Medicare payment trends compared to inflation for anesthesia services.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Identify changes and trends in the real value of Medicare payments for anesthesia services between 2000 and 2020 and how it may affect practices. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis. SETTING: We utilized the Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) datasets of Medicare Part B claims to identify high volume anesthesia services in 2020 with 20 years of data. The Consumer Price Index was used as a measure of inflation to adjust prices. PATIENTS: The PSPS datasets contain summaries of all annual Medicare Part B claims and payment amounts by carrier and locality. INTERVENTIONS: Patients receiving anesthesia services. MEASUREMENTS: For each service, identified by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes, we trended the average Medicare payment per procedure from 2000 to 2020 and calculated year to year changes and compound annual growth rate (CAGR). We also evaluated base and time units for each CPT code and the national Medicare anesthesia conversion factor (CF) for the same years. MAIN RESULTS: The average Medicare payment in the study sample increased 20.1% from 2000 to 2020. After adjusting for inflation, the average Medicare payment per anesthesia service decreased by 20.8% over that period. The Medicare anesthesia CF increased 24.9% in the same period, and after adjusting for inflation, the real value of the CF decreased 16.9%. Average CAGR across the 20 anesthesia services was 0.88%, compared to the average annual inflation at 2.06%. CONCLUSIONS: Average Medicare payment for common anesthesia services after adjusting for inflation have decreased from 2000 to 2020, consistent with findings in other physician specialties. Understanding these trends is important for practice viability and suggests significant financial implications for anesthesia practices and hospitals if the trend were to continue.

Closing the Chasm: Understanding and Addressing the Anesthesia Workforce Supply and Demand Imbalance.

The imbalance in anesthesia workforce supply and demand has been exacerbated post-COVID due to a surge in demand for anesthesia care, especially in non-operating room anesthetizing sites, at a faster rate than the increase in anesthesia clinicians. The consequences of this imbalance or labor shortage compromise healthcare facilities, adversely affect the cost of care, worsen anesthesia workforce burnout, disrupt procedural and surgical schedules, and threaten academic missions and the ability to educate future anesthesiologists. In developing possible solutions, one must examine emerging trends that are affecting the anesthesia workforce, new technologies that will transform anesthesia care and the workforce, and financial considerations, including governmental payment policies. Possible practice solutions to this imbalance will require both short- and long-term multifactorial approaches that include increasing training positions and retention policies, improving capacity through innovations, leveraging technology, and addressing financial constraints.

Gender Differences in Compensation in Anesthesiology in the United States: Results of a National Survey of Anesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND: A gender-based compensation gap among physicians is well documented. Even after adjusting for age, experience, work hours, productivity, and academic rank, the gender gap remained and widened over the course of a physician's career. This study aimed to examine if a significant gender pay gap still existed for anesthesiologists in the United States. METHODS: In 2018, we surveyed 28,812 physician members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists to assess the association of compensation with gender and to identify possible causes of wage disparities. Gender was the primary variable examined in the model, and compensation by gender was the primary outcome. Compensation was defined as the amount reported as direct compensation on a W-2, 1099, or K-1, plus all voluntary salary reductions (eg, 401[k], health insurance). The survey directed respondents to include salary, bonuses, incentive payments, research stipends, honoraria, and distribution of profits to employees. Respondents had the option of providing a point estimate of their compensation or selecting a range in $50,000 increments. Potential confounding variables that could affect compensation were identified based on a scoping literature review and the consensus expertise of the authors. We fitted a generalized ordinal logistic regression with 7 ranges of compensation. For the sensitivity analyses, we used linear regressions of log-transformed compensation based on respondent point estimates and imputed values. RESULTS: The final analytic sample consisted of 2081 observations (response rate, 7.2%). This sample represented a higher percentage of women and younger physicians compared to the demographic makeup of anesthesiologists in the United States. The adjusted odds ratio associated with gender equal to woman was an estimated 0.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.53), indicating that for a given compensation range, women had a 56% lower odds than men of being in a higher compensation range. Sensitivity analyses found the relative percentage difference in compensation for women compared to men ranged from -8.3 to -8.9. In the sensitivity analysis based on the subset of respondents (n = 1036) who provided a point estimate of compensation, the relative percentage difference (-8.3%; 95% confidence interval, -4.7 to -11.7) reflected a $32,617 lower compensation for women than men, holding other covariates at their means. CONCLUSIONS: Compensation for anesthesiologists showed a significant pay gap that was associated with gender even after adjusting for potential confounding factors, including age, hours worked, geographic practice region, practice type, position, and job selection criteria.

Improving perioperative brain health: an expert consensus review of key actions for the perioperative care team.

Delirium and postoperative neurocognitive disorder are the commonest perioperative complications in patients more than 65 yr of age. However, data suggest that we often fail to screen patients for preoperative cognitive impairment, to warn patients and families of risk, and to take preventive measures to reduce the incidence of perioperative neurocognitive disorders. As part of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Perioperative Brain Health Initiative, an international group of experts was invited to review published best practice statements and guidelines. The expert group aimed to achieve consensus on a small number of practical recommendations that could be implemented by anaesthetists and their partners to reduce the incidence of perioperative neurocognitive disorders. Six statements were selected based not only on the strength of the evidence, but also on the potential for impact and the feasibility of widespread implementation. The actions focus on education, cognitive and delirium screening, non-pharmacologic interventions, pain control, and avoidance of antipsychotics. Strategies for effective implementation are discussed. Anaesthetists should be key members of multidisciplinary perioperative care teams to implement these recommendations.

Improving the cost, quality, and safety of perioperative care: A systematic review of the literature on implementation of the perioperative surgical home.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The perioperative surgical home (PSH) is a recent innovation in perioperative care delivery that coordinates the pre-, intra-, and post-operative elements of surgical care under one organizational umbrella. Although significant research supports the efficacy of individual elements of the PSH in improving outcomes, there is not a published systematic review of the efficacy of entire PSH programs in improving patient outcomes. This article summarizes descriptions of PSH programs available in the literature and examines outcomes of original studies of PSH implementation. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify relevant articles on PSH implementation and synthesize our findings. SETTING: The studies included in our review took place at multiple academic and community hospitals in the United States. PATIENTS: Patients involved in the PSH studies included surgical patients of various ages and ASA classifications in various surgical specialties. INTERVENTIONS: All studies included in our review involved the implementation of a PSH program. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes examined include length of stay, postoperative recovery, readmission rates, and patient discharge destination, among others. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 studies of PSH implementation that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Most PSH programs described in these studies included an emphasis on preoperative education, standardization of care protocols in all phases of surgery, use of opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia, and collaborative staffing models. PSH program implementation was often associated with decreased length of stay, decreased utilization of postoperative opioids, decreased utilization of the ICU, and increased probability of discharge to home. PSH implementation was not meaningfully associated with reductions in readmission rates. Findings for cost reductions following PSH implementation were mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Early evidence indicates that through elements that emphasize care coordination, standardization, and patient-centeredness, PSH programs can improve patient postoperative recovery outcomes and decrease hospital utilization.

A retrospective analysis of lipid-laden aqueous humor in dogs: Thirty cases.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical presentation and outcome of canine patients that present with lipid-laden aqueous humor (LLA) and to evaluate its association with other ocular and systemic disorders. METHODS: Medical records were identified and reviewed of 30 dogs presenting with clinical signs of LLA between 2013 and 2017 and compared to the canine referral population during the same time period. The percentage of dogs affected by LLA and potential risk factors were compared between groups. RESULTS: There were 40 eyes in 30 dogs with LLA out of 8011 (0.4%) referrals. The mean age of dogs with LLA was significantly younger than dogs without LLA (P = .0334). Sex was not associated with LLA. Miniature Schnauzers were more likely to have LLA than mixed breeds (P < .0001). Incidence of LLA was significantly higher in eyes also affected by corneal ulceration (P = .0018) or phacoemulsification (P = .0001). Sixty-two percent and 51% of dogs with LLA had concurrent diabetes mellitus and hypertriglyceridemia, respectively. Average triglyceride level of dogs with LLA was 1087 mg/dL (±544) (reference 50-150 mg/dL) and average cholesterol level was 575 mg/dL (±232) (reference 125-300 mg/dL). Complete resolution of LLA was achieved in all dogs re-examined with an average of 20.2 days (range 4-175 days) after diagnosis. There were 6/30 dogs lost to follow-up. Recurrence of LLA occurred at least once in 4/24 dogs (16.7%) after resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Lipid-laden aqueous humor occurs more frequently in Miniature Schnauzers. Corneal ulceration and phacoemulsification are risk factors. Complete resolution was seen in all cases with a low incidence of recurrence.

Measuring Team Effectiveness in the Health Care Setting: An Inventory of Survey Tools.

BACKGROUND: Guidance for measuring team effectiveness in dynamic clinical settings is necessary; however, there are no consensus strategies to help health care organizations achieve optimal teamwork. This systematic review aims to identify validated survey instruments of team effectiveness by clinical settings. METHODS: PubMed, MEDLINE, and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched for team effectiveness surveys deployed from 1990 to 2016. Validity and reliability were evaluated using 4 psychometric properties: interrater agreement, internal consistency, content validity, and structural integrity. Two conceptual frameworks, the Donabedian model and the Command Team Effectiveness model, assess conceptual dimensions most measured in each health care setting. RESULTS: The 22 articles focused on surgical, primary care, and other health care settings. Few instruments report the required psychometric properties or feature non-self-reported outcomes. The major conceptual dimensions measured in the survey instruments differed across settings. Team cohesion and overall perceived team effectiveness can be found in all the team effectiveness measurement tools regardless of the health care setting. We found that surgical settings have distinctive conditions for measuring team effectiveness relative to primary or ambulatory care. DISCUSSION: Further development of setting-specific team effectiveness measurement tools can help further enhance continuous quality improvements and clinical outcomes in the future.

Anesthesia Care Team Composition and Surgical Outcomes.

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: In the United States, anesthesia care can be provided by an anesthesia care team consisting of nonphysician providers (nurse anesthetists and anesthesiologist assistants) working under the supervision of a physician anesthesiologist. Nurse anesthetists may practice nationwide, whereas anesthesiologist assistants are restricted to 16 states. To inform policies concerning the expanded use of anesthesiologist assistants, the authors examined whether the specific anesthesia care team composition (physician anesthesiologist plus nurse anesthetist or anesthesiologist assistant) was associated with differences in perioperative outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of national claims data for 443,098 publicly insured elderly (ages 65 to 89 yr) patients who underwent inpatient surgery between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2011. The differences in inpatient mortality, spending, and length of stay between cases where an anesthesiologist supervised an anesthesiologist assistant compared to cases where an anesthesiologist supervised a nurse anesthetist were estimated. The approach used a quasirandomization technique known as instrumental variables to reduce confounding. RESULTS: The adjusted mortality for care teams with anesthesiologist assistants was 1.6% (95% CI, 1.4 to 1.8) versus 1.7% for care teams with nurse anesthetists (95% CI, 1.7 to 1.7; difference -0.08; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.1; P = 0.47). Compared to care teams with nurse anesthetists, care teams with anesthesiologist assistants were associated with non-statistically significant decreases in length of stay (-0.009 days; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.1; P = 0.89) and medical spending (-$56; 95% CI, -334 to 223; P = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: The specific composition of the anesthesia care team was not associated with any significant differences in mortality, length of stay, or inpatient spending.

Treatment of spontaneous chronic corneal epithelial defects (SCCEDs) with diamond burr debridement vs combination diamond burr debridement and superficial grid keratotomy.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of diamond burr debridement (DBD) vs a combination of diamond burr debridement with superficial grid keratotomy (DBD+SGK) for the treatment of spontaneous chronic corneal epithelial defects (SCCEDs) in dogs. PROCEDURE: Medical records of dogs diagnosed with SCCEDs from three different institutions that received a DBD or DBD+SGK between 2003 and 2015 were reviewed. Age, breed, sex, history of a previous SCCED, procedures performed, time to healing, and complications were statistically analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-four dogs met the inclusion criteria. Eighty-two of 106 eyes (77.4%) received a DBD and healed following the first treatment (13.3 ± 4.9 days to recheck, range 2-27). Sixty-eight of 88 eyes (77.3%) received a DBD+SGK and healed following the first treatment (15.4 ± 5.0 days to recheck, range 5-45). No significant difference in healing outcome was found between the two treatments (P = 1). For SCCEDs that healed after a single treatment (n = 150), complications occurred in 13.3% (n = 20) of eyes with no difference in complications between the DBD and DBD+SGK groups (P = .86). Thirty-five of 44 eyes (80.0%) healed after the second treatment (16 ± 8.2 days from second treatment to third visit, range 5-47); nine of 44 eyes (20.0%) were not healed (12 ± 6.2 days from second treatment to third visit, range 5-25). The second treatment method did not influence healing rates (P = .64). CONCLUSIONS: DBD and DBD+SGK are equally effective treatment methods for canine SCCEDs. No differences in complication rates after one treatment were observed between DBD and DBD+SGK.

Assessing the impact of state "opt-out" policy on access to and costs of surgeries and other procedures requiring anesthesia services.

In 2001, the U.S. government released a rule that allowed states to "opt-out" of the federal requirement that a physician supervise the administration of anesthesia by a nurse anesthetist. To date, 17 states have opted out. The majority of the opt-out states cited increased access to anesthesia care as the primary rationale for their decision. In this study, we assess the impact of state opt-out policy on access to and costs of surgeries and other procedures requiring anesthesia services. Our null hypothesis is that opt-out rule adoption had little or no effect on surgery access or costs. We estimate an inpatient model of surgeries and costs and an outpatient model of surgeries. Each model uses data from multiple years of U.S. inpatient hospital discharges and outpatient surgeries. For inpatient cost models, the coefficient of the opt-out variable was consistently positive and also statistically significant in most model specifications. In terms of access to inpatient surgical care, the opt-out rules did not increase or decrease access in opt-out states. The results for the outpatient access models are less consistent, with some model specifications indicating a reduction in access associated with opt-out status, while other model specifications suggesting no discernable change in access. Given the sensitivity of model findings to changes in model specification, the results do not provide support for the belief that opt-out policy improves access to outpatient surgical care, and may even reduce access to outpatient surgical care (among freestanding facilities).

"Opt Out" and Access to Anesthesia Care for Elective and Urgent Surgeries among U.S. Medicare Beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: In 2001, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a rule allowing U.S. states to "opt out" of the regulations requiring physician supervision of nurse anesthetists in an effort to increase access to anesthesia care. Whether "opt out" has successfully achieved this goal remains unknown. METHODS: Using Medicare administrative claims data, we examined whether "opt out" reduced the distance traveled by patients, a common measure of access, for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty, total hip arthroplasty, cataract surgery, colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, appendectomy, or hip fracture repair. In addition, we examined whether "opt out" was associated with an increase in the use of anesthesia care for cataract surgery, colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy, or esophagogastroduodenoscopy. Our analysis used a difference-in-differences approach with a robust set of controls to minimize confounding. RESULTS: "Opt out" did not reduce the percentage of patients who traveled outside of their home zip code except in the case of total hip arthroplasty (2.2% point reduction; P = 0.007). For patients travelling outside of their zip code, "opt out" had no significant effect on the distance traveled among any of the procedures we examined, with point estimates ranging from a 7.9-km decrease for appendectomy (95% CI, -19 to 3.4; P = 0.173) to a 1.6-km increase (95% CI, -5.1 to 8.2; P = 0.641) for total hip arthroplasty. There was also no significant effect on the use of anesthesia for esophagogastroduodenoscopy, appendectomy, or cataract surgery. CONCLUSIONS: "Opt out" was associated with little or no increased access to anesthesia care for several common procedures.

Cost impact of unexpected disposition after orthopedic ambulatory surgery associated with category of anesthesia provider.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To provide estimates of the costs and health outcomes implications of the excess risk of unexpected disposition for nurse anesthetist (NA) procedures. DESIGN: A projection model was used to apply estimates of costs and health outcomes associated with the excess risk of unexpected disposition for NAs reported in a recent study. SETTING: Ambulatory and inpatient surgery. PATIENTS: Base-case model parameters were based on estimates taken from peer-reviewed publications when available, or from other sources including data for all hospital stays in the United States in 2013 from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Web site. The impact of parameter uncertainty was assessed using 1-way and 2-way sensitivity analyses. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS: Major complication rates, relative risks of complications, anesthesia costs, costs of complications, and cost-effectiveness ratios. MAIN RESULTS: In the base-case model, there were on average 2.3 fewer unexpected dispositions for physician anesthesiologists compared with NAs. Overall, anesthesia-related costs (including the cost of managing unexpected dispositions) were estimated to be about $31 higher per procedure for physician anesthesiologists compared with NAs. Alternative model scenarios in the sensitivity analysis produced estimates of smaller additional costs associated with physician anesthesia administration, to the point of cost savings in some scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of anesthesia for ambulatory knee and shoulder procedures by physician anesthesiologists results in better health outcomes, at a reasonable additional cost, compared with procedures with NA-administered anesthesia, at least when using updated cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay benchmarks.

The Effect of "Opt-Out" Regulation on Access to Surgical Care for Urgent Cases in the United States: Evidence from the National Inpatient Sample.

BACKGROUND: In 2001, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a rule permitting states to "opt-out" of federal regulations requiring physician supervision of nurse anesthetists. We examined the extent to which this rule increased access to anesthesia care for urgent cases. METHODS: Using data from a national sample of inpatient discharges, we examined whether opt-out was associated with an increase in the percentage of patients receiving a therapeutic procedure among patients admitted for appendicitis, bowel obstruction, choledocholithiasis, or hip fracture. We chose these 4 diagnoses because they represent instances where urgent access to a procedure requiring anesthesia is often indicated. In addition, we examined whether opt-out was associated with a reduction in the number of appendicitis patients who presented with a ruptured appendix. In addition to controlling for patient morbidities and demographics, our analysis incorporated a difference-in-differences approach, with additional controls for state-year trends, to reduce confounding. RESULTS: Across all 4 diagnoses, opt-out was not associated with a statistically significant change in the percentage of patients who received a procedure (0.0315 percentage point increase, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.843 to 0.906 percentage point increase). When broken down by diagnosis, opt-out was also not associated with statistically significant changes in the percentage of patients who received a procedure for bowel obstruction (0.511 percentage point decrease, 95% CI -2.28 to 1.26), choledocholithiasis (2.78 percentage point decrease, 95% CI -6.12 to 0.565), and hip fracture (0.291 percentage point increase, 95% CI -1.76 to 2.94). Opt-out was associated with a small but statistically significant increase in the percentage of appendicitis patients receiving an appendectomy (0.876 percentage point increase, 95% CI 0.194 to 1.56); however, there was no significant change in the percentage of patients presenting with a ruptured appendix (-0.914 percentage point decrease, 95% CI -2.41 to 0.582). Subanalyses showed that the effects of opt-out did not differ in rural versus urban areas. CONCLUSIONS: Based on 2 measures of access, opt-out does not appear to have significantly increased access to anesthesia for urgent inpatient conditions.

In the United States, "Opt-Out" States Show No Increase in Access to Anesthesia Services for Medicare Beneficiaries Compared with Non-"Opt-Out" States.

In the United States, anesthesia care can be provided by anesthesiologists or nurse anesthetists. Since 2001, 17 states have exercised their right to "opt-out" of the federal requirement that a physician supervise the administration of anesthesia by a nurse anesthetist, with the majority citing increased access to anesthesia care as the rationale for their decision. By using Medicare data, we found that most (4 of 5) cohorts of "opt-out" states likely experienced smaller growth in anesthesia utilization rates compared with non-"opt-out" states, suggesting that opt-out was not associated with an increase in access to anesthesia care.

Anesthesiologists Are Affiliated with Many Hospitals Only Reporting Anesthesia Claims Using Modifier QZ for Medicare Claims in 2013.

We examined hospitals that exclusively used the billing modifier QZ in anesthesia claims for a 5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries in 2013. We used a national Medicare provider file to identify physician anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists affiliated with these hospitals. Among the 538 hospitals that exclusively reported the modifier QZ, 47.5% had affiliated physician anesthesiologists. These hospitals accounted for 60.4% of the cases. Our results illustrate the challenges of using modifier QZ to describe anesthesia practice arrangements in hospitals. The modifier QZ does not seem to be a valid surrogate for no anesthesiologist being involved in the care provided.

No significant association between anesthesia group concentration and private insurer payments in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Markets for physician services are becoming increasingly concentrated, with many areas being dominated by a few groups. Antitrust authorities are concerned that increasing concentration will lead to inappropriately high payments for physician services from private insurers. The authors examined the association between market concentration and private insurer payments for anesthesia services. METHODS: The authors obtained data on average payments from private insurers for five commonly used anesthesia Current Procedure Terminology codes for physicians located in 229 counties in the United States between 2002 and 2010. The authors calculated a measure of market concentration (the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index [HHI]) for anesthesiologists in each county using Medicare claims data. The authors then estimated the association between market concentration and private insurer payments using a difference-in-differences approach to minimize confounding. RESULTS: Private insurer payments to anesthesiologists in more concentrated markets were not significantly different from payments in less concentrated markets. Compared with the 25% of counties with the least concentration (counties with an HHI in the 0th to 25th percentile), payments in counties in the 25th to 50th percentile of HHI were approximately 0.51% less (95% CI, -2.3 to 1.3%, P = 0.95), whereas payments in counties in the 50th to 75th percentile of HHI were approximately 2.8% less (95% CI, -6.7 to 1.4%, P = 0.41) and payments in counties in the 75th to 100th percentile were approximately 3.1% less (95% CI, -8.1 to 1.2%, P = 0.32). CONCLUSION: Increasing market concentration of anesthesia groups is not associated with significantly greater payments from private insurers.

International comparison of preoperative testing and assessment protocols and best practices to reduce surgical care costs: a systematic literature review.

PURPOSE: Health care institutions in many Western countries have developed preoperative testing and assessment guidelines to improve surgical outcomes and reduce cost of surgical care. The aims of this chapter are to (1) summarize the literature on the effect of preoperative testing on clinical outcomes, efficiency, and cost; and (2) to compare preoperative testing guidelines developed in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We reviewed the literature from 1975 to 2014 for studies and preoperative testing guidelines. FINDINGS: We identified 29 empirical studies and 8 country-specific guidelines for review. Most studies indicate that preoperative testing is overused and comes at a high cost. Guidelines are tied to payment only in one country studied. This is the most recent review of the literature on preoperative testing and assessment with a focus on quality of care, efficiency, and cost outcomes. In addition, this chapter provides an international comparison of preoperative guidelines.