Impact of Physician Payments on Microvascular Breast Reconstruction: An All-Payer Claim Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rates of autologous breast reconstruction are stagnant compared with prosthetic techniques. Insufficient physician payment for microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction is one possible explanation. The payment difference between governmental and commercial payers creates a natural experiment to evaluate its impact on method of reconstruction. This study assessed the influence of physician payment differences for microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction and implants by insurance type on the likelihood of undergoing microsurgical reconstruction. METHODS: The Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database was queried for women undergoing immediate autologous or implant breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2014. Univariate analyses compared demographic and clinical characteristics between different reconstructive approaches. Logistic regression explored the relative impact of insurance type and physician payments on breast reconstruction modality. RESULTS: Of the women in this study, 82.7 percent had commercial and 17.3 percent had governmental insurance. Implants were performed in 80 percent of women, whereas 20 percent underwent microsurgical autologous reconstruction. Women with Medicaid versus commercial insurance were less likely to undergo microsurgical reconstruction (16.4 percent versus 20.3 percent; p = 0.063). Commercial insurance, older age, and obesity independently increased the odds of microsurgical reconstruction (p < 0.01). When comparing median physician payments, governmental payers reimbursed 78 percent and 63 percent less than commercial payers for microsurgical reconstruction ($1831 versus $8435) and implants ($1249 versus $3359, respectively). Stratified analysis demonstrated that as physician payment increased, the likelihood of undergoing microsurgical reconstruction increased, independent of insurance type (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Women with governmental insurance had lower odds of undergoing microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction compared with commercial payers. Regardless of payer, greater reimbursement for microsurgical reconstruction increased the likelihood of microsurgical reconstruction. Current microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction reimbursements may not be commensurate with physician effort when compared to prosthetic techniques. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Surgical treatment of young women with breast cancer: Public vs private hospitals.

Disparities in breast cancer treatment have been documented in young and underserved women. This study aimed to determine whether surgical disparities exist among young breast cancer patients by comparing cancer treatment at a public safety-net hospital (BH) and private cancer center (PCC) within a single institution. This was a retrospective study of young women (<45) diagnosed with invasive breast cancer (stage I-III) from 2011-2016. Patient information was abstracted from the breast cancer database at BH and PCC. Demographic variables, surgery type, method of presentation, and stage were analyzed using Pearson's chi-square tests and binary logistic regression. A total of 275 patients between ages 25-45 with invasive breast cancer (Stage I-III) were included in the study. There were 69 patients from BH and 206 patients from PCC. At PCC, the majority of patients were Caucasian (68%), followed by Asian (11%), Hispanic (10%), and African American (8.7%). At BH, patients were mostly Hispanic (47.8%), followed by Asian (27.5%), and African American (10.1%). At PCC, 82% had a college/graduate degree versus 18.6% of patients at BH (P < 0.001). All patients at PCC reported English as their primary language versus 30% of patients at BH (P < 0.001). Patients at PCC were more likely to present with lower stage cancer (P = 0.04), and less likely to present with a palpable mass (P = 0.04). Hospital type was not a predictor of receipt of mastectomy (P = 0.5), nor was race, primary language, or education level. Of patients who received a mastectomy, 87% at BH and 76% at PCC had immediate reconstruction. Surgical management of young women with breast cancer in a public hospital versus private hospital setting was equivalent, even after controlling for race, primary language, stage, and education level.

PREVALENCE AND TYPES OF GENDER-AFFIRMING SURGERY AMONG A SAMPLE OF TRANSGENDER ENDOCRINOLOGY PATIENTS PRIOR TO STATE EXPANSION OF INSURANCE COVERAGE.

OBJECTIVE: Transgender individuals now have many options for medical intervention, including gender-affirmation surgeries. However, it is unknown how common it is for transgender individuals to undergo these surgeries. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to assess the prevalence of gender-affirming surgeries among transgender patients in 2015, which was immediately prior to insurance changes that made gender-affirming surgery more affordable for Massachusetts residents. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of 99 transgender patients was performed at the Endocrinology Clinic at Boston Medical Center, an urban safety net hospital. The records for 99 transgender subjects who received treatment between 2004-2015, including 28 transmen and 71 transwomen, were examined. The outcome measures were the types of medical interventions chosen by transgender patients, which included hormone therapy, chest surgery, gonadectomy, genital surgery, and facial surgery. RESULTS: Thirty-five percent of subjects had undergone at least one gender-affirming surgery. Transmen were more likely to have had surgery than transwomen (54% vs. 28%). Twenty-five percent of patients had chest surgery, 13% had genital surgery or gonadectomy, and 8% had facial surgery. CONCLUSION: In 2015, a majority of transgender endocrinology clinic patients had not undergone any type of gender-affirmation surgery. Among those who did elect to have a surgery, genital surgery or gonadectomy were uncommon. The low rate of surgery among this sample of transgender patients may be attributable to the financial cost, lack of interest in surgery, or that genital surgery is not a high priority for transgender individuals relative to surgery to change visible features such as face and chest. Abbreviation: HT = hormone therapy.

Assessment of patient factors, surgeons, and surgeon teams in immediate implant-based breast reconstruction outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Outcome studies of immediate implant-based breast reconstruction have focused largely on patient factors, whereas the relative impact of the surgeon as a contributing variable is not known. As the procedure requires collaboration of both a surgical oncologist and a plastic surgeon, the effect of the surgeon team interaction can have a significant impact on outcome. This study examines outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction and the association with patient characteristics, surgeon, and surgeon team familiarity. METHODS: A retrospective review of 3142 consecutive implant-based breast reconstruction mastectomy procedures at one institution was performed. Infection and skin necrosis rates were measured. Predictors of outcomes were identified by unadjusted logistic regression followed by multivariate logistic regression. Surgeon teams were grouped according to number of cases performed together. RESULTS: Patient characteristics remain the most important predictors for outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction, with odds ratios above those of surgeon variables. The authors observed significant differences in the rate of skin necrosis between surgical oncologists with an approximately two-fold difference between surgeons with the highest and lowest rates. Surgeon teams that worked together on fewer than 150 procedures had higher rates of infection. CONCLUSIONS: Patient characteristics are the most important predictors for surgical outcomes in implant-based breast reconstruction, but surgeons and surgeon teams are also important variables. High-volume surgeon teams achieve lower rates of infection. This study highlights the need to examine modifiable risk factors associated with optimum implant-based breast reconstruction outcomes, which include patient and provider characteristics and the surgical team treating the patient. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

MemoryShape: impact of clinical trials, global medical economics, and the future.

The global breast implant business was invented and configured by American plastic surgeons. In 2012, the first shaped silicone implants were approved in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration. It is the peculiar historical course of implant usage in America that has deprived US plastic surgeons of the opportunity to become experts in the use of this device. Most studies indicate significant safety benefits to using shaped devices, despite the technical challenges involved in their use. Upon approval, adoption of the devices has been slow in the United States, running the risk that American plastic surgery may lose the intellectual and clinical practice hegemony it has enjoyed for over 50 years in this area of the specialty. To continue to maintain leadership in the field of breast surgery, US surgeons should evaluate this new modality and either join the global trend or present data to contradict it.

Cost and outcome analysis of breast reconstruction paradigm shift.

Increased bilateral mastectomy for breast cancer treatment has generated an increased demand for bilateral breast reconstruction. This study examines changing patterns of reconstruction over the last decade to accommodate increased case volume and decreased morbidity associated with reconstruction. A single institution series of 3171 consecutive breast reconstruction cases of more than 10 years was divided into 2 periods, that is, 1999 to 2004 and 2005 to 2010. Bilateral breast reconstruction case volume increased 260% from 1999 to 2004 (n = 237) to 2005 to 2010 (n = 634). Mean patient age at diagnosis decreased by 7 years (P < 0.001). In 2005 to 2010, autologous reconstruction decreased from 60% to 26%, implant-based reconstruction increased from 40% to 74%. There was a noted increase in single-stage implant reconstruction and selective application of perforator flaps for bilateral autologous reconstruction (P < 0.001). Two-staged tissue expander reconstruction accounted for the greatest share of total cost (45%) in the later period. A younger patient demographic and increased case volume were accommodated through increased single-staged and prosthesis-based procedures.

Preoperative assessment preferences and reported reoperation rates for size change in primary breast augmentation: a survey of ASPS members.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the current preferences of plastic surgeons regarding preoperative assessment and their effect on clinical outcome in primary breast augmentation. METHODS: An eight-question online survey was sent to members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Data collected online were analyzed using Student's t test or Pearson's chi-square test. A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: The response rate was 20.1 percent (604 respondents). Breast base diameter [n = 286 (47.4 percent)] was ranked the most important consideration vital in choosing implants. Most surgeons chose to reeducate their patients to resolve a conflict between their patient's implant size request and the surgeon's clinical judgment [n = 385 (63.7 percent)], whereas 151 (25 percent) would proceed anyway. Those surgeons who chose reeducation ranked breast base diameter as a vital consideration significantly higher than those who would accommodate their patients (2.03 ± 1.41 versus 2.31 ± 1.41; p = 0.041). Similarly, surgeons who reeducated their patients ranked implant volume as the vital consideration significantly lower than those who accommodated their patients (2.90 ± 1.67 versus 2.44 ± 1.47; p = 0.002). Regarding size change, 332 surgeons (55 percent) reported their rate was 5 percent or less, whereas 272 (45 percent) reported it was greater than 5 percent. Surgeons who reported a 5 percent or less rate ranked implant volume significantly lower than those with reoperation rates greater than 5 percent (2.93 ± 1.71 versus 2.55 ± 1.53; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Breast base diameter and implant volume were the two most important considerations in choosing an implant for breast augmentation. Reported reoperation rates for size change were significantly lower for surgeons who regarded breast base diameter as more vital than those who valued implant volume more.

Epidemiological evidence in forensic pharmacovigilance.

Until recently epidemiological evidence was not regarded as helpful in determining cause and effect. It generated associations that then had to be explained in terms of bio-mechanisms and applied to individual patients. A series of legal cases surrounding possible birth defects triggered by doxylamine (Bendectin) and connective tissue disorders linked to breast implants made it clear that in some instances epidemiological evidence might have a more important role, but the pendulum swung too far so that epidemiological evidence has in recent decades been given an unwarranted primacy, partly perhaps because it suits the interests of certain stakeholders. Older and more recent epidemiological studies on doxylamine and other antihistamines are reviewed to bring out the ambiguities and pitfalls of an undue reliance on epidemiological studies.

The economic viability of breast reconstruction in the UK: comparison of a single surgeon's experience of implant; LD; TRAM and DIEP based reconstructions in 274 patients.

A retrospective audit was performed of patients undergoing breast reconstruction under the care of the senior author from 2000 to 2007. We documented reconstruction type, length of stay and total number of revisions. Income to the trust based on the 2008/9 HRG codes along with any "top ups" was also recorded. This was compared to calculations of cost to the trust of performing each reconstruction. 274 patients had 278 primary reconstructions and a further 366 revisions. Only patients with a minimum one-year's follow-up were included (mean 3 years). This included 68 DIEPs'; 39 TRAMs'; 98 LDs'; and 73 implant reconstructions. The median length of stay for implant based reconstruction was 4 days; 9 for LD flaps; 11 for TRAMs' and 8 for DIEPs'. This was significantly shorter for the implant group compared to other reconstructions (P<0.001). The mean number of surgical revisions was 1.5 for implant reconstructions; 1.6 for LDs; 0.9 for TRAMs' and 0.8 for DIEPs'. There were significantly more revisions of implant reconstructions than DIEPs (P=0.037) and significantly more revisions of LDs compared to TRAM and DIEPs' (P=0.012 and 0.0023). In our study, the cost of an LD, TRAM or DIEP reconstruction including both primary surgery and any revisions was similar, and while at an average of three years, the implant reconstruction remains cheaper, that patient will still require more revisions, and if followed up enough will lose this small financial benefit. Furthermore, the difference is small (£8034 for implants vs. £10910 for DIEPs), and it could be argued this is justified by the increased patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome. Finally we highlight several areas of financial inequality, including insufficient remuneration for providing individual operations, the lack of payment for performing more than one procedure at the same time and lack of payment for bilateral procedures.

Characteristics of a population of women with breast implants compared with women seeking other types of plastic surgery.

Several previous studies have shown that breast implant patients demonstrate a number of differences compared with the general population. However, studies have not compared patients with breast implants with women receiving other types of plastic surgery, of interest because this latter group has been proposed as a comparison group for assessing the long-term health effects experienced by breast implant patients. Questionnaire data obtained from 7447 breast implant patients and 2203 patients with other types plastic surgery were collected during the course of a retrospective cohort study, to determine whether implant patients demonstrate different characteristics compared with a more restricted group of patients. In contrast to previous investigations that compared implant patients with the general population, distinctive differences with respect to family income, number of pregnancies, alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, or histories of previous gynecologic operations or operations for benign breast disease were not found. However, implant patients were significantly more likely than other plastic surgery patients to be white, have low levels of education, have early ages at first birth, be thin, and be screened frequently for breast disease. Furthermore, implant patients reported somewhat greater use of exogenous hormones and familial histories of rheumatoid arthritis. These results support the notion that other plastic surgery patients are a more appropriate comparison group than women in the general population for studies of the health effects of breast implants; however, there continue to be distinctive characteristics possessed by breast implant patients, which need to be taken into account in an assessment of what disease effects can be uniquely attributed to silicone breast implants.