Reference Errors in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Literature.

Objective Proper use of citation and quotation is crucial to the integrity of the medical literature. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of quotation and citation errors in otolaryngology-head and neck surgery (OHNS) journals and how they have changed over time. Study Design Literature review. Methods Fifty references were randomly selected from the first published issue of 2017 for 8 leading OHNS journals. These were analyzed for errors in citation (data elements by which the article is referenced) and quotation (factual inaccuracies of the reference). Citation errors were categorized as major, intermediate, or minor. Quotation errors were categorized as major or minor. Results were compared with data from 1997 articles. Results Citation errors occurred in 17% of all references studied, with 34% classified as major. Quotation errors occurred in 9%, with 69% classified as major. There was no association between journal impact factor and total number of errors ( r = -0.33, P = .42). This compares with a 37% citation error rate (32% major) and 17% quotation error rate (65% major) from 1997. Conclusion Citation and quotation errors are still prevalent in the OHNS literature albeit decreased from previously reported data. Improvement in citation errors may be due to technological improvements in reference management. However, it is the continued responsibility of the authors, reviewers, and editors to further reduce error rates to maintain the integrity of our publications.

Equity in Medicaid Reimbursement for Otolaryngologists.

Objective To study state Medicaid reimbursement rates for inpatient and outpatient otolaryngology services and to compare with federal Medicare benchmarks. Study Design State and federal database query. Setting Not applicable. Methods Based on Medicare claims data, 26 of the most common Current Procedural Terminology codes reimbursed to otolaryngologists were selected and the payments recorded. These were further divided into outpatient and operative services. Medicaid payment schemes were queried for the same services in 49 states and Washington, DC. The difference in Medicaid and Medicare payment in dollars and percentage was determined and the reimbursement per relative value unit calculated. Medicaid reimbursement differences (by dollar amount and by percentage) were qualified as a shortfall or excess as compared with the Medicare benchmark. Results Marked differences in Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement exist for all services provided by otolaryngologists, most commonly as a substantial shortfall. The Medicaid shortfall varied in amount among states, and great variability in reimbursement exists within and between operative and outpatient services. Operative services were more likely than outpatient services to have a greater Medicaid shortfall. Shortfalls and excesses were not consistent among procedures or states. Conclusions The variation in Medicaid payment models reflects marked differences in the value of the same work provided by otolaryngologists-in many cases, far less than federal benchmarks. These results question the fairness of the Medicaid reimbursement scheme in otolaryngology, with potential serious implications on access to care for this underserved patient population.

Professional Reimbursement by Medicaid for Cochlear Implants and Related Services.

HYPOTHESIS: Medicaid reimbursement rates for cochlear implants and related services fall short of the federal benchmark set by Medicare. BACKGROUND: The financial hardships of cochlear implant centers around the United States may be a repercussion of poor Medicaid reimbursement. In time, these reimbursement discrepancies could force additional Otolaryngologists and cochlear implant centers to not provide these crucial services due to financial limitations. METHODS: Based on Medicare (MCR) claims data, current procedural terminology (CPT) codes used for cochlear implantation and related services were selected. Medicaid (MCD) and Medicare (MCR) payment schemes were queried for the same services in 49 states and Washington, D.C. The difference in MCD and MCR payment in dollars and percent was determined and reimbursement per relative value of work (RVU) calculated. MCD reimbursement differences (by dollar amount and by percentage) were qualified as a shortfall or excess as compared with the MCR benchmark. RESULTS: Marked differences in MCD and MCR reimbursement exist for all cochlear implant related services, most commonly as a substantial shortfall. The MCD shortfall varied in amount between states and great variability in reimbursement exists within and between audiology, surgery, and speech services. Shortfalls and excesses were not consistent between procedures or states. CONCLUSIONS: The variation in MCD payment models reflects marked differences in the value of the same work provided, which in many cases is far less than federal benchmarks. These results question the fairness of the MCD reimbursement scheme in cochlear implantation with potential serious implications on access to care for this underserved patient population.

Prevalence and factors predictive of intraocular fungal infection in patients with fungemia at an academic urban tertiary care center.

OBJECTIVE: To report the prevalence and to identify factors predictive of intraocular infection in patients with fungemia receiving prophylactic antifungal therapy. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who received prophylactic antifungal therapy and a dilated fundus examination at an academic urban tertiary care center from 2000 to 2007. Basic demographic information, fungal species grown, antifungal agent(s) used, number of positive blood culture specimens, visual acuity, visual symptoms, and known risks of disseminated candidiasis were noted. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the factors significantly associated with intraocular fungal infection. RESULTS: A total of 132 patients with positive fungemia culture were requested to have ophthalmology consults. The prevalence of ocular infection was 6.9% (N=9). All nine patients were infected with Candida species. Undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) surgery within the prior 6 months was significantly related to developing intraocular infection, with an odds ratio of 18.5 (95% confidence interval, 15.1-24.3; P=0.002). Having ≥3 positive fungal blood cultures was also a significant risk factor, with an odds ratio of 2.6 (95% confidence interval, 1.8-3.7; P=0.03). Among 40 patients having GI surgery, eight (20.0%) had intraocular fungal disease, compared with one of 92 patients (1.1%) not having GI surgery. Among 125 patients with a negative baseline examination result, two of 32 patients (6.3%), who had recent GI surgery, subsequently developed fungal ocular disease, compared with 0 of 93 patients (0%), who did not have recent GI surgery. CONCLUSION: Recent GI surgery and higher numbers of positive fungal blood culture specimens may be predictive of candida ocular infections. Normal baseline fundoscopy examination results in patients with such risks may require repeat evaluations to detect delayed manifestations.