Working Smarter, Not Harder: Using Data-Driven Strategies to Generate Front-End Cost Savings through Price Negotiation and Supply Chain Optimization.

BACKGROUND: Supply chain optimization is an effective method of generating front-end cost savings and increasing hospital profits. Through the negotiation and renegotiation of supply chain contracts, plastic surgeons can dramatically change the price at which they purchase surgical supplies and implants. This study characterizes the potential impact of supply chain optimization and puts forth a generalizable, systematic approach for successful sourcing. METHODS: From October of 2017 to September of 2018, the authors examined all patients taken to the operating room for either a facial fracture or a hand fracture. Cost data were collected, Supply Chain Information Management numbers were used to determine whether each item used during the study period was under contract, and cost savings based on contract negotiation were calculated. Potential cost savings were calculated using the BillOnly calculator. RESULTS: For the 77 facial trauma cases and 63 hand trauma cases performed, a total of 330 items (70 distinct items) were used, 47 percent of which were under contract (47 percent contract use), with an average negotiated discount of 49 percent. Based on BillOnly material cost estimates, the authors' institution would need to increase its contract use to 70 percent to achieve a net savings of 19 percent, and to 90 percent to achieve a net savings of 39 percent. The authors also estimated that if contract use increased to 90 percent, net savings would increase commensurately with increases in the average discount negotiated. CONCLUSION: Supply chain optimization offers plastic surgeons the potential to significantly decrease surgical costs while maintaining surgical quality.

Carving Out Financial Success: The Power of Insurance Carve-Outs in a Private Plastic Surgery Practice.

BACKGROUND: Since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law, there has been a push away from fee-for-service payment models. The rise of bundled payments has drastically impacted plastic surgeons' incomes, especially nonsalaried surgeons in private practice. As a result, physicians must now attempt to optimize contractual reimbursement agreements (carve-outs) with insurance providers. The aim of this article is to explain the economics behind negotiating carve-outs and to offer a how-to guide for plastic surgeons to use in such negotiations. METHODS: Based on work relative value units, Medicare reimbursement, overhead expenses, physician workload, and desired income, the authors present an approach that allows surgeons to evaluate the reimbursement they receive for various procedures. The authors then review factors that influence whether a carve-out can be pursued. Finally, the authors consider relevant nuances of negotiating with insurance companies. RESULTS: Using tissue expander insertion (CPT 19357) as an example, the authors review the mathematics, thought process required, and necessary steps in determining whether a carve-out should be pursued. Strategies for negotiation with insurance companies were identified. The presented approach can be used to potentially negotiate a carve-out for any reconstructive procedure that meets appropriate financial criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding practice costs will allow plastic surgeons to evaluate the true value of insurance reimbursements and determine whether a carve-out is worth pursuing. Plastic surgeons must be prepared to negotiate adequate reimbursement carve-outs whenever possible. Ultimately, by aligning the best quality patient care with insurance companies' financial motivations, plastic surgeons have the opportunity to improve reimbursement for some reconstructive procedures.

Evaluation of a microfocused ultrasound system for improving skin laxity and tightening in the lower face.

BACKGROUND: The Ulthera System (Ulthera, Inc, Mesa, Arizona) employs microfocused ultrasound to cause discrete focal heating of the dermis and stimulate neocollagenesis and elastin remodeling. OBJECTIVES: The authors investigated tightening and lifting of cheek tissue, improvement in jawline definition, and reduction in submental skin laxity in patients treated with the Ulthera System. METHODS: A total of 103 adults were enrolled in this prospective nonrandomized clinical trial. Three-dimensional photographs obtained at baseline and 3 months posttreatment were assessed qualitatively by 3 blinded reviewers and quantitatively with AutoCAD software (Informer Technologies, Redwood City, California). The relationship between outcomes and body mass index (BMI) was examined as well. Patients rated pain during the procedure and provided subjective assessment of their outcome at 90 days. Adverse events were documented. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were evaluated. Blinded reviewers observed improvement in skin laxity in 58.1% of patients. During quantitative assessments, overall improvement in skin laxity was noted in 63.6% of evaluated patients. No change was detected in 54.5% of patients whose BMI exceeded 30 kg/m2 or in 12.2% of patients whose BMI was ≤30 kg/m2. At day 90, 65.6% of patients perceived improvement in the skin laxity of the lower half of their face/neck. The average procedural pain scores for the cheek, submental, and submandibular regions were 5.68, 6.09, and 6.53, respectively. Wheals, which resolved without intervention or long-term sequelae, were reported for 3 patients. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, this is the largest clinical study of the effectiveness of the Ulthera System for rejuvenation of the lower face. At day 90, improvements were reported by two-thirds of patients and by nearly 60% of blinded reviewers. Outcomes were better in patients with BMI≤30 kg/m2. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.