractions are performed in a large portion of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery practices. The burden on the health care system of cerumen extractions is unknown and demographics have not been characterized at a population level. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the cost burden and health care burden of cerumen extraction among Medicare recipients in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted of all cerumen disimpactions documented in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider Utilization and Payment database from January 1 to December 31, 2012. Data analysis was conducted from August 4, 2014, to July 24, 2015. EXPOSURE: Cerumen disimpaction. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Cerumen extractions were analyzed by state, medical or surgical specialty, reimbursement, and type of health care professional performing the extraction. RESULTS: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursed $46.8 million for 1.3 million cerumen disimpactions in 2012 (mean, $35.38 per procedure). The mean reimbursement rate per cerumen disimpaction varied by state from $25.41 in Puerto Rico to to $40.24 in New Jersey. The percentage of Medicare beneficiaries receiving cerumen extractions per state ranged from 0.55% in Puerto Rico to 4.92% in New Jersey. California had the overall highest total number of cerumen disimpactions (n = 132 823). The majority of cerumen extractions were performed by otolaryngology-head and neck practitioners (67.60%), although internal medicine (32.66%) and family practice (33.87%) had a higher amount of practitioners performing the procedure. The majority of cerumen extractions are performed by physicians (90.53%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Cerumen extraction is one of the most common procedures performed by otolaryngology health care professionals. Practice patterns and reimbursement rates vary greatly across the country.

Malpractice in otology.

OBJECTIVE: (1) Analyze otologic procedural malpractice litigation in the United States of America. (2) Discuss ways to prevent future malpractice litigation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Case series with record review. METHODS: The study is a case series with review of court records pertaining to otologic procedures using the Westlaw legal database. The phrase medical malpractice was searched with terms related to otology and neurotology obtained from the AAO-HNS website. RESULTS: Of the 47 claims that met inclusion criteria, 63.8% were decided in the physician's favor, 25.5% were decided in the plaintiff's favor (average payment $446,697), and 10.6% were settled out of court (average payment $372,607). Cerumen removal was the most common procedure leading to complaint (21.3%) and the most likely procedure to lead to payment (50.0%). Hearing loss was the most common injury claimed among all cases (53.2%) and resulted in a high proportion of cases that led to payment (40.0%). Other common alleged injuries were facial nerve injury (27.7%), tympanic membrane perforation (23.4%), need for additional surgery (42.6%), and lack of informed consent (31.9%). In addition, cases resulting from acoustic neuroma or stapedectomy resulted in higher payments to the plaintiffs (average $3,498,597 and $2,733,000, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Malpractice trials were resolved in the defendant's favor in the majority of cases. Cerumen removal was the most common procedure leading to complaint and the procedure most likely to result in payment. Hearing loss was the most common injury cited. Payment was highest in acoustic neuroma and stapedectomy cases.

Randomized trial of bulb syringes for earwax: impact on health service utilization.

PURPOSE: Bulb syringes can be used for the self-clearance of earwax and, in the short term, appear effective. We compared the long-term effectiveness of self-irrigation using a bulb syringe with routine care in United Kingdom (UK) family practice clinics where irrigating ears to remove wax is a common procedure. METHODS: We assessed the impact on health service utilization as a follow-up to a single-blind, randomized, controlled trial of 237 patients attending 7 UK family practice clinics with symptomatic, occluding earwax who were randomized to an intervention group (ear drops, bulb syringe, instructions on its use and reuse) or a control group (ear drops, then clinic irrigation). After 2 years, a retrospective notes search for earwax-related consultations was carried out. We used an intention-to-treat analysis to assess differences in dichotomous outcomes between groups. RESULTS: In the 2-year trial follow-up, more control group patients returned with episodes of earwax: 85 of 117 (73%) control vs 70 of 117 (60%) intervention, χ(2)=4.30; P = .038; risk ratio 1.21 (95% CI, 1.01-1.37). The numbers of consultations amounted to 1.15 (control) vs 0.64 (intervention) (incidence rate ratio 1.79; 95% CI, 1.05-3.04, P = .032), ie, a difference of 0.50 consultations, thus saving a consultation on average for every 2 people. CONCLUSION: For patients who have not already tried bulb syringes, self-irrigation using a bulb syringe significantly reduces subsequent demand for ear irrigation by health professionals. Advocating the initial use of bulb syringes could reduce demand for ear irrigation in family practice clinics.

Quality improvement in action. Direct general practitioner referrals to audiology for the provision of hearing aids: a single centre review.

Direct referral audiology clinics (DRACs) for the assessment and provision of hearing aids in those over 60 years of age were initially introduced in the National Health Service (NHS) as a method to decrease outpatient waiting times and reduce demand on ear, nose and throat (ENT) appointments. We retrospectively reviewed the electronic records of 353 patients referred to the DRACs at our hospital over a four-month period to determine the continued benefits of a DRAC service, in terms of impact upon ENT appointments, and appropriate general practitioner (GP) use of the clinics. Of the 353 patients seen within the DRAC clinics, 320 were ultimately provided with a hearing aid. Fifty five patients required review by an otolaryngologist, either being referred directly by the audiology department or referred back to their GP for re-referral. The greatest lack of adherence to the referral criteria for DRAC appointments related to appropriate treatment of wax within the community, with two patients declining an aid when their perceived improvement in hearing was significant following microsuctioning. DRACs appear to continue to provide a cost-benefit to the NHS, reducing demand on ENT appointments, but further improvements could be made within primary care to further utilise this service.

The safety and effectiveness of different methods of earwax removal: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Build-up of earwax is a common reason for attendance in primary care. Current practice for earwax removal generally involves the use of a softening agent, followed by irrigation of the ear if required. However, the safety and benefits of the different methods of removal are not known for certain. OBJECTIVES: To conduct evidence synthesis of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the interventions currently available for softening and/or removing earwax and any adverse events (AEs) associated with the interventions. DATA SOURCES: Eleven electronic resources were searched from inception to November 2008, including: The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (OVID), PREMEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (OVID), EMBASE (OVID); and CINAHL. METHODS: Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts for eligibility. Inclusion criteria were applied to the full text or retrieved papers and data were extracted by two reviewers using data extraction forms developed a priori. Any differences were resolved by discussion or by a third reviewer. Study criteria included: interventions - all methods of earwax removal available and combinations of these methods; participants - adults/children presenting requiring earwax removal; outcomes - measures of hearing, adequacy of clearance of wax, quality of life, time to recurrence or further treatment, AEs and measures of cost-effectiveness; design - randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) for clinical effectiveness, cohort studies for AEs and cost-effectiveness, and costing studies for cost-effectiveness. For the economic evaluation, a deterministic decision tree model was developed to evaluate three options: (1) the use of softeners followed by irrigation in primary care; (2) softeners followed by self-irrigation; and (3) a 'no treatment' option. Outcomes were assessed in terms of benefits to patients and costs incurred, with costs presented by exploratory cost-utility analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-six clinical trials conducted in primary care (14 studies), secondary care (8 studies) or other care settings (4 studies), met the inclusion criteria for the review - 22 RCTs and 4 CCTs. The range of interventions included 16 different softeners, with or without irrigation, and in various different comparisons. Participants, outcomes, timing of intervention, follow-up and methodological quality varied between studies. On measures of wax clearance Cerumol, sodium bicarbonate, olive oil and water are all more effective than no treatment; triethanolamine polypeptide (TP) is better than olive oil; wet irrigation is better than dry irrigation; sodium bicarbonate drops followed by irrigation by nurse is more effective than sodium bicarbonate drops followed by self-irrigation; softening with TP and self-irrigation is more effective than self-irrigation only; and endoscopic de-waxing is better than microscopic de-waxing. AEs appeared to be minor and of limited extent. Resuts of the exploratory economic model found that softeners followed by self-irrigation were more likely to be cost-effective [24,433 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)] than softeners followed by irrigation at primary care (32,130 pounds per QALY) when compared with no treatment. Comparison of the two active treatments showed that the additional gain associated with softeners followed by irrigation at primary care over softeners followed by self-irrigation was at a cost of 340,000 pounds per QALY. When compared over a lifetime horizon to the 'no treatment' option, the ICERs for softeners followed by self-irrigation and of softeners followed by irrigation at primary care were 24,450 pounds per QALY and 32,136 pounds per QALY, respectively. LIMITATIONS: The systematic review found limited good-quality evidence of the safety, benefits and costs of the different strategies, making it difficult to differentiate between the various methods for removing earwax and rendering the economic evaluation as speculative. CONCLUSIONS: Although softeners are effective, which specific softeners are most effective remains uncertain. Evidence on the effectiveness of methods of irrigation or mechanical removal was equivocal. Further research is required to improve the evidence base, such as a RCT incorporating an economic evaluation to assess the different ways of providing the service, the effectiveness of the different methods of removal and the acceptability of the different approaches to patients and practitioners.

Ear syringing: minimising the risks.

The patient, 61 years of age, saw the general practitioner for a repeat prescription for her blood pressure medication. During the consultation, the patient mentioned that she had some discomfort in her left ear. The GP examined the patient's ears and noted that both external auditory canals were blocked by wax. He recommended that the patient have her ears syringed and arranged for the practice nurse to perform the procedure. The GP did not see the patient again.

Managing earwax in primary care: efficacy of self-treatment using a bulb syringe.

BACKGROUND: Irrigating ears to remove wax is a time-consuming procedure in UK primary care. In many other countries bulb syringes are used for self-clearance of earwax but evidence of their effectiveness is lacking. AIM: To compare the effectiveness of self-treatment bulb syringes with routine care. DESIGN OF STUDY: Open, randomised, controlled trial. SETTING: Seven practices in Hampshire, UK. METHOD: Participants were 237 patients attending their GP or practice nurse with symptomatic occluding earwax. A further 128 patients did not want to be part of the randomisation but allowed their data to be analysed. Patients randomised to intervention (n = 118) were given ear drops, a bulb syringe, and instructions on its use. Patients in the control group (n = 119) received ear drops, followed by ear irrigation by the GP or practice nurse. Main outcome measures were symptoms (on a 7-point scale), wax clearance, need for further treatment, and the acceptability of treatment. RESULTS: Comparing patients using the bulb syringe with those treated with conventional irrigation, the change in mean symptom score was -0.81 and -1.26 respectively (difference -0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.11 to -0.79) and, regarding the proportion requiring no further irrigation, 51% and 69% respectively. Although irrigation was preferred by more patients, most patients using the bulb syringe would use it again (75% versus 100%) and were satisfied with treatment (71% versus 99%). CONCLUSIONS: Advising patients with ears blocked by wax to try bulb syringing before irrigation is effective and acceptable, and could significantly reduce the use of NHS resources.

Magnitude of impacted earwax in Oman, its impact on hearing impairment and economic burden of earwax on health services.

BACKGROUND: Wax in ear canal causes a sizeable burden on resources of health services to a country. AIM: The magnitude of impacted wax, its effect in a survey and cost of managing this problem were reviewed in 2002. SETTINGS AND DESIGNS: A study was conducted during 1996 to estimate the magnitude and causes of hearing impairment and ear diseases in Oman. The authors further reviewed the data of community-based prevalence study to assess the role of impacted wax. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Trained physicians used portable audiometers to test the hearing status of each ear. They used otoscopes to examine the ear. Persons suspected to have hearing impairment or ear disease were reexamined by audiologists and otologists to determine the causes of hearing impairment. The resources for managing impacted wax were also calculated. RESULTS: In this survey, 11,402 subjects of all ages were examined. Prevalence of impacted wax was 11.7% (CI 95% 11.1-12.2). Impacted wax was significantly higher in females compared to males [RR = 1.22 (CI 95% 1.10-1.35)]. It was more common in residents of regions with humid environment than those of regions with less humidity [RR = 1.91 (CI 95% 1.67-2.18)]. Impacted wax in ear canal was associated with ear diseases. A total of 181,000 Omani people were estimated to have impacted wax in the ear canal. Managing impacted wax could cost 3.6 million US dollars to the ear care services. CONCLUSIONS: Impacted wax was a hindrance in the hearing survey and countries should plan to deal with earwax in such surveys. Its impact on hearing impairment and resource burden should be considered while formulating policies for ear care.

How we do it: technical note: endoscopic removal of cerumen.

* Syringing of ears to remove cerumen is losing favour in primary care owing to the fact that it is carried out 'blind' and that the potential exists for serious complications. * Dewaxing under direct vision is difficult without a microscope. * A technique is described where wax is removed under direct vision using a rigid endoscope in conjunction with a Jobson-Horne probe and St Bartholomew's wax hook. * This is a relatively inexpensive technique that could be introduced to primary care practitioners or to ENT surgeons who do not have easy access to an operating microscope in the outpatient department.

The effectiveness of topical preparations for the treatment of earwax: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Earwax is a common problem in both primary and secondary care. There is uncertainty as to the most effective topical treatment. AIM: To assess the evidence concerning the efficacy of topical preparations used for treating earwax. DESIGN OF STUDY: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHOD: Searching for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of relevant studies. Classification of preparations into three groups, enabling pooling of data and meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the 18 RCTs included in the review, four were judged to be of high quality. Fifteen preparations including saline and plain water were studied. Oil-based and water-based preparations were equally effective at clearing earwax without syringing (odds ratio [OR] = 0.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.4 to 2.3) and facilitating successful syringing (OR = 1.0, 95% CI = 0.6 to 1.6). A non-water-, non-oil-based preparation appeared more effective than an oil-based preparation at both clearing earwax without syringing, and facilitating successful syringing. Immediate syringing after application of a preparation may be as effective as using eardrops for several days and delaying syringing. CONCLUSIONS: On current evidence, there is little to choose between water-based and oil-based preparations; non-water-, non-oil-based preparations appear promising at both clearing earwax and facilitating successful syringing, but further large trials are needed. Although immediate ear syringing is effective and convenient for patients, it may be less cost-effective than using eardrops and perhaps avoiding syringing. Most of the evidence regarding such a common and time-consuming problem is not of high quality.

Impacted cerumen: composition, production, epidemiology and management.

In the UK, some 2.3 million people suffer cerumen ('ear wax') problems serious enough to warrant management, with approximately 4 million ears syringed annually. Impacted cerumen is a major cause of primary care consultation, and a common comorbidity in ENT patients, the elderly, infirm and people with mental retardation. Despite this, the physiology, clinical significance and management implications of excessive and impacted cerumen remain poorly characterized. There are no well-designed, large, placebo-controlled, double-blind studies comparing treatments, and accordingly, the evidence surrounding the management of impacted cerumen is inconsistent, allowing few conclusions. The causes and management of impacted cerumen require further investigation. Physicians are supposed to follow the edicts and principles of evidence-based medicine and clinical governance. Currently, in patients with impacted cerumen, the lack of evidence makes this impossible.