Procedure Reimbursement, Inflation, and the Declining Buying Power of the Vascular Surgeon (2011-2021).

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate trends in Medicare reimbursement for common vascular procedures over the last decade. To enrich the context of this analysis, vascular procedure reimbursement is directly compared to inflation-adjusted changes in other surgical specialties. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary file was utilized to identify the 20 procedures most commonly performed by vascular surgeons from 2011-2021. A similar analysis was performed for orthopedic, general, and neurological surgeons. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician-Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool was queried for each procedure, and reimbursement data was extracted. All monetary data was adjusted for inflation to 2021 dollars utilizing the consumer price index. Average year-over-year and total percentage change in reimbursement were calculated based on adjusted data for included procedures. Comparisons to other specialty data were made with ANOVA. RESULTS: From 2011-2021, the average, unadjusted change in reimbursement for vascular procedures was -7.2%. Accounting for inflation, the average procedural reimbursement declined by 20.1%. The greatest decline was observed in phlebectomy of varicose veins (-50.6%). Open arteriovenous fistula revision was the only vascular procedure with an increase in inflation-adjusted reimbursement (+7.5%). Year-over-year, inflation-adjusted reimbursement for common vascular procedures decreased by 2.0% per year. Venous procedures experienced the largest decrease in average adjusted reimbursement (-42.4%), followed by endovascular (-20.1%) and open procedures (-13.9%). These changes were significantly different across procedural subgroups (P < 0.001). During the same period, the average adjusted change in reimbursement for the 20 most common procedures in orthopedic surgery, general surgery, and neurosurgery was -11.6% vs. -20.1% for vascular surgery (P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Medicare reimbursement for common surgical procedures has declined over the last decade. While absolute reimbursement has remained relatively stable for several procedures, accounting for a decade of inflation demonstrates the true diminution of buying power for equivalent work. The most alarming observation is that vascular surgeons have faced a disproportionate decrease in inflation-adjusted reimbursement in comparison to other surgical specialists. Awareness of these trends is a crucial first step towards improved advocacy and efforts to ensure the "value" of vascular surgery does not continue to erode.

Exploring the rapid expansion of office-based laboratories and peripheral vascular interventions across the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the relationship between office-based laboratory (OBL) use and Medicare payments for peripheral vascular interventions (PVI). METHODS: Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Provider Utilization and Payment Data Public Use Files from 2014 to 2017, we identified providers who performed percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, stent placement, and atherectomy. Procedures were aggregated at the provider and hospital referral region (HRR) level. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2017, 2641 providers performed 308,247 procedures. The mean payment for OBL stent placement in 2017 was $4383.39, and mean payment for OBL atherectomy was $13,079.63. The change in the mean payment amount varied significantly, from a decrease of $16.97 in HRR 146 to an increase of $43.77 per beneficiary over the study period in HRR 11. The change in the rate of PVI also varied substantially, and moderately correlated with change in payment across HRRs (R2 = 0.40; P < .001). The majority of HRRs experienced an increase in rate of PVI within OBLs, which strongly correlated with changes in payments (R2 = 0.85; P < .001). Furthermore, 85% of the variance in change in payment was explained by increases in OBL atherectomy (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A rapid shift into the office setting for PVIs occurred within some HRRs, which was highly geographically variable and was strongly correlated with payments. Policymakers should revisit the current payment structure for OBL use and, in particular atherectomy, to better align the policy with its intended goals.

Medicare Reimbursement Trends for Interventional Radiology Procedures: 2012 to 2020.

PURPOSE: To investigate the reimbursement trends for interventional radiology (IR) procedures from 2012 to 2020. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Reimbursement data from the Physician Fee Schedule look-up tool from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was compiled for 20 common IR procedures. The authors then investigated compensation trends after adjusting for inflation and from the unadjusted data between 2012 and 2020. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2020, the mean unadjusted reimbursement for procedures decreased by -6.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], -13.5% to -0.34%). This trend was even more profound after inflation was taken into account, with a mean decline in adjusted reimbursement of -18.7% (95% CI, -24.4% to -12.9%) during the study period, with a mean yearly decline of -2.8%. The difference between the mean unadjusted and adjusted payment amounts was significant (P = .012). Similarly, linear regression analysis of the adjusted average reimbursement across all procedures revealed an overall decline from 2012 to 2020 (R2 = 0.97), indicating a steady decline in reimbursement over time. CONCLUSIONS: In just under a decade, IR has experienced significant reimbursement cuts by Medicare, as demonstrated by both the unadjusted and inflation-adjusted payment trends. Knowledge of these trends is critically important for practicing interventional radiologists, leaders within the field, and legislators, who may play a role in formulating future reimbursement schedules for IR. These data may be used to help support more amenable reimbursement plans to sustain and facilitate the growth of the specialty.

Examining the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act: impact on telemedicine for neurotrauma.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) protects patient access to emergency medical treatment regardless of insurance or socioeconomic status. A significant result of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the rapid acceleration in the adoption of telemedicine services across many facets of healthcare. However, very little literature exists regarding the use of telemedicine in the context of EMTALA. This work aimed to evaluate the potential to expand the usage of telemedicine services for neurotrauma to reduce transfer rates, minimize movement of patients across borders, and alleviate the burden on tertiary care hospitals involved in the care of patients with COVID-19 during a global pandemic. In this paper, the authors outline EMTALA provisions, provide examples of EMTALA violations involving neurosurgical care, and propose guidelines for the creation of telemedicine protocols between referring and consulting institutions.

Trends in Medicare Reimbursement for Reconstructive Plastic Surgery Procedures: 2000 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: An understanding of financial trends is important to advance agreeable reimbursement models in plastic surgery. This study aimed to evaluate trends in Medicare reimbursement rates for the 20 most commonly billed reconstructive plastic surgery procedures from 2000 to 2019. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File was used to identify the 20 reconstructive procedures most commonly billed to Medicare by plastic surgeons in 2016. Reimbursement data were extracted from The Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for each CPT code. Monetary data were adjusted for inflation to 2019 U.S. dollars. Average annual and total percentage changes in reimbursement were calculated based on these adjusted trends. RESULTS: The average adjusted reimbursement for all procedures decreased by 14.0 percent from 2000 to 2019. The greatest mean decrease was observed in complex wound repair of the scalp, arms, or legs (-33.2 percent). The only procedure with an increased adjusted reimbursement rate was layer-closure of the scalp, axillae, trunk, and/or extremities (6.5 percent). From 2000 to 2019, the adjusted reimbursement rate for all procedures decreased by an average of 0.8 percent annually. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first comprehensive study evaluating trends in Medicare reimbursement in plastic surgery. When adjusted for inflation, Medicare reimbursement for the included procedures has steadily decreased from 2000 to 2019. Increased consideration of these trends will be important for U.S. policymakers, hospitals, and surgeons to ensure continued access to meaningful reconstructive plastic surgery care.

Industry Payment to Vascular Neurologists: A 6-Year Analysis of the Open Payments Program From 2013 Through 2018.

Background and Purpose- Industry payments to physicians raise concerns regarding conflicts of interest that could impact patient care. We explored nonresearch and nonownership payments from industry to vascular neurologists to identify trends in compensation. Methods- Using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology data, we explored financial relationships between industry and US vascular neurologists from 2013 to 2018. We analyzed payment characteristics, including payment categories, payment distribution among physicians, regional trends, and biomedical manufacturers. Furthermore, we analyzed the top 1% (by compensation) of vascular neurologists with detailed payment categories, their position, and their contribution to stroke guidelines. Results- The number of board certified vascular neurologist increased from 1169 in 2013 to 1746 in 2018. The total payments to vascular neurologist increased from $99 749 in 2013 to $1 032 302 in 2018. During the study period, 16% to 17% of vascular neurologists received industry payments. Total payments from industry and mean physician payments increased yearly over this period, with consulting fee (31.1%) and compensation for services other than consulting (30.7%) being the highest paid categories. The top 10 manufacturers made the majority of the payments, and the top 10 products changed from drug or biological products to devices. Physicians from south region of the United States received the highest total payment (38.72%), which steadily increased. Payments to top 1% vascular neurologists increased from 64% to 79% over the period as payments became less evenly distributed. Among the top 1%, 42% specialized in neuro intervention, 11% contributed to American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, and around 75% were key leaders in the field. Conclusions- A small proportion of US vascular neurologists consistently received the majority of industry payments, the value of which grew over the study period. Only 11% of the top 1% receiving industry payments have authored American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, but ≈75% seem to be key leaders in the field. Whether this influences clinical practice and behavior requires further investigation.

Persistent geographic variations in availability and quality of nursing home care in the United States: 1996 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: Availability of nursing home care has declined and national efforts have been initiated to improve the quality of nursing home care in the U.S. Yet, data are limited on whether there are geographic variations in declines of availability and quality of nursing home care, and whether variations persist over time. We sought to assess geographic variation in availability and quality of nursing home care. METHODS: Retrospective study using Medicaid/Medicare-certified nursing home data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 1996-2016. Outcomes were 1) availability of all nursing home care (1996-2016), measured by the number of Medicaid/Medicare-certified beds for a given county per 100,000 population aged ≥65 years, regardless of nursing home star rating; 2) availability of 5-star nursing home care, measured by the number of Medicaid/Medicare-certified beds provided by 5-star nursing homes; and 3) utilization of nursing home beds, defined as the rate of occupied Medicaid/Medicare-certified beds among the total Medicaid/Medicare-certified beds. RESULTS: From 1999 to 2016, availability of all nursing home care declined from 4882 (standard deviation: 931) to 3480 (912) beds, per 100,000 population aged ≥65 years. Persistent geographic variation in availability of nursing home care was observed; the correlation coefficient of county-specific availabilities from 1996 to 2016 was 0.78 (95% CI 0.77-0.79). From 2011 to 2016, availability of 5-star nursing home beds increased from 658 (303) to 895 (661) per 100,000 population aged ≥65 years. The correlation coefficient for county-specific availabilities from 2011 to 2016 was 0.54 (95% CI 0.51-0.56). Availability and quality of nursing home care were not highly correlated. In 2016, the correlation coefficient for county-specific availabilities between all nursing home and 5-star nursing home beds was 0.33 (95% CI 0.30-0.36). From 1996 to 2016, the utilization of certified beds declined from 78.5 to 72.2%. This decline was consistent across all census divisions, but most pronounced in the Mountain division and less in the South-Atlantic division. CONCLUSION: We observed persistent geographic variations in availability and quality of nursing home care. Availability of all nursing home care declined but availability of 5-star nursing home care increased. Availability and quality of nursing home care were not highly correlated.

Improving The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule: Make It Part Of Value-Based Payment.

Alternative Payment Models (APMs) can address the limitations inherent in fee-for-service payment to support new approaches to health care delivery that produce greater value. But the models being tested are directly layered on top of fee-for-service architecture, specifically the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Shoring up that architecture to produce greater value, in combination with APMs, should be considered an integral part of the movement to value-based payment. We propose ending the split within the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services between the people managing the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and those creating and testing APMs, with both groups advised by a revamped Physician-Focused Payment Model Technical Advisory Committee that covers both dimensions of creating greater value.

Provider Trends in Atherectomy Volume between Office-Based Laboratories and Traditional Facilities.

BACKGROUND: As patient care is being increasingly transitioned out of the hospital and into the outpatient setting, there is a growing interest in developing office-based angiography suites, that is, office-based laboratories. Office-based care has been associated with increased efficiency and greater patient satisfaction, with substantially higher reimbursement directly to the physicians providing care. Prior studies have demonstrated a shift of revascularization procedures to office-based laboratories with a concomitant increase in atherectomy use, a procedure with disproportionately high reimbursement in comparison to other peripheral revascularization techniques. We sought to determine provider trends in endovascular procedure volume, settings, and shifts in practice over time, specific to atherectomy. METHODS: Using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Provider Utilization and Payment Data Public Use Files from 2013 to 2015, we identified providers who performed diagnostic angiography (DA), percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), stent placement (stent), and atherectomy, and procedures were aggregated at the provider level. Trends in procedures performed in office-based laboratory and facility-based settings were analyzed. Atherectomy was specifically analyzed using the total number and proportion of office-based laboratory procedures, and providers were stratified into quintiles by case volume. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2015, 5,298 providers were identified. Over this time period, the number of providers performing atherectomy increased 25.7%, with the highest quintile of atherectomy providers performing an average of 263 cases (range 109-1,455). The proportion of physicians who performed atherectomy only in the office increased from 39.8% to 50.7% from 2013 to 2015, whereas only 20.8% of physicians who performed DA, PTA, or stent in 2015 did so only in an office-based laboratory. Of the physicians with the highest atherectomy volume, 77.8% operated only in the office in 2015, and these physicians increased their atherectomy volume to 114.1% during the study period. Of those physicians who transitioned to a solely office-based laboratory practice over the study period, atherectomy volume increased 63.4%, which was disproportionate compared with the growth of their DA, PTA, and stent volume. CONCLUSIONS: Over this short study period, a rapid shift into the office setting for peripheral intervention occurred, with a concomitant increase in atherectomy volume that was disproportionate to the increase in other peripheral interventions. This increase in office-based laboratory atherectomy occurred in the setting of increased reimbursement for the procedure and despite a lack of data supporting superiority over PTA/stent.

Coverage of Novel Therapeutic Agents by Medicare Prescription Drug Plans Following FDA Approval.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory approval of novel therapies by the FDA does not guarantee insurance coverage requisite for most clinical use. In the United States, the largest health insurance payer is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which provides Part D prescription drug benefits to over 43 million Americans. While the FDA and CMS have implemented policies to improve the availability of novel therapies to patients, the time required to secure Medicare prescription drug benefit coverage-and accompanying restrictions-has not been previously described. OBJECTIVE: To characterize Medicare prescription drug plan coverage of novel therapeutic agents approved by the FDA between 2006 and 2012. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of drug coverage using Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit plan data from 2007 to 2015. Drug coverage was defined as inclusion of a drug on a plan formulary, evaluated at 1 and 3 years after FDA approval. For covered drugs, coverage was categorized as unrestrictive or restrictive, which was defined as requiring step therapy or prior authorization. Median coverage was estimated at 1 and 3 years after FDA approval, overall, and compared with a number of drug characteristics, including year of approval, CMS-protected class status, biologics versus small molecules, therapeutic area, orphan drug status, FDA priority review, and FDA-accelerated approval. RESULTS: Among 144 novel therapeutic agents approved by the FDA between 2006 and 2012, 14% (20 of 144) were biologics; 40% (57 of 144) were included in a CMS-protected class; 31% (45 of 144) were approved under an orphan drug designation; 42% (60 of 144) received priority review; and 11% (16 of 144) received accelerated approval. The proportion of novel therapeutics covered by at least 1 Medicare prescription drug plan was 90% (129 of 144) and 97% (140 of 144) at 1 year and 3 years after approval, respectively. At 3 years after approval, 28% (40 of 144) of novel therapeutics were covered by all plans. Novel therapeutic agents were covered by a median of 61% (interquartile range [IQR] = 39%-90%) of plans at 1 year and 79% (IQR = 57%-100%) at 3 years (P < 0.001). When novel therapeutics were covered, many plans restricted coverage through prior authorization or step therapy requirements. The median proportion of unrestrictive coverage was 29% (IQR = 13%-54%) at 3 years. Several drug characteristics, including therapeutic area, FDA priority review, FDA-accelerated approval, and CMS-protected drug class, were associated with higher rates of coverage, whereas year of approval, drug type, and orphan drug status were not. CONCLUSIONS: Most Medicare prescription drug plans covered the majority of novel therapeutics in the year following FDA approval, although access was often restricted through prior authorization or step therapy and was dependent on plan choice. DISCLOSURES: Funding for this study was contributed by a student research grant awarded to Shaw and provided by the Yale School of Medicine Office of Student Research under National Institutes of Health training grant award T35DK104689. Ross reports research grants to Yale University from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (U01FD005938, U01FD004585), Medtronic, Johnson & Johnson, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (HHSM-500-2013-13018I), Blue Cross-Blue Shield Association, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), and National Institutes of Health (R01HS025164), unrelated to this study. Dhruva has nothing to disclose. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

MACRA 2.5: the legislation moves forward.

The Medicare and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 remains the payment policy law of the land. 2017 was the first year in which performance reporting will tangibly impact future physician payments. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) considers 2017 and 2018 transitional years before full implementation in 2019. As such, 2018 increases the reporting requirements over 2017 in the form of a gradual phase-in while introducing several key changes and new elements. Indeed, it is the nature of the transition itself that led to the somewhat unique title of this manuscript, i.e., MACRA 2.5. Stakeholder feedback to the CMS regarding the program has ranged widely from the elimination of core components to expanding reporting to non-government payers. This article explores the potential impact on neurointerventional physicians.

Capturing Functional Independence Measure (FIM®) Ratings.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to identify interventions to capture admission functional independence measure (FIM®) ratings on the day of admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility. DESIGN: A quantitative evidence-based practice quality improvement study utilizing descriptive statistics. METHODS: Admission FIM® ratings from patients discharged in June 2012 (retrospective review) were compared to admission FIM® ratings from patients discharged in June 2014 (prospective review). The logic model was utilized to determine the project inputs, outputs, and outcomes. FINDINGS: Interventions to capture admission FIM® ratings on the day of admission are essential to accurately predict the patient's burden of care, length of stay, and reimbursement. Waiting until Day 2 or Day 3 after admission to capture the admission FIM® assessment resulted in inflated admission FIM® ratings and suboptimal quality outcomes. CONCLUSION/CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Interventions to capture admission FIM® ratings on the day of admission were successful at improving the quality of care, length of stay efficiency, and accurately recording admission FIM® ratings to determine the patient's burden of care.

Interhospital Transfer and Receipt of Specialty Procedures.

The practice of transferring patients between acute care hospitals is variable and largely nonstandardized. Although often-cited reasons for transfer include providing patients access to specialty services only available at the receiving institution, little is known about whether and when patients receive such specialty care during the transfer continuum. We performed a retrospective analysis using 2013 100% Master Beneficiary Summary and Inpatient claims files from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Beneficiaries were included if they were aged =65 years, continuously enrolled in Medicare A and B, with an acute care hospitalization claim, and transferred to another acute care hospital with a primary diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, gastrointestinal bleed, renal failure, or hip fracture/dislocation. Associated specialty procedure codes (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification) were identified for each diagnosis. We performed descriptive analyses to compare receipt of specialty procedural services between transferring and receiving hospitals, stratified by diagnosis. Across the 19,613 included beneficiaries, receipt of associated specialty procedures was more common at the receiving than the transferring hospital, with the exception of patients with a diagnosis of gastrointestinal bleed. Depending on primary diagnosis, between 32.4% and 89.1% of patients did not receive any associated specialty procedure at the receiving hospital. Our results demonstrate variable receipt of specialty procedural care across the transfer continuum, implying the likelihood of alternate drivers of interhospital transfer other than solely receipt of specialty procedural care.

Outcomes With Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair in the United States: An STS/ACC TVT Registry Report.

BACKGROUND: Post-market surveillance is needed to evaluate the real-world clinical effectiveness and safety of U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved devices. OBJECTIVES: The authors examined the commercial experience with transcatheter mitral valve repair for the treatment of mitral regurgitation. METHODS: Data from the Society of Thoracic Surgery/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry on patients commercially treated with transcatheter mitral valve repair were analyzed. The study population consisted of 2,952 patients treated at 145 hospitals between November 2013 and September 2015. In 1,867 patients, data were linked to patient-specific Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrative claims for analyses. RESULTS: The median age was 82 years (55.8% men), with a median Society of Thoracic Surgery predicted risk of mortality of 6.1% (interquartile range: 3.7% to 9.9%) and 9.2% (interquartile range: 6.0% to 14.1%) for mitral repair and replacement, respectively. Overall, in-hospital mortality was 2.7%. Acute procedure success occurred in 91.8%. Among the patients with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services linkage data, the mortality at 30 days and at 1 year was 5.2% and 25.8%, respectively, and repeat hospitalization for heart failure at 1 year occurred in 20.2%. Variables associated with mortality or rehospitalization for heart failure after multivariate adjustment were increasing age, lower baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, worse post-procedural mitral regurgitation, moderate or severe lung disease, dialysis, and severe tricuspid regurgitation. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate that commercial transcatheter mitral valve repair is being performed in the United States with acute effectiveness and safety. Our findings may help determine which patients have favorable long-term outcomes with this therapy.

Rates, Predictors and Variability of Interhospital Transfers: A National Evaluation.

IMPORTANCE: Interhospital transfer (IHT) remains a largely unstudied process of care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the nationwide frequency of, patient and hospital-level predictors of, and hospital variability in IHT. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 2013 100% Master Beneficiary Summary and Inpatient claims files merged with 2013 American Hospital Association data. PATIENTS: Beneficiaries ≥65 years and older enrolled in Medicare A and B, with an acute care hospitalization claim in 2013. EXPOSURES: Patient and hospital characteristics of transferred and nontransferred patients. MEASUREMENTS: Frequency of interhospital transfers (IHT); adjusted odds of transfer of each patient and each hospital characteristic; and variability in hospital transfer rates. RESULTS: Of 6.6 million eligible beneficiaries with an acute care hospitalization, 101,507 (1.5%) underwent IHT. Selected characteristics associated with greater adjusted odds of transfer included: patient age 74-85 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.38 compared with 65-74 years; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 2.33-2.43); nonblack race (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20); higher comorbidity (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.36-1.37); lower diagnosis-related group-weight (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.95-2.09); fewer recent hospitalizations (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.79-1.95); and hospitalization in the Northeast (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.27-1.55). Higher case mix index of the hospital was associated with a lower adjusted odds of transfer (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45). Variability in hospital transfer rates remained significant after adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics (variance 0.28, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this nationally representative evaluation, we found that a sizable number of patients undergo IHT. We identified both expected and unexpected patient and hospital-level predictors of IHT, as well as unexplained variability in hospital transfer rates, suggesting lack of standardization of this complex care transition. Our study highlights further investigative avenues to help guide best practices in IHT. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2017;12:435-442.

Drivers of Medicare Reimbursement for Thoracolumbar Fusion: An Analysis of Data From The Centers For Medicare and Medicaid Services.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective observational study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to examine the variation in thoracolumbar fusion (TLF) payment and determine the drivers of this variation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As health care spending continues to increase, variation in surgical procedures reimbursements has come under more scrutiny. TLF is an example of a high-cost, proven-benefit procedure that is often the focus of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) administrators. There is a wide variation in TLF charges, but the drivers for this variation are not clear. METHODS: Claims for TLF were identified in the CMS data by analyzing Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) number 460 ("Spinal Fusion Except Cervical without Major Complications or Comorbidities"). Data on factors that may impact cost of care were collected from four sources: the United States Census Bureau, CMS, the Dartmouth Atlas, and WWAMI Rural Health Research Center. These were then grouped into seven categories: quality, supply, demand, substitute treatment availability, patient characteristics, competitive factors, and provider characteristics. Predictive reimbursement models were created from the data using multivariate linear regression to understand the factors that influence TLF reimbursement. RESULTS: There was significant geographic variability in reimbursement. The largest contribution to reimbursement variation came from variables in the demand (ΔR = 13.4%, P < 0.001), supply (ΔR = 9.2%, P < 0.001), and competitive factor domains (ΔR = 9.1%, P < 0.001). The top three drivers that increased reimbursement were provider charges (ß = 0.37, P < 0.001), total Medicare reimbursement in the region (ß = 0.19, P < 0.001), and the number of spinal surgeries per 1000 patients in that region (ß = 0.06, P = 0.02). Institutional volume, a surrogate for quality was negatively associated with TLF reimbursement. CONCLUSION: There was wide variation in reimbursement for TLF across the U.S. The variables that drive TLF reimbursement variation include supply, demand, and competition. Interestingly, quality of care was not associated with increased TLF reimbursement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.