Medical center reimbursement for vascular procedures has increased over time while professional reimbursement has declined.

OBJECTIVE: The United States healthcare system uses different methods for assigning medical center reimbursement (MCR) and professional reimbursement (PR) for clinical services. We hypothesized that PR has not increased proportionately to MCR for the same vascular services. METHODS: MCR and PR were compared for commonly performed inpatient and outpatient vascular procedures between 2012 and 2021. MCR was calculated using the Medicare inpatient prospective payment system and outpatient prospective payment system. MCR is based on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services definition and criteria for comorbidities and the occurrence of complications; thus, changes in MCR were reported as a range based on the degree of comorbidities and complications using the Diagnosis Related Group. PR was calculated using the Medicare physician fee schedule, which assigns a numerical work relative value unit to each surgical service, with final compensation determined by an annually adjusted conversion factor to yield a final dollar amount. The expected reimbursement based on the observed inflation during the study period using the consumer price index was calculated and compared to the actual reimbursement. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2021, MCR for inpatient procedures increased 20% to 26% for carotid endarterectomy, 24% to 27% for femoral endarterectomy, 24% to 27% for femoropopliteal bypass with vein, 14% to 19% for thoracic endovascular aortic repair, and 15% for aortobifemoral bypass. During the same period, PR increased 3.3% for carotid endarterectomy but decreased for femoral endarterectomy (-5.0%), femoropopliteal bypass (-4.6%), thoracic endovascular aortic repair (-4.2%), and aortobifemoral bypass (-5.0%). Comparing the expected reimbursement, adjusted for inflation, to the actual reimbursement, PR experienced a 10% to 17% reduction but MCR outpaced inflation by 3.7% to 10%. For outpatient procedures, MCR increased 117% for tibial angioplasty, 24% for superficial femoral artery (SFA) stenting, 62% for tunneled dialysis catheter (TDC) insertion, and 24% for iliac stenting but decreased 0.43% for arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation and 7.6% for radiofrequency ablation (RFA). PR increased 0.91% for SFA stenting but decreased for tibial angioplasty (-17%), AVF creation (-6.4%), TDC insertion (-7.1%), iliac stenting (-3.8%), and RFA (-22%). Comparing the expected reimbursement, adjusted for inflation, to the actual reimbursement, PR experienced a 13% to 32% reduction. In contrast, MCR outpaced inflation 7.5% to 88% for tibial angioplasty, SFA stenting, TDC insertion, and iliac stenting but experienced a reduction for AVF (-13%) and RFA (-19%). CONCLUSIONS: MCR for commonly performed vascular procedures has increased and outpaced inflation. In contrast, PR for these same services has decreased across all procedure types. This decrease in PR was exacerbated when adjusted for inflation. This inequity in the reimbursement methods between MCR and PR poses a threat to the viability of the physician workforce. Either changes to the reimbursement methods or a reallocation of reimbursement to physicians are imperative to sustain physician practices.

Financial implications of coronavirus disease 2019 on a tertiary academic vascular surgery practice.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on the healthcare system in the United States. The redistribution of resources and suspension of elective procedures and other services has resulted in financial stress across all service lines. The financial effects on the practice of vascular surgery have not yet been quantified. We hypothesized that vascular surgery divisions have experienced losses affecting the hospital and professional sides that will not be recoupable without significant productivity increases. METHODS: Administrative claims data for clinical services performed by the vascular surgery division at a tertiary medical center for March and April 2019 and for March and April 2020 were analyzed. These claims were separated into two categories: hospital claims (inpatient and outpatient) and professional claims (professional reimbursement for all services provided). Medicare reimbursement methods were used to assign financial value: diagnosis-related group for inpatient services, ambulatory payment classification for outpatient services, and the Medicare physician fee schedule for professional reimbursement and work relative value units (wRVUs). Reimbursements and productivity (wRVUs) were compared between the two periods. A financial model was created to determine the increase in future productivity over baseline required to mitigate the losses incurred during the pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 11,317 vascular surgery claims were reviewed. Hospital reimbursement during the pandemic decreased from $4,982,114 to $2,649,521 (-47%) overall (inpatient, from $3,505,775 to $2,128,133 [-39%]; outpatient, from $1,476,339 to $521,388 [-65%]) and professional reimbursement decreased from $933,897 to $430,967 (-54%) compared with the same period in 2019. Professional productivity as measured by wRVUs sustained a similar decline from 10,478 wRVUs to 5386 wRVUs (-51%). Modeling sensitivity analyses demonstrated that if a vascular division were able to increase inpatient and outpatient revenue to greater than prepandemic levels by 10%, 5%, or 3%, it would take 9, 19, or 31 months, respectively, for the hospital to recover their pandemic-associated losses. Similarly, professional reimbursement recovery would require 11, 20, or 36 months with corresponding increases in productivity. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound and lasting effects on the world in terms of lives lost and financial hardships. The financial effects on vascular surgery divisions has resulted in losses ranging from 39% to 65% compared with the prepandemic period in the previous year. Because the complete mitigation of losses is not feasible in the short term, alternative and novel strategies are needed to financially sustain the vascular division and hospital during a prolonged recovery period.

Vascular Surgeons Are Not Adequately Valued by Traditional Productivity Metrics.

BACKGROUND: Reimbursements for professional services performed by clinicians are under constant scrutiny. The value of a vascular surgeon's services as measured by work relative value units (wRVUs) and professional reimbursement has decreased for some of the most common procedures performed. Hospital reimbursements, however, often remain stable or increases. We sought to evaluate fistulagrams as a case study and hypothesized that while wRVUs and professional reimbursements decrease, hospital reimbursements for these services increased over the same time period. METHODS: Medicare 5% claims data were reviewed to identify all fistulagrams with or without angioplasty or stenting performed between 2015 and 2018 using current procedural terminology codes. Reimbursements were classified into 3 categories: medical center (reimbursements made to a hospital for a fistulagram performed as an outpatient procedure), professional (reimbursement for fistulagrams based on compensation for procedures: work RVUs, practice expense RVU, malpractice expense RVU), and office-based laboratory (OBL, reimbursement for fistulagrams performed in an OBL setting). Medicare's Physician Fee Schedule was used to calculate wRVU and professional reimbursement. Medicare's Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System-Ambulatory Payment Classification was used to calculate hospital outpatient reimbursement. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2018, we identified 1,326,993 fistulagrams. During this study period, vascular surgeons experienced a 25% increase in market share for diagnostic fistulagrams. Compared with 2015, total professional reimbursements from 2017 to 2018 for all fistulagram procedures decreased by 41% (-$10.3 million) while OBL reimbursement decreased 29% (-$42.5 million) and wRVU decreased 36%. During the same period, medical center reimbursement increased by 6.6% (+$14.1 million). CONCLUSIONS: Vascular surgeons' contribution to a hospital may not be accurately reflected through traditional RVU metrics alone. Vascular surgeons performed an increasing volume of fistulagram procedures while experiencing marked reductions in wRVU and reimbursement. Medical centers, on the other hand, experienced an overall increase in reimbursement during the same time period. This study highlights that professional reimbursements, taken in isolation and without consideration of medical center reimbursement, undervalues the services and contributions provided by vascular surgeons.

Assessment of the Accuracy and Reliability of Vascular Surgery Quality Metrics.

BACKGROUND: Health care quality metrics are crucial to medical institutions, payers, and patients. Obtaining current and reliable quality data is challenging, as publicly reported databases lag by several years. Vizient Clinical Data Base (previously University Health Consortium) is utilized by over 5,000 academic and community medical centers to benchmark health care metrics with results based on predetermined Vizient service lines. We sought to assess the accuracy and reliability of vascular surgery service line metrics, as determined by Vizient. METHODS: Vizient utilizes encounter data submitted by participating medical centers and generates a diverse array of health care metrics ranging from mortality to costs. All inpatient cases captured by Vizient under the vascular surgery service line were identified at the University of Massachusetts Medical Center (fiscal year 2016). Each case within the service line was reviewed and categorized as "vascular" or "nonvascular" based on care provided by UMass vascular surgery faculty: vascular = vascular surgery was integral part of care, nonvascular = vascular surgery had minimal or no involvement. Statistical analysis comparing length of stay (LOS), cost, readmission, mortality, and complication rates between vascular and nonvascular cohorts was performed. All inpatient cases discharged by a vascular surgeon National Provider Identifier number were also reviewed and categorized according to Vizient service lines. RESULTS: Vizient's vascular surgery service line identified 696 cases, of which 556 (80%) were vascular and 140 (20%) were nonvascular. When comparing these 2 cohorts, vascular cases had a significantly lower LOS (3.4 vs. 8.7 days; P < 0.0001), cost ($8,535 vs. $16,498; P < 0.0001), and complication rate (6.5% vs. 18%; P < 0.0001) than nonvascular. Mortality was also lower (1.6% vs. 5.7%; P < 0.01), but after risk-adjustment, this difference was not significant. When discharging vascular surgeon National Provider Identifier was used to identify vascular surgery cases, only 69% of these cases were placed within the vascular surgery service line. CONCLUSIONS: Health care quality metrics play an important role for all stakeholders but obtaining accurate and reliable data to implement improvements is challenging. In this single institution experience, inpatient cases that were not under the direction or care of a vascular surgeon resulted in significantly negative impacts on LOS, cost, complication rate, and mortality to the vascular surgery service line, as defined by a national clinical database. Therefore, clinicians must understand the data abstracting and reporting process before implementing effective strategic plans.

Poor glycemic control is a strong predictor of postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing vascular surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Hyperglycemia is a common occurrence in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery. It has been identified in several surgical cohorts that improved perioperative glycemic control reduced postoperative morbidity and mortality. A significant portion of the population with peripheral arterial disease suffers from the sequelae of diabetes or metabolic syndrome. A paucity of data exists regarding the relationship between perioperative glycemic control and postoperative outcomes in vascular surgery patients. The objective of this study was to better understand this relationship and to determine which negative perioperative outcomes could be abated with improved glycemic control. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of a vascular patient database at a large academic center from 2009 to 2013. Eligible procedures included carotid endarterectomy and stenting, endovascular and open aortic aneurysm repair, and all open bypass revascularization procedures. Data collected included standard demographics, outcome parameters, and glucose levels in the perioperative period. Perioperative hyperglycemia was defined as at least one glucose value >180 mg/dL within 72 hours of surgery. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality, with secondary outcomes of complications, need to return to the operating room, and readmission. RESULTS: Of the total 1051 patients reviewed, 366 (34.8%) were found to have perioperative hyperglycemia. Hyperglycemic patients had a higher 30-day mortality (5.7% vs 0.7%; P < .01) and increased rates of acute renal failure (4.9% vs 0.9%; P < .01), postoperative stroke (3.0% vs 0.7%; P < .01), and surgical site infections (5.7% vs 2.6%; P = .01). In addition, these patients were also more likely to undergo readmission (12.3% vs 7.9%; P = .02) and reoperation (6.3% vs 1.8%; P < .01). Furthermore, multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that perioperative hyperglycemia had a strong association with increased 30-day mortality and multiple negative postoperative outcomes, including myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure, and wound complications. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates a strong association between perioperative glucose control and 30-day mortality in addition to multiple other postoperative outcomes after vascular surgery.

Contemporary evaluation of mortality and stroke risk after thoracic endovascular aortic repair.

OBJECTIVE: During the past decade, thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has increased as a treatment option for a variety of aortic pathologic processes. Despite this rise in the use of thoracic stent grafts, real-world outcomes from a robust, adjudicated, contemporary data set have yet to be reported. Previous studies have shown periprocedural mortality rates between 1.5% and 9.5% and procedure-related stroke rates of 2.3% to 8.2%. With advances in device engineering and increased experience of physicians, we hypothesized that the rates of these complications would be reduced in a more recent sample set. The purpose of this study was to determine current rates of mortality and stroke after TEVAR, to identify risk factors that contribute to 30-day mortality, and to develop a simple scoring system that allows risk stratification of patients undergoing TEVAR. METHODS: We examined the 30-day mortality rate after TEVAR using the 2013 to 2014 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Patients undergoing TEVAR for all aortic disease were identified using procedure codes. Bivariate analyses were performed to evaluate the association of preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables with 30-day mortality, followed by multivariable logistic analysis using preoperative variables only, with P < .10 as the criterion for model entry. The predictive logistic model was internally validated by cross-validation. Variables included in the multivariable model were used to develop a risk score. RESULTS: There were 826 patients included. The 30-day mortality and stroke rates were 7.63% (n = 63) and 4.5% (n = 37), respectively. In regression analysis, mortality was independently associated with age ≥80 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25-4.31), emergency case (OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.39-4.90), American Society of Anesthesiologists classification >3 (OR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.34-6.24), transfusion >4 units in the 72 hours before surgery (OR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.30-6.28), preoperative creatinine concentration ≥1.8 mg/dL (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.05-4.08), and preoperative white blood cell count ≥12 × 109/L (OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.41-4.96). Incorporating these factors, a 6-point risk score was generated and demonstrated high predictability for overall 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Recent data from a national, retrospective data set demonstrate that high perioperative mortality and stroke rates have persisted during the last decade. The risk score derived from this data set is simple and convenient and serves as a prognostic tool in the preoperative risk stratification of patients being evaluated for TEVAR.

Preoperative frailty is predictive of complications after major lower extremity amputation.

OBJECTIVE: Preoperative clinical frailty is increasingly used as a surrogate for predicting postoperative outcomes. Patients undergoing major lower extremity amputation (LEA) carry a high risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality, including high 30-day mortality and readmission rates. We hypothesized that preoperative frailty would be associated with an increased risk of postoperative mortality and readmission. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed for all patients who underwent transfemoral or transtibial amputation for any indication within a multi-institution system during a 5-year period. Standard demographics and all components of the Modified Frailty Index (mFI) were used to determine preoperative frailty status for each patient. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality, with secondary outcomes of 30-day readmission, unplanned revision, and composite adverse events. RESULTS: Among 379 patients who underwent LEA, the overall readmission and mortality rates for the group were 22.69% and 6.06%, respectively. Readmission rates increased with increasing mFI score: rates were 8.6%, 13.5%, 16.3%, 19.7%, 31.4%, and 37.0% for mFI scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and ≥5, respectively (P = .015). On multivariate logistic regression, only mFI (odds ratio, 1.49, 95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.77) and sex (odds ratio, 1.81, 95% confidence interval, 1.00-2.98) were significant predictors of 30-day readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative clinical frailty is associated with an increased 30-day readmission rate in patients undergoing LEA and should be incorporated into preoperative counseling and risk stratification, as well as postoperative planning and care.

Project ReEngineered Discharge (RED) lowers hospital readmissions of patients discharged from a skilled nursing facility.

CONTEXT: Patients admitted to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) have a high risk for rehospitalization. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this project was to implement Project RED in an SNF to increase patient preparedness for care transitions and lower rehospitalization rates in the 30 days after discharge from the SNF facility. DESIGN: Intervention study with historical control; phone survey 30 days after discharge from the SNF for data collection. SETTING: The study was conducted in an SNF admitting patients from acute care hospitals in Boston, MA. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A consecutive sample of patients in the SNF before (n = 524) and after initiation (n = 100) of the intervention. Participants had an average age of 80 (SD = 10), 67% were female, and 84% were non-Hispanic white. Phone surveys were completed with 88% of participants in each group. INTERVENTION(S): We adapted Project RED for use in an SNF. This includes a comprehensive approach to transitions of care that includes creating and teaching a personalized care plan to patients and their families. Software facilitating these activities was integrated into the electronic medical record of the SNF; intervention activities were delivered by existing staff. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The main outcome was hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge from the SNF. Secondary outcomes included attendance to a medical appointment within 30 days of discharge from the SNF and preparedness for care transitions as measured by a 6-item survey. RESULTS: The rate of hospitalization 30 days after discharge from the SNF for participants prior to the intervention was 18.9% and for participants during the intervention was 10.2%, P < .05. This remained significant adjusting for multiple potential confounders (P = .045). More patients in the intervention group had attended an outpatient appointment within 30 days of discharge (70.5% versus 52.0%, P < .003). In addition, intervention participants reported a higher level of preparedness for care transitions. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in the intervention had a lower rate of returning to the hospital within 30 days of discharge from the SNF, were more likely to attend medical appointments, and were better prepared for their care transition.