The Decline of Small Practice in Colorectal Surgery: Practice Consolidation From 2015-2022.

INTRODUCTION: Physicians have gravitated toward larger group practice arrangements in recent years. However, consolidation trends in colorectal surgery have yet to be well described. Our objective was to assess current trends in practice consolidation within colorectal surgery and evaluate underlying demographic trends including age, gender, and geography. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional study using the Center for Medicare Services National Downloadable File from 2015 to 2022. Colorectal surgeons were categorized by practice size and by region, gender, and age. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2022, the number of colorectal surgeons in the United States increased from 1369 to 1621 (+18.4%), while the practices with which they were affiliated remained relatively stable (693-721, +4.0%). The proportion of colorectal surgeons in groups of 1-2 members fell from 18.9% to 10.7%. Conversely, those in groups of 500+ members grew from 26.5% to 45.2% (linear trend P < 0.001). The midwest region demonstrated the highest degree of consolidation. Affiliations with group practices of 500+ members saw large increases from both female and male surgeons (+148.9% and +86.9%, respectively). New surgeons joining the field since 2015 overwhelmingly practice in larger groups (5.3% in groups of 1-2, 50.1% in groups of 500+). CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal surgeons are shifting toward larger practice affiliations. Although this change is happening across all demographic groups, it appears unevenly distributed across geography, gender, and age. New surgeons are preferentially joining large group practices.

Benchmarking the Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model: Changes in Medicare Reimbursement for 16 Common Radiation Therapy Treatment Courses.

Radiation oncology (RO) has seen declines in Medicare reimbursement (MCR) in the past decade under the current fee-for-service model. Although studies have explored decline in reimbursement at a per-code level, to our knowledge there are no recent studies analyzing changes in MCR over time for common RO treatment courses. By analyzing changes in MCR for common treatment courses, our study had 3 objectives: (1) to provide practitioners and policymakers with estimates of recent reimbursement changes for common treatment courses; (2) to provide an estimate of how reimbursement will change in the future under the current fee-for-service model if current trends continue; and (3) to provide a baseline for treatment episodes in the event that the episode-based Radiation Oncology Alternative Payment Model is eventually implemented. Specifically, we quantified inflation- and utilization-adjusted changes in reimbursement for 16 common radiation therapy (RT) treatment courses from 2010 to 2020. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary databases were used to obtain reimbursement for all RO procedures in 2010, 2015, and 2020 for free-standing facilities. Inflation-adjusted average reimbursement (AR) per billing instance was calculated for each Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code using 2020 dollars. For each year, the billing frequency of each code was multiplied by the AR per code. Results were summed per RT course per year, and AR for RT courses were compared. Sixteen common RO courses for head and neck, breast, prostate, lung, and palliative RT were analyzed. AR decreased for all 16 courses from 2010 to 2020. From 2015 to 2020, the only course that increased in AR was palliative 2-dimensional 10-fraction 30 Gy, which increased by 0.4%. Courses using intensity modulated RT saw the largest AR decline from 2010 to 2020, ranging from 38% to 39%. We report significant declines in reimbursement from 2010 to 2020 for common RO courses, with the largest declines for intensity modulated RT. Policymakers should consider the significant cuts to reimbursement that have already occurred when considering future reimbursement adjustment under the current fee-for-service model or when considering mandatory adoption of a new payment system with further cuts and the negative effect of such cuts on quality and access to care.

A cross-sectional analysis of trends in dermatology practice size in the United States from 2012 to 2020.

Physicians are trending towards practice consolidation nationally; however, changes in dermatology practice size remain to be assessed. The objective of this study was to analyze trends in dermatology practice size from 2012 to 2020 using a large-scale Medicare physician database. We performed a retrospective cross-sectional analysis using 2012 and 2020 data obtained from the Physician Compare Database. Responses from dermatologists were analyzed for trends in practice size, with a sub-analysis to examine differences among different regions, gender, and years of experience. The proportion of dermatologists in solo practice decreased from 26.1% in 2012 to 15.6% in 2020 (p < 0.001). Dermatologists were 40% less likely to be practicing in solo practice and 36% more likely to be in a practice with 10 or more members in 2020 (p < 0.001). These findings were consistent among all regions and genders examined. Additionally, in 2020, dermatologists with 30 or more years in practice were 7.5 times more likely to be in solo practice compared to dermatologists with 0-9 years in practice (p < 0.001). There is a trend of dermatologists working for larger practices, which is consistent with a larger nationwide trend of expanding physician practices. This shift in practice settings should be closely monitored to analyze the effect on healthcare efficiency, cost, and delivery.

Current trends in U.S. general surgery practice consolidation.

BACKGROUND: Consolidation of physician practices is well-documented in recent years, yet minimal data exist regarding consolidation in general surgery. This study evaluates current trends in general surgery practice consolidation. METHODS: Data were obtained through the CMS Physician Compare database. Surgeons and practices were categorized by size, and trends were analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage test. Data were stratified by US region. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2020, practicing general surgeons increased from 20,044 to 20,637 (+3%). Unique general surgery practices declined from 8178 to 6489 (-21%). The percentage of surgeons in practices of 1 or 2 declined from 19% to 12%, while surgeons in groups of 500 or more grew from 20% to 31%. Tests for trends towards consolidation at both the individual surgeon and unique practice levels were significant (p < .001). The Midwest region demonstrated the highest degree of consolidation. CONCLUSION: Consistent with trends in medicine overall, general surgery is experiencing substantial practice consolidation.

Group Practice Size Consolidation in Emergency Medicine.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Practice consolidation is common and has been shown to affect the quality and cost of care across multiple health care delivery settings, including hospitals, nursing homes, and physician practices. Despite a long history of large practice management group formation in emergency medicine and intensifying media attention paid to this topic, little is known about the recent practice consolidation trends within the specialty. METHODS: All data were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician Compare database, which contains physician and group practice data from 2012 to 2020. We assessed practice size changes for both individual emergency physicians and groups. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2020, the proportion of emergency physicians in groups sized less than 25 has decreased substantially from 40.2% to 22.7%. Physicians practicing in groups of more than or equal to 500 physicians increased from 15.5% to 24%. CONCLUSION: Since 2012, we observed a steady trend toward increased consolidation of emergency department practice with nearly 1 in 4 emergency physicians nationally working in groups with more than 500 physicians in 2020 compared with 1 in 7 in 2012. Although the relationship between consolidation is likely to draw the most attention from policymakers or payers seeking to negotiate prices in the near term and advance payment models in the long term, greater attention is required to understand the effects of practice consolidation on emergency care.

Orthopaedic Group Practice Size Is Increasing.

PURPOSE: To analyze recent trends in orthopaedic surgery consolidation and quantify these changes temporally and geographically from 2012 to 2020. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of orthopaedic surgeon practice size in the United States using 2012 and 2020 data obtained from the Physician Compare database. RESULTS: Although we observed an increase from 21,216 unique orthopaedic surgeons in 2012 to 21,553 in 2020 (1.6% increase), the number of practices experienced a large decrease from 7,299 practices in 2012 to 5,829 in 2020 (20.1% decrease). The proportion of orthopaedic surgeons working in solo practices decreased from 13.2% (2,790) in 2012 to 7.4% (1,595) in 2020, and the proportion of orthopaedic surgeons working in groups sized 2 to 24 decreased from 35.3% (7,482) in 2012 to 22.2% (4,775) in 2020. In contrast, groups sized 25 to 99 have grown from 20.7% (4,387) of all orthopaedic surgeons to 23.4% (5,048) in 2020. Groups sized 100 to 499 have increased from 16.9% (3,593) in 2012 to 24.1% (5,190) in 2020, whereas groups sized 500 or greater have grown from 14% (2,964) in 2012 to 22.9% (4,945) in 2020. The number of unique group practices showed a significant decrease in the number of solo groups, which comprised 43.8% (3,200) of the total number of individual practices in 2012, decreasing to 32% (1,886) in 2020. All other groups increased in number and proportionally from 2012 to 2020. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that over the period from 2012 to 2020, there has been a substantial trend of orthopaedic surgeons shifting to increasing practice sizes, potentially indicating that more orthopaedic surgeons are working for large health care organizations rather than small independent practices. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The impact of these changes should be examined to determine large-scale effects on patient care, payment models, access, and outcomes, along with physician compensation, lifestyle, and satisfaction.