Better Nurse Practitioner Primary Care Practice Environments Reduce Hospitalization Disparities Among Dually-Enrolled Patients.

BACKGROUND: Over 12 million Americans are dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. These individuals experience over twice as many hospitalizations for chronic diseases such as coronary artery disease and diabetes compared with Medicare-only patients. Nurse practitioners (NPs) are well-positioned to address the care needs of dually-enrolled patients, yet NPs often work in unsupportive clinical practice environments. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between the NP primary care practice environment and hospitalization disparities between dually-enrolled and Medicare-only patients with chronic diseases. METHODS: Using secondary cross-sectional data from the Nurse Practitioner Primary Care Organizational Climate Questionnaire and Medicare claims files, we examined 135,648 patients with coronary artery disease and/or diabetes (20.0% dually-eligible, 80.0% Medicare-only), cared for in 450 practices employing NPs across 4 states (PA, NJ, CA, FL) in 2015. We compared dually-enrolled patients' odds of being hospitalized when cared for in practice environments characterized as poor, mixed, and good based on practice-level Nurse Practitioner Primary Care Organizational Climate Questionnaire scores. RESULTS: After adjusting for patient and practice characteristics, dually-enrolled patients in poor practice environments had the highest odds of being hospitalized compared with their Medicare-only counterparts [odds ratio (OR): 1.48, CI: 1.37, 1.60]. In mixed environments, dually-enrolled patients had 27% higher odds of a hospitalization (OR: 1.27, CI: 1.12, 1.45). However, in the best practice environments, hospitalization differences were nonsignificant (OR: 1.02, CI: 0.85, 1.23). CONCLUSIONS: As policymakers look to improve outcomes for dually-enrolled patients, addressing a modifiable aspect of care delivery in NPs' clinical practice environment is a key opportunity to reduce hospitalization disparities.

A Qualitative Study of Drivers for Use of the Primary Care Exception Among Internal Medicine Teaching Faculty.

BACKGROUND: The Primary Care Exception (PCE) is a billing rule from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that allows supervising physicians to bill for ambulatory care provided by a resident without their direct supervision. There has been increased focus on entrustment as a method to assess readiness for unsupervised practice. OBJECTIVE: To understand the factors influencing attending physicians' use of the PCE in ambulatory settings and identify common themes defining what motivates faculty preceptors to use the PCE. APPROACH: This was a qualitative exploratory study. Participants were interviewed one-on-one using a semi-structured template informed by the entrustment literature. Analysis was conducted using a thematically framed, grounded theory-based approach to identify major themes and subthemes. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven internal medicine teaching faculty took part in a multi-institutional study representing four residency training programs across two academic medical centers in Connecticut. KEY RESULTS: Four predominant categories of themes influencing PCE use were identified: (1) clinical environment factors, (2) attending attitudes, (3) resident characteristics, and (4) patient attributes. An attending's "internal rules" drawn from prior experiences served as a significant driver of PCE non-use regardless of the trainee, patient, or clinical context. A common conflict existed between using the PCE to promote resident autonomy versus waiving the PCE to promote safety. CONCLUSIONS: The PCE can serve as a tool to support resident autonomy, confidence, and overall clinical efficiency. Choice of PCE use by attendings involved complex internal decision-making schema balancing internal, patient, resident, and environmental-related factors. The lack of standardized processes in competency evaluation may increase susceptibility to biases, which could be mitigated by applying standardized modes of assessment that encompass shared principles.

Rising Prices and Lower Medicare Reimbursement Rates Create Outrage Among Clinicians.

In a recent Hot Topics article, reimbursement rates for Medicare physicians are discussed, and how it will impact their practice.

Rising Prices and Lower Medicare Reimbursement Rates Create Outrage Among Clinicians.

In a recent Hot Topics article, reimbursement rates for Medicare physicians are discussed, and how it will impact their practice.

Variability in Excess Lobectomy Billing Among US Thoracic Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Transparency in physician billing practices in the United States is lacking. Often, charges may vary substantially between providers and excess charges may be passed on to the patient. In this study, we evaluate Medicare charges and payments for minimally invasive lobectomy to obtain a sense of national billing practices and evaluate for predictors of higher charges. METHODS: The 2018 Medicare Provider Utilization Data was queried to identify surgeons submitting charges for Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Lobectomy. Excess charges were determined by each provider. Additional demographic variables were collected including geographic region for general surgery and cardiothoracic surgery training, years in practice, and current practice setting. A multivariate gamma regression was utilized to determine predictors of high billing practices. RESULTS: A total of 307 unique providers submitted charges ranging from $1,104 to $25,128 with a median of $4,265. The average Medicare Payment amount ranged from $163 to $1,409, with a median of $1,056. Male surgeons were estimated to charge 1.3 times more than female surgeons, while those in an academic setting were estimated to charge 1.4 times more than private practice (p < 0.01). Surgeons practicing in the South or West were estimated to charge 0.76 and 0.81 times as much as those practicing in the Northeast (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Billing practices vary widely across the United States. Charges submitted to Medicare likely represent a provider's charges across all payers. In today's healthcare economy, it is important for patients to understand the true cost of care and for providers to be mindful of reasonable and appropriate charges.

Characterizing the geographic distribution of vascular surgeons in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: The shortage of vascular surgeons can be attributed to multiple factors, including an aging population, the increasing demand for vascular surgeons, and an aging vascular surgery workforce. The distribution of vascular surgeons across the United States varies by locale; thus, the shortage affects regions of different sizes disproportionately. We collated the geographic data to characterize the current distribution of vascular surgeons with an emphasis on the practice location, population density, and population age. METHODS: Vascular surgeons were identified using the Physician Compare National Downloadable file from the Centers for Medicare and Medical Services. The counties were matched with each surgeon's practice location. The locations were categorized into metropolitan, urban, or rural using the rural-urban continuum codes. Census Bureau data were used to match all counties with their population-level metrics. The distribution of vascular surgeons was analyzed by comparing the number of counties served, total patient population served, and patient population aged >50 and >65 years served. Finally, the density of vascular surgeons in the United States for the total population and for those aged >50 and >65 years was calculated. RESULTS: In 2018, the U.S. population was 309.8 million, and there were 3145 counties. Of the 3145 counties, 533 (17%) had had a practicing vascular surgeon. The combined population of these counties was 213.8 million people (69% of the U.S. population). Stratified by age, the vascular surgeons in these 533 counties could treat 37.3 million people aged >50 years and 17.4 million people aged >65 years. However, 2612 counties (83%), with a total population of 96 million people (31% of the U.S. population), had had no practicing vascular surgeon. When stratified by age, 78.1 million people in the uncovered counties were aged >50 years and 35 million were aged >65 years. Of the 2612 uncovered counties, 48% were urban and 24% were rural. CONCLUSIONS: We found a nationwide shortage of vascular surgeons, with urban and rural areas disproportionately affected negatively. Although encouraging vascular surgeons to practice in underserved areas would be an ideal solution, it is not pragmatic. Therefore, developing alternatives such as using primary care providers, investing in telehealth and developing transfer systems could be viable methods of providing vascular care to geographically isolated populations. These findings have significant implications for hospitals, patients, and vascular surgeons, who would all stand to benefit from efforts to address these disparities.

Estimating the Primary Care Workforce for Medicare Beneficiaries Using an Activity-Based Approach.

BACKGROUND: The enumeration of the primary care workforce relies on potentially inaccurate specialty designations sourced from licensure registries and clinician surveys. OBJECTIVE: To use an activity-based measure of primary care to estimate the number of physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), and physician assistants (PAs) providing primary care to Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN: Observational study using Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) claims data. SUBJECTS: All clinicians in the US billing Medicare in 2019 and their fee-for-service Medicare patients. MAIN MEASURES: We construct three measures that together distinguish primary care from specialty clinicians: (1) presence of evaluation and management (E&M) services in a setting consistent with primary care, (2) the dispersion of clinical care across International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10) chapters, and (3) the extent of provided services that are atypical of primary care (e.g., surgical procedure). We apply parameters to the measures to identify the clinicians likely providing primary care and compare the resulting classifications across provider type. KEY RESULTS: Of physicians with at least 50 Medicare beneficiaries, 19-22% provide primary care. Of medical generalists (i.e., family medicine, internal medicine) with at least 50 beneficiaries, 61-68% provide primary care. We estimate that 40-45% of NPs and 27-30% of PAs meeting the panel size threshold are primary care providers in FFS Medicare. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that based on a primary care practice style, the number of primary care physicians in FFS Medicare is likely smaller than conventional estimates. However, compared to prior estimates, the number of primary care NPs is larger and the number of PAs is similar.

A Validated Method to Identify Neuro-Ophthalmologists in a Large Administrative Claims Database.

BACKGROUND: Validated methods to identify neuro-ophthalmologists in administrative data do not exist. The development of such method will facilitate research on the quality of neuro-ophthalmic care and health care utilization for patients with neuro-ophthalmic conditions in the United States. METHODS: Using nationally representative, 20% sample from Medicare carrier files from 2018, we identified all neurologists and ophthalmologists billing at least 1 office-based evaluation and management (E/M) outpatient visit claim in 2018. To isolate neuro-ophthalmologists, the National Provider Identifier numbers of neuro-ophthalmologists in the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society (NANOS) directory were collected and linked to Medicare files. The proportion of E/M visits with International Classification of Diseases-10 diagnosis codes that best distinguished neuro-ophthalmic care ("neuro-ophthalmology-specific codes" or NSC) was calculated for each physician. Multiple logistic regression models assessed predictors of neuro-ophthalmology specialty designation after accounting for proportion of ophthalmology, neurology, and NSC claims and primary specialty designation. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) for varying proportions of E/M visits with NSC were calculated. RESULTS: We identified 32,293 neurologists and ophthalmologists who billed at least 1 outpatient E/M visit claim in 2018 in Medicare. Of the 472 NANOS members with a valid individual National Provider Identifier, 399 (84.5%) had a Medicare outpatient E/M visit in 2018. The model containing only the proportion of E/M visits with NSC best predicted neuro-ophthalmology specialty designation (odds ratio 1.05 [95% confidence interval 1.04, 1.05]; P < 0.001; area under the receiver operating characteristic [AUROC] = 0.91). Model predictiveness for neuro-ophthalmology designation was maximized when 6% of all billed claims were for NSC (AUROC = 0.89; sensitivity: 84.0%; specificity: 93.9%), but PPV was low (14.9%). The threshold was unchanged when limited only to neurologists billing ≥1% ophthalmology claims or ophthalmologists billing ≥1% neurology claims, but PPV increased (33.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides a validated method to identify neuro-ophthalmologists who can be further adapted for use in other administrative databases to facilitate future research of neuro-ophthalmic care delivery in the United States.

What Is the Geographic Distribution and Density of Orthopaedic Advanced Practice Professionals in Rural Counties? A Large-database Study.

BACKGROUND: Advanced practice professionals, including physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs), play an important role in providing high-quality orthopaedic care. This role has been highlighted by projections of nationwide shortages in orthopaedic surgeons, with rural areas expected to be most affected. Given that approximately half of rural counties have no practicing orthopaedic surgeons and that advanced practice professionals have been shown to be more likely to practice in rural areas compared to physicians in other medical disciplines, orthopaedic advanced practice professionals may be poised to address orthopaedic care shortages in rural areas, but the degree to which this is true has not been well characterized. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What percentage of rural counties have no orthopaedic caregivers, including surgeons and advanced practice professionals? (2) Is the density of advanced practice professionals greater than that of orthopaedic surgeons in rural counties? (3) Do orthopaedic advanced practice professionals only practice in counties that also have practicing orthopaedic surgeons? (4) Are NPs in states with full practice authority more likely to practice in rural counties compared with NPs in restricted practice authority states? METHODS: We identified orthopaedic surgeons and advanced practice professionals using the 2019 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data, as this large dataset has been shown to be the most complete source of claims data nationwide. Each professional's ZIP Code was matched to counties per the US Postal Service ZIP Code Crosswalk Files. The total number and density of physician and advanced practice professionals per 100,000 residents were calculated per county nationwide. Counties were categorized as urban (large central metropolitan, large fringe metropolitan, medium metropolitan, and small metropolitan) or rural (micropolitan and noncore) using the National Center for Health Statistics Urban-Rural Classification Scheme. Comparisons between rural and urban county caregivers were conducted with the chi-square test and odds ratios. Population densities were compared with the Wilcoxon rank sum test. A bivariate density map was made to visualize the nationwide distribution of orthopaedic caregivers and determine the percentage of rural counties with no orthopaedic caregivers as well as whether orthopaedic advanced practice professionals practiced in counties not containing any surgeons. Additionally, to compare states with NP's full versus restricted practice authority, each NP was grouped based on their state to determine whether NPs in states with full practice authority were more likely to practice in rural counties. We identified a group of 31,091 orthopaedic caregivers, which was comprised of 23,728 physicians, 964 NPs, and 6399 PAs (7363 advanced practice professionals). A total of 88% (20,879 of 23,728) of physicians and 87% (6427 of 7363) of advanced practice professionals were in urban counties, which is comparable to nationwide population distributions. RESULTS: A total of 39% (1237 of 3139) of counties had no orthopaedic professionals (defined as orthopaedic surgeons or advanced practice professionals) in 2019. Among these counties, 82% (1015 of 1237) were rural and 18% (222 of 1237) were urban. The density of advanced practice professionals providing orthopaedic services compared with the density of orthopaedic surgeons was higher in rural counties (18 ± 70 versus 8 ± 40 per 100,000 residents; p = 0.001). Additionally, 3% (57 of 1974) of rural and 1% (13 of 1165) of urban counties had at least one orthopaedic advanced practice professional, but no orthopaedic surgeons concurrently practicing in the county. There was no difference between the percentage of rural counties with an NP in states with full versus restricted practice authority for NPs (19% [157 of 823] versus 26% [36 of 141], OR 1.45 [95% CI 0.99 to 2.2]; p = 0.08). CONCLUSION: As advanced practice professionals tended to only practice in counties which contain orthopaedic surgeons, our analysis suggests that plans to increase the number of advanced practice professionals alone in rural counties may not be sufficient to fully address the demand for orthopaedic care in rural areas that currently do not have orthopaedic surgeons in practice. Rather, interventions are needed to encourage more orthopaedic surgeons to practice in rural counties in collaborative partnerships with advanced practice professionals. In turn, rural orthopaedic advanced practice professionals may serve to further extend the accessibility of these surgeons, but it remains to be determined what the total number and ratio of advanced practice professionals and surgeons is needed to serve rural counties adequately. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: To increase rural orthopaedic outreach, state legislatures may consider providing financial incentives to hospitals who adopt traveling clinic models, incorporating advanced practice professionals in these models as physician-extenders to further increase the coverage of orthopaedic care. Furthermore, the creation of more widespread financial incentives and programs aimed at expanding the experience of trainees in serving rural populations are longer-term investments to foster interest and retention of orthopaedic caregivers in rural settings.

Evolving Practice Choices by Newly Certified and More Senior General Internists : A Cross-Sectional and Panel Comparison.

BACKGROUND: Hospital medicine has grown as a field. However, no study has examined trends in career choices by internists over the past decade. OBJECTIVE: To measure changes in practice setting for general internists. DESIGN: Using Medicare fee-for-service claims (2008 to 2018) and data from the American Board of Internal Medicine, practice setting types were measured annually for general internists initially certifying between 1990 and 2017. SETTING: General internists (non-subspecializing) treating Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. PATIENTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years and older with at least 20 evaluation and management (E&M) visits annually. MEASUREMENTS: Practice setting types were defined as hospitalist (>95% inpatient E&M), outpatient only (100% outpatient E&M), or mixed. RESULTS: 67 902 general internists, comprising 80% of all general internists initially certified from 1990 to 2017 (n = 84 581), were studied. From 2008 to 2018, both hospitalists and outpatient-only physicians increased as percentages of general internists (25% to 40% and 23% to 38%, respectively). This was accompanied by a 56% decline in the percentage of mixed-practice physicians (52% to 23%) as these physicians largely migrated to outpatient-only practice. By 2018, 71% of newly certified general internists practiced as hospitalists compared with only 8% practicing as outpatient-only physicians. Most (86% of hospitalists in 2013) had the same practice type 5 years later. This retention rate was similar across early career and more senior physicians (86% and 85% for the 1999 and 2012 initial certification cohorts, respectively) and for the outpatient-only practice type (95%) but was only 57% for the mixed practice type. LIMITATION: Practice setting measurement relied only on Medicare fee-for-service claims. CONCLUSION: Newly certified general internists are largely choosing hospital medicine as their career choice whereas more senior physicians increasingly see patients only in the outpatient setting. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: This study did not receive direct funding.

How the Gender Wage Gap for Primary Care Physicians Differs by Compensation Approach : A Microsimulation Study.

BACKGROUND: The physician gender wage gap may be due, in part, to productivity-based compensation models that undervalue female practice patterns. OBJECTIVE: To determine how primary care physician (PCP) compensation by gender differs when applying existing productivity-based and alternative compensation models. DESIGN: Microsimulation. SETTING: 2016 to 2019 national clinical registry of 1222 primary care practices. PARTICIPANTS: Male and female PCPs matched on specialty, years since medical school graduation, practice site, and sessions worked. MEASUREMENTS: Net annual, full-time-equivalent compensation for male versus female PCPs, under productivity-based fee-for-service, panel size-based capitation without or with risk adjustment, and hybrid payment models. Microsimulation inputs included patient and visit characteristics and overhead expenses. RESULTS: Among 1435 matched male (n = 881) and female (n = 554) PCPs, female PCP panels included patients who were, on average, younger, had lower diagnosis-based risk scores, were more often female, and were more often uninsured or insured by Medicaid rather than by Medicare. Under productivity-based payment, female PCPs earned a median of $58 829 (interquartile range [IQR], $39 553 to $120 353; 21%) less than male PCPs. This gap was similar under capitation ($58 723 [IQR, $42 141 to $140 192]). It was larger under capitation risk-adjusted for age alone ($74 695 [IQR, $42 884 to $152 423]), for diagnosis-based scores alone ($114 792 [IQR, $49 080 to $215 326] and $89 974 [IQR, $26 175 to $173 760]), and for age-, sex-, and diagnosis-based scores ($83 438 [IQR, $28 927 to $129 414] and $66 195 [IQR, $11 899 to $96 566]). The gap was smaller and nonsignificant under capitation risk-adjusted for age and sex ($36 631 [IQR, $12 743 to $73 898]). LIMITATION: Panel attribution based on office visits. CONCLUSION: The gender wage gap varied by compensation model, with capitation risk-adjusted for patient age and sex resulting in a smaller gap. Future models might better align with primary care effort and outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Reforming Physician Payments to Achieve Greater Equity and Value in Health Care: A Position Paper of the American College of Physicians.

Socioeconomic factors remain one of the most clinically significant contributors to health outcomes in this country, yet the current fee-for-service payment structure incentivizes volume and does not address such factors. The American College of Physicians proposes specific policy recommendations on reforming payment programs, including those designed to treat underserved patient populations, to better address value in health care and achieve greater equity. The proposal advocates that population-based prospective payment models, including hybrid models that combine fee-for-service with prospective payments, not only have the potential to achieve high-value care but can also be designed in such a way as to adjust for the social drivers that impact health outcomes. The need to recognize health care disparities and inequities in the implementation of the Quality Payment Program in particular and risk scoring in general and the need for social policies to improve access to health information technology are further examples of policy prescriptions that can advance equity. Evidence-based services and programs in Medicare Part B that are shown to preserve the Medicare trust fund through savings in Part A should be able to be scored as offsets for the cost of those new programs. The approach of building a health care system that is smarter about how dollars are spent to make people healthier must shift to one with a clear intention of decreasing health inequities and addressing social drivers of health.

Is now our time? History to provider status for allied health professions and the path for pharmacists.

The designation of health care providers is limited to physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, nurse anesthetists, clinical psychologists, dietitians, and social workers. Pharmacists are not federally recognized health care providers and, therefore, are not eligible for cognitive service reimbursements. This commentary explains the intentions of adding pharmacists as Medicare Part B providers, evaluates current state pharmacist provider status, and calls pharmacists, technicians, and other key stakeholders to advocate on behalf of the profession of pharmacy. If federal provider status is granted to pharmacists, patients will gain better access to care, health spending will decline, and physician lead care teams will have an expert in medications readily available for consultation or other medication-related needs. Reimbursement would provide more resources to administer these needed services to more patients in areas with limited access to health care resources.

State Variation in the Utilization of Nurse Practitioner-Provided Home-Based Primary Care: A Medicare Claims Analysis.

Nurse practitioners (NPs) provide an increasing proportion of home-based primary care, despite restrictive scope of practice laws in approximately one half of states. We examined the relationship between scope of practice laws and state volume of NP-provided home-based primary care by performing an analysis of 2018 to 2019 Medicare claims. For each state we calculated the proportion of total home-based primary care visits by NPs and the proportion of all NPs providing home-based primary care. We used the 2018 American Association of Nurse Practitioners classification of state practice environment. We performed chi-square tests to assess the significance between volume and practice environment. We found that 42% of home-based primary care is delivered by NPs nationally, but substantial variation exists across states. We did not find a discernible or statistically significant pattern of uptake of NP-provided home-based primary care across full, reduced, or restricted states. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 49(5), 11-17.].

Exploring the Relationship between Nurse Practitioner Full Practice Authority, Nurse Practitioner Workforce Diversity, and Disparate Primary Care Access.

In this study, we examine how full nurse practitioner (NP) practice authority affects racial and ethnic diversity of the NP workforce. Specifically, the purpose of our research is to understand the relationship between the racial and ethnic composition of the NP workforce, NP level of practice authority, and the communities they service. In this paper, we compare the ethnic and racial composition of the NP workforce to the composition of the state's population, and then observe if there are any noticeable differences in the patients served by NPs when we compare full practice authority (FPA) and non-FPA states. We also estimate how FPA affects the race and ethnicity of Medicare patients served by NPs.

Improving large-scale estimation and inference for profiling health care providers.

Provider profiling has been recognized as a useful tool in monitoring health care quality, facilitating inter-provider care coordination, and improving medical cost-effectiveness. Existing methods often use generalized linear models with fixed provider effects, especially when profiling dialysis facilities. As the number of providers under evaluation escalates, the computational burden becomes formidable even for specially designed workstations. To address this challenge, we introduce a serial blockwise inversion Newton algorithm exploiting the block structure of the information matrix. A shared-memory divide-and-conquer algorithm is proposed to further boost computational efficiency. In addition to the computational challenge, the current literature lacks an appropriate inferential approach to detecting providers with outlying performance especially when small providers with extreme outcomes are present. In this context, traditional score and Wald tests relying on large-sample distributions of the test statistics lead to inaccurate approximations of the small-sample properties. In light of the inferential issue, we develop an exact test of provider effects using exact finite-sample distributions, with the Poisson-binomial distribution as a special case when the outcome is binary. Simulation analyses demonstrate improved estimation and inference over existing methods. The proposed methods are applied to profiling dialysis facilities based on emergency department encounters using a dialysis patient database from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Reductions in Reimbursement and Relative Value Units for Interventional Radiology Procedures: Trends from 2011 to 2021 Compared with Those for Other Physician Specialties.

PURPOSE: To compare recent trends in Medicare reimbursement and relative value units (RVUs) for interventional radiology (IR) procedures similar to those performed by non-IR specialties. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician Fee Schedule for facility reimbursement and RVU component values for 23 commonly performed single Current Procedural Terminology IR procedures were compared with similar procedures or procedures for similar indications performed by non-IR specialties between 2011 and 2021. RESULTS: The work RVU component decreased in 18 of 23 (78.3%) IR procedures compared with 6 of 23 (26.1%) similar procedures performed by non-IR specialties. The largest change in single RVU component was a 19.2% reduction in practice expense RVU for IR compared with a 16.5% reduction for similar procedures performed by non-IR specialties. CONCLUSIONS: As a specialty, IR experienced a disproportionately greater reduction in reimbursement and RVU valuation for a range of comparable procedures performed by non-IR specialties.

Otolaryngology workforce trends by gender - When and where is the gap narrowing?

PURPOSE: To describe the changes in workforce gender distribution over time and characterize geographically where women are finding job opportunities within the field of otolaryngology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) publishes a Physician Compare National Downloadable File, which lists all active providers registered within CMS, as well as specialty, medical school graduation, and current practice location. The file of March 2021 was filtered for all providers that listed "otolaryngology" as their primary specialty. Providers were sorted based on medical school graduation year. Physicians were organized into five-year and ten-year quantiles, based on career experience. For each quantile, the gender distribution was recorded. For each decade of experience, the geographic distribution of gender was recorded at a state-by-state level. Descriptive statistics were conducted to characterize the number of female otolaryngologists per state. The geographic distribution of male versus female physicians was superimposed onto state boundary files as published by the U.S. Census Bureau using R Studio (2020) [13]. RESULTS: The Physician Compare National Database listed 1719 women (19.0%) and 7292 men (81.0%) otolaryngologists actively registered to practice in the United States. By career periods, the following proportions of otolaryngologists were women: 1-5 years, 317/971 (32.6%); 6-10 years, 417/1291 (32.3%); 11-15 years, 299/1159 (25.8%); 16-20 years, 207/1108 (18.7%); 21-25 years, 190/1156 (16.4%); 26-30 years, 138/1141 (12.1%); 31-35 years, 86/968 (8.9%); 36+ years, 60/1212 (5.0%). The linear regression of the male-female distribution data suggests that the proportion of men and women in practice in otolaryngology will equalize nationally in the 2030s. By geographic distribution, the mean and median number of female otolaryngologists per state was 34.3 (19.0%) and 21 (17.2%), respectively. The number of female otolaryngologists by state ranged from 2 (Idaho) to 258 (California). States with the lowest percentage of female otolaryngologists included Idaho (2/51, 3.9%), Oklahoma (5/86, 5.8%), and Utah (6/99, 6.1%). There has been a national increase in the percentage of women practicing in otolaryngology over the last several decades. CONCLUSIONS: There is a significantly higher proportion of female otolaryngologists within earlier practice years, which suggests that progress has been made toward closing the gender gap within this field. The geographic distribution of female otolaryngologists is highly variable and should be studied further to assess what factors contribute to more females choosing to practice in these regions to continue to build regional support networks for women within the field.

The relationship between academic influence, NIH funding, and industry payments among academic shoulder and elbow surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The effect of academic influence, or the volume and quality of a surgeon's publications, on industry payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding has recently been studied in some academic orthopedic subspecialities. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the relationship between academic influence, industry payments, and NIH funding among American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons accredited shoulder and elbow fellowship faculty. METHODS: Shoulder and elbow fellowships and affiliated faculty members were identified from the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons website. Academic influence, measured by the Hirsch (h)-index, and the number of articles published were determined for faculty members using the Scopus Database Author Identifier tool. Industry payments were derived from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. NIH funding was determined using the NIH's Research Portfolio Online Reporting tool. Statistical analysis used Spearman correlations and the Mann-Whitney U-test with an alpha value of 0.05 (P < .05). RESULTS: A total of 146 faculty members were included. Twenty-two percent (42 of 146) received nonresearch payments, whereas 78% (114 of 146) received industry research funding averaging $6364 (standard deviation = $21,213). NIH funding averaged $272,589 (standard deviation = $224,635), and 5% received NIH funding (7 of 146). Faculty members who received NIH funding had a higher average h-index than those who did not (38 ± 22 vs. 22.64 ± 22.7, P = .02), whereas those receiving industry research payments had a greater number of publications than those who did not (127.97 ± 127.2 vs. 100.3 ± 122.3, P = .03). Industry nonresearch payments did not impact the number of publications or the h-index. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that academic influence among academic shoulder and elbow surgeons is not greater in those who receive nonresearch industry funding. However, surgeons with industry research funding did produce more publications, whereas NIH funding is associated with greater academic influence.

Payment Discrepancies and Access to Primary Care Physicians for Dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Physicians often receive lower payments for dual-eligible Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries versus nondual Medicare beneficiaries because of state reimbursement caps. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) primary care fee bump temporarily eliminated this differential in 2013-2014. OBJECTIVE: To examine how dual payment policy impacts primary care physicians' (PCP) acceptance of duals. RESEARCH DESIGN: We assessed differences in the likelihood that PCPs had dual caseloads of ≥10% or 20% in states with lower versus full dual reimbursement using linear probability models adjusted for physician and area-level traits. Using a triple-difference approach, we examined changes in dual caseloads for PCPs versus a control group of specialists in states with fee bumps versus no change during years postbump versus prebump. SUBJECTS: PCPs and specialists (cardiologists, orthopedic surgeons, general surgeons) that billed fee-for-service Medicare. MEASURES: State dual payment policies and physicians' dual caseloads as a percentage of their Medicare patients. RESULTS: In 2012, 81% of PCPs had dual caseloads of ≥10% and this was less likely among PCPs in states with lower versus full dual reimbursement (eg, difference=-4.52 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -6.80 to -2.25). The proportion of PCPs with dual caseloads of ≥10% or 20% decreased significantly between 2012 and 2017 and the fee bump was not consistently associated with increases in dual caseloads. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-ACA, PCPs' participation in the dual program appeared to be lower in states with lower reimbursement for duals. Despite the ACA fee bump, dual caseloads declined over time, raising concerns of worsening access to care.