Utilization and Timing of Cystoscopy for Hematuria Evaluation by Advanced Practice Providers and Urologists.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize differences between urologists and advanced practice providers (APPs) in the utilization of cystoscopy for hematuria. METHODS: We identified patients initially evaluated for hematuria by a urologist or urology APP between 2015 and 2020 in the MarketScan Research Databases. We determined whether they received a cystoscopy within 6 months of their urology visit and the number of days until cystoscopy. We used multivariable regression to analyze the association between these outcomes and whether the urology clinician was an advanced practice registered nurse (APRN), physician assistant (PA), or urologist. RESULTS: We identified 34,470 patients with microscopic hematuria and 17,328 patients with gross hematuria. Patients evaluated by urologists more often received a same-day cystoscopy than those evaluated by APPs (13% vs 5.8%). The odds that patients evaluated for microscopic and gross hematuria received a cystoscopy were 46.2% and 26.2% lower, respectively, if they were evaluated by an APRN vs a urologist. Patients seeing an APRN for microscopic and gross hematuria also waited approximately 7 and 14 days longer for their cystoscopy, respectively. No differences were observed for patients evaluated by PAs vs urologists. CONCLUSION: Patients evaluated for hematuria by an APRN were less likely to receive a cystoscopy and had a longer wait until the procedure compared to those evaluated by a urologist; however, no differences were observed between PAs and urologists. Better understanding APP integration into urology clinics is warranted.

Exploring the Demands of Urology: On-Call Compensation, Frequency, and Variability.

INTRODUCTION: We investigate and analyze the available information regarding on-call patterns among urologists in the US. METHODS: The AUA Workforce Workgroup collaborated with the AUA Data Team to analyze information from the 2022 AUA Census. Extracted data were analyzed to identify variability across gender, subspecialty, hours worked per week, AUA section, salary, and practice setting. We used χ2 tests to compare the groups with respect to each factor and defined statistical significance as a P value less than .05. RESULTS: There were significant differences by gender and several other on-call factors including being required to take call to maintain hospital privileges (reported by 76% of female urologists vs 67% of male urologists; P = .026), getting paid for weekend call (28% of females vs 38% of males; P = .030), and making over $500 per day when taking weekend call (18% of females vs 32% of males; P < .001). Other differences existed between AUA sections in percentage of physicians receiving over $500 for weekday or weekend calls (P < .001). Lastly, practice setting differed in likelihood of being paid over $500 for weekday call (44% reported by private practice urologists, 7% reported by academic urologists, 14% reported by institutional urologists; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: These results underscore the substantial variability in on-call responsibilities and structure within the AUA workforce. Further research and regular participation in future censuses are recommended to continue to characterize these trends.

Growth in Newborn Circumcisions Performed by Pediatric Urologists and Advanced Practice Providers Between 2010 and 2021 in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize changes in the proportion of newborn circumcisions performed by pediatric urologists and advanced practiced providers (APPs) in the United States over the last decade. METHODS: The Merative MarketScan Commercial Database was queried for newborn circumcision private health insurance claims (Common Procedural Terminology 54150) between 2010 and 2021. Setting (inpatient/outpatient), US Census Bureau region, clinician specialty, and patient age (days) were determined for the full study time period, and by study year. Simple linear regression assessed growth in proportion of newborn circumcisions performed by pediatric urologists and APPs (nurse practitioner/physician assistant/midwife), over time. RESULTS: In total, 1,006,748 newborn circumcisions (59% inpatient) were identified; while most were performed by obstetricians (45%) or pediatricians (33%); APPs performed 0.9%, and pediatric urologists performed 0.7%. From 2010-2021, the proportion of newborn circumcisions performed by pediatric urologists increased from 0.3% to 2.0% and by APPs in from 0.5% to 2.9% (P < .001 for both). Growth for both pediatric urologists and APPs occurred APPs predominantly from 2016 to 2021. Trends in proportion of newborn circumcision performed by pediatricians was stable [31.5% (2010) and 32.5% (2021)], but decreased for obstetricians [48.8% (2014) and 38.1% (2021)]. CONCLUSION: The proportion of newborn circumcisions performed by pediatric urologists and APPs increased more than 6-fold between 2010 and 2021, though both specialties still perform a minority of newborn circumcisions. These data provide important baseline information for newborn circumcision workforce planning, including evaluating collaborative care models where pediatric urologists train APPs to perform circumcision.

Industry Payments for Vibegron and Prescribing Patterns Among Urologic Clinicians.

This cross-sectional study compares the prescribing practices among urologists and advanced practice clinicians who received vs did not receive payment from drug manufacturers.

Industry Payments to Urologists and Urologic Advanced Practice Providers in 2021.

OBJECTIVE: To compare industry payments from drug and medical device companies to urologists and urologic advanced practice providers (APPs) in 2021. METHODS: We used the 2020 Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty file to identify single-specialty urology practices, defined as those where the majority of physicians were urologists. We then used the Open Payments Program Year 2021 data to summarize the value and number of industry payments to urologists and APPs, including nurse practitioners and physician assistants, in these practices. We calculated the total value and number of payments and median total value and number of payments per provider for urologists and urologic APPs. RESULTS: We identified 4418 urologists and 1099 APPs working in single-specialty urology practices in 2021 (Table 1). Of these, 3646 (87%) urologists received at least one industry payment, totaling $14,755,003 from 116,039 payments, and 954 urologic APPs (87%) received at least one industry payment, including 463 nurse practitioners (85%), totaling $401,283 from 13,035 payments, and 491 physician assistants (89%), totaling $543,429 from 14,626 payments. We observed significantly greater median total value and number of payments per provider for urologists ($620 and 24 payments) compared to urologic APPs ($473 and 21 payments; P < .001 and P = .017, respectively). CONCLUSION: A similar percentage of urologists and urologic APPs received industry payments in 2021. While urologists received a higher total number and total value of payments in 2021, urologic APPs were a common target of industry marketing payments.

Characteristics of prostate cancer patients captured by facility-based versus geography-based cancer registries.

PURPOSE: We determined differences in demographics, tumor factors, and treatment patterns of prostate cancer patients in a geographic-based cancer registry based on eligibility for a facility-based cancer registry system. METHODS: We identified prostate cancer patients captured by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2018 to 2019. Our exposure was receipt of cancer care at a facility accredited by the American College of Surgeons' Commission on Cancer (CoC) providing eligibility for inclusion in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Outcomes included patient demographics, tumor factors (e.g., biopsy grade), and treatment with radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: We identified 113,733 prostate cancer patients of whom 65,708 (57%) were NCDB-eligible with an analytic abstract, and 11,010 (10%) were NCDB-eligible without an analytic abstract. NCDB-eligible men were younger (67.0 vs. 68.1 years, P < 0.001), less likely to be Hispanic/Latino (8.7% vs. 13.2%, P < 0.001), and more likely in a county with median income over $75,000 (40.9% vs. 30.0%, P < 0.001). NCDB eligibility varied widely by registry, from 95.9% in Connecticut to 42.6% in Utah. NCDB-ineligible patients were more likely to have unknown stage (17.2% vs. 2.9% NCDB-eligible) and missing PSA (22.9% vs 9.3% NCDB-eligible). NCDB-eligible men were less likely to have Grade Group 1 cancer on biopsy (28.2% vs. 39.2%, P < 0.001). Treatment with prostatectomy was more common among NCDB-eligible patients for low-risk (19.6% vs. 8.8%, adjusted OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.72-6.66) and high-risk tumors (43.5% vs. 26.0%, adjusted OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.33-2.86). CONCLUSION: Compared NCDB-ineligible patients, those eligible for inclusion in the NCDB have important differences in demographics, eligibility for active surveillance, and treatment patterns. Generalizations related to epidemiologic trends, practice patterns, and outcomes for this select population should be interpreted with caution.

Increasing Role of the Advanced Practice Provider in Men's Health Clinics: An Analysis of Medicare and Commercial Claims in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: As urological care delivery in the U.S. continues to evolve to meet patient needs, we aim to clarify the role of advanced practice providers for publicly and privately insured patients in the treatment of male urological conditions commonly encountered in men's health clinics. METHODS: Medicare and commercial insurance claims from the Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary and Merative MarketScan Commercial Database were queried for procedures submitted by advanced practice providers between 2010 and 2021. Common urological conditions were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes and grouped into 4 categories: testicular hypofunction, erectile dysfunction and Peyronie's disease, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and scrotal pain. The proportion of procedures submitted by advanced practice providers was calculated for each year and category. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2021, the proportion of advanced practice provider-submitted service counts for each condition within the MarketScan group increased up to 5-fold, with benign prostatic hyperplasia representing the greatest growth. The proportion of advanced practice provider-submitted service counts within the Medicare group increased up to 8-fold, with erectile dysfunction/Peyronie's disease representing the greatest fold change. The proportion of claims submitted by advanced practice providers treating all 4 conditions was higher in 2021 than 2010 in both publicly and privately insured groups. CONCLUSIONS: The role of advanced practice providers in men's urological health is increasing for both privately and publicly insured patient populations. Advanced practice providers play a critical role in urological care and can help to improve access to men's health.

Outcomes of Hematuria Evaluation by Advanced Practice Providers and Urologists.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the quality and costs of care for patients evaluated for hematuria by urologic advanced practice providers (APPs) and urologists. The roles of APPs in urology are growing, but their clinical and financial outcomes compared to urologists are not well understood. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of commercially insured patients using data from 2014 to 2020. We included adult beneficiaries with a diagnosis code for hematuria and an initial outpatient evaluation and management visit with a urologic APP or urologist. We assessed receipt of cystoscopy procedure, imaging study, bladder biopsy procedure, and bladder cancer diagnosis within 6 months of the initial visit. Secondary outcomes included the time until each of these outcomes occurred and the out-of-pocket spending and total payments. RESULTS: We identified 59,923 patients who were initially evaluated for hematuria. Visits with urologic nurse practitioners rather than urologists were associated with significantly lower odds of receiving cystoscopy procedures (odds ratio [OR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.54-0.72, P < .001), imaging studies (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.69-0.91, P < .001), and bladder biopsy procedures (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41-0.92, P = .02). Visits with urologic physician assistants were associated with 11% greater out-of-pocket payments (incident risk ratio 1.11, CI 1.01-1.22, P = .02) and 14% greater total payments (incident risk ratio 1.14, CI 1.04-1.25, P = .004). CONCLUSION: There are clinical and financial differences in hematuria care delivered by urologic APPs and urologists. The incorporation of APPs into urologic care warrants further study, and specialty-specific training for APPs should be considered.

Effects of Advanced Practice Providers on Single-specialty Surgical Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of adding advanced practice providers to surgical practices on surgical complications, readmissions, mortality, episode spending, length of stay, and access to care. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: There has been substantial growth in the number of nurse practitioners and physician assistants (ie, advanced practice providers) in the United States. The extent to which advanced practice providers have been integrated into surgical practice, and their impact on surgical outcomes and access is unclear. METHODS: Using a 20% sample of national Medicare claims, we performed a retrospective cohort study of fee-for-service beneficiaries undergoing one of 4 major procedures (coronary artery bypass graft, colectomy, major joint replacement, and cystectomy) between 2010 and 2016. We limited our study population for each procedure to patients treated by single-specialty surgical groups to ensure that the advanced practice providers have direct interactions with its surgeons and patients. All outcomes were measured at the practice level for the year before and the year after the addition of the first advanced practice provider. Outcomes included: complications, readmission, mortality, episode payments, length of stay. Models were adjusted for age, race, sex, comorbidity, socioeconomic class and procedure type. Secondary outcome: practice-level office visits by surgical group type. RESULTS: The number of advanced practice providers increased by 13%, from 6713 to 7596 between 2010 and 2016. The largest relative increases occurred in general (46.9%) and urologic (27.6%) surgical practices. The year after an advanced practice provider was added to a surgical practice, the odds of complications were 17% and 16% lower at 30- and 90-days postprocedure, respectively. Additionally, 90-day readmissions were 18% less likely and length of stay was 0.33 days shorter (a 7.1% reduction). Average 30-day and90-day episode spending was $1294.73 and $1427.76 lower, respectively ( P < 0.001). General surgical, orthopedic, and urology practices realized increases of 49.0 (95% CI 13.5-84.5), 112.0 (95% CI 83.0-140.5), and 205.0 (95% CI 117.5-292.0) in-office visits per surgeon, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of advanced practice providers to single-specialty surgical groups is associated with improvements in surgical outcomes and access. Future work should clarify the mechanisms by which advanced practice providers within surgical practices contribute to health outcomes to identify best practices for deployment.

Evaluation of Industry Payments to US Advanced Practice Clinicians in 2021.

Importance: Advanced practice clinicians (APCs) are a growing part of the US health care system, and their financial relationships with pharmaceutical and medical device companies have not been well studied. Objectives: To examine the value, frequency, and types of payments made to APCs and the association of state scope-of-practice laws with these payments. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used 2021 Open Payments Program data to analyze payments from pharmaceutical or medical device companies to physicians or APCs between January 1 and December 31, 2021. Doctors of medicine and osteopathy were categorized as physicians, and nurse practitioners, physician assistants, clinical nurse specialists, certified registered nurse anesthetists, certified nurse midwives, and anesthesiologist assistants as APCs. Main Outcomes and Measures: The total value and total number of payments were calculated in aggregate and per clinician for each type of APC, all APCs, and physicians. These calculations were repeated by submitting manufacturer, form of payment, nature of payment, and state scope-of-practice law for nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians. Results: A total of 412 000 physicians and 232 000 APCs collectively received $1.99 billion in payments from industry in 2021, of which APCs received $121 million (6.1%). The median total value of payments per clinician for physicians was $167 (IQR, $45-$712) and for APCs was $117 (IQR, $33-$357). The median total number of payments per clinician was equal for physicians and APCs (n = 4). The most common payments to APCs included food and beverage ($69 million [57.6%]), compensation for services other than consulting ($32 million [26.4%]), and consulting fees ($8 million [6.6%]). Advanced practice clinicians in states with the most restrictive scope-of-practice laws received 15.9% lower total value of payments than those in the least restrictive states (P = .002). Physician assistants received 7.6% (P = .005) higher value and 18.1% (P < .001) greater number of payments than nurse practitioners. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, 232 000 APCs collectively received $121 million in industry payments in 2021. The frequency of industry interactions with APCs was similar to that for physicians, but the average value was lower. The greater value of payments to APCs who practice in states with the least restrictive scope-of-practice laws suggests that industry payments may be related to clinician autonomy.

The Growth of Advanced Practice Providers in Urology Procedural Care: Evidence from Public and Private Health Insurers.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the growing role of advanced practice providers (APPs) in urologic care, we investigated urology procedural claims submitted to public and private health insurers. METHODS: We used Medicare summary and commercial health insurance claims from 2010 to 2020 to calculate the number and proportion of common urologic procedures performed by APPs. To characterize broader trends across urology, we categorized the urologic procedures into five groups: cancer procedures, cystoscopy procedures, imaging procedures, urgent procedures, and voiding dysfunction. RESULTS: APPs submitted an increasing proportion of Medicare and commercial urology procedural claims between 2010 and 2020 (2% and 1% more claims, respectively), including several procedure groups: voiding dysfunction (12% and 4%), urgent procedures (8% and 5%), cancer procedures (3% and 2%), and cystoscopy procedures (1% and 1%). APPs consistently submitted a larger proportion of claims to Medicare than private insurers and, as of 2019, voiding dysfunction and cancer procedures were the most common urologic procedures performed by APPs in the Medicare data (82,749 and 73,837 procedures, respectively). In 2020, procedures with the greatest proportion of Medicare and commercial claims submitted by APPs included percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (24% and 10% of claims, respectively), bladder installations (16% and 8%), neurostimulator programming (14% and 7%), and complicated Foley catheter placement (12% and 7%). CONCLUSION: APPs account for a growing proportion of urology procedural claims submitted to public and private health insurers. Stakeholders need to be aware of these changes in the urologic workforce to maintain the standard of care across urology.

Prostate Cancer With Peritoneal Carcinomatosis: A Robotic-assisted Radical Prostatectomy-based Case Series.

OBJECTIVE: To aid in the diagnosis and treatment of patients with metastatic tumor seeding, an exceedingly rare phenomenon following minimally invasive urological surgery, additional case reports are needed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We report our experience with patients determined to have peritoneal carcinomatosis following robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) and provide a descriptive summary of these unique cases. RESULTS: Five cases of peritoneal carcinomatosis were identified, all of which occurred relatively late-between 8 and 13 years-following RARP. Four of the 5 cases had T3 disease at the time of prostatectomy. 68Ga-PSMA PET identified peritoneal carcinomatosis in 3 of 5 cases. CONCLUSION: Certain clinical factors, such as advanced pathologic stage at the time of prostatectomy, may predict risk for carcinomatosis following RARP. Additionally, next-generation imaging modalities, such as PSMA PET, may aid in identifying these metastases and are likely to identify increasing numbers of these patients as next-generation imaging becomes more widely available. Continued documentation and classification of this atypical presentation are needed to improve our understanding and management of this phenomenon.

Impact of Advanced Practice Provider Integration into Multispecialty Group Practices on Outcomes Following Major Surgery.

Background. While advanced practice providers (APPs) are increasingly integrated into care delivery models, little is known about their impact in surgical settings. Given that many patients undergo surgery in multispecialty group practice settings, we examined the impact of APP integration into such practices on outcomes after major surgery. Methods. We used a 20% sample of national Medicare claims to identify 190 101 patients who underwent 1 of 4 major surgeries (coronary artery bypass graft [CABG], colectomy, major joint replacement, and cystectomy) at multispecialty group practices from 2010 through 2016. The level of APP integration was measured as the ratio of APPs to physicians within each practice. Rates of mortality, major complications, and readmission within 30 days of discharge after the index surgery were compared between patients treated in practices with low, medium, and high levels of APP integration using multivariable regression analysis. Results. Relative to patients treated in practices with low APP integration, those treated in practices with medium or high APP integration had significantly lower rates of mortality (2.4% [low integration] vs 1.9% [medium integration] vs 2.0% [high integration]; P < .01), major complications (34.1% [low] vs 31.2% [medium] vs 30.2% [high]; P < .01), and readmission (11.7% [low] vs 10.6% [medium] vs 10.1% [high]; P < .01). This relationship was consistent for virtually all outcomes when considering each surgery type individually. Conclusions. Integration of APPs into multispecialty group practices was associated with improved postoperative outcomes after major surgery. Future research should identify the mechanisms by which APPs improve outcomes to inform optimal utilization.