Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Research Articles

Trends of Medicare Reimbursement Rates for Gender-Affirming Surgery Procedures.

Awareness of Medicare reimbursement is important for gender-affirming surgeons who treat transgender patients with Medicare. In 2014, Medicare began to provide coverage for medically necessary transition-related surgery. The purpose of this study was to analyze trends in Medicare reimbursement rates for gender-affirming surgery procedures from 2014 to 2022. The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was used, and the Current Procedural Terminology codes for 43 gender-affirming surgery services were obtained. Monetary units, conversion factors, relative value units (RVUs) for work, facility, and malpractice costs for 30 transmasculine and 13 transfeminine procedures were analyzed. Descriptive statistics were performed to account for inflation and to determine the relative differences between 2014 and 2022. For all gender-affirming surgery procedures covered by Medicare, the average relative difference of monetary units decreased by 2.99% between 2014 and 2022. On average, there was a 3.97% decrease of work-based RVU charges for transmasculine procedures and a 1.73% decrease of work-based RVU charges for transfeminine procedures. After adjusting for inflation, the average relative difference of monetary units for all gender-affirming surgery procedures decreased by 23.42% between 2014 and 2022. Reimbursement rates for gender-affirming surgery procedures covered under Medicare have decreased over the observed period, and trends in reimbursement rates have not kept up with consumer price index inflation. Gender-affirming surgeons should be conscious of these changes in reimbursement rates and advocate for fairer compensation to promote medical care among an underserved population.

Declining Inflation-Adjusted Medicare Physician Fees: An Unsustainable Trend in Hip Arthroscopy

Introduction: Although hip arthroscopy continues to be one of the most used arthroscopic procedures, no focused, comprehensive evaluation of reimbursement trends has been conducted. The purpose of this study was to analyze the temporal Medicare reimbursement trends for hip arthroscopy procedures. Methods: From 2011 to 2021, the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool was queried for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes related to hip arthroscopy (29860 to 29863, 29914 to 29916). All monetary data were adjusted to 2021 US dollars. The compound annual growth rate and total percentage change were calculated. Mann-Kendall trend tests were used to evaluate the reimbursement trends. Results: Based on the unadjusted values, a significant increase in physician fee was observed from 2011 to 2021 for CPT codes 29861 (removal of loose or foreign bodies; % change: 3.49, P = 0.03) and 29862 (chondroplasty, abrasion arthroplasty, labral resection; % change: 3.19, P = 0.03). The remaining CPT codes experienced no notable changes in reimbursement based on the unadjusted values. After adjusting for inflation, all seven of the hip arthroscopy CPT codes were observed to experience a notable decline in Medicare reimbursement. Hip arthroscopy with acetabuloplasty (CPT: 29915) and labral repair (CPT: 29916) exhibited the greatest reduction in reimbursement with a decrease in physician fee of 24.69% (P < 0.001) and 24.64% (P < 0.001), respectively, over the study period. Discussion: Medicare reimbursement for all seven of the commonly used hip arthroscopy services did not keep up with inflation, demonstrating marked reductions from 2011 to 2021. Specifically, the inflation-adjusted reimbursements decreased between 19.23% and 24.69% between 2011 and 2021.

(241) Optimizing Care - Economic Impact of Reduced Teaching Visits After IPP Implantation

Abstract Introduction The increasing shortage of urologists has resulted in longer wait times for appointments and surgeries, causing delays in receiving care that may negatively impact quality-of-life, especially for erectile dysfunction (ED) treatment. Urologists specializing in inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation are familiar with such challenges and utilize various approaches to improve practice efficiency, including optimizing IPP teaching visits and post-operative care. Objective This study assessed whether reducing the number of IPP teaching visits within the immediate 90-day post-operative period may improve efficiency and enhance patient care amongst urology practices. Methods Using American Medical Association (AMA) resource-based relative value scale (RBRVS) data for IPP implantation [Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) 54405], a scenario analysis was constructed that assessed the effects on patient care and physician reimbursement of eliminating one 30-minute post-operative teaching visit (CPT 99213) from the average of 2.5 visits accounted for within the immediate 90-day postoperative period for CPT 54405 in RBRVS data. The efficiency impact on practices which perform 25, 50, or 100 IPP implants, annually, was modeled. The effects on patient access to care, by reapplying the time recaptured from the reduction in teaching visits, were evaluated under three scenarios: 1) the most frequent in-office CPT codes used by IPP implanters [from Definitive Healthcare 2021 commercial and Medicare claims], 2) evaluation and management of new ED patients who pursue/receive an IPP [CPT 99204 + 3x CPT 99214], and, as a control measure, 3) vasectomy procedures [CPT 55250]. Physician work time and reimbursement were conservatively estimated using 2023 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Changes to reimbursement if Advanced Practice Providers (APPs) in the urology practice provided post-operative IPP teaching were also modeled (data not shown). Results The reduction of one 30-minute post-operative IPP teaching visit for practices performing 25/50 / 100 IPP implants resulted in recapturing 750 /1,500/3,000 minutes annually, respectively. Applying this recaptured time to 1) commonly performed in-office visit types or procedures (Table 1), 2) evaluation and management of new ED patients, or 3) vasectomy translated to significant additional Medicare reimbursement, as high as $18,325 annually. At 25 IPP implants yearly, a urologist could care for an additional 13-25 patients through office visits, reaching $2,049-$2,270 in additional annual Medicare reimbursement. At 50 IPP implants yearly, clinical workups for 7 ED patients who go on to IPP implantation can result in an additional $4,125 of reimbursement, excluding any reimbursement from additional diagnostic procedures and/or downstream surgical cases. At 100 IPP implants yearly, recaptured schedule capacity can enable 37 patients for vasectomy care, resulting in a $12,563 reimbursement. Conclusions Regardless of IPP implant volume, practices optimizing care and achieving fewer post-operative IPP teaching visits gain additional schedule capacity that may serve more patients in the office and, potentially, the ability to treat more men with ED, including IPP implantation. These time savings and gains in practice efficiency enable implanters to manage patient demand and workload more effectively amidst the scarcity of urologists and growing wait times for care, while also helping ensure practice viability in the era of decreasing reimbursement. Disclosure Yes, this is sponsored by industry/sponsor: Boston Scientific - Data Acquisition, Statistical Support. Clarification: Industry funding only - investigator initiated and executed study. Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Boston Scientific.

The Evaluation of Payment for Obstetric and Gynecology Services: From ACOG.

To perform an environmental scan of the current status of reimbursement for obstetric and gynecology services and identify problematic issues and opportunities for change. The areas that were evaluated include the American Medical Association (AMA) relative value unit assignment process, payer rates (where available), and trends in employment and salary determination for obstetrician-gynecologists (ob-gyns). This report was developed by members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' (ACOG) Committee on Health Economics and Coding using public-facing payment data from the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and state Medicaid programs, as well as published research and commentary on payment for physicians, maternal health, and gynecologic surgery. Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were used to describe typical patient characteristics, and practice survey reports from the AMA were analyzed. Finally, an anonymous online survey was distributed to 27,854 members of ACOG in March 2022, with a response rate of 10.8% (3,018 members) and a CI of ±1.7%. The evaluation found that payment for ob-gyns is heavily influenced by the values and rates set by third-party payers, a patient case-mix that includes a higher-than-average number of patients with Medicaid insurance, and the increase of employed physicians reliant on salary contracts that include productivity requirements and bonuses. The Committee identified action items, including payment reform for obstetric services; advocating for gynecologic surgery time as a priority for hospital administration; developing resources to assist employed physicians with payment, practice, and business management; developing a business and coding curriculum for students and early-career physicians; and continued advocacy with private and public policymakers who influence physician payment.

A Relative Value Unit–Based Model for Targeted Nipple–Areola Complex Neurotization in Gender-Affirming Mastectomy

Background: For transmasculine individuals, double-incision mastectomy with free nipple grafts is the most common procedure for gender-affirming chest masculinization. However, patients report decreased sensation postoperatively. Direct coaptation of intercostal nerves to the nipple–areolar complex (NAC) is an experimental technique that may preserve postoperative sensation, yet whether reimbursements and billing codes incentivize hospital systems and surgeons to offer this procedure lacks clarity. Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of fiscal year 2023 Medicare physician fee schedule values was performed for neurotization procedures employing Current Procedural Terminology codes specified by prior studies for neurotization of the NAC. Additionally, operative times for gender-affirming mastectomy at a single center were examined to compare efficiency between procedures with and without neurotization included. Results: A total of 29 encounters were included in the study, with 11 (37.9%) receiving neurotization. The mean operating time was 100.3 minutes (95% CI, 89.2–111.5) without neurotization and 154.2 minutes (95% CI, 139.9–168.4) with neurotization. In 2023, the average work relative value units (wRVUs) for neurotization procedures was 13.38. Efficiency for gender-affirming mastectomy was 0.23 wRVUs per minute without neurotization and 0.24 wRVUs per minute with neurotization, yielding a difference of 0.01 wRVUs per minute. Conclusions: Neurotization of the NAC during double-incision mastectomy with free nipple grafts is an experimental technique that may improve patient sensation after surgery. Current reimbursement policy appropriately values the additional operative time associated with neurotization relative to gender-affirming mastectomy alone.

State-to-State Variation in Medicaid Reimbursement for Neurosurgical Procedures: Implications for Healthcare Access in Vulnerable Populations.

Medicaid payment for healthcare services traditionally reimburses less than Medicare and commercial insurance. This disparity in reimbursement seems to be an important driver of limited access to care among Medicaid beneficiaries. This study seeks to examine the degree of variation in Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement for the most common neurosurgical current procedural terminology codes and determine its potential impact on provider accessibility. In this cross-sectional study, maximum allowed physician reimbursement fees for 20 common neurosurgical codes reported in the literature were obtained from the 2022 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and individual state Medicaid Fee-for-Service Schedules. The Medicaid-Medicare Index (MMI), which measures Medicaid reimbursement as a fraction of Medicare allowed amounts, was calculated for each procedure across 49 states and the District of Columbia. Lower MMI indicates a greater disparity, or "discount," between Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement. The proportion of providers accepting new Medicaid patients and total Medicaid enrollment were compared across states as a function of MMI. The average national MMI was 0.79, with a range of 0.37 in NY/NJ to 1.43 in NE. Maximum allowed amounts for Medicare reimbursement (coefficient of variation = 0.09) were less variable than those for Medicaid (coefficient of variation = 0.26, P < .01). The largest absolute disparity was observed for intracranial aneurysm clipping in NY, where the maximum Medicaid reimbursement is $3496.52 less than that of Medicare. Higher MMI was associated with a significantly larger proportion of providers accepting new Medicaid patients (R2 = 0.43, P < .01). Moreover, MMI varied inversely with the number of Medicaid beneficiaries (R2 = 0.12, P = .01). Medicaid reimbursement varies between states reflecting the disparate methods of fee schedule calculation. Lower reimbursement is associated with more limited provider enrollment, especially in states with a greater number of beneficiaries.

Trends in Medicare Reimbursements for Commonly Performed Laryngeal Procedures from 2000 to 2021.

Numerous studies among different specialties have suggested that inflation-adjusted Medicare reimbursements have steadily declined in the last few decades. The objective of this study is to investigate whether this is true within the field of laryngology. Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Fee Schedule. 2000-2021 fees for laryngeal surgeries (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] codes 31530, 31531, 31535, 31536, 31540, 31541, 31545, 31546, 31551-31554, 31560, 31561, 31570), and laryngectomies (CPTs 31360, 31365, 31367, 31368, 31370, 31375, 31380, 31382, 31390, 31395) were gathered. United States consumer price index (CPI) was used to adjust all gathered data for inflation to 2021 US dollars. During the study period, unadjusted reimbursement for non-facility and facility laryngeal surgeries decreased an average of 6.1% and 6.6%, respectively. When adjusting for inflation, non-facility and facility laryngeal surgeries saw an average decrease of 17.8% (p < 0.001) and 28.5% (p < 0.001), respectively. Unadjusted reimbursement for facility laryngectomies saw an average increase of 40.2%, correlating to an inflation-adjusted decline of 8.9% (p < 0.001). Among laryngeal procedures overall, there was an average nominal increase of 17.0%, correlating to a 20.3% inflation-adjusted decline. In terms of inflation-adjusted dollars, reimbursements for laryngeal procedures have seen a large decrease in the last two decades. Understanding reimbursement trends is critical for sustainability of otolaryngology practices, and can be used by surgeons, hospital systems, and policymakers to guide future healthcare legislation.

Medicare Volume Growth and Shift in Payments From Physicians to Non-Physician Practitioners Under Statutory Budget Neutrality

Volume increases, inflation, statutory freezes in physician payments, and the budget neutrality requirement for the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule have resulted in persistent inflation-adjusted conversion factor decreases. This study aimed to determine if relative value unit (RVU) volume increases on a per beneficiary basis has counteracted conversion factor decreases and inflation to maintain Medicare reimbursement per beneficiary, overall and across specialties. Using aggregated data for 100% of Medicare part B claims (2005-2021), we computed the percentage change in reimbursement per beneficiary, nominal and inflation-adjusted, by specialty. These trends were then adjusted by separately holding constant RVUs per beneficiary and the conversion factor to demonstrate the impact of budget neutrality. Inflation-adjusted reimbursement per beneficiary increased 9.9% over the 2005 to 2021 period; this trend encapsulated a 64.8% increase in RVUs per beneficiary, offsetting a 33.6% inflation-adjusted conversion factor decline. RVU changes per beneficiary varied widely across clinicians (+45.5% for physicians to +328.2% for non-physician practitioners) and by specialty (−36.1% for cardiac surgery to +1106% for nurse practitioners). Given RVU increases, conversion factor decreases, and inflation combined, reimbursement per beneficiary decreased 2.3% for physicians and increased 16.3% for limited-license physicians and 206.5% for non-physician practitioners. Overall, increased RVU volume per beneficiary has offset conversion factor declines within the budget neutral system. However, substantial redistribution has occurred across provider types, with reimbursement declining slightly for physicians while tripling for non-physician practitioners. Certain physician specialties, particularly procedural specialties, have declined most. Future research should assess the impact of specialty-specific reimbursement changes on patients’ access to care.

Value of care by reducing treatment terminations during radiation therapy.

6 Background: Disruptions in cancer care adversely affect patient clinical outcomes, particularly when a patient does not complete the prescribed course of treatment. Adverse outcomes include decreased overall survival and earlier/increased disease relapse or progression requiring additional salvage, palliative, and/or supportive therapies. We have reported on the incidence of treatment terminations (TT) in a large multi-center academic radiation medicine department. This study addresses the healthcare expenditure toward sub-optimal treatment associated with TT. Methods: TT of patients undergoing radiation treatment between 1/2013 and 1/2023 were prospectively tracked as part of departmental quality and safety monitoring. A TT was defined as the discontinuation of therapy at any point following informed consent and treatment simulation. The rate of TT was calculated as a percentage of all new patients who start radiation treatments. Cost of care was estimated using mean values from the 2023 Medicare Part B Fee schedule for New York, accounting for consultation, simulation and planning, treatment delivery, and weekly physician and physics treatment checks prior to TT. Cuts to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, Medicare reimbursement, and stagnant Medicare Conversion Factor relative to inflation over the 10 years were not accounted for. Results: There were a total of 1,467 TTs out of 28,707 planned treatment courses (5.1%). The average expenditure prior to TT was $8,584 per patient. Aggregated over the past decade, $12.59 million represents an underestimate of healthcare spend toward these situations at one institution. The rate of TT decreased from 9.3% in 2013 to 3.3% in 2022. As discussed separately, this TT rate was reduced via prospective analysis as part of our ongoing department quality and safety program, with incremental changes to pre-treatment evaluation, on-treatment management, and scheduling processes. Assuming stagnant clinical volume, this translates into decreased spend of $1.48 million annually toward incomplete (sub-optimal) treatments. Conclusions: Radiation TTs reflect major deviations from the original care plan. By understanding reasons for TT, we have more effectively selected optimal treatment paradigms and supported patients proactively through their treatment course. Avoiding divergence from intended cancer care decreases adverse outcomes, thereby improving value of the treatment course.

Financial Impact of Imaging Examination Site of Service in the Medicare Population.

The financial sustainability of the US healthcare system is a growing concern in an environment of declining reimbursement and rising costs. Variable Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) reimbursement and denial rates for specific imaging examinations exist across sites of service, adding complexity to financial planning for healthcare organizations. Understanding the financial implications of site of service in existing CMS reimbursement for imaging may be of strategic importance for organizations going forward. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were obtained for common cross-sectional imaging examinations using the 2022 CMS Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. Using reimbursement rates with historical volumes and denial rates, a simulation was created to estimate the overall reimbursement of paired hospital outpatient departments (HOPD) and free-standing office (FSO) sites. A baseline simulation was performed with random allocation of imaging examinations between sites of service, and an optimized simulation was performed to estimate the maximum financial impact of targeted allocation between sites. These simulations were performed for paired CT and MR scanners separately. For CT, the baseline simulation estimated annual average reimbursement for combined HOPD and FSO was $3.25M. Reimbursement increased to $3.51M after optimized reallocation of studies between sites of service, resulting in an expected gain of $260,162 for a set of paired HOPD and FSO scanners. For MR, the same approach resulted in baseline reimbursement of $2.51M, increasing to $2.60M upon reallocation between sites for an expected gain of $87,532. Assuming a stable cost of service delivery, this approach would result in improved margins of 8% for CT and 3.5% for MR. There were 28 CT and 19 MRI daily patient imaging appointments at each respective HOPD and FSO scanners, unchanged between baseline and optimized cases. Differences in reimbursement rates between sites were the dominant driver of increased margins at low denial rates, although denial rates became dominant at values greater than 50%. Given CMS payment and denial rate variability, optimally allocating imaging studies between sites of service may improve reimbursement for the same services delivered. Although financial incentives exist for site allocation, such decisions should require physician input to assess safety and appropriate level of care. This work contributes to an understanding of financial incentives of existing reimbursement policy and may guide future policy design towards high value care.

Hospital payment systems and physician reimbursement: A primer for radiology residents

Prior to practicing independently, radiology trainees spend considerable time and energy to learn and understand the practice of radiology. However, upon graduation trainees are often deficient in understanding the business of hospitals and the structure of reimbursement. Specifically, the workflow of relative value units (RVUs) and its impact on practice of radiology after completing training. In this manuscript, we provide a resource for trainees to understand the workflow of physician reimbursement. This article includes information on the mixed model healthcare structure of the United States and two government programs that influence reimbursement: Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRG) and Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) programs. Furthermore, we explain the method by which the Center of Medicare and Medicate Service's (CMS) reimburses physicians via the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) using the Resource Based Relative Value Scale. Understanding the structure of these payments along with the challenges and current landscape of radiology reimbursement will help new radiologists prior to seeking employment where reimbursements are integral to contract expectations.

Cost Analysis of MR-Guided vs. CT-Guided Radiation Therapy for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

Stereotactic magnetic resonance guided on-table adaptive radiotherapy (SMART) is an increasingly utilized radiotherapy (RT) treatment for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), providing improved local control and overall survival with reduced toxicity. Computed tomography (CT) guided RT options include stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and hypofractionated RT with volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT). Currently there are no financial comparisons for MR vs CT-guided RT for LAPC. We completed a cost analysis comparing the physician and hospital charges associated with RT options for LAPC. To compare RT costs, we identified Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes utilized for 5-fraction SMART with adaptation (50 Gy, biological effective dose (BED) 100 Gy), 5-fraction CT-guided SBRT (33 Gy, BED 55 Gy), and 15-fraction CT-guided hypofractionated VMAT (67.5 Gy, BED 98 Gy) in a hospital-based practice setting. Physician and hospital Medicare prices associated with these codes together summarize the overall cost. We determined physician fees using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Fee Schedule Search to search the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) for "professional" costs included within "facility" costs. We determined hospital fees using the Outpatient Prospective Payment System addendum. To standardize costs, we searched for national payment amounts for the 2022 calendar year. Total cost of SMART with adaptation was 136% higher than the cost of CT-SBRT and 149% higher than the cost of hypofractionated RT. Physician fees for SMART were 173% higher and 157% higher than the fees for CT-SBRT and hypofractionated RT, respectively. Hospital fees for SMART were 129% higher and 147% higher than the fees for CT-SBRT and hypofractionated RT, respectively. The total cost of CT-SBRT was only 5% higher than cost of hypofractionated RT. The physician fees for hypofractionated RT were 6% higher than those for CT-SBRT, while the outpatient fees for CT SBRT were 7% higher than those for hypofractionated RT. With recent data demonstrating favorable efficacy and toxicity rates for SMART, practices may increasingly consider investing in this treatment modality. This is the first cost analysis comparing SMART to CT-guided SBRT and hypofractionated RT in LAPC. We demonstrate higher costs of SMART compared to CT-guided RT, attributable primarily to higher number of dosimetry calculations for this modality and for adapted fractions. We also demonstrate comparable costs of lower BED CT-guided SBRT and higher BED hypofractionated RT. Further investigation is needed to assess whether the survival benefit of SMART translates to favorable cost per quality adjusted life year.

Budget Neutrality and Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Reimbursement Trends for Radiologists, 2005 to 2021

PurposeThe Medicare program, by law, must remain budget neutral. Increases in volume or relative value units (RVUs) for individual services necessitate declines in either the conversion factor or assigned RVUs for other services for budget neutrality. This study aimed to assess the contribution of budget neutrality on reimbursement trends per Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary for services provided by radiologists. MethodsThe study used aggregated 100% of Medicare Part B claims from 2005 to 2021. We computed the percentage change in reimbursement per beneficiary, actual and inflation adjusted, to radiologists. These trends were then adjusted by separately holding constant RVUs per beneficiary and the conversion factor to demonstrate the impact of budget neutrality. ResultsUnadjusted reimbursement to radiologists per beneficiary increased 4.2% between 2005 and 2021, but when adjusted for inflation, it declined 24.9%. Over this period, the conversion factor declined 7.9%. Without this decline, the reimbursement per beneficiary would have been 9 percentage points higher in 2021 compared with actual. RVUs per beneficiary performed by radiologists increased 13.1%. Keeping RVUs per beneficiary at 2005 levels, reimbursement per beneficiary would have been 12.1 percentage points lower than observed in 2021. ConclusionsGiven budget neutrality, a substantial decline has occurred in inflation-adjusted reimbursement to radiologists per Medicare beneficiary. Decreases due to both inflation and the decline in conversion factor are only partially offset by increased RVUs per beneficiary, meaning more services per patient with less overall pay, an equation likely to heighten access challenges for Medicare beneficiaries and shortages of radiologists.

A Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Analysis of Reimbursement Trends in Laryngology from 2000 to 2021.

The purpose of this study is to characterize Medicare reimbursement trends for laryngology procedures over the last two decades. This analysis used CMS' Physician Fee Schedule (PFS) Look-Up Tool to determine the reimbursement rate of 48 common laryngology procedures, which were divided into four groups based on their practice setting and clinical use: office-based, airway, voice disorders, and dysphagia. The PFS reports the physician service reimbursement for "facilities" and global reimbursement for "non-facilities". The annual reimbursement rate for each procedure was averaged across all localities and adjusted for inflation. The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of each procedure's reimbursement was determined, and a weighted average of the CAGR for each group of procedures was calculated using each procedure's 2020 Medicare Part B utilization. Reimbursement for laryngology procedure (CPT) codes has declined over the last two decades. In facilities, the weighted average CAGR for office-based procedures was -2.0%, for airway procedures was -2.2%, for voice disorders procedures was -1.4%, and for dysphagia procedures was -1.7%. In non-facilities, the weighted average CAGR for office-based procedures was -0.9%. The procedures in the other procedure groups did not have a corresponding non-facility reimbursement rate. Like other otolaryngology subspecialties, inflation-adjusted reimbursements for common laryngology procedures have decreased substantially over the past two decades. Because of the large number of physician participants and patient enrollees in the Medicare programs, increased awareness and further research into the implications of these trends on patient care is necessary to ensure quality in the delivery of laryngology care. NA Laryngoscope, 134:247-256, 2024.

Two Decades of Declining Medicare Reimbursement in Cardiac Surgery

BackgroundGiven the uncertainty of US health care finances, an understanding of reimbursement trends has become increasingly important in the field of cardiac surgery. We aimed to assess Medicare reimbursement trends for common cardiac surgical procedures from 2000 to 2022. MethodsReimbursement data were extracted from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool during the study period for 6 common cardiac operations: aortic valve replacement, mitral valve repair and replacement, tricuspid valve replacement, Bentall procedure, and coronary artery bypass grafting. Reimbursement rates were adjusted for inflation to 2022 US dollars using the Consumer Price Index. Total percentage change and compound annual growth rate were calculated. A split-time analysis was performed to assess trends before and after 2015. Least squares and linear regressions were performed. The R2 value was calculated for each procedure, and slope was used to determine change in reimbursements over time. ResultsInflation-adjusted reimbursement decreased by 34.1% during the study period. The overall compound annual growth rate was −1.8%. Reimbursement trends differed by procedure (P < .001), with all reimbursements trending down (R2 > 0.62), except for mitral valve replacement (P = .21) and tricuspid valve replacement (P = .43). Coronary artery bypass grafting decreased the most (−44.4%), followed by aortic valve replacement (−40.1%), mitral valve repair (−38.5%), mitral valve replacement (−29.8%), Bentall procedure (−28.5%), and tricuspid valve replacement (−25.3%). In split-time analysis, reimbursement rates did not significantly change from 2000 to 2015 (P = .24) but decreased significantly from 2016 to 2022 (P = .001). ConclusionsMedicare reimbursement significantly decreased for most cardiac surgical procedures. These trends justify further advocacy by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons to maintain access to quality cardiac surgical care.

Beyond demonstrations: implementing a primary care hybrid payment model in Medicare.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine's (NASEM's) 2021 report on primary care called for a hybrid payment approach-a mix of fee-for-service and population-based payment-with performance accountability to strike the proper balance for desired practice transformation and to support primary care's important and expanding role. The NASEM report also proposed substantial increases to primary care payment and reforms to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. This paper addresses pragmatic ways to implement these recommendations, describing and proposing solutions to the main implementation challenges. The urgent need for primary care payment reform calls for adopting a hybrid model within the Medicare fee schedule rather than engaging in another round of demonstrations, despite legal and practical obstacles to adoption. The paper explores reasons for adopting a roughly 50:50 blend of fee-for-service and population-based payment and addresses other design features, presenting reasons why spending accountability should rely on utilization measures under primary care control rather than performance on total cost of care, and proposes a fresh approach to quality, emphasizing that quality measures should be parsimonious, focused on important outcomes with demonstrated quality improvement.

Optimal Care for Kidney Health: Development of a Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) Value Pathway.

The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is a mandatory pay-for-performance program through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that aims to incentivize high-quality care, promote continuous improvement, facilitate electronic exchange of information, and lower health care costs. Previous research has highlighted several limitations of the MIPS program in assessing nephrology care delivery, including administrative complexity, limited relevance to nephrology care, and inability to compare performance across nephrology practices, emphasizing the need for a more valid and meaningful quality assessment program. This article details the iterative consensus-building process used by the American Society of Nephrology Quality Committee from May 2020 to July 2022 to develop the Optimal Care for Kidney Health MIPS Value Pathway (MVP). Two rounds of ranked-choice voting among Quality Committee members were used to select among nine quality metrics, 43 improvement activities, and three cost measures considered for inclusion in the MVP. Measure selection was iteratively refined in collaboration with the CMS MVP Development Team, and new MIPS measures were submitted through CMS's Measures Under Consideration process. The Optimal Care for Kidney Health MVP was published in the 2023 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Final Rule and includes measures related to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker use, hypertension control, readmissions, acute kidney injury requiring dialysis, and advance care planning. The nephrology MVP aims to streamline measure selection in MIPS and serves as a case study of collaborative policymaking between a subspecialty professional organization and national regulatory agencies.

Trends in costs, reimbursements, and surgeon payments for cervical disc arthroplasty cost of care from 2009 to 2019.

The use of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) continues to increase in the Medicare population. As healthcare costs continue to rise, payors have begun to implement bundled payment structures for spine surgery. While Medicare has steadily decreased reimbursements for cervical fusions, Medicare reimbursements for CDA have not been studied. The purpose of this study was to assess trends in 1) hospital costs and reimbursement, 2) physician reimbursement, and 3) potential cost drivers for CDA in a Medicare population. This is a retrospective longitudinal study of CDA in Medicare patients. The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Sets for 2009, 2014, and 2019 were used for this study. Patients undergoing elective CDA were included. Corresponding Inpatient Prospective Payment System files were used to calculate cost through cost-to-charge ratios. Physician fees were obtained from the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool. All financial data were adjusted for inflation to 2019 values based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. Demographic, comorbidity, surgical, and hospital trends were assessed. Trends in revenue center-level charges were also assessed. Adjusted for inflation, from 2009 to 2019, mean total hospital charges for elective CDA increased from $64,609 ± $45,787 to $111,874 ± $78,611 (73% increase, p < 0.001) and the mean total cost for index hospital admission increased from $19,665 ± $13,414 to $24,682 ± $13,818 (26% increase, p < 0.001). Over the same period, Medicare reimbursement increased from a mean of $11,154 ± $11,684 to $12,879 ± $13,613 (15% increase, p = 0.003), while total reimbursement increased from a mean of $15,005 ± $15,684 to $15,547 ± $15,829 (4% increase, p = 0.040). The mean hospital profit decreased from -$4076 ± $14,041 to -$9023 ± $16,084 (-121%, p < 0.001). Surgeon reimbursement for CDA decreased from a mean of $1850 ± $165 (2009) to $1722 ± $138 (2019) (7% decrease, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, increasing year of surgery (p < 0.001), increasing age (p = 0.001), increasing length of stay (p < 0.001), rural hospital setting (p = 0.027), and hospital geography (p < 0.001) were independently associated with cost of care. Medical/surgical supplies and operating room charges increased 71.6% (p < 0.001) and 98.5% (p < 0.001) and accounted for 41.1%-42.5% and 30.6%-35.1% of total charges, respectively. From 2009 to 2019, costs of care for elective inpatient CDA increased disproportionately to reimbursement. Hospitals operated at increasing losses and surgeon reimbursement decreased. Cost of care was independently associated with year of surgery, increasing age, length of stay, hospital setting, and hospital geography. The main charge drivers were medical/surgical supplies and operating room charges. These results may have implications for the future financial feasibility of inpatient CDA for Medicare patients and targets to improve the value of CDA. Further study is necessary to provide fair reimbursement for CDA in Medicare patients and prevent financially based bias against use of CDA in Medicare patients.

The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and Unethical Behavior

This Viewpoint discusses the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and its flaws, including how they might be remedied by severing CMS dependence on Relative Value Update Committee estimates of time and intensity.

Trends in Medicare utilization and reimbursement for hematology/oncology procedures.

e13641 Background: Medicare Part B pays for physician services such as office visits and procedures based on the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule which is re-evaluated annually to maintain budget neutrality. Moreover, national cancer-attributed medical care costs in 2015 were $183 billion and projected to increase 34% to $246 billion by 2030 (Green et al: J Clin Oncol, PMID: 31804856). The aim of this study is to evaluate trends in Medicare reimbursement for procedures in hematology/oncology between 2012-2022. Methods: The data analyzed were extracted from the Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool. CPT Codes were obtained from the Medicare Coverage Database. The following CPT codes were extracted: antineoplastic chemotherapy administration (96405, 96406, 96401, 96409, 96411, 96413, 96415, 96416, 96417, 96420, 96422, 96423, 96425, 96440, 96446, 96450, 96542), antineoplastic hormone therapy administration (96402), non-chemotherapy infusion (96360, 96361, 96365, 96366, 96367, 96368, 96369, 96370, 96371, 96372, 96373, 96374, 96375, 96376 ), bone marrow sampling (38220, 38221, 38222), bone marrow harvest (38230, 38232) and bone marrow transplant (38240, 38241, 38242). Consumer Price Index (CPI) obtained from the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics was used to adjust reimbursement rates for cumulative inflation to 2022 U.S. dollars. The T-test was used to compare the mean prices for each procedure. This research contains publicly available data and as such is exempt from the IRB according to the Institutional Review Board at LSU Health Sciences Center in New Orleans, Louisiana. Results: The procedure with the highest reimbursement rate in 2012 was bone marrow harvest and the procedure with the lowest reimbursement rate in the same year was antineoplastic hormone therapy administration. The procedure with the highest reimbursement rate in 2022 was bone marrow harvest. The procedure with the lowest reimbursement rate in 2022 was antineoplastic hormone therapy. All procedure reimbursement fell significantly (p value of &lt;0.001) over the timer period studied. Conclusions: Between 2012 and 2022 the reimbursement rates for common hematology oncology services fell significantly when adjusted for inflation due to reforms in Medicare part B. [Table: see text]