The value of the modern vascular surgeon to the health care system: A report from the Society for Vascular Surgery Valuation Work Group.

Vascular surgeons provide an important service to the health care system. They are capable of treating a wide range of disease processes that affect both the venous and arterial systems. Their presence broadens the complexity and diversity of services that a health care system can offer both in the outpatient setting and in the inpatient setting. Because of their ability to control hemorrhage, they are critical to a safe operating room environment. The vascular surgery service line has a positive impact on hospital margin through both the direct vascular profit and loss and the indirect result of assisting other surgical and medical services in providing care. The financial benefits of a vascular service line will hold true for a wide range of alternative payment models, such as bundled payments or capitation. To fully leverage a modern vascular surgeon's skill set, significant investment is required from the health care system that is, however, associated with substantial return on the investment.

Partnerships between podiatrists and vascular surgeons in building effective wound care centers.

This practice memo, a collaborative effort between the Young Physicians' Program of the American Podiatric Medical Association and the Young Surgeons Committee of the Society for Vascular Surgery, is intended to aid podiatrists and vascular surgeons in the early years of their respective careers, especially those involved in the care of patients with chronic wounds. During these formative years, learning how to successfully establish an interprofessional partnership is crucial to provide the best possible care to this important population of patients.

Types and Distribution of Payments From Industry to Physicians in 2015.

IMPORTANCE: Given scrutiny over financial conflicts of interest in health care, it is important to understand the types and distribution of industry-related payments to physicians. OBJECTIVE: To determine the types and distribution of industry-related payments to physicians in 2015 and the association of physician specialty and sex with receipt of payments from industry. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational, retrospective, population-based study of licensed US physicians (per National Plan & Provider Enumeration System) linked to 2015 Open Payments reports of industry payments. A total of 933 295 allopathic and osteopathic physicians. Outcomes were compared across specialties (surgery, primary care, specialists, interventionalists) and between 620 166 male (66.4%) and 313 129 female (33.6%) physicians using regression models adjusting for geographic Medicare-spending region and sole proprietorship. EXPOSURES: Physician specialty and sex. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Reported physician payment from industry (including nature, number, and value), categorized as general payments (including consulting fees and food and beverage), ownership interests (including stock options, partnership shares), royalty or license payments, and research payments. Associations between physician characteristics and reported receipt of payment. RESULTS: In 2015, 449 864 of 933 295 physicians (133 842 [29.8%] women), representing approximately 48% of all US physicians were reported to have received $2.4 billion in industry payments, including approximately $1.8 billion for general payments, $544 million for ownership interests, and $75 million for research payments. Compared with 47.7% of primary care physicians (205 830 of 431 819), 61.0% of surgeons (110 604 of 181 372) were reported as receiving general payments (absolute difference, 13.3%; 95% CI, 13.1-13.6; odds ratio [OR], 1.72; P < .001). Surgeons had a mean per-physician reported payment value of $6879 (95% CI, $5895-$7862) vs $2227 (95% CI, $2141-$2314) among primary care physicians (absolute difference, $4651; 95% CI, $4014-$5288). After adjusting for geographic spending region and sole proprietorship, men within each specialty had a higher odds of receiving general payments than did women: surgery, 62.5% vs 56.5% (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.26-1.31); primary care, 50.9% vs 43.0% (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.36-1.39); specialists, 36.3% vs 33.4% (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.13-1.17); and interventionalists, 58.1% vs 40.7% (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.97-2.10; P < .001 for all tests). Similarly, men reportedly received more royalty or license payments than did women: surgery, 1.2% vs 0.03% (OR, 43.20; 95% CI, 25.02-74.57); primary care, 0.02% vs 0.002% (OR, 9.34; 95% CI, 4.11-21.23); specialists, 0.08% vs 0.01% (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.71-7.89); and for interventionalists, 0.13% vs 0.04% (OR, 7.98; 95% CI, 2.87-22.19; P < .001 for all tests). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: According to data from 2015 Open Payments reports, 48% of physicians were reported to have received a total of $2.4 billion in industry-related payments, primarily general payments, with a higher likelihood and higher value of payments to physicians in surgical vs primary care specialties and to male vs female physicians.

[Trust and reliability in surgery]. / Vertrauen und Verlässlichkeit in der Chirurgie.

Social interactions are hardly possible without trust. Medical and in particular surgical actions can change the lives of people directly and indirectly existentially. Thus, the relationship between doctor and patient is a special form of social interaction, and will be hard to find anywhere else. The nature of the doctor-patient relationship also determines the success of a treatment. The core and the importance of trust, as a central part of this relationship, will be reconstructed in the present paper. The increasing possibilities of information acquisition in modern societies, and the ever-present need for transparency, impact more and more on the doctor-patient relationship. At first glance, concepts of trust seem to be of secondary importance. The current developments regarding the remuneration of services in the medical system likewise bear the risk to increasingly determine the importance of trust in the doctor-patient relationship. However, it is necessary to delineate reliability from trust. Due to the conditions which are constitutive for the operational disciplines, a climate of trust, even in a modern information society, is more necessary than ever.

Vascular surgeon-hospitalist comanagement improves in-hospital mortality at the expense of increased in-hospital cost.

OBJECTIVE: We have shown that vascular surgeon- hospitalist co management resulted in improved in-hospital mortality rates. We now aim to assess the impact of the hospitalist co management service (HCS) on healthcare cost. METHODS: A total of 1558 patients were divided into three cohorts and compared: 516 in 2012, 525 in 2013, and 517 in 2014. The HCS began in January 2013. Data were standardized for six vascular surgeons that were present 2012-2014. New attendings were excluded. Ten hospitalists participated. Case mix index (CMI), contribution margin, total hospital charges (THCs), length of stay (LOS), actual direct costs (ADCs), and actual variable indirect costs (AVICs) were compared. Analysis of variance with post-hoc tests, t-tests, and linear regressions were performed. RESULTS: THC rose by a mean difference of $14,578.31 between 2012 and 2014 (P < .001) with a significant difference found between all groups during the study period (P = .0004). ADC increased more than AVIC; however, both significantly increased over time (P = .0002 and P = .014, respectively). A mean $3326.63 increase in ADC was observed from 2012 to 2014 (P < .0001). AVIC only increased by an average $392.86 during the study period (P = .01). This increased cost was observed in the context of a higher CMI and longer LOS. CMI increased from 2.25 in 2012 to 2.53 in 2014 (P = .006). LOS increased by a mean 1.02 days between 2012 and 2014 (P = .016), and significantly during the study period overall (P = .018). After adjusting for CMI, LOS increases by only 0.61 days between 2012 and 2014 (P = .07). In a final regression model, THC is independently predicted by comanagement, CMI, and LOS. After adjusting for CMI and LOS, the increase in THC because of comanagement (2012 vs 2014) accounts for only $4073.08 of the total increase (P < .001). During this time, 30-day readmission rates decreased by ∼7% (P = .005), while related 30-day readmission rates decreased by ∼2% (P = .32). Physician contribution margin remained unchanged over the 3-year period (P = .76). The most prevalent diagnosis-related group was consistent across all years. Variation in the principal diagnosis code was observed with the prevalence of circulatory disorders because of type II diabetes replacing atherosclerosis with gangrene as the most prevalent diagnosis in 2013 and 2014 compared with 2012. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital cost is significantly higher since the start of the HCS. This surge may relate to increased CMI, LOS, and improved coding. This increase in cost may be justified as we have observed sustained reduction in in-hospital mortality and slightly improved readmission rates.