Carving Out Financial Success: The Power of Insurance Carve-Outs in a Private Plastic Surgery Practice.

BACKGROUND: Since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was signed into law, there has been a push away from fee-for-service payment models. The rise of bundled payments has drastically impacted plastic surgeons' incomes, especially nonsalaried surgeons in private practice. As a result, physicians must now attempt to optimize contractual reimbursement agreements (carve-outs) with insurance providers. The aim of this article is to explain the economics behind negotiating carve-outs and to offer a how-to guide for plastic surgeons to use in such negotiations. METHODS: Based on work relative value units, Medicare reimbursement, overhead expenses, physician workload, and desired income, the authors present an approach that allows surgeons to evaluate the reimbursement they receive for various procedures. The authors then review factors that influence whether a carve-out can be pursued. Finally, the authors consider relevant nuances of negotiating with insurance companies. RESULTS: Using tissue expander insertion (CPT 19357) as an example, the authors review the mathematics, thought process required, and necessary steps in determining whether a carve-out should be pursued. Strategies for negotiation with insurance companies were identified. The presented approach can be used to potentially negotiate a carve-out for any reconstructive procedure that meets appropriate financial criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding practice costs will allow plastic surgeons to evaluate the true value of insurance reimbursements and determine whether a carve-out is worth pursuing. Plastic surgeons must be prepared to negotiate adequate reimbursement carve-outs whenever possible. Ultimately, by aligning the best quality patient care with insurance companies' financial motivations, plastic surgeons have the opportunity to improve reimbursement for some reconstructive procedures.

Clear as Mud? Federal Rule Will Mandate Hospitals to Post Prices on a Menu of Services.

From electronic health records to quality reporting, today's physicians deal with plenty of distractions from patient care. Starting in 2021, hospital-employed physicians may find themselves adding another one: explaining to patients the difference between their hospital's multiple published prices for the same service.

"Absurd" Contract Dodge Rejected: Court Lets Cancer Center's Debt-Collection Suit Proceed.

Appeals court denies "free speech" challenge to cancer center's debt-collection suit.

The Economic Burden of Out-of-Pocket Expenses for Plastic Surgery Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Health insurance reimbursement structure has evolved, with patients becoming increasingly responsible for their health care costs through rising out-of-pocket expenses. High levels of cost sharing can lead to delays in access to care, influence treatment decisions, and cause financial distress for patients. METHODS: Patients undergoing the most common outpatient reconstructive plastic surgery operations were identified using Truven MarketScan databases from 2009 to 2017. Total cost of the surgery paid to the insurer and out-of-pocket expenses, including deductible, copayment, and coinsurance, were calculated. Multivariable generalized linear modeling with log link and gamma distribution was used to predict adjusted total and out-of-pocket expenses. All costs were inflation-adjusted to 2017 dollars. RESULTS: The authors evaluated 3,165,913 outpatient plastic and reconstructive surgical procedures between 2009 and 2017. From 2009 to 2017, total costs had a significant increase of 25 percent, and out-of-pocket expenses had a significant increase of 54 percent. Using generalized linear modeling, procedures performed in outpatient hospitals conferred an additional $1999 in total costs (95 percent CI, $1978 to $2020) and $259 in out-of-pocket expenses (95 percent CI, $254 to $264) compared with office procedures. Ambulatory surgical center procedures conferred an additional $1698 in total costs (95 percent CI, $1677 to $1718) and $279 in out-of-pocket expenses (95 percent CI, $273 to $285) compared with office procedures. CONCLUSIONS: For outpatient plastic surgery procedures, out-of-pocket expenses are increasing at a faster rate than total costs, which may have implications for access to care and timing of surgery. Providers should realize the increasing burden of out-of-pocket expenses and the effect of surgical location on patients' costs when possible.

Physician Reimbursement: Fee-for-Service, Accountable Care, and the Future of Bundled Payments.

In 1992, the use of relative value units to link a particular payments with specific services was initiated to replace traditional fee for service. The system incentivizes volume rather than quality. In 1997, initiatives were formalized to emphasize quality measures. Physicians must participate in the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Physicians can opt out of MIPS if they participate in an Alternative Payment Model such as Bundled Payments. Reimbursement based on an episode of care reduces perceived incentive to increase volumes, but may result in difficulty with access to care for patients with complex medical issues or significant comorbidities.

Maryland's Experiment With Capitated Payments For Rural Hospitals: Large Reductions In Hospital-Based Care.

In 2010 Maryland replaced fee-for-service payment for some rural hospitals with "global budgets" for hospital-provided services called Total Patient Revenue (TPR). A principal goal was to incentivize hospitals to manage resources efficiently. Using a difference-in-differences design, we compared eight TPR hospitals to seven similar non-TPR Maryland hospitals to estimate how TPR affected hospital-provided services. We also compared health care use by "treated" patients in TPR counties to that of patients in counties containing control hospitals. Inpatient admissions and outpatient services fell sharply at TPR hospitals, increasingly so over the period that TPR was in effect. Emergency department (ED) admission rates declined 12 percent, direct (non-ED) admissions fell 23 percent, ambulatory surgery center visits fell 45 percent, and outpatient clinic visits and services fell 40 percent. However, for residents of TPR counties, visits to all Maryland hospitals fell by lesser amounts and Medicare spending increased, which suggests that some care moved outside of the global budget. Nonetheless, we could not assess the efficiency of these shifts with our data, and some care could have moved to more efficient locations. Our evidence suggests that capitation models require strong oversight to ensure that hospitals do not respond by shifting costs to other providers.

Medicare Program; Contract Year 2019 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage, Medicare Cost Plan, Medicare Fee-for-Service, the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs, and the PACE Program. Final rule.

This final rule will revise the Medicare Advantage (MA) program (Part C) regulations and Prescription Drug Benefit program (Part D) regulations to implement certain provisions of the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act (CARA) to further reduce the number of beneficiaries who may potentially misuse or overdose on opioids while still having access to important treatment options; implement certain provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act; support innovative approaches to improve program quality, accessibility, and affordability; offer beneficiaries more choices and better care; improve the CMS customer experience and maintain high beneficiary satisfaction; address program integrity policies related to payments based on prescriber, provider and supplier status in MA, Medicare cost plan, Medicare Part D and the PACE programs; provide an update to the official Medicare Part D electronic prescribing standards; and clarify program requirements and certain technical changes regarding treatment of Medicare Part A and Part B appeal rights related to premiums adjustments.

Getting Paid for Clinical Services.

Increasingly, pharmacists are providing advanced, patient-centered clinical services. However, pharmacists are not currently included in key sections of the Social Security Act, which determines eligibility to bill and be reimbursed by Medicare. Many state and private health plans also cite the omission from Medicare as the rationale for excluding reimbursement of pharmacists for clinical services. This has prompted forward-thinking pharmacists to seek opportunities for reimbursement in other ways, allowing them to provide value to the health care system, while carving out unique niches for pharmacists to care for patients.

Conceptual Considerations for Payment Bundling in Breast Reconstruction.

Rising health care costs and quality demands have driven both the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the private sector to seek innovations in health system design by placing institutions at financial risk. Novel care models, such as bundled reimbursement, aim to boost value though quality improvement and cost reduction. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation is leading the charge in this area with multiple pilots and mandates, including Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement. Other high-cost and high-volume procedures could be considered for bundling in the future, including breast reconstruction. In this article, conceptual considerations surrounding bundling of breast reconstruction are discussed.

Medicare Program; Medicare Shared Savings Program: Extreme and Uncontrollable Circumstances Policies for Performance Year 2017. Interim final rule with comment period.

This interim final rule with comment period establishes policies for assessing the financial and quality performance of Medicare Shared Savings Program (Shared Savings Program) Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) affected by extreme and uncontrollable circumstances during performance year 2017, including the applicable quality reporting period for the performance year. Under the Shared Savings Program, providers of services and suppliers that participate in ACOs continue to receive traditional Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) payments under Parts A and B, but the ACO may be eligible to receive a shared savings payment if it meets specified quality and savings requirements. ACOs in performance-based risk agreements may also share in losses. This interim final rule with comment period establishes extreme and uncontrollable circumstances policies for the Shared Savings Program that will apply to ACOs subject to extreme and uncontrollable events, such as Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria, and the California wildfires, effective for performance year 2017, including the applicable quality data reporting period for the performance year.