Chronic wound prevalence and the associated cost of treatment in Medicare beneficiaries: changes between 2014 and 2019.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost of wound care and prevalence of chronic wounds for Medicare beneficiaries in the aggregate, by wound type, and by setting between the years 2014 and 2019. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of Medicare claims data included beneficiaries who experienced episodes of care for diabetic foot ulcers and infections; arterial ulcers; skin disorders and infections; surgical wounds and infections; traumatic wounds; venous ulcers and infections; unspecified chronic ulcers; and others. The 2014 data were based on a Medicare 5% Limited Data Set whereas for 2019 the data used were for all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries. Three methods were used to generate expenditure estimates: (a) a low (Medicare provider payments when the wound was a primary diagnosis, excluding any kind of deductible); (b) mid (primary plus secondary diagnosis with weighted attribution); and (c) high (primary or secondary diagnosis). The main outcomes were the prevalence of each wound type, Medicare expenditure for each wound type and aggregate, and expenditure by type of service. RESULTS: Over the 5-year period the number of Medicare beneficiaries with a wound increased from 8.2 million to 10.5 million. Wound prevalence increased by 13% from 14.5% to 16.4%. Over the 5-year period, the Medicare beneficiaries with the largest increase in chronic wound prevalence were those aged <65 years (males: 12.5% to 16.3%; females: 13.4% to 17.5%). The largest changes in terms of wound prevalence were increases in arterial ulcers (0.4% to 0.8%), skin disorders (2.6% to 5.3%), and decreases in traumatic wounds (2.7% to 1.6%). Expenditures decreased regardless of the three methods used with a reduction of $29.7 billion to $22.5 billion for the most conservative method. Except for venous ulcers in which costs per Medicare beneficiary increased from $1206 to $1803, cost per wound decreased with surgical wounds remaining the most expensive to treat (2014: $3566; 2019: $2504), and the largest decrease for arterial ulcers ($9651 to $1322). Hospital outpatient fees saw the largest reduction ($10.5 billion to $2.5 billion) although home health agency expenditures decreased from $1.6 billion to $1.1 billion. Physician offices saw an increase from $3.0 billion to $4.1 billion and durable medical equipment increased from $0.3 billion to $0.7 billion. CONCLUSIONS: It appears that chronic wound care expenditures have shifted to the physician's office from the hospital-based outpatient department. Given that the prevalence of chronic wounds is increasing, especially among the disabled under 65, it will be important to know whether these shifts have positively or negatively affected outcomes.

HighlightsIn 2014 chronic wounds impacted 14.5% of Medicare beneficiaries but this increased to 16.3% by 2019. The group of Medicare beneficiaries most affected in terms of chronic wound prevalence over the 5-year period were those aged <65 years (males: 12.5% to 16.3%; females: 13.4% to 17.5%). The largest changes in terms of prevalence were increases in arterial ulcers (0.4% to 0.8%), skin disorders (2.6% to 5.3%), and traumatic wounds (2.7% to 1.6%)Over the 5-year period, regardless of the method used, there was a decrease in chronic wound-related costs ($29.7 billion in 2014 to $22.5 billion in 2019 for the most conservative method: Medicare provider payments when the wound was a primary diagnosis, excluding any kind of deductible). Surgical complications still represent the largest wound category of costs with a small decrease from 2014 to 2019 of $6.1 billion to $5.9 billion. Based on the most conservative method, there was a very large cost reduction observed for outpatients from $10.5 billion to $2.5 billion with a correspondingly smaller decrease for inpatients of $5.3 billion to $4.2 billion, but an increase from $3.0 billion to $4.1 billion for physician offices. In addition, while durable medical equipment increased from $0.3 billion to $0.7 billion, home health agency expenditures decreased from $1.6 billion to $1.1 billion.Our data suggest that while most of the cost remains in the subacute setting it has shifted to the physician's office from the hospital-based outpatient department. Given the increasing prevalence of chronic wounds, especially among the disabled under 65, it will be important to know whether these shifts have positively or negatively affected outcomes.

An Economic Evaluation of the Impact, Cost, and Medicare Policy Implications of Chronic Nonhealing Wounds.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the cost of chronic wound care for Medicare beneficiaries in aggregate, by wound type and by setting. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of the Medicare 5% Limited Data Set for calendar year 2014 included beneficiaries who experienced episodes of care for one or more of the following: arterial ulcers, chronic ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers, diabetic infections, pressure ulcers, skin disorders, skin infections, surgical wounds, surgical infections, traumatic wounds, venous ulcers, or venous infections. The main outcomes were the prevalence of each wound type, Medicare expenditure for each wound type and aggregate, and expenditure by type of service. RESULTS: Nearly 15% of Medicare beneficiaries (8.2 million) had at least one type of wound or infection (not pneumonia). Surgical infections were the largest prevalence category (4.0%), followed by diabetic infections (3.4%). Total Medicare spending estimates for all wound types ranged from $28.1 to $96.8 billion. Including infection costs, the most expensive estimates were for surgical wounds ($11.7, $13.1, and $38.3 billion), followed by diabetic foot ulcers ($6.2, $6.9, and $18.7 billion,). The highest cost estimates in regard to site of service were for hospital outpatients ($9.9-$35.8 billion), followed by hospital inpatients ($5.0-$24.3 billion). CONCLUSIONS: Medicare expenditures related to wound care are far greater than previously recognized, with care occurring largely in outpatient settings. The data could be used to develop more appropriate quality measures and reimbursement models, which are needed for better health outcomes and smarter spending for this growing population.

Pathway to Acquire New ICD-10 Codes Pertinent to New Wound Care Technology.

New technologies are continually developed for the wound care market. This article provides an overview of the process for obtaining a new or revised ICD-10-Clinical Modification and/or ICD-10-Procedure Coding System code. Manufacturers, providers and researchers often forget that this process can be lengthy and must be included in product development timelines. An example of timelines required for implementation of new 2020 ICD-10 codes is provided in the article. In addition, the article provides insight into the appropriate individuals, within a manufacturing organization or consulting firm, who may be able to assist with evaluating whether pertinent ICD-10 diagnosis or procedure codes exist within the ICD-10 coding system or whether an application must be submitted for one or more new/revised ICD-10 codes.

ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM Codes: What? Why? How?

The wound care industry will gain many benefits when International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10-Clinical Modification (CM) is implemented. One of the main benefits is that the disease classifications will be consistent with current clinical practice and medical technology advances. The new classification codes will be very granular, which means the level of specificity will greatly improve. Numerous new codes will represent more specific anatomic sites, etiologies, comorbidities, and complications, and will improve the ability to demonstrate severity of illness. For instance, the new feature of laterality is directly built into the new codes: separate codes will distinguish right, left, and bilateral, where needed. The increased granularity will provide better analysis of disease patterns and outbreak of disease. Additionally, the United States will finally be using the same diagnosis coding system as the rest of the world. This article will describe what the ICD-9-CM/ICD-10-CM codes are, why they are so important, and how clinicians and researchers will convert from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM effective October 1, 2014.