scholarly journals Abstract No. 498 Trends in utilization and Medicare reimbursement for TIPS and open surgical portal decompression

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. S129
Author(s):  
A. Raman ◽  
M. Lad ◽  
N. Parikh ◽  
R. Gupta ◽  
R. Gupta ◽  
...  
Hand ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 155894472199080
Author(s):  
Danielle A Thornburg ◽  
Nikita Gupta ◽  
Nathan Chow ◽  
Jack Haglin ◽  
Shelley Noland

Background: Medicare reimbursement trends across multiple surgical subspecialties have been analyzed; however, little has been reported regarding the long-term trends in reimbursement of hand surgery procedures. The aim of this study is to analyze trends in Medicare reimbursement for commonly performed hand surgeries. Methods: Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File, we determined the 20 hand surgery procedure codes most commonly billed to Medicare in 2016. Reimbursement rates were collected and analyzed for each code from The Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool for years 2000 to 2019. We compared the change in reimbursement rate for each procedure to the rate of inflation in US dollars, using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) over the same time period. Results: The reimbursement rate for each procedure increased on average by 13.9% during the study period while the United States CPI increased significantly more by 46.7% ( P < .0001). When all reimbursement data were adjusted for inflation to 2019 dollars, the average reimbursement for all included procedures in this study decreased by 22.6% from 2000 to 2019. The average adjusted reimbursement rate for all procedures decreased by 21.92% from 2000 to 2009 and decreased by 0.86% on average from 2009 to 2019 ( P < .0001). Conclusion: When adjusted for inflation, Medicare reimbursement for hand surgery has steadily decreased over the past 20 years. It will be important to consider the implications of these trends when evaluating healthcare policies and the impact this has on access to hand surgery.


1985 ◽  
Vol 42 (8) ◽  
pp. 1712-1714
Author(s):  
William P. Hittel ◽  
Daryl H. Appleby ◽  
Robert E. Wren

2011 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 426-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Allon ◽  
Lesley Dinwiddie ◽  
Eduardo Lacson ◽  
Derrick L. Latos ◽  
Charmaine E. Lok ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 402-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason Luke ◽  
Joshua Mirkin ◽  
Peter Bach

The authors discuss the current state of Medicare reimbursement policy and outline their recently published model to link improvements in the quality of cancer care to reductions in overall cost.


2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 354-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacey J. Ackerman ◽  
David W. Polly ◽  
Tyler Knight ◽  
Tim Holt ◽  
John Cummings

Object Low-back pain (LBP) is highly prevalent among older adults, and the cost to treat the US Medicare population is substantial. Recent US health care reform legislation focuses on improving quality of care and reducing costs. The sacroiliac (SI) joint is a recognized generator of LBP, but treatments traditionally have included either nonoperative medical management or open SI joint fusion, which has a high rate of complications. New minimally invasive technologies have been developed to treat SI joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis, so it is important to understand the current cost impact of nonoperative care to the Medicare program. The objective of this study was to evaluate the medical resource use and associated Medicare reimbursement for patients managed with nonoperative care for degenerative sacroiliitis/SI joint disruption. Methods A retrospective study was conducted using claim-level data from the Medicare 5% Standard Analytical Files (SAFs) for the years 2005–2010. Included were patients with a primary ICD-9-CM (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification) diagnosis code for degenerative sacroiliitis/SI joint disruption (ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes 720.2, 724.6, 739.4, 846.9, or 847.3) with continuous enrollment for at least 1 year before and 5 years after diagnosis. Claims attributable to degenerative sacroiliitis/SI joint disruption were identified using ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes (claims with a primary or secondary ICD-9-CM diagnosis code of 71x.xx, 72x.xx, 73x.xx, or 84x.xx), and the 5-year medical resource use and Medicare reimbursement (in 2012 US dollars) were tabulated across practice settings. A subgroup analysis was performed among patients who underwent lumbar spinal fusion. Results Among all Medicare patients with degenerative sacroiliitis or SI joint disruption (n = 14,552), the mean cumulative 5-year direct medical costs attributable to degenerative sacroiliitis/SI joint disruption was $18,527 ± $28,285 (± SD) per patient. The cumulative 5-year cost was $63,913 ± $46,870 per patient among the subgroup of patients who underwent lumbar spinal fusion (n = 538 [3.7%]) and $16,769 ± $25,753 per patient among the subgroup of patients who had not undergone lumbar spinal fusion (n = 14,014 [96.3%]). For the total population, the largest proportion of cumulative 5-year costs was due to inpatient hospitalization (42.1%), outpatient physician office (20.6%), and hospital outpatient costs (14.9%). The estimated cumulative 5-year Medicare reimbursement across practice settings attributable to SI joint disruption or degenerative sacroiliitis is approximately $270 million among these 14,552 Medicare beneficiaries ($18,527 per patient). Conclusions In patients who suffer from LBP due to SI joint disruption or degenerative sacroiliitis, this retrospective Medicare claims data analysis demonstrates that nonoperative care is associated with substantial costs and medical resource utilization. The economic burden of SI joint disruption and degenerative sacroiliitis among Medicare beneficiaries in the US is substantial and highlights the need for more cost-effective therapies to treat this condition and reduce health care expenditures.


Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander E Callow ◽  
Jordan Long ◽  
Sahar Rehman ◽  
Isna H Khaliq ◽  
Sebastian Boland ◽  
...  

Introduction: Current guidelines of the American Heart Association (AHA) recommend annual serial imaging for patients with aneurysm of the ascending aorta (AscAoA). However, recent data (Park K-H et al. Eur J CT Surg 2017;51:959-64) have suggested that this imaging frequency may not be necessary. This study was designed to compare the progression in growth rates of AscAoA using cardiac MRI (CMR) in 2 large cohorts of patients reassessed every 1 year and every 2 years. Methods: An institutional cardiac imaging database was queried for all patients with AscAoA, defined as a maximum ascending aorta diameter > 3.5 cm measured perpendicular to flow using CMR. The study cohort was divided into two groups; patients who had a follow up CMR every 1 (Group A), and those who had a CMR every 2 years (Group B). AscAoA growth rates were computed for each group and statistically compared using a two-sample t-test. For analysis of cost to the healthcare system, Medicare reimbursement rates for 2019 were utilized. Published mean radiation dose for cardiac CT (CCT) was utilized to assess radiation exposure. Results: Of 6,210 patients in the cardiac imaging database, 1,849 had a diagnosis of AscAoA, of which 941 had serial CMR studies. Of these 941 patients, 342 had a follow up CMR every 1 year, while 206 had a follow up CMR every 2-years. The mean progression of AscAoA was 0.0247 ± 0.475 cm for Group A and 0.0598 ± 0.209 cm for Group B. The growth rate of AscAoA was not significantly different between groups (p=0.236). The Medicare reimbursement for CMR was $23,056 per 100 patients (CPT 75557) without radiation exposure. If CCT had been used for these patients, Medicare reimbursement would have been $20,174 per 100 patients (CPT 75572) with exposure to 10.5 mSv of radiation per study. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in progression of AscAoA diameter between Groups A and B. These data suggest that serial imaging of AscAoA every 2 years may be appropriate, with reduced cost to the healthcare system and cumulative radiation exposure. Although CMR is slightly more costly than CCT, it eliminates cumulative breast radiation exposure, a feature of particular importance for female patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document