A Cross-sectional Analysis of Insurance Coverage of Extremity Contouring After Massive Weight Loss.

INTRODUCTION: After bariatric surgery, patients often experience redundant skin in the upper arms and medial thighs as sequelae of massive weight loss. Insurance companies have unpredictable criteria to determine the medical necessity of brachioplasty and thighplasty, which are often ascribed as cosmetic procedures. We evaluated current insurance coverage and characterized policy criteria for extremity contouring in the postbariatric population. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for coverage of brachioplasty and thighplasty in January 2019. Insurance companies were selected based on their state enrolment data and market share. A web-based search and direct calls were conducted to identify policies. A comprehensive list of standard criteria was compiled based on the policies that offered coverage. RESULTS: Of the 56 insurance companies assessed, half did not provide coverage for either procedure (n = 28). No single criterion featured universally across brachioplasty and thighplasty policies. Functional impairment was the most commonly cited condition for preapproval of brachioplasty and/or thighplasty (94%). Conversely, minimum weight loss was the least frequent criterion within the insurance policies (6%). Only 5% of the insurance companies (n = 3) would consider coverage of liposuction-assisted lipectomy as a modality for brachioplasty or thighplasty. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a comprehensive list of reporting recommendations to help optimize authorization of extremity contouring in the postbariatric population. There is great intercompany variation in preapproval criteria for brachioplasty and thighplasty, illustrating an absence of established recommendations or guidelines. High-level evidence and investigations are needed to ascertain validity of the limited coverage criteria in current use.

A Review of National Insurance Coverage of Post-bariatric Upper Body Lift.

INTRODUCTION: Recent years have seen an increased utilisation of upper body lift following massive weight loss. Although it is typically considered cosmetic, the recurrent skin conditions and decline in quality of life may warrant medical necessity. We evaluated current insurance coverage and characterised policy criteria for upper body lift in the post-bariatric population. METHODS: We defined upper body lift as a combination of mastopexy and upper back excision (UBE) and conducted a cross-sectional analysis of US insurance policies. Insurance companies were selected based on their enrolment data and market share. A web-based search and telephone interviews were conducted to identify the policy. Criteria were abstracted from the publicly available policies that offered coverage. RESULTS: Of the 56 insurance companies assessed, 5% would consider coverage of both procedures. Although fewer companies held established policies for UBE than mastopexy in the post-bariatric population (79% vs 96%, p = 0.0081), there were significantly more policies that offered pre-approval for UBE than for mastopexy (30% vs 5%, p = 0.0017). Three medical necessity criteria were common to both procedures: evidence of functional impairment, secondary skin conditions, and medical photographs. CONCLUSION: Policy criteria for coverage of mastopexy or UBE differ greatly between companies. Further evaluation of medical necessity criteria for post-bariatric mastopexy and UBE with the establishment of a standardised guideline is needed. We propose a comprehensive list of reporting recommendations to help optimise authorisation of upper body lift in the post-bariatric population, and we urge plastic surgeons to challenge current definition of "cosmetic" by insurance companies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

The BAPRAS screening tool for reimbursement in a postbariatric population.

INTRODUCTION: Reimbursement of body-contouring surgery (BCS) is a worldwide problem: there is no objective instrument to decide which postbariatric patients should qualify for reimbursement. The British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS) has developed a screening tool for this purpose. In this study, we used a modified version of this screening tool in a postbariatric population and describe which patients would qualify for reimbursement using this tool. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study postbariatric patients were asked to fill in an online questionnaire based on the BAPRAS screening tool with questions regarding complaints of overhanging skin and medical history. Weight loss data were extracted from a prospective database. The BODY-Q was added to assess patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Patients who wanted to undergo BCS (n = 90) had higher screening tool scores and lower BODY-Q scores compared to patients who did not want BCS (n = 24). In total, 25 patients (26%) qualified for reimbursement, these patients had higher weight loss (33.5% versus 29.2%, p = 0.008), lower BMI (27.3 kg/m2 versus 30.4 kg/m2, p = 0.014) and more medical (4.0 versus 2.0, p = 0.004) and psychological complaints (88% versus 61%, p = 0.009). There was a significant, negative correlation between the screening tool scores and almost all BODY-Q scales. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a desire for BCS have more complaints of excess skin, which negatively impacts their well-being. With the modified BAPRAS screening tool, patients with the best weight (loss) and most medical and psychological complaints of excess skin qualified for referral and reimbursement of BCS.

Review of Insurance Coverage for Abdominal Contouring Procedures in the Postbariatric Population.

BACKGROUND: Following bariatric surgery, patients develop problems related to lax abdominal skin that may be addressed by contouring procedures. Third-party insurers have subjective requirements for coverage of these procedures that can limit patient access. The authors sought to determine how well third-party payers cover abdominal contouring procedures in this population. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for coverage of panniculectomy, lower back excision, and circumferential lipectomy. Abdominoplasty was evaluated as an alternative to panniculectomy. Insurance companies were selected based on their market share and state enrolment. A list of medical necessity criteria was abstracted from the policies that offered coverage. RESULTS: Of the 55 companies evaluated, 98 percent had a policy that covered panniculectomy versus 36 percent who would cover lower back excision (p < 0.0001), and one-third provided coverage for circumferential lipectomy. Of the insurers who covered panniculectomy, only 30 percent would also cover abdominoplasty. Documentation of secondary skin conditions was the most prevalent criterion in panniculectomy policies (100 percent), whereas impaired function and secondary skin conditions were most common for coverage of lower back excision (73 percent and 73 percent, respectively). Frequency of criteria for panniculectomy versus lower back excision differed most notably for (1) secondary skin conditions (100 percent versus 73 percent; p = 0.0030), (2) weight loss (45 percent versus 7 percent; p = 0.0106), and (3) duration of weight stability (82 percent versus 53 percent; p = 0.0415). CONCLUSIONS: For the postbariatric population, panniculectomy was covered more often and had more standardized criteria than lower back excision or circumferential lipectomy. However, all have vast intracompany and interpolicy variations in coverage criteria that may reduce access to procedures, even among patients with established indications.

Body Contouring Surgery after Massive Weight Loss: Excess Skin, Body Satisfaction, and Qualification for Reimbursement in a Dutch Post-Bariatric Surgery Population.

BACKGROUND: Body contouring surgery improves quality of life, weight loss, and body image after bariatric surgery. It is unclear why only a minority of the post-bariatric surgery population undergoes body contouring surgery. This study assesses overhanging skin, body satisfaction, and qualification for reimbursement of body contouring surgery in a Dutch post-bariatric surgery population. METHODS: Post-bariatric patients were selected from a prospective database. Electronic questionnaires evaluated demographics, desire for body contouring surgery, excess skin, and satisfaction with their body. RESULTS: A total of 590 patients were included: 368 patients (62.4 percent) desired body contouring surgery, 157 (26.6 percent) did not and 65 (11.0 percent) had undergone body contouring surgery. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding the percentage of patients who met the qualifications for reimbursement. Patients who desired body contouring surgery had more body parts affected by overhanging skin and more often rated the overhanging skin with a Pittsburgh Rating Scale grade 3 compared with patients without a desire to undergo body contouring surgery. The plastic surgeon was never consulted by 39.1 percent of the "desire" population; 44.1 percent of these patients met the weight criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Post-bariatric patients who desired body contouring surgery had more excess skin than patients without a desire and were less satisfied with their body. Almost half of these patients never consulted a plastic surgeon, partly because of incorrect assumptions regarding reimbursement. Plastic surgeons (together with bariatric teams) should better inform these patients about body contouring surgery possibilities.