Industry Payments in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: A Review of 112,448 Payments From a National Disclosure Program.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the sources, amounts, and nature of general industry payments to oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMSs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Open Payments database was searched from August 2013 to December 2017 for all general payments made to OMSs. For each payment, data were recorded regarding the date, value, paying organization, and nature of the payment. Analyses of variance were performed to compare payment amount per surgeon, number of payments per surgeon, and amount per payment across payment years. RESULTS: Overall, there were 112,448 payments totaling $28,644,063.20. Although, on average each year, 69% of OMSs received at least 1 payment, the top 10% of earners accounted for 89% ($25,607,781) of all payments. Each OMS received a median total of $93.75 (interquartile range, $33 to $263) and an average of $1,109.68 (SD, $14,297; range, $2-$2,250,345) per year. The mean payment value was $254.73 (SD, $2,727; range, $0.01-$548,126) compared with a median of $28.90 (interquartile range, $15-$82). Most payments were in the form of food and beverage (72%); however, the most dollars were spent on consulting fees ($5,594,087; 20%). From 2014 to 2016, significant decreases occurred in the payment amounts (P < .01) and number of payments (P < .01) per surgeon, as well as the value of each payment (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Although OMSs receive a substantial amount of industry payments, the overall figure is driven by a small percentage of top earners. Most individual payments were of nominal value, and their effect on clinical practice remains to be seen.

Shining Sunlight on Industry Payments in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: The Sunshine Act.

PURPOSE: To characterize industry payments to oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMSs) and to determine the accuracy of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments Databases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of the CMS General and Research Payments Databases in 2016 for clinicians categorized as OMSs. General payments include consulting fees, honoraria, gifts, entertainment, food and beverage, travel and education, and others. Research payments include payments associated with research. Variables collected included number of OMSs who received payments, type of and number of payments, total amount paid, geographic distribution, and proportion of funding allotted to research. The accuracy of payee categorization was determined by verifying a random selection of 5% of those categorized as "OMS" in the database with publicly available data. To assess impact on research productivity, the h-index of research payment recipients was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 6,720 OMSs received industry compensation in 2016. Accuracy was 88% in the General Payments Database and 50% in the Research Payments Database. OMSs received 28,456 general payments totaling $5,971,800.79. The average number of payments and the average amount per payment were 4.27 and $1,597.60, respectively. The CMS reported total research payments of $23,592.17. The 4 verified OMSs received a total of $18,500 in research payments and had an average h-index of 3.25 (range, 0 to 8). The most common payments made were for food and beverage (80.2%), travel and lodging (5.83%), education (3.91%), compensation for services other than consulting (3.1%), and gifts (3.03%). Research accounted for 0.07% of all payments. CONCLUSION: Although industry payments to OMSs were common, research funding was negligible. Most industry value transfers were related to food and beverage or travel and lodging. Clinicians were accurately classified in the CMS General Payments Database but not in the Research Payments Database.

Medicare in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Part 2: Academic Surgeons and Cancer Surgeons Are Reimbursed Less.

PURPOSE: The purpose was to evaluate predictors of reimbursement of oral and maxillofacial surgery services in the Medicare population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Aggregate Data from 2015. Clinicians were included if they were confirmed to be oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMSs) by National Provider Identifier data. The primary outcome variable of this study was the proportion reimbursed (actual payment amount divided by charge amount). Predictor variables included type of practice (private vs academic), scope (cancer vs non-cancer), number of Medicare beneficiaries seen, number of unique Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes billed, and total amount charged. Descriptive statistics and regression analyses were calculated, with P < .05 considered significant. RESULTS: The initial search revealed 952 providers categorized as performing maxillofacial surgery, with 894 confirmed to be OMSs (144 academic and 750 private practice). Of 894 OMSs, 39 were cancer surgeons and 855 were non-cancer surgeons. Academic OMSs saw more complex patients than OMSs in private practice (P < .0001). Academic surgeons (n = 144) charged an average of $116,876.92 to Medicare, with a mean payment amount of $22,219.62. Private practice surgeons (n = 750) submitted an average charge of $27,812.56, with average reimbursement of $9,472.76. Multiple linear regression showed that academia, cancer surgeons, number of unique CPT codes, higher Hierarchal Condition Category scores, and total submitted charge amount were negative predictors of the proportion of reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Roughly 10% of OMSs participate in and bill for Medicare. Factors associated with a lower reimbursement proportion include being in academia, treating head and neck cancer, billing more unique CPT codes, seeing sicker patients, and having larger total submitted charges. As third-party private insurers often follow fee schedules and rates set by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, this observed effect also should be evaluated in claims data of other insurers.

Are Office-Based Oral and Maxillofacial Surgical Procedures Profitable? A Benefit-Cost Analysis.

PURPOSE: Although many oral and maxillofacial surgical (OMS) procedures might seem to be profitable, no current data have analyzed the costs versus benefits of performing office-based OMS procedures. The purpose of the present study was to analyze the costs of performing 6 common office-based OMS procedures compared with the reimbursement rates for those same procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was a cross-sectional, microcosting survey analyzing the costs of materials used in the outpatient Oral-Maxillofacial Surgery clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. The costs incurred were based on dental procedure coding and national statistical databases and not on actual patient interactions. The primary predictor variable was the procedure costs for 6 commonly performed outpatient OMS procedures using 3 types of trays: a simple tray, a surgical tray, and an implant tray. The ancillary materials were listed for as-needed use for each tray. The primary outcome variable was the revenue after expenses per procedure. Descriptive statistics were computed. The net profit or net loss of performing 6 commonly performed outpatient OMS procedures was analyzed by subtracting the cost of performing the procedure from the insurance reimbursement for those procedures. RESULTS: Without the addition of sedation to the procedures, routine extractions had a net loss of $230 to $261, surgical extractions had a net loss of $153 to $242, and incision and drainage procedures had a net loss of $212 to $311. Furthermore, preprosthetic procedures had a net loss to net profit of -$269 to +$140, and pathologic procedures had a net loss to net profit of -$269 to +$326. Only implant procedures yielded a net profit of $847. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study have demonstrated that not all routine OMS procedures are profitable when performed alone without the inclusion of additional procedures or sedation.

Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Guidelines: Lack of Authors and Disclosures in the AAOMS White Papers.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate current state of authorship, financial disclosures, and conflicts of interest in position papers published by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a cross-sectional review of the position papers published by the AAOMS from 2013 to 2017. Primary outcome variables include position papers published by the AAOMS. Secondary outcome variables include declaration of authorship, financial disclosures, and financial payments. The Open Payments Database for financial disclosures was reviewed for the year the position paper was published and the immediate preceding year. RESULTS: Ten position papers were published by the AAOMS from 2013 to 2017. Of the 10 papers, authorship was listed in 3, and none explicitly addressed the presence or absence of financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. Contributors to 3 of the 3 authored papers were found at review of the Open Payments Database to have received industry funding in the year the position paper was published and the immediate preceding year. The remuneration ranged from less than $1,000 to $554,006.02. CONCLUSION: Position papers published by the AAOMS lack standardization for authorship and statements on potential financial disclosure. The authors suggest full disclosures of authorship and authors' conflicts of interest should be stated on all position papers to provide transparency to the process.

Is Treating Oral and Maxillofacial Trauma Profitable? An Analysis of Hospital and Surgeon Reimbursement at an Academic Medical Center.

PURPOSE: During the past 2 decades, there has been a marked decrease in the willingness of community-based oral and maxillofacial surgeons to participate in trauma call. Although many factors can influence the decision not to take trauma call, 1 primary disincentive is the perception that managing facial trauma might be profitable for the hospital, but not profitable for the surgeon. The purpose of this study was to compare the profitability of facial trauma management for the hospital and the surgeon at the Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) Medical Center (Richmond, VA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, records were collected for patients who were seen for primary trauma management by the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at VCU (VCUOMS) from June 2011 through July 2014. Cost and reimbursement data were analyzed for these patients from the VCU Health System (VCUHS) and the VCUOMS. For the hospital, actual cost data were provided; for the surgeon, cost was calculated based on an average overhead of 50%. For uniformity, patients were excluded if they remained in the hospital for longer than a 23-hour observation period. Patients younger than 18 years also were excluded. RESULTS: In total, 169 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was a statistically relevant difference in the percentage of costs recouped and the actual profit. The average percentage of costs recouped was 230% for the VCUHS versus 47% for the VCUOMS. This amounts to an average profit per case of $3,461 for the hospital versus a loss of $1,162 for the surgeon. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that in the VCU Medical Center, maxillofacial trauma yields a net profit for the hospital and a net loss for the operating surgeon. Although the results are limited to outpatient management at 1 academic institution, they suggest that hospitals in some settings might be in a position to incentivize surgeons for trauma management.

Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Foundation Research and Fellowship Awards: A 26-Year Review at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard School of Dental Medicine.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to review outcomes of the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (OMS) Foundation's funding awards to members of the OMS department at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) in terms of projects completed, abstracts presented, peer-reviewed publications, and career trajectories of recipients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected from MGH and OMS Foundation records and interviews with award recipients. Primary outcome variables included 1) number of awards and award types, 2) funding amount, 3) project completion, 4) number of presented abstracts, 5) conversion from abstracts to publications, 6) number of peer-reviewed publications, 7) career trajectories of awardees, and 8) additional extramural funding. RESULTS: Eleven Student Research Training Awards provided $135,000 for 39 projects conducted by 37 students. Of these, 34 (87.2%) were completed. There were 30 student abstracts presented, 21 peer-reviewed publications, and a publication conversion rate of 58.8%. Faculty research awards comprised $1,510,970 for 22 research projects by 12 faculty members and two research fellows. Of the 22 funded projects, 21 (95.5%) were completed. There were 110 faculty and research fellow abstracts presented and 113 peer-reviewed publications, for a publication conversion rate of 93.8%. In the student group, 17 of 37 (45.9%) are enrolled in or are applying for OMS residencies. Of the 10 students who have completed OMS training, 3 (30%) are in full-time academic positions. Of the 12 faculty recipients, 9 (75%) remain in OMS academic practice. During this time period, the department received $9.9 million of extramural foundation or National Institutes of Health funding directly or indirectly related to the OMS Foundation grants. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that 90.2% of projects funded by the OMS Foundation have been completed. Most projects resulted in abstracts and publications in peer-reviewed journals. These grants encouraged students to pursue OMS careers and aided OMS faculty in developing their research programs.

An Investigation Into the Disease Profile and Healthcare Costs of Inpatients Treated at a Major Oral and Maxillofacial Surgical Center.

OBJECTIVE: This study is a retrospective review which reported on the treatment records of oral and maxillofacial inpatients treated at a medical institution with the largest scale of oral and maxillofacial specialist services in China, to reflect on disease profile, healthcare model characteristics and the medical status of oral and maxillofacial surgery in China. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Information on 25,825 patients hospitalized between 2008 and 2013 was collected to analyze the mean length of stay (LOS) and preoperative LOS, expenditure patterns, and payment status. RESULTS: The overall mean LOS and preoperative LOS were 10.0 ±â€Š4.9 days and 4.3 ±â€Š2.1 days, respectively. The main costs composed of surgery charges and material costs (47.4%). The proportion of nonlocal patients was 76.34% and the majority of patients used their basic medical insurance (57.74%), and the proportion of patients self-paying showed the largest increase over time. Rising charges for inpatients in this institution did not cause an aggravation of medical cost burden of residents. Cost burden of oral and maxillofacial malignancy surgery patients was higher than in developed countries. CONCLUSIONS: The overall mean LOS and preoperative LOS were higher than that of similar patients globally. Compared with medicine and material costs, medical income is lower and the value of medical personnel labor is not fully appreciated. The proportion of patients who actually enjoy the benefits of the basic medical insurance in China is lower than the coverage.

Do the Science, Own the Field. Are We Doing the Science?

For oral and maxillofacial surgery to continue being a premier specialty in the management of patients with craniomaxillofacial conditions, contributions to the better treatment of these patients must be continuously offered. Without performing the science, these offerings will not come or will not be valid. Environmental and funding challenges to performing the science have increased in the past 2 decades. The incorporation of protected research time and a research sabbatical for residents within their training program might be effective ways to meet these challenges.

Choosing academia versus private practice: factors affecting oral maxillofacial surgery residents' career choices.

PURPOSE: This study explored how residents who intend to enter private practice versus academic careers differ in their background and educational characteristics, engagement in different professional activities, professional values, and satisfaction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Survey data were collected from 257 residents in oral and maxillofacial surgery programs in the United States. The responses of the respondents who planned a career in private practice (65%) and who considered academia (35%) were compared with χ(2) and independent-sample t tests. RESULTS: Residents who considered academia were more likely to be women (29% vs 8%; P < .001), from non-European American backgrounds (37% vs 20%; P = .006), were less likely to be married (43% vs 71%; P < .001), and were less likely to have children (17% vs 40%; P < .001) than residents who planned to become private practitioners. A larger percentage of residents with interest in private practice reported having debts of $301,000 to $400,000 compared with the percentage of residents interested in academia. No differences were found in the way they financed their education or in their financial considerations. However, the 2 groups differed in the importance they placed on different characteristics of their professional lives and in their job-related satisfaction. Residents interested in academia responded less positively to the statement that they are extremely satisfied with their career compared with residents interested in private practice. Future clinicians placed a higher value on having manageable hours and more time performing outpatient procedures than future educators. CONCLUSIONS: These findings showed, first, that the characteristics at the beginning of residency programs that are likely to indicate an increased interest in academic careers are being a woman, from a non-European American background, and having an interest in research. Second, once residents are admitted, different types of surgeries and different types of professional activities tend to appeal to residents who want to practice in private practice settings versus work in academia. Third, residents interested in academia have a relatively lower level of satisfaction compared with residents interested in practicing outside of academia.

Office accreditation experiences with 3 accrediting agencies and suggestions for changes in private oral and maxillofacial surgery facility evaluations.

Historically, oral and maxillofacial surgeons have had considerable autonomy in operating their offices. Oral and maxillofacial surgeons have had a singular history of safety, training, and success in outpatient anesthesia in their offices. However, preventable patient morbidity and mortality in private office-based surgical facilities of a variety of professions have brought increased scrutiny to the office environment. The present report describes the experiences of 3 oral and maxillofacial surgeons with 3 accrediting agencies in obtaining office accreditation and offers recommendations to be considered for the future of our specialty in terms of private office certification.