Trends of Medicare reimbursement rates for gender affirmation procedures.

BACKGROUND: While nearly 1 in 5 Americans receives health insurance coverage through Medicare, literature suggests that Medicare reimbursement is lagging behind inflation for many plastic surgery procedures. AIM: This article evaluates trends in Medicare reimbursement for gender affirmation procedures. METHODS: The most common gender affirmation procedures performed at an urban academic medical center were identified in this cross-sectional study (level 4 evidence). Five nongender surgery codes were evaluated for reference. A standardized formula utilizing relative value units (RVUs) was used to calculate monetary data. Differences in reimbursement between 2014 and 2021 were calculated for each procedure. OUTCOME: The main outcome was inflation-adjusted difference of charges from 2014 to 2021. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2021, Medicare reimbursement for gender affirmation procedures had an inflation-unadjusted average change of -0.09% (vs +5.63% for the selected nongender codes) and an inflation-adjusted change of -10.03% (vs -5.54% for the selected nongender codes). Trends in reimbursement varied by category of gender-affirming procedure. The overall average compound annual growth rate had a change of -0.99% (vs -0.53% for the selected nongender codes). The average changes in work, facility, and malpractice RVUs were -1.05%, +9.52%, and -0.93%, respectively. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Gender surgeons and patients should be aware that the decrease in reimbursement may affect access to gender-affirming care. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: Our study is one of the first evaluating the reimbursement rates associated with the full spectrum of gender affirmation surgery. However, our study is limited by its cross-sectional nature. CONCLUSIONS: From 2014 to 2021, Medicare reimbursement for gender affirmation procedures lagged inflation.

Mediating Factors Between Race and Time to Treatment in Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous disparities research has demonstrated that underrepresented racial minority patients have worse colorectal cancer outcomes and that they experience unnecessary delays in time to treatment. These delays may explain worse colorectal cancer outcomes for minority patients and serve as a marker of inequalities in our healthcare system. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to quantify the mechanisms that contribute to this disparity in treatment delay. DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of colorectal cancer patients who underwent elective resection from 2004 to 2017. A causal inference mediation analysis using the counterfactual framework was utilized to estimate the extent to which racial disparities among patient factors explain the racial disparities in time to treatment. Mediators included income, education, comorbidities, insurance, and hospital type. SETTINGS: This study was conducted at hospitals participating in the National Cancer Database. PATIENTS: Stage I-III colorectal cancer patients, ≥18 years old, who underwent elective resection from 2004 through 2017 were included. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: The primary measures were indirect effects of mediators between race and delayed time to treatment. RESULTS: Of the 504,405 patients (370,051 colon and 134,354 rectal), 10%, 5%, and 4% were black, Hispanic, and other. In multivariable models, compared to white patients, these patients had 25%, 27%, and 17% greater odds of delayed treatment. Mediation analyses suggested that 43%, 20%, and 31% of the treatment delay among them could be removed if an intervention equalized income, education, comorbidities, insurance, and hospital type to that of white patients. Treatment at an academic hospital explained 15% to 32% of the racial disparity and was the most potent mediator. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective design and failure to capture all meaningful mediators. CONCLUSIONS: Black, Hispanic, and other colorectal cancer patients experience treatment delays when compared to white patients. Equalization of the mediators used in this study could reduce treatment delays by 20% to 43% depending on the racial/ethnic group. Future research should identify other causes of racial disparities in treatment delay and intervene accordingly. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B871 . FACTORES MEDIADORES ENTRE LA RAZA Y EL TIEMPO HASTA EL TRATAMIENTO EN EL CNCER COLORECTAL: ANTECEDENTES:Investigaciones anteriores sobre disparidades han demostrado que los pacientes de minorías raciales subrepresentados tienen peores resultados de cáncer colorrectal y que experimentan retrasos innecesarios en el tiempo de tratamiento. Estos retrasos pueden explicar los peores resultados del cáncer colorrectal para los pacientes de minorías y servir como un marcador de desigualdades en nuestro sistema de salud.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tiene como objetivo cuantificar los mecanismos que contribuyen a esta disparidad en el retraso del tratamiento.DISEÑO:Este es un análisis retrospectivo de pacientes con cáncer colorrectal que se sometieron a resección electiva entre 2004 y 2017. Se utilizó un análisis de mediación de inferencia causal utilizando el marco contra factual para estimar hasta qué punto las disparidades raciales entre los factores del paciente explican las disparidades raciales en el tiempo hasta el tratamiento. Los mediadores incluyeron ingresos económicos, educación, comorbilidades, seguro médico y tipo de hospital.AJUSTES:Este estudio se realizó en hospitales que participan en la Base de datos nacional del cáncer.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes con cáncer colorrectal en estadio I-III, ≥18 años, que se sometieron a resección electiva entre 2004 y 2017.PRINCIPALES RESULTADOS MEDIDAS:Las principales mediciones fueron el efecto indirecto de los mediadores entre la raza y el retraso en el tratamiento.RESULTADOS:De los 504,405 pacientes (370,051 de colon, 134,354 rectal), 10%, 5%, 4% eran negros, hispanos, y otros, respectivamente. En modelos multivariables, en comparación con los pacientes blancos, estos pacientes tenían un 25%, 27%, y 17% más de probabilidades de retrasar el tratamiento. Los análisis de medición sugirieron que el 43%, 20%, 31% del retraso del tratamiento entre, respectivamente, podría eliminarse si una intervención igualara los ingresos económicos, la educación, las comorbilidades, el seguro médico y el tipo de hospital a los de los pacientes blancos. El tratamiento en un hospital académico demostró entre el 15% y el 32% de la disparidad racial y fue el mediador más potente.LIMITACIONES:Este estudio estuvo limitado por su diseño retrospectivo; falla en capturar a todos los mediadores significativos.CONCLUSIONES:Los pacientes negros, hispanos y otros con cáncer colorrectal experimentan retrasos en el tratamiento en comparación con los pacientes blancos. La igualación de los mediadores utilizados en este estudio podría reducir los retrasos en el tratamiento en un 20-43%, según el grupo racial / étnico. Las investigaciones futuras deberían identificar otras causas de disparidades raciales en el retraso del tratamiento e intervenir sobre ellas. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B871 . (Traducción-Dr. Yolanda Colorado ).

Variation in the volume-outcome relationship after rectal cancer surgery in the United States: Retrospective study with implications for regionalization.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated improved outcomes for patients with rectal cancer treated at higher-volume hospitals. However, little is known whether heterogeneity in this effect exists. The objective was to test whether the effect of increased annual rectal cancer resection volume on outcomes is consistent across all hospitals treating rectal cancer. METHODS: Adult stage I to III patients who underwent surgical resection for rectal adenocarcinoma from 2004 to 2016 were identified in the National Cancer Database. RESULTS: We included 120,522 patients treated at 763 hospitals in this retrospective cohort study. Higher volume was linearly and incrementally related to outcomes in unadjusted analyses. In adjusted models, for an average patient at the average hospital, the effect of increasing the annual caseload of rectal cancer resections by 20 resections per year was associated with 8%, (hazard ratio = 0.92, 95% confidence interval = 0.87, 0.97), 18% (odds ratio = 0.82, 95% confidence interval = 0.70, 0.98), and 16% (odds ratio = 0.84, 95% confidence interval = 0.73, 0.95) relative reductions in 5-year overall survival, 30-, and 90-day mortality, respectively, and with a 19% (odds ratio = 1.19, 95% confidence interval = 1.04, 1.36) relative increase in the rate of neoadjuvant chemoradiation. These effects varied by individual hospitals such that 39% of hospitals do not see any benefit in 5-year overall survival associated with higher volumes. Increased volume was associated with lower positive circumferential resection margin rates at 19% of the hospitals. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that higher-volume hospitals have improved outcomes after rectal cancer surgery. However, there exists significant variation in these effects induced by individual within-hospital effects. Regionalization policies may need to be flexible in identifying the hospitals that would achieve enhanced benefits from treating a larger volume of patients.

A New Bibliometric Index: The Top 100 Most Disruptive and Developmental Publications in Colorectal Surgery Journals.

BACKGROUND: A new bibliometric index called the disruption score was recently proposed to identify innovative and paradigm-changing publications. OBJECTIVE: The goal was to apply the disruption score to the colorectal surgery literature to provide the community with a repository of important research articles. DESIGN: This study is a bibliometric analysis. SETTINGS: The 100 most disruptive and developmental publications in Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, Colorectal Disease, International Journal of Colorectal Disease, and Techniques in Coloproctology were identified from a validated data set of disruption scores and linked with the iCite National Institutes of Health tool to obtain citation counts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcomes measured were the disruption score and citation count. RESULTS: We identified 12,127 articles published in Diseases of the Colon & Rectum (n = 8109), International Journal of Colorectal Disease (n = 1912), Colorectal Disease (n = 1751), and Techniques in Coloproctology (n = 355) between 1954 and 2014. Diseases of the Colon & Rectum had the most articles in the top 100 most disruptive and developmental lists. The disruptive articles were in the top 1% of the disruption score distribution in PubMed and were cited between 1 and 671 times. Being highly cited was weakly correlated with high disruption scores (r = 0.09). Developmental articles had disruption scores that were more strongly correlated with citation count (r = 0.18). LIMITATIONS: This study is subject to the limitations of bibliometric indices, which change over time. DISCUSSION: The disruption score identified insightful and paradigm-changing studies in colorectal surgery. These studies include a wide range of topics and consistently identified editorials and case reports/case series as important research. This bibliometric analysis provides colorectal surgeons with a unique archive of research that can often be overlooked but that may have scholarly significance. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B639.UN NUEVO INDICE BIBLIOMÉTRICO: LAS 100 MAS IMPORTANTES PUBLICACIONES EN INNOVACIONES DESESTABILIZADORAS Y DE DESARROLLO EN LAS REVISTAS DE CIRUGÍA COLORRECTALANTECEDENTES:Un nuevo índice bibliométrico llamado innovación desestabilizadora y de desarrollo ha sido propuesto para identificar publicaciones de vanguardia y que pueden romper paradigmas.OBJETIVO:La meta fué aplicar el índice de desestabilización a la literature en cirugía colorectal para aportar a la comunidad con un acervo importante de artículos de investigación.DISEÑO:Un análisis bibliométrico.PARAMETROS:Las 100 publicaciones mas desestabilizadores y de desarrollo en las revistas: Diseases of the Colon and Rectum, Colorectal Disease, International Journal of Colorectal Disease, y Techniques in Coloproctology se recuperaron de una base de datos validada con puntuaciones de desestabilización y se ligaron con la herramienta iCite NIH para obtener la cuantificación de citas.PRINCIPAL MEDIDA DE RESULTADO:El índice desestabilizador y la cuantificación de citas.RESULTADOS:Se identificaron 12,127 articulos publicados en Diseases of the Colon and Rectum (n = 8,109), International Journal of Colorectal Disease (n = 1,912), Colorectal Disease (n = 1,751), y Techniques in Coloproctology (n = 355) de 1954-2014. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum representó la mayoría de las publicaciones dentro de la lista de los 100 mas desestabilizadores y de desarrollo. Esta literatura desestabilizadora se encuentra en el principal 1% de la distribución de la puntuacón desestabilizadora en PubMed y se citaron de 1 a 671 veces. El ser citado con frecuencia se relacionó vagamente con las puntuaciones de desastibilización (r = 0.09). Los artículos de desarrollo tuvieron puntuaciones de desestabilización que estuvieron muy correlacionados con la cuantificación de las citas (r = 0.18).LIMITACIONES:Las sujetas a las limitaciones de los índices bibliométricos, que se modifican en el tiempo.DISCUSION:La putuación de desestabilicación identificó trabajos perspicaces, pragmáticos y modificadores de paradigmas en cirugía colorrectal. Es de interés identificar que se incluyeron una gran variedad de temas y en forma consistente editoriales, reportes de casos y series de casos que representaron una investigación importante. Este análisis bibliométrico aporta a los cirujanos colorrectales de un acervo de investigación único que puede con frecuencia pasarse por alto, y sin embargo tener una gran importancia académica. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B639. (Traducción- Dr. Miguel Esquivel-Herrera).