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

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

General anesthesia is associated with reduced early failure among patients undergoing hemodialysis access.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent reports of improved patency with regional anesthesia (RA), general anesthesia (GA) remains the most common choice for anesthesia for patients undergoing arteriovenous fistula (AVF) or arteriovenous graft (AVG) creation, with nearly 85% utilization. Previous studies of the effect of anesthesia type on outcomes have been conducted through single institutions or a national database with poor granularity for vascular-specific data. Given the high variability of practice patterns and the high prevalence of end-stage renal disease requiring access creation, further study of the impact of anesthesia choice during AVF or AVG creation is warranted. METHODS: The Vascular Quality Initiative hemodialysis data set was queried to identify patients undergoing AVF or AVG creation between 2011 and 2017. Patients were grouped according to access type and anesthesia method (GA vs local anesthesia/RA). The primary outcome was early access failure within 120 days. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital and 30-day complications, including steal, swelling, hemorrhage, and wound infection. RESULTS: There were 31,028 patients undergoing AVG (6961) or AVF (24,067) identified. Compared with patients with GA, patients undergoing access creation with RA had higher early failure rates (AVG, 26.2% vs 23%; AVF, 22.3% vs 20.6%; both P = .04). However, in the GA group undergoing AVF creation, there was a 26% increase (adjusted odds ratio, 1.26 [1.06-1.55]) in bleeding complications and a 3.4-fold increase (adjusted odds ratio, 3.43 [1.38-8.51]) in wound infection rates. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas it is traditionally performed under GA, hemodialysis access with fistula or graft creation is increasingly being performed under RA. In our analysis, rates of perioperative complications, including infection and bleeding, may be lessened by using RA, especially among patients undergoing AVF creation. However, this was accompanied by a 3.2% absolute (21% relative) increased risk of early failure within the first 120 days after dialysis creation among patients undergoing AVG.