Current Interventional Radiology-Related Benchmarked Clinical Quality Measures Are Less Likely to be "Capped" Than Diagnostic Radiology Clinical Quality Measures.

In the merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS), quality measures are considered topped out if national median performance rates are ≥95%. Quality measures worth 10 points can be capped at 7 points if topped out for ≥2 years. This report compares the availability of diagnostic radiology (DR)-related and interventional radiology (IR)-related measures worth 10 points. A total of 196 MIPS clinical quality measures were reviewed on the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services MIPS website. There are significantly more IR-related measures worth 10 points than DR measures (2/9 DR measures vs 9/12 IR measures; P = .03), demonstrating that clinical IR services can help mixed IR/DR groups maximize their Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services payment adjustment.

The Importance of Financial Metrics in Physician Funding and Performance Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Financial key performance indicators are often used to evaluate performance. Understanding of key performance indicators can be crucial for career advancement and bargaining leverage in resource negotiations. This study aimed to identify the most important key performance indicators used in surgical funding requests and understand how to use these metrics in clinical practice. METHODS: In two tertiary medical centers, funding requests for surgeon gap support (2019 to 2020) and equipment (2017 to 2019) within departments of surgery were reviewed. The requesting department, approval status, and amount allotted were recorded. In requests for gap support, projections for contribution margin, operating room volume, charges, collections, and relative value units were tracked. Projected contribution margin and cost savings were recorded for equipment funding requests. RESULTS: There were 40 gap support and 24 equipment requests, and all were approved. Most gap support requests included collections (90.0 percent), charges (87.5 percent), operating room cases (80.0 percent), relative value units (77.5 percent), and hospital contribution margin (77.5 percent). The most represented departments were general surgery (37.5 percent), neurosurgery (22.5 percent), and plastic surgery (15.0 percent). The departments that submitted the most equipment requests were general surgery (28.0 percent) and neurosurgery (28.0 percent). Most requests included projections for contribution margin (95.8 percent) and cost savings (87.4 percent). Projected hospital contribution margin correlated with the amount of funds allotted for surgeon support (r = 0.409; p = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter study identified the importance of using key performance indicators for a successful financial outcome in funding requests. In addition, the authors demonstrate the need for surgeons to understand their own key performance indicators. Surgeons should advocate for increased transparency to better understand their financial contributions and performance.

Evidence-based benchmarks for use of cancer surgery in high-income countries: a population-based analysis.

BACKGROUND: Estimating a population-level benchmark rate for use of surgery in the management of cancer helps to identify treatment gaps, estimate the survival impact of such gaps, and benchmark the workforce and other resources, including budgets, required to meet service needs. A population-based benchmark for use of surgery in high-income settings to inform policy makers and service provision has not been developed but was recommended by the Lancet Oncology Commission on Global Cancer Surgery. We aimed to develop and validate a cancer surgery benchmarking model. METHODS: We examined the latest clinical guidelines from high-income countries (Australia, the UK, the EU, the USA, and Canada) and mapped surgical treatment pathways for 30 malignant cancer sites (19 individual sites and 11 grouped as other cancers) that were notifiable in Australia in 2014, broadly reflecting contemporary high-income models of care. The optimal use of surgery was considered as an indication for surgery where surgery is the treatment of choice for a given clinical scenario. Population-based epidemiological data, such as cancer stage, tumour characteristics, and fitness for surgery, were derived from Australia and other similar high-income settings for 2017. The probabilities across the clinical pathways of each cancer were multiplied and added together to estimate the population-level benchmark rates of cancer surgery, and further validated with the comparisons of observed rates of cancer surgery in the South Western Sydney Local Health District in 2006-12. Univariable and multivariable sensitivity analyses were done to explore uncertainty around model inputs, with mean (95% CI) benchmark surgery rates estimated on the basis of 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations. FINDINGS: Surgical treatment was indicated in 58% (95% CI 57-59) of newly diagnosed patients with cancer in Australia in 2014 at least once during the course of their treatment, but varied by site from 23% (17-27) for prostate cancer to 99% (96-99) for testicular cancer. Observed cancer surgery rates in South Western Sydney were comparable to the benchmarks for most cancers, but were higher for some cancers, such as prostate (absolute increase of 29%) and lower for others, such as lung (-14%). INTERPRETATION: The model provides a new template for high-income and emerging economies to rationally plan and assess their cancer surgery provision. There are differences in modelled versus observed surgery rates for some cancers, requiring more in-depth analysis of the observed differences. FUNDING: University of New South Wales Scientia Scholarship, UK Research and Innovation-Global Challenges Research Fund.

Pharmaceutical pricing benchmarks: governmental versus private sector.

Purpose: To explore the best pricing benchmark for workers' compensation drugs reimbursement at retail pharmacies. Materials & methods: We used California workers' compensation system (CAWCS) total cost of pharmacy dispensed medications (2017-2019) as a proxy to estimate drug prices using alternative pricing mechanism fee schedules. Results: CAWCS paid 65.6% of the average wholesale price (AWP), 104.1% of Medi-Cal, 122.1% of the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC), 140.1% of the national average drug acquisition cost (NADAC), and 253.5% of the federal upper limit. In addition, we found the AWP-based formulas: CAWCS = AWP - 34.4%, Medi-Cal = AWP - 36.9%, WAC = AWP - 46.3%, NADAC = AWP - 53.2%, and federal upper limit = AWP - 74.1%. We found that AWP: 50% for generics and AWP - 18.2% for brands are the lowest paying formulas. The estimated median cost savings were $8.7 million (by adapting 97% of the WAC) and $9.5 million (by adapting the NADAC) across all states. Conclusion: NADAC was the best pricing benchmark for reimbursement of pharmacy dispensed drugs.

Are ACOs Ready to be Accountable for Medication Use?

BACKGROUND: Accountable care organizations (ACOs) have the potential to lower costs and improve quality through incentives and coordinated care. However, the design brings with it many new challenges. One such challenge is the optimal use of pharmaceuticals. Most ACOs have not yet focused on this integral facet of care, even though medications are a critical component to achieving the lower costs and improved quality that are anticipated with this new model. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether ACOs are prepared to maximize the value of medications for achieving quality benchmarks and cost offsets. METHODS: During the fall of 2012, an electronic readiness self-assessment was developed using a portion of the questions and question methodology from the National Survey of Accountable Care Organizations, along with original questions developed by the authors. The assessment was tested and subsequently revised based on feedback from pilot testing with 5 ACO representatives. The revised assessment was distributed via e-mail to a convenience sample (n=175) of ACO members of the American Medical Group Association, Brookings-Dartmouth ACO Learning Network, and Premier Healthcare Alliance. RESULTS: The self-assessment was completed by 46 ACO representatives (26% response rate). ACOs reported high readiness to manage medications in a few areas, such as transmitting prescriptions electronically (70%), being able to integrate medical and pharmacy data into a single database (54%), and having a formulary in place that encourages generic use when appropriate (50%). However, many areas have substantial room for improvement with few ACOs reporting high readiness. Some notable areas include being able to quantify the cost offsets and hence demonstrate the value of appropriate medication use (7%), notifying a physician when a prescription has been filled (9%), having protocols in place to avoid medication duplication and polypharmacy (17%), and having quality metrics in place for a broad diversity of conditions (22%). CONCLUSIONS: Developing the capabilities to support, monitor, and ensure appropriate medication use will be critical to achieve optimal patient outcomes and ACO success. The ACOs surveyed have embarked upon an important journey towards this goal, but critical gaps remain before they can become fully accountable. While many of these organizations have begun adopting health information technologies that allow them to maximize the value of medications for achieving quality outcomes and cost offsets, a significant lag was identified in their inability to use these technologies to their full capacities. In order to provide further guidance, the authors have begun documenting case studies for public release that would provide ACOs with examples of how certain medication issues have been addressed by ACOs or relevant organizations. The authors hope that these case studies will help ACOs optimize the value of pharmaceuticals and achieve the "triple aim" of improving care, health, and cost. DISCLOSURES: There was no outside funding for this study, and the authors report no conflicts of interest related to the article. Concept and design were primarily from Dubois and Kotzbauer, with help from Feldman, Penso, and Westrich. Data collection was done by Feldman, Penso, Pope, and Westrich, and all authors participated in data interpretation. The manuscript was written primarily by Westrich, with help from all other authors, and revision was done primarily by Lustig and Westrich, with help from all other authors.

Benchmarking biopharmaceutical process development and manufacturing cost contributions to R&D.

This study aims to benchmark and analyze the process development and manufacturing costs across the biopharmaceutical drug development cycle and their contribution to overall research and development (R&D) costs. This was achieved with a biopharmaceutical drug development lifecycle cost model that captured the costs, durations, risks and interdependencies of the clinical, process development and manufacturing activities. The budgets needed for process development and manufacturing at each phase of development to ensure a market success each year were estimated. The impact of different clinical success rate profiles on the process development and manufacturing costs at each stage was investigated, with a particular focus on monoclonal antibodies. To ensure a market success each year with an overall clinical success rate (Phase I to approval) of ~12%, the model predicted that a biopharmaceutical company needs to allocate process development and manufacturing budgets in the order of ~$60 M for pre-clinical to Phase II material preparation and ~$70 M for Phase III to regulatory review material preparation. For lower overall clinical success rates of ~4%, which are more indicative of diseases such as Alzheimer's, these values increase to ~$190 M for early-phase and ~$140 Mfor late-phase material preparation; hence, the costs increase 2.5 fold. The costs for process development and manufacturing per market success were predicted to represent 13-17% of the R&D budget from pre-clinical trials to approval. The results of this quantitative structured cost study can be used to aid decision-making during portfolio management and budget planning procedures in biopharmaceutical development.

A contemporary medicolegal claims analysis of injuries related to neuraxial anesthesia between 2007 and 2016.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To provide a contemporary medicolegal analysis of claims brought against anesthesia providers in the United States related to neuraxial blocks for surgery and obstetrics. DESIGN: In this retrospective analysis, we analyzed closed claims data from the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO) Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS) database between 2007 and 2016. SETTING: Closed claims from inpatient and outpatient settings related to neuraxial anesthesia for surgical procedures and obstetrics. PATIENTS: Forty-five claims were identified for analysis. These patients underwent a variety of surgical procedures, included both children and adults, and with ages ranging from 6 to 82. INTERVENTIONS: Patients receiving neuraxial anesthesia (spinals, epidurals) for surgery or obstetrics. MEASUREMENTS: Data collected includes patient demographics, alleged injury type/severity, surgical specialty, likely contributors to the alleged damaging event, and case outcome. Some of the data were drawn directly from coded variables in the CRICO database, and some were gathered from narrative case summaries. MAIN RESULTS: Settlement payments were made in 20% of claims. Reported adverse outcomes ranged from temporary minor to permanent major injuries. Most closed claims were classified as permanent minor injuries. The greatest number of claims involved residual weakness and radiculopathy resulting from epidurals. The largest contributing factor to these injuries was noted to be "Technical Knowledge/Performance" of the anesthesia provider followed by "Missing or Documentation Error." Over half of the claims arose from obstetric patients (31%) and patients undergoing orthopedic surgery (27%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with pre-existing radiculopathy or comorbidities may warrant more thorough informed consent about the increased risk of injury. Additionally, prompt follow-up, monitoring, and documentation of post-operative symptoms, such as weakness or radiculopathy, are crucial for improving patient safety and satisfaction. More timely communication with the patient and the surgical team regarding residual neurologic symptoms is important for earlier diagnosis of injury.

Risk Adjustment In Medicare ACO Program Deters Coding Increases But May Lead ACOs To Drop High-Risk Beneficiaries.

The Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) adjusts savings benchmarks by beneficiaries' baseline risk scores. To discourage increased coding intensity, the benchmark is not adjusted upward if beneficiaries' risk scores rise while in the MSSP. As a result, accountable care organizations (ACOs) have an incentive to avoid increasingly sick or expensive beneficiaries. We examined whether beneficiaries' exposure to the MSSP was associated with within-beneficiary changes in risk scores and whether risk scores were associated with entry to or exit from the MSSP. We found that the MSSP was not associated with consistent changes in within-beneficiary risk scores. Conversely, beneficiaries at the ninety-fifth percentile of risk score had a 21.6 percent chance of exiting the MSSP, compared to a 16.0 percent chance among beneficiaries at the fiftieth percentile. The decision not to upwardly adjust risk scores in the MSSP has successfully deterred coding increases but might discourage ACOs to care for high-risk beneficiaries in the MSSP .

Identifying the Need for Good Practices in Health Technology Assessment: Summary of the ISPOR HTA Council Working Group Report on Good Practices in HTA.

The systematic use of evidence to inform healthcare decisions, particularly health technology assessment (HTA), has gained increased recognition. HTA has become a standard policy tool for informing decision makers who must manage the entry and use of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other technologies (including complex interventions) within health systems, for example, through reimbursement and pricing. Despite increasing attention to HTA activities, there has been no attempt to comprehensively synthesize good practices or emerging good practices to support population-based decision-making in recent years. After the identification of some good practices through the release of the ISPOR Guidelines Index in 2013, the ISPOR HTA Council identified a need to more thoroughly review existing guidance. The purpose of this effort was to create a basis for capacity building, education, and improved consistency in approaches to HTA-informed decision-making. Our findings suggest that although many good practices have been developed in areas of assessment and some other key aspects of defining HTA processes, there are also many areas where good practices are lacking. This includes good practices in defining the organizational aspects of HTA, the use of deliberative processes, and measuring the impact of HTA. The extent to which these good practices are used and applied by HTA bodies is beyond the scope of this report, but may be of interest to future researchers.

Key performance indicators and administrative data in an early psychosis service.

AIM: This study aimed to introduce a set of administrative key performance indicators (KPIs) for Early Psychosis Services. METHODS: The study design was longitudinal with data retrieved from a 4-year period between January 2009 and December 2013 included in the study. Descriptive statistics and t tests were used to evaluate the KPIs. RESULTS: Results in the 1 year before early psychosis (EP) intervention and 1-year postintervention were calculated for most items, and entry and exit scores were calculated for involuntary treatment orders (ITOs) and Health of the Nation Outcome Scale (HoNOS) scores. There was a 54% reduction in mental health emergency department presentations representing a cost saving of $62 524.00 (AUD). There was also an improvement in the number and duration of mental health admissions with a financial saving of $1 653 534.00 (AUD). Patients improved on all HoNOS scores from entry to exit from the services. ITOs were reduced by approximately 29% on discharge from the service. CONCLUSIONS: Administrative data can provide useful KPIs to measure the effectiveness of EP teams and allow benchmarking with similar services.

Financial Impact of Alternative Pricing Benchmarks for Physician-Dispensed Drugs in the California Workers' Compensation System.

BACKGROUND: Pricing drugs in the California Workers' Compensation System (CAWCS) has become more difficult as there are increasingly fewer drugs listed in the Medi-Cal primary fee schedule, which is used as the source for CAWCS drug prices. This presents a challenge of providing timely and accurate CAWCS reimbursement. The objectives of this study are (1) to explore any trends in physician-dispensed drug prices; (2) to compare the proportion of drugs with and without a price and to determine the financial implications of repricing CAWCS physician-dispensed drugs with five alternative pricing benchmarks; and (3) to offer recommendations for the pricing benchmark to maximize pricing coverage and to remain budget neutral. METHODS: We evaluated physician-dispensed drugs at the transaction level, reimbursed in the CAWCS. Frequency, reimbursement rate, and total and average paid costs were reported. We matched each claim line in the CAWCS to the corresponding unit price of an alternative price benchmark including average wholesale price, wholesale acquisition cost, direct prices, national average drug acquisition cost, and Federal Upper Limit. RESULTS: Average wholesale price provided prices for 99.9% of physician-dispensed drug claims, while Medi-Cal, the current primary physician-dispensed drug benchmark provided prices for a lower percentage (92.7%) of claims. The CAWCS prices were equivalent to 49% of the average wholesale price, 95.5% of Medi-Cal, 126.7% of the wholesale acquisition cost, 266% of the Federal Upper Limit, 64.4% of direct prices, and 197% of national average drug acquisition cost-estimated prices. CONCLUSIONS: The CAWCS current Medi-Cal pricing for physician-dispensed drugs is better than all alternatives in terms of price availability, transparency, and budget neutrality, but pricing availability may decrease over time as Medi-Cal moves to managed care. National average drug acquisition cost is the next best alternative, but it requires combinations of pricing benchmarks to maximize its price availability.

Performance on Electronic Clinical Quality Measures in the Comprehensive Primary Care Initiative.

Electronic clinical quality measures (eCQMs) that capture data from electronic health records promise accurate and timely measurement, but their use has been limited in payment. The Comprehensive Primary Care initiative sponsored by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services used eCQMs as part of a shared savings incentive. To assess performance, the authors developed benchmarks for 11 measures and compared performance of initiative and benchmark practices. Initiative practices outperformed benchmark practices on 8 measures in 2015 (between 6.3 and 17.7 percentage points) and 9 measures in 2016 (between 1.7 and 20 percentage points). Initiative practices improved significantly on 7 measures from 2015 to 2016 (between 3.3 and 8.6 percentage points). For 3 measures, the improvement was greater than benchmark practices that reported the same measures in a 2-year period (between 1 and 8.9 percentage points). The authors conclude that eCQMs can be used for payment.

The impact of alternative pricing methods for drugs in California Workers' Compensation System: Fee-schedule pricing.

INTRODUCTION: California's Workers' Compensation System (CAWCS) Department of Industrial Relations questioned the adequacy of the current Medi-Cal fee-schedule pricing and requested analysis of alternatives that maximize price availability and maintain budget neutrality. OBJECTIVES: To compare CAWCS pharmacy-dispensed (PD) drug prices under alternative fee schedules, and identify combinations of alternative benchmarks that have prices available for the largest percentage of PD drugs and that best reach budget neutrality. METHODS: Claims transaction-level data (2011-2013) from CAWCS were used to estimate total annual PD pharmaceutical payments. Medi-Cal pricing data was from the Workman's Compensation Insurance System (WCIS). Average Wholesale Prices (AWP), Wholesale Acquisition Costs (WAC), Direct Prices (DP), Federal Upper Limit (FUL) prices, and National Average Drug Acquisition Costs (NADAC) were from Medi-Span. We matched National Drug Codes (NDCs), pricing dates, and drug quantity for comparisons. We report pharmacy-dispensed (PD) claims frequency, reimbursement matching rate, and paid costs by CAWCS as the reference price against all alternative price benchmarks. RESULTS: Of 12,529,977 CAWCS claims for pharmaceutical products 11.6% (1,462,814) were for PD drugs. Prescription drug cost for CAWCS was over $152M; $63.9M, $47.9M, and $40.6M in 2011-2013. Ninety seven percent of these CAWCS PD claims had a Medi-Cal price. Alternative mechanisms provided a price for fewer claims; NADAC 94.23%, AWP 90.94%, FUL 73.11%, WAC 66.98%, and DP 14.33%. Among CAWCS drugs with no Medi-Cal price in PD claims, AWP, WAC, NADAC, DP, and FUL provided prices for 96.7%, 63.14%, 24.82%, 20.83%, and 15.08% of claims. Overall CAWCS paid 100.52% of Medi-Cal, 60% of AWP, 97% of WAC, 309.53% of FUL, 103.83% of DP, and 136.27% of NADAC. CONCLUSIONS: CAWCS current Medi-Cal fee-schedule price list for PD drugs is more complete than all alternative fee-schedules. However, all reimbursement approaches would require combinations of pricing benchmarks. We suggest keeping primary reimbursement at 100% of Medi-Cal and for drugs without a primary Medi-Cal price calculating the maximum fee as 60% of AWP and then 97% of WAC. Alternatively, we suggest using NADAC as a primary fee-schedule followed by either 60% AWP and 97% WAC or AWP-40% for drugs with no NADAC price. Fee-schedules may not offer the best price and a formulary approach may provide more flexibility.

A medicolegal analysis of malpractice claims involving anesthesiologists in the gastrointestinal endoscopy suite (2007-2016).

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Gastrointestinal endoscopy cases make up the largest portion of out of operating room malpractice claims involving anesthesiologists. To date, there has been no closed claims analysis specifically focusing on the claims from the endoscopy suite. We aim to identify associated case characteristics and contributing factors. DESIGN: Retrospective review of closed claims. SETTING: Multi-institutional setting of hospitals that submit data to the Controlled Risk Insurance Company (CRICO) Comparative Benchmarking System, a database representing approximately 30% of annual malpractice cases in the United States. PATIENTS: A total of 58 claims in the gastrointestinal endoscopy suite between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2016. INTERVENTIONS: Gastrointestinal endoscopy procedures. MEASUREMENTS: We analyzed associated factors for each case as well as payments, and severity scores. MAIN RESULTS: There was a difference in the percent of cases that resulted in payment by procedure type, with 91% of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) cases resulting in payment compared with 37.5% of colonoscopy cases, 25% of combined esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD)/colonoscopy cases, 21.4% of EGD cases and 0.0% of endoscopic ultrasound cases (P = 0.0008). Oversedation was a possible contributing factor in 62.5% of cases. The mean payment for all claims involving anesthesiologists in the endoscopy suite was $99,754. CONCLUSIONS: There are differences in the rates of payment of malpractice claims between procedures. ERCPs made up a disproportionate percentage of the total amount paid to patients. While a significant percent of cases involved possible oversedation, these errors were compounded by other factors, such as failure to resuscitate or recognize the acute clinical change. With medically complex patients undergoing endoscopic procedures, it is critical to have well prepared anesthesia providers.

Hospital and Institutionalisation Care Costs after Limb and Visceral Ischaemia Benchmarked Against Stroke: Long-Term Results of a Population Based Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: There are few published data on the acute care or long-term costs after acute/critical limb or visceral ischaemia (ACLVI) events. Using data from patients with acute events in a population based incidence study (Oxford Vascular Study), the present study aimed to determine the long-term costs after an ACLVI event. METHODS: All patients with first ever incident ACLVI from 2002 to 2012 were included. Analysis was based on follow up until January 2017, with all patients having full 5 year follow up. Multivariate regressions were used to assess baseline and subsequent predictors of total 5 year hospital care costs. Overall costs after an ACLVI event were benchmarked against those after stroke in the same population, during the same period. RESULTS: Among 351 patients with an ACLVI event, mean 5 year total care costs were €35,211 (SD 50,500), of which €6443 (18%) were due to long-term institutionalisation. Costs differed by type of event (acute visceral ischaemia €16,476; acute limb ischaemia €24,437; critical limb ischaemia €46,281; p < 0.001). Results of the multivariate analyses showed that patients with diabetes and those undergoing above knee amputations incurred additional costs of €11,804 (p = 0.014) and €25,692 (p < 0.001), respectively. Five year hospital care costs after an ACLVI event were significantly higher than after stroke (€28,768 vs. €22,623; p = 0.004), but similar after including long-term costs of institutionalisation (€35,211 vs. €35,391; p = 0.957). CONCLUSION: Long-term care costs after an ACLVI event are considerable, especially after critical limb ischaemia. Hospital care costs were significantly higher than for stroke over the long term, and were similar after inclusion of costs of institutionalisation.

The Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Registry: Driving quality and demonstrating compliance.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update on the status of provider participation in the US Wound Registry (USWR) and its specialty registry the Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Registry (HBOTR), which provide much-needed national benchmarking and quality measurement services for hyperbaric medicine. METHODS: Providers can meet many requirements of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and simultaneously participate in the HBOTR by transmitting Continuity of Care Documents (CCDs) directly from their certified electronic health record (EHR) or by reporting hyperbaric quality measures, the specifications for which are available free of charge for download from the registry website as electronic clinical quality measures for installation into any certified EHR. Computerized systems parse the structured data transmitted to the USWR. Patients undergoing hyperbaric oxygen (HBO2) therapy are allocated to the HBOTR and stored in that specialty registry database. The data can be queried for benchmarking, quality reporting, public policy, or specialized data projects. RESULTS: Since January 2012, 917,758 clinic visits have captured the data of 199,158 patients in the USWR, 3,697 of whom underwent HBO2 therapy. Among 27,404 patients with 62,843 diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) captured, 9,908 DFUs (15.7%) were treated with HBO2 therapy. Between January 2016 and September 2018, the benchmark rate for the 1,000 DFUs treated with HBO2 was 7.3%, with an average of 28 treatments per patient. There are 2,100 providers who report data to the USWR by transmitting CCDs from their EHR and 688 who submit quality measure data, 300 (43.6%) of whom transmit HBO2 quality data.

Surgeon leadership in the coding, billing, and contractual negotiations for fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair increases medical center contribution margin and physician reimbursement.

BACKGROUND: Fenestrated endovascular aneurysm repair (FEVAR) allows endovascular treatment of thoracoabdominal and juxtarenal aneurysms previously outside the indications of use for standard devices. However, because of considerable device costs and increased procedure time, FEVAR is thought to result in financial losses for medical centers and physicians. We hypothesized that surgeon leadership in the coding, billing, and contractual negotiations for FEVAR procedures will increase medical center contribution margin (CM) and physician reimbursement. METHODS: At the UMass Memorial Center for Complex Aortic Disease, a vascular surgeon with experience in medical finances is supported to manage the billing and coding of FEVAR procedures for medical center and physician reimbursement. A comprehensive financial analysis was performed for all FEVAR procedures (2011-2015), independent of insurance status, patient presentation, or type of device used. Medical center CM (actual reimbursement minus direct costs) was determined for each index FEVAR procedure and for all related subsequent procedures, inpatient or outpatient, 3 months before and 1 year subsequent to the index FEVAR procedure. Medical center CM for outpatient clinic visits, radiology examinations, vascular laboratory studies, and cardiology and pulmonary evaluations related to FEVAR were also determined. Surgeon reimbursement for index FEVAR procedure, related adjunct procedures, and assistant surgeon reimbursement were also calculated. All financial analyses were performed and adjudicated by the UMass Department of Finance. RESULTS: The index hospitalization for 63 FEVAR procedures incurred $2,776,726 of direct costs and generated $3,027,887 in reimbursement, resulting in a positive CM of $251,160. Subsequent related hospital procedures (n = 26) generated a CM of $144,473. Outpatient clinic visits, radiologic examinations, and vascular laboratory studies generated an additional CM of $96,888. Direct cost analysis revealed that grafts accounted for the largest proportion of costs (55%), followed by supplies (12%), bed (12%), and operating room (10%). Total medical center CM for all FEVAR services was $492,521. Average surgeon reimbursements per FEVAR from 2011 to 2015 increased from $1601 to $2480 while the surgeon payment denial rate declined from 50% to 0%. Surgeon-led negotiations with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services during 2015 resulted in a 27% increase in physician reimbursement for the remainder of 2015 ($2480 vs $3068/case) and a 91% increase in reimbursement from 2011 ($1601 vs $3068). Assistant surgeon reimbursement also increased ($266 vs $764). Concomitant FEVAR-related procedures generated an additional $27,347 in surgeon reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Physician leadership in the coding, billing, and contractual negotiations for FEVAR results in a positive medical center CM and increased physician reimbursement.