Intravascular Microaxial Left Ventricular Assist Device Manufacturer Payments to Cardiologists and Use of Devices.

This study examines whether payments from a left ventricular assist device manufacturer to cardiologists performing percutaneous coronary intervention were associated with any use of the devices.

Gender Differences in Medicare Payments Among Cardiologists.

Importance: Women cardiologists receive lower salaries than men; however, it is unknown whether US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reimbursement also differs by gender and contributes to the lower salaries. Objective: To determine whether gender differences exist in the reimbursements, charges, and reimbursement per charge from CMS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis used the CMS database to obtain 2016 reimbursement data for US cardiologists. These included reimbursements to cardiologists, charges submitted, and unique billing codes. Gender differences in reimbursement for evaluation and management and procedural charges from both inpatient and outpatient settings were also assessed. Analysis took place between April 2019 and December 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included median CMS payments received and median charges submitted in the inpatient and outpatient settings in 2016. Results: In 2016, 17 524 cardiologists (2312 women [13%] and 15 212 men [87%]) received CMS payments in the inpatient setting, and 16 929 cardiologists (2151 women [13%] and 14 778 men [87%]) received CMS payments in the outpatient setting. Men received higher median payments in the inpatient (median [interquartile range], $62 897 [$30 904-$104 267] vs $45 288 [$21 371-$73 191]; P < .001) and outpatient (median [interquartile range], $91 053 [$34 820-$196 165] vs $51 975 [$15 622-$120 175]; P < .001) practice settings. Men submitted more median charges in the inpatient (median [interquartile range], 1190 [569-2093] charges vs 959 [569-2093] charges; P < .001) and outpatient settings (median [interquartile range], 1685 [644-3328] charges vs 870 [273-1988] charges; P < .001). In a multivariable-adjusted linear regression analysis, women received less CMS payments compared with men (log-scale ß = -0.06; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.02) after adjustment for number of charges, number of unique billing codes, complexity of patient panel, years since graduation of physicians, and physician subspecialty. Payment by billing codes, both inpatient and outpatient, did not differ by gender. Conclusions and Relevance: There may be potential differences in CMS payments between men and women cardiologists, which appear to stem from gender differences in the number and types of charges submitted. The mechanisms behind these differences merit further research, both to understand why such gender differences exist and also to facilitate reductions in pay disparities.

Procedural sedation for direct current cardioversion: a feasibility study between two management strategies in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: A cardiologist-only approach to procedural sedation with midazolam in the setting of elective cardioversion (DCC) for AF has already been proven as safe as sedation with propofol and anaesthesiologist assistance. No data exist regarding the safety of such a strategy during emergency procedures. The aim of this study is to compare the feasibility of sedation with midazolam, administered by a cardiologist, to an anaesthesiologist-assisted protocol with propofol in emergency DCC. METHODS: Single centre, prospective, open blinded, randomized study including all consecutive patients admitted to the Emergency Department requiring urgent or emergency DCC. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either propofol or midazolam treatment arm. Patients in the midazolam group were managed by the cardiologist only, while patients treated with propofol group underwent DCC with anaesthesiologist assistance. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were enrolled and split into two groups. Eighteen patients (26.1%) experienced peri-procedural adverse events (bradycardia, severe hypotension and severe hypoxia), which were similar between the two groups and all successfully managed by the cardiologist. No deaths, stroke or need for invasive ventilation were registered. Patients treated with propofol experienced a greater decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure when compared with those treated with midazolam. As the procedure was shorter when midazolam was used, the median cost of urgent/emergency DCC with midazolam was estimated to be 129.0 € (1st-3rd quartiles 114.6-151.6) and 195.6 € (1st-3rd quartiles 147.3-726.7) with propofol (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Procedural sedation with midazolam given by the cardiologist alone was feasible, well-tolerated and cost-effective in emergency DCC.

Strategic Deployment of Cardiology Fellows in Training Using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Coronavirus Disease 2019 Framework.

Coronavirus disease 2019 is a global pandemic affecting >3 million people in >170 countries, resulting in >200 000 deaths; 35% to 40% of patients and deaths are in the United States. The coronavirus disease 2019 crisis is placing an enormous burden on health care in the United States, including residency and fellowship training programs. The balance between mitigation, training and education, and patient care is the ultimate determinant of the role of cardiology fellows in training during the coronavirus disease 2019 crisis. On March 24, 2020, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education issued a formal response to the pandemic crisis and described a framework for operation of graduate medical education programs. Guidance for deployment of cardiology fellows in training during the coronavirus disease 2019 crisis is based on the principles of a medical mission, and adherence to preparation, protection, and support of our fellows in training. The purpose of this review is to describe our departmental strategic deployment of cardiology fellows in training using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education framework for pandemic preparedness.

Integration of cardiologists with hospitals: Effects on physician compensation and productivity.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-physician vertical integration involving employment of physicians has increased considerably over the last decade. Cardiologists are one group of specialists being increasingly employed by hospitals. Although hospital-physician integration has the potential to produce economic and societal benefits, there is concern that this consolidation may reduce competition and concentrate bargaining power among providers. In addition, hospitals may be motivated to offer cardiologists higher compensation and reduced workloads as an incentive to integrate. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to determine if there are differences in compensation and clinical productivity, measured by work relative value units (RVUs), for cardiologists as they transition from being independent practitioners to being employed by hospitals. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This study was a quantitative, retrospective, longitudinal analysis, comparing the compensation and work RVUs of integrated cardiologists to their compensation and work RVUs as independent cardiologists. Data from the MedAxiom Annual Survey from 2010 to 2014 were used. Participants included 4,830 unique cardiologists that provided 13,642 pooled physician-year observations, with ownership status, compensation, work (RVUs), and other characteristics as variables for analysis. RESULTS: Results from the multivariate regressions indicate that average compensation for cardiologists increases by $129,263.1 (p < .001) when they move from independent to integrated practice. At the same time, physician work RVUs decline by 398.04 (p = .01). CONCLUSION: Our findings support the conjecture that hospitals may be offering higher pay and lower workloads to incentivize cardiologists to integrate. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Although hospitals may have goals of quality improvement and lower costs, such goals may presently be secondary to service line growth and increased market power. There is reason to be cautious about some of the implications of hospital integration of cardiologists.

Comprehensive National Institutes of Health funding analysis of academic cardiac surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: To determine trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for cardiac surgeons, hypothesizing they are at a disadvantage in obtaining funding owing to intensive clinical demands. METHODS: Cardiac surgeons (adult/congenital) currently at the top 141 NIH-funded institutions were identified using institutional websites. The NIH funding history for each cardiac surgeon was queried using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER). Total grant funding, publications, and type was collected. Academic rank, secondary degrees, and fellowship information was collected from faculty pages. Grant productivity was calculated using a validated grant impact metric. RESULTS: A total of 818 academic cardiac surgeons were identified, of whom 144 obtained 293 NIH grants totaling $458 million and resulting in 6694 publications. We identified strong associations between an institution's overall NIH funding rank and the number of cardiac surgeons, NIH grants to cardiac surgeons, and amount of NIH funding to cardiac surgeons (P < .0001 for all). The majority of NIH funding to cardiac surgeons is concentrated in the top quartile of institutions. Cardiac surgeons had a high conversion rates from K awards (mentored development awards) to R01s (6 of 14; 42.9%). Finally, we demonstrate that the rate of all NIH grants awarded to cardiac surgeons has increased, driven primarily by P and U (collaborative project) grants. CONCLUSIONS: NIH-funded cardiac surgical research has had a significant impact over the last 3 decades. Aspiring cardiac surgeon-scientists may be more successful at top quartile institutions owing to better infrastructure and mentorship.

Cardiologist Participation in Accountable Care Organizations and Changes in Spending and Quality for Medicare Patients With Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Despite widespread adoption of Medicare accountable care organizations (ACOs), healthcare spending reductions have been modest. This may relate to variable participation in ACOs by specialist physicians, who disproportionately drive spending. To examine whether specialist participation in Medicare ACOs was associated with changes in healthcare spending and clinical quality, we analyzed national Medicare data. METHODS AND RESULTS: Working with a 20% random sample of Medicare beneficiaries (2008 to 2015), we identified those with cardiovascular disease. We estimated linear regression models at the beneficiary-quarter level to evaluate changes in healthcare spending and clinical quality after the start of the Shared Savings Program in 2012. We then examined whether changes in spending and quality across ACOs were conditional on cardiologist participation. Our study included ≈1.6 million beneficiaries per year. Although the number of ACOs increased over the study period (from 114 in 2012 to 392 in 2015), the proportion with any cardiologist participation remained stable (from 80% in 2012 to 83% in 2015). Compared with unaligned beneficiaries, those cared for by ACOs without cardiologist participation were associated with a spending reduction (per quarter) of -$75 (95% CI, -$105 to -$46; P<0.001). Care receipt in an ACO with cardiologist participation was associated with an additional difference in spending of -$56 (95% CI, -$87 to -$25; P<0.001), driven by lower spending for skilled nursing facilities, evaluation and management services, procedural care, and testing. While heart failure admission rates were similar among aligned and unaligned beneficiaries, ACO care was associated with fewer all-cause readmissions (P<0.001) and emergency department visits (P<0.001). Rates of these outcomes did not vary by cardiologist participation. CONCLUSIONS: Annual spending for beneficiaries with cardiovascular disease was ≈$200 lower when cared for by ACOs with cardiologist participation (compared with those without). These spending reductions did not come at the expense of clinical quality.

The Implications of Acute Clinical Care Responsibilities on the Contemporary Practice of Interventional Cardiology.

The responsibilities of the interventional cardiologist (IC) have evolved in contemporary practice to include substantial acute care clinical duties outside of the cardiac catheterization laboratory. In particular, the IC has assumed a central role in the global management of myocardial infarction and other acute coronary syndromes in the intensive care unit and beyond. These duties have expanded to include many nonprocedural tasks. The Interventional Section Leadership Council (ISLC) of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) therefore recommends: 1) these implications should be directly considered in the ACC's future planning and policy statements concerning manpower, competence, education, and reimbursement; 2) the development of an acute care cardiology subspecialty should be undertaken; 3) steps should be taken to adjust the number of ICs primarily on the basis of optimizing procedural volume and quality; and 4) the annual number of coronary interventions performed should not solely define competence in the future, but should include the performance of acute cardiology responsibilities.

Qualitative study of cardiologists' perceptions of factors influencing clinical practice decisions.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare costs are increasing in the USA and Canada and a substantial portion of health spending is devoted to services that do not improve health outcomes. Efforts to reduce waste by adopting evidence-based clinical practice guideline recommendations have had limited success. We sought insight into improving health system efficiency through understanding cardiologists' perceptions of factors that influence clinical decision-making. METHODS: In this descriptive qualitative study, we conducted in-depth interviews with 18 American and 3 Canadian cardiologists. We used conventional content analysis including inductive and deductive approaches for data analysis and mapped findings to the ecological systems framework. RESULTS: Physicians reported that major determinants of practice included interpersonal interactions with peers, patients and administrators; financial incentives and system factors. Patients' insurance status represented an important consideration for some cardiologists. Other major influences included time constraints, fear of litigation (less prominent in Canada), a sense that their obligation was never to miss any underlying pathology, and patient demands. The need to bring income into their health system influenced American cardiologists' practice; personal income implications influenced Canadian cardiologists' practice. Cardiologists reported that knowledge limitations and logistical challenges limit their ability to assist patients with cost considerations. All these considerations were more influential than guidelines; some cardiologists expressed a high level of scepticism regarding guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical decision-making by cardiologists is shaped by individual, interpersonal, organisational, environmental, financial and sociopolitical influences and only to a limited extent by guideline recommendations. Successful strategies to achieve efficient, evidence-based care will require addressing socioecological influences on decision-making.

Evaluation of Industrial Compensation to Cardiologists in 2015.

The categorization and characterization of pharmaceutical and device manufacturers or group purchasing organization payments to clinicians is an important step toward assessing conflicts of interest and the potential impact of these payments on practice patterns. Payments have not previously been compared among the subspecialties of cardiology. This is a retrospective analysis of the Open Payments database, including all installments and payments made to doctors in the calendar year 2015 by pharmaceutical and device manufacturers or group purchasing organization. Total payments to individual physicians were then aggregated based on specialty, geographic region, and payment type. The Gini Index was further employed to calculate within each specialty to measure income disparity. In 2015, a total of $166,089,335 was paid in 943,744 payments (average $175.00 per payment) to cardiologists, including 23,372 general cardiologists, 7,530 interventional cardiologists, and 2,293 cardiac electro-physiologists. Payments were mal-distributed across the 3 subspecialties of cardiology (p <0.01), with general cardiology receiving the largest number (73.5%) and total payments (62.6%) and cardiac electrophysiologists receiving significantly higher median payments ($1,662 vs $361 for all cardiologists; p <0.01). The Medtronic Company was the largest single payer for all 3 subspecialties. In conclusion, pharmaceutical and device manufacturers or group purchasing organizations continue to make substantial payments to cardiac practitioners with a significant variation in payments made to different cardiology subspecialists. The largest number and total payments are to general cardiologists, whereas the highest median payments are made to cardiac electrophysiologists. The impact of these payments on practice patterns remains to be examined.

Status of Early-Career Academic Cardiology: A Global Perspective.

Early-career academic cardiologists, who many believe are an important component of the future of cardiovascular care, face myriad challenges. The Early Career Section Academic Working Group of the American College of Cardiology, with senior leadership support, assessed the progress of this cohort from 2013 to 2016 with a global perspective. Data consisted of accessing National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute public information, data from the American Heart Association and international organizations, and a membership-wide survey. Although the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute increased funding of career development grants, only a small number of early-career American College of Cardiology members have benefited as funding of the entire cohort has decreased. Personal motivation, institutional support, and collaborators continued to be positive influential factors. Surprisingly, mentoring ceased to correlate positively with obtaining external grants. The totality of findings suggests that the status of early-career academic cardiologists remains challenging; therefore, the authors recommend a set of attainable solutions.

The Recent Losses in Medicare Imaging Revenues Experienced by Radiologists, Cardiologists, and Other Physicians.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess recent trends in Medicare reimbursements to radiologists, cardiologists, and other physicians for noninvasive diagnostic imaging (NDI). METHODS: The Medicare Part B databases for 2002 to 2015 were the data source. These files provide total allowed payments for all NDI Current Procedural Terminology codes under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Medicare specialty codes were used to identify payments to radiologists, cardiologists, and all other specialists. In additional to total reimbursements, those made for global, technical component, and professional component claims were studied. RESULTS: Total reimbursements to physicians for NDI under the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule peaked at $11.936 billion in 2006. Over the ensuing years, the Deficit Reduction Act and other cuts reduced them by 33% to $8.005 billion in 2015. Reimbursements to radiologists peaked at $5.300 billion in 2006 but dropped to $4.269 billion by 2015 (-19.5%). NDI reimbursements to cardiologists dropped from $2.998 billion in 2006 to $1.653 billion by 2015 (-44.9%). Most other specialties also saw decreases over the study period. An important reason for the large decline for cardiologists was their dependence on global reimbursement, which saw a 50.5% drop from 2006 to 2015. Radiologists' global payments also dropped sharply (40.4%), but radiologists themselves were somewhat protected by receiving a much larger proportion of their reimbursement for the professional component, which was not nearly as affected by Medicare payment reductions. CONCLUSIONS: The Deficit Reduction Act and other NDI payment cuts that followed have created huge savings for the Medicare program but have led to sharp reductions in payments received by radiologists, cardiologists, and other physicians for those services.