Medicare Physician Research Articles

Impact of COVID-19 on colorectal cancer screening using Medicare Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) claims data.

91 Background: When COVID-19 pandemic started in 2020 in the US, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) recommended that all non-urgent procedures, including screening colonoscopies, be delayed until pandemic stabilization. This was done to prevent the spread of the virus via colonoscopy since the presence of the virus in fecal samples has been reported in infected patients. Little is known of the impact of COVID-19 on the number of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening performed in the US. Methods: We utilized the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Database which provides Medicare claims data for 2013-2022. We searched “Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners - by Geography and Service” using CPT code for colonoscopy(G0121, G0105), fecal occult blood test (FOBT; G0328, 82270), stool-based gene analysis (81528), sigmoidoscopy (G0104), and barium enema (G0120) and collected the number of CRC screening claims at national level and calculated the year-over-year (YOY) change. Results: The number of CRC screening claims in the US from 2013 to 2022 is listed (Table). The total number of CRC screening claims increased an average of 0.5% YOY from 2014 to 2019 then decreased 23.4% in 2020. From 2014 to 2019, the average YOY change in colonoscopy, FOBT, stool-based gene analysis, sigmoidoscopy, and barium enema claims were -0.5%, -6.0%, 58.7%, 8.1%, and -6.0%, respectively whereas in 2020, the rates were -27.5%, -25.0%, -14.4%, -25.3%, and -1.7%, respectively. The total number of CRC screening claims in year 2021 and 2022 increased from 2020, however, was still lower than 2019. Conclusions: CRC screening claims decreased in the US in 2020 likely due to COVID-19 and not yet returned to pre-pandemic levels. Number of CRC screening claims in the US from 2013 to 2022. Screening test 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Colonoscopy 759,883 736,400 743,873 765,974 767,063 755,806 736,247 533,972 685,439 707,672 FOBT 1,307,054 1,263,602 1,161,214 1,130,130 1,085,777 996,016 897,993 673,614 646,550 556,950 Stool-Based Gene analysis 123,748 231,765 335,459 482,761 413,224 497,748 536,348 Sigmoidoscopy 2,666 2,316 3,254 3,390 3,835 3,784 3,975 2,968 3,893 3,680 Barium enema 107 93 80 116 128 97 58 57 44 65 Total CRC screening 2,069,710 2,002,411 1,908,421 2,023,358 2,088,568 2,091,162 2,121,034 1,623,835 1,833,674 1,804,715 Data are expressed in numbers (N). CRC; colorectal cancer; FOBT; fecal occult blood test.

Falling Rates of Public Orthopaedic Surgery Reimbursements and Utilization, 2016 to 2024.

Declining reimbursement rates can lead to decreased access and utilization of common orthopaedic surgeries for patients on Medicare, which is a particularly vulnerable population for musculoskeletal injuries. Using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from 2016 to 2024 and utilization data for Medicare and part B beneficiaries from 2016 to 2022, we analyzed reimbursement and utilization trends. Simple linear regressions were executed to measure the annual trends, and Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test were used to analyze the statistical significance of price and utilization changes. Between 2016 and 2024, mean reimbursements for all evaluated orthopaedic surgeries decreased 26.2% with a -3.34% compound annual growth rate, from $1,558 to $1,150 (P < 0.0001). Comparatively, reimbursement rates for evaluation and management (E/M) services fell by 15.82% or a -1.91% compound annual growth rate, from $102.3 to $86.12 (P < 0.0021). The federal utilization of all orthopaedic surgeries fell from 2016 to 2022 (P < 0.0001), although no significant changes were seen for E/M services (P = 0.9102). We observe that Medicare reimbursement rates for orthopaedic surgeries from 2016 to 2024 have fallen consistently with a large drop in utilization, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Reimbursements for E/M services have fallen at attenuated rates with minimal changes in utilization. This demonstrates the supportive role that declining reimbursement rates may play in utilization and accessibility of orthopaedic surgery.

Economic impact of reduced postoperative visits after inflatable penile prosthesis implantation.

Aim: This study assessed the economic impact of reducing one postoperative visit following inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation. Methods: Scenario analyses were used to model the effects of eliminating one 30-min IPP postoperative visit from the expected 2.5 visits accounted for by the American Medical Association resource-based relative value scale data. The reduction was attributed to simplified teaching with a modified device. The recaptured time was applied to: the most frequent in-office CPT codes utilized by IPP implanters; evaluation and management of new ED patients pursuing/receiving IPPs; and in-office vasectomy. Physician work time and reimbursement were conservatively estimated using the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and an alternative scenario where Advanced Practice Providers conducted IPP teaching was also modeled. Results: Annually, reducing one 30-min IPP postoperative visit for practices performing 25/50/100 IPP implants recaptured 750/1500/3000min, respectively. This recaptured time translates into as much as $18,325 additional annual Medicare reimbursement. At 25 implants yearly, urologists could help an additional 13-25 patients with office visits and observe an additional $2049-$2270 reimbursement. At 50 implants yearly, office evaluation and counseling for 7 ED patients who progress to IPP implantation results in an additional $4125 reimbursement, excluding any diagnostic procedures and/or downstream surgical cases. At 100 implants yearly, recaptured schedule capacity can facilitate 37 in-office vasectomies, which translates to a $12,563 reimbursement. Conclusion: Achieving fewer IPP postoperative visits can optimize postoperative care and open schedule capacity that improves access to care for patients with urological needs.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of deep brain stimulation versus treatment as usual for treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder

OBJECTIVE Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is an effective neurosurgical option for patients with treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Despite being more costly than neuroablative procedures of comparable efficacy, DBS has gained popularity over the years for its reversibility and adjustability. Although the cost-effectiveness of DBS has been investigated extensively in movement disorders, few economic analyses of DBS for psychiatric disorders exist. In this study, the authors present the first cost-effectiveness analysis of DBS for treatment-resistant OCD in the United States. METHODS The authors developed four decision analytical models to compare the cost-effectiveness of DBS with treatment as usual (TAU) for OCD, varying either the device type (i.e., nonrechargeable or rechargeable) or the time horizon (i.e., 3 or 5 years) in each model. Treatment response and complication rates were based on a literature review. Published algorithms were used to convert Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale scores into utility scores reflecting improvements in quality of life. Costs were approached from the healthcare sector perspective and were drawn primarily from Medicare facility and physician reimbursement rates. For each model, a Monte Carlo simulation (n = 100,000) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in US dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS Data from 249 and 265 treatment-resistant OCD patients from the published literature who received DBS and had sufficient follow-up in 3- and 5-year models, respectively, were included. When conventional US willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were used, nonrechargeable DBS models were less cost-effective (3-year ICER: $108,431/QALY; 5-year ICER: $203,202/QALY) and rechargeable DBS models were more cost-effective (3-year ICER: $49,363/QALY; 5-year ICER: $41,495/QALY) than TAU. At a WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY, rechargeable DBS devices were moderately more cost-effective than TAU at 3 and 5 years in 100% of iterations. At a WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY, rechargeable DBS devices were definitively more cost-effective than TAU at 3 and 5 years in 54% and 89% of iterations, respectively. When using WHO WTP conventions, 3- and 5-year nonrechargeable models were cost-effective in 100% and 84% of iterations, and 3- and 5-year rechargeable models were highly cost-effective in 99% and 100% of iterations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Rechargeable DBS models were cost-effective for treatment-resistant OCD compared with TAU. Nonrechargeable DBS models may be cost-effective, especially with improvement in battery longevity and changes in accepted WTP thresholds.

Outpatient Dermatology Productivity Measures by Patient Race, Sex, and Age

Clinical productivity measures may incentivize clinical care to specific patient populations and thus perpetuate inequitable care. Before the 2021 Medicare physician fee schedule changes, outpatient dermatology encounters for patients who were younger, female, and races other than White systematically generated fewer work relative value units (wRVUs). To examine the association of patient race, age, and sex with wRVUs generated by outpatient dermatology encounters after 2021. This multi-institutional cross-sectional study evaluated demographic and billing data for outpatient dermatology encounters across 3 academic dermatology practices. The study compared wRVUs generated by outpatient general dermatology encounters in 6-month periods before and after the 2021 fee schedule updates (March 1 to August 31, 2019, and March 1 to August 31, 2021). Eligibility required an age of 18 years or older and available age, race, and sex data. Data analysis was performed from September 2022 to March 2024. The primary outcome was wRVUs generated per encounter. This study included 89 656 encounters (47 607 before the 2021 Medicare physician fee schedule update and 42 049 after the update). Across all encounters, the mean (SD) patient age was 56.3 (17.8) years; 55 460 encounters (61.9%) were with female patients and 34 196 (38.1%) were with male patients; and 3457 encounters (3.9%) were with Asian patients, 10 478 (11.7%) with Black patients, 72 894 (81.3%) with White patients, and 2287 (3.2%) with patients of other race or ethnicity (Latino and multiracial). The mean (SD) wRVUs per outpatient dermatology encounter was 1.44 (0.88) before the update and 1.80 (0.99) after (P < .001). After 2021, adjusted analyses demonstrated significantly fewer wRVUs per encounter for female (β, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.10) compared with male patients, and for younger (β, 0.04 [95% CI, 0.04 to 0.05] per 10-year increase in age) compared with older patients. After the update, compared with White patients, visits with Asian patients generated fewer wRVUs (β, -0.12; 95% CI, -0.17 to -0.08) as did visits with Black patients (β, -0.14; 95% CI, -0.17 to -0.11), both statistically significant reductions compared with prior comparisons (P < .001 for both). After 2021, mediation analysis identified that premalignant destructions and biopsies mediated many of the remaining differences in wRVU generation by patient age, race, and sex. This study found that after the 2021 Medicare fee schedule updates, there was a persistent, albeit reduced, gap between wRVU productivity in outpatient dermatology visits for Asian and Black compared with White patients. These persisting differences were attributable to skin biopsies and cryotherapy of premalignant lesions.

Does Merit-based Incentive Payment System Performance Differ Based on Orthopaedic Surgeon Gender?

Value-based care payment and delivery models such as the recently implemented Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) aim to both provide better care for patients and reduce costs of care. Gender disparities across orthopaedic surgery, encompassing reimbursement, industry payments, referrals, and patient perception, have been thoroughly studied over the years, with numerous disparities identified. However, differences in MIPS performance based on orthopaedic surgeon gender have not been comprehensively evaluated. After controlling for potentially confounding variables such as experience, geography, group size, and Medicare beneficiary characteristics, does MIPS performance differ between men and women orthopaedic surgeons? The Medicare Physician and Other Practitioners and the Physician Compare databases were queried for years 2017, the first year MIPS was incorporated, and 2021, the most recent year with MIPS data published, to identify all physicians with a self-reported specialty of orthopaedic surgery. Together, these databases include all physicians who submitted at least 11 Medicare claims each year. Physician gender, US census region, years in practice, group practice size, billing practices, and patient demographic characteristics were collected for each surgeon. The MIPS Performance database was used to extract an overall MIPS performance score for each surgeon for each year. Payment adjustments, which are determined based on overall MIPS performance score, were derived for each surgeon based on the thresholds published by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Payment adjustments include a negative adjustment, neutral adjustment, positive adjustment, or exceptional performance bonus and are associated with different thresholds each year. Statistical differences based on surgeon gender were assessed utilizing chi-square tests for categorical data, Student t-test for parametric continuous data, and Wilcoxon signed-rank test for nonparametric continuous data. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to analyze the relationship between surgeon gender and MIPS performance. After controlling for other patient and surgeon variables, woman gender was associated with a slightly increased MIPS performance score in 2021 (β 1.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 3.00]; p = 0.047). However, this finding was statistically fragile, with the lower bound 95% CI being very close to the line of no difference. No association between surgeon gender and MIPS performance score was found in 2017 (β 2.2 [95% CI -0.5 to 4.9]; p = 0.11). Additionally, no relationship was found between gender and receiving either an exceptional performance MIPS bonus or a MIPS penalty in either year. Women orthopaedic surgeons scored slightly higher on the MIPS in 2021, after controlling for surgeon and patient variables, despite providing care for a higher percentage of dual Medicare-Medicaid eligible patients and more medically complex patients. However, this finding was statistically fragile, with a small effect size, a 95% CI close to 0, and no consistent association in MIPS performance in 2017. Additionally, with no differences in MIPS performance bonuses or penalties, the clinical monetary impact of this difference may be minimal. The observed association between surgeon gender and MIPS performance scores in 2021, with women orthopaedic surgeons achieving slightly higher scores, raises interesting questions about potential differences in practice behaviors, communication styles, care quality, or other unmeasured variables. These findings may reflect true differences in how care is delivered or documented as scored by the MIPS. However, given the small effect size, statistical fragility, and inconsistency across years, there is a chance that this finding may be spurious. That being so, future research should aim to validate or refute these findings by examining a broader range of variables including documentation practices, practice behaviors, institutional differences, potential systemic biases in scoring methodologies, and patient outcomes. Understanding whether these differences are true is important to ensure that performance metrics like MIPS accurately and equitably reflect care quality.

Differences in Volume, Reimbursement, Practice Styles, and Patient Characteristics Between Male and Female Surgeons for Open and Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release.

The goal of this study was to evaluate differences in carpal tunnel release volume, reimbursement, practice styles, and patient populations between male and female surgeons from 2013 to 2021. The Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners database was queried from 2013 to 2021. Procedure volume, reimbursement, surgeon information, and patient demographic characteristics were collected for any surgeon who performed at least 10 open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) or endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) procedures that year. The Welch t test, the Kruskal-Wallis test, and multivariable linear regressions were conducted to compare male and female surgeons and analyze geographic and annual differences. From 2013 to 2021, the proportion of carpal tunnel releases performed by female surgeons increased for OCTR by 4.5% (7.1% to 11.6%) and for ECTR by 3.3% (4.8% to 8.1%). Female OCTR surgeons on average had fewer beneficiaries per surgeon (443.37 vs 354.20, P<.001), performed fewer billable services per beneficiary (6.37 vs 5.35, P=.03), and performed fewer unique billable services (91.13 vs 77.79, P<.001) compared with male surgeons. Female OCTR surgeons also saw a lower percentage of White patients (88.14 vs 86.48, P=.003) and a higher percentage of female patients (60.06 vs 61.70, P<.001) and dual-enrolled Medicare-Medicaid patients (10.54 vs 11.22, P=.046). Female representation among OCTR and ECTR surgeons increased across the country. Male OCTR surgeons billed for more services and performed more services per beneficiary and also treated a higher proportion of White patients and dual Medicare-Medicaid enrollees compared with female surgeons. Future studies are required to identify reasons for and ways to address these disparities. [Orthopedics. 2025;48(1):57-63.].

Regional Variation in Carpal Tunnel Release Utilization, Reimbursement, Practice Styles, and Patient Populations: A Temporal Analysis.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate changes in open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) and endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR) utilization, reimbursement, and patient demographics in the Medicare population from 2013 to 2021 at national and regional levels. The Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners database from 2013 to 2021 was queried to extract all instances of OCTR and ECTR. Utilization per 10,000 beneficiaries, inflation-adjusted reimbursement, and patient characteristics were extracted for OCTR and ECTR each year. Data were stratified by region based on US Census guidelines. Kruskal-Wallis tests and multivariable linear regressions were performed. From 2013 to 2021, national utilization per 10,000 beneficiaries increased by 6% for OCTR and by 50% for ECTR. In 2021, the Midwest had the greatest utilization of OCTR (29 of 10,000) and the lowest utilization of ECTR (7 of 10,000). Inflation-adjusted reimbursement declined for both OCTR and ECTR during the study period (10.3% and 11.8%, respectively), with the South having the lowest reimbursement for both procedures. The severity of patient comorbidity profiles and dual Medicare-Medicaid enrollees decreased for both procedures as well. Both OCTR and ECTR utilization have increased, while inflation-adjusted reimbursement has decreased. Patient populations encompassed fewer dual Medicare-Medicaid enrollees, indicating surgeons may be more selective in operative indications. These findings should be addressed to ensure the economic sustainability of carpal tunnel release procedures and equitable access to quality hand care for all patients with Medicare. [Orthopedics. 2025;48(1):e45-e51.].

Trends in Surgeon Reimbursement for Primary Total Hip and Knee Joint Arthroplasty: An Analysis of 2,421,710 Medicare Part B Claims From 2017 to 2022.

Primary hip and knee total joint arthroplasties (TJAs) are among the most frequently performed orthopaedic surgeries in the United States, with demand projected to increase to two million cases per year by 2040. Despite the growing demand, previous studies have shown a declining value of Medicare surgeon reimbursements. Given recent inflationary trends, an updated analysis of the changing value of primary TJA reimbursement is necessary. This study examines surgeon reimbursement trends for primary TJA among Medicare patients from 2017 to 2022. We analyzed Medicare Part B claims data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners database. Using Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes for primary TJA, we queried the database for procedures performed between 2017 and 2022. Yearly service counts and allowed Medicare reimbursements were examined. Reimbursement values were adjusted for inflation using the Consumer Price Index with all values converted to 2022 U.S. dollars. The study included 2,421,710 Medicare claims for primary TJA from 2017 to 2022. During this period, the volume of primary TJA increased by 2.9%. However, average reimbursement decreased by 4.2%, from $1,343 in 2017 to $1,286 in 2022. When adjusted for inflation, the decrease in reimbursement was more pronounced, falling by 19.6% from $1,600 to $1,286. Trends in reimbursement varied by procedure type and geographic region. Between 2017 and 2022, while the volume of primary TJA increased, Medicare surgeon reimbursement for these procedures decreased, with a markedly greater reduction when adjusted for inflation. These trends highlight the need for policy reforms to ensure sustainable reimbursement for surgeons performing primary TJA.

Strengths And Weaknesses Of Introducing An Inflation Factor Into The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.

Unlike most other Medicare fee schedules, the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule does not include an automatic inflation update. We describe the history of Physician Fee Schedule update systems and present paradigms for evaluating the merits of adding an inflation-based adjustment factor to the schedule's updating formulas. We adopt an incentive paradigm, which emphasizes how access to care and the consolidation of health care facilities are affected by fees. Although evidence suggests that the impact of fee changes on access has been small, it might not remain so. Moreover, the disparity in fees, and fee updates, between care delivered in an outpatient facility as opposed to a physician office may induce consolidation. Because existing evidence does not support the idea that there is a current access crisis in Medicare, we believe that a partial, inflation-based, across-the-board update (for example, inflation minus 1) would help sustain access into the future and potentially slow consolidation. This approach would be reasonably easy to implement and have better distributional properties than some alternatives, such as differential updates for the work and practice expense components of the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.

Trends in Medicare Reimbursement and Service Volume of Vitreoretinal Procedures: 2000 to 2021.

Purpose: To characterize trends in service volume and inflation-adjusted Medicare reimbursement of vitreoretinal procedures over the past 2 decades. Methods: Medicare Part B National Summary Data Files were accessed to identify the number of allowed services for vitreoretinal procedures. The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule was accessed to identify average annual national reimbursement rates. The Spearman correlation coefficient was used to evaluate time trends for each procedure. All analyses were conducted using Prism 9.5.1 software with 2-sided significance testing and statistical significance set at P ≤ .05. Results: From 2000 to 2021, the 2-tailed Spearman correlation showed that 20 of 38 procedures had statistically significant decreases in service volume over time. Intravitreal injections increased more than 1000-fold, from 2922 in 2000 to 3 444 500 injections in 2021 (ρ = 0.997; P < .001). Panretinal photocoagulation treatments declined from 104 865 to 48 533 procedures (ρ = -0.966; P = .003). Scleral buckling declined from 6502 to 587 procedures (ρ = -0.999; P < .001). Pars plana vitrectomy-associated procedures increased from 71 039 to 95 429 (ρ = 0.691; P < .001). From 2000 to 2021, the 2-tailed Spearman correlation showed that 29 of 38 procedures had statistically significant decreases in reimbursement over time. No procedure had a significant increase in payment. Conclusions: Vitreoretinal practice patterns have changed dramatically over the past 2 decades, with significant declines in inflation-adjusted Medicare reimbursement for most procedures. Awareness of service volume and reimbursement trends is vital to assessing economic viability and patient coverage under the current Medicare payment policies.

Medicaid Reimbursement for 20 Commonly Billed Orthopedic Sports Medicine Procedures was 14.9% less than Medicare

The purpose of this study was to compare Medicaid and Medicare rates for the 20 most commonly billed orthopedic sports medicine procedures. Medicaid reimbursement rates were obtained from state-specific fee schedules. Medicare rates were collected from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services physician fee schedule along with relative value units for each procedure. State rates were compared using averages and dollar differences. Reimbursement rates were adjusted for cost-of-living using the Medicare Wage Index. Variability between states and between procedures was assessed using coefficients of variation. Medicaid mean reimbursement was lower than Medicare for nineteen of the 20 procedures. In total, Medicaid reimbursed surgeons 14.9% less unadjusted and 26.0% less when adjusted for cost-of-living. Variation in Medicare rates between states was constant with a coefficient of variation of 0.06. For Medicaid, the coefficient of variation ranged from 0.27-0.70 for unadjusted data and 0.35-0.69 for adjusted data. On average, Medicaid reimburses less to orthopedic sports medicine specialists than does Medicare with substantial variability between states. Adjustment for cost-of-living increases the percent difference and the variability between states' Medicaid reimbursement rates. IV; Economic Analysis.

Increasing Utilization of Intratympanic Injections among Medicare Fee-for-Service Providers.

To characterize national practice patterns and geographic variations in intratympanic injections among Medicare providers. Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of intratympanic injections performed in the Medicare fee-for-service population from 2013 to 2021. Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician and Other Practitioners database. Providers performing outpatient intratympanic injections, documented by Current Procedural Terminology code 69801. Intratympanic injections. The number of intratympanic injections performed by individual providers, states, and geographic regions, as well as reimbursements, was analyzed annually. A total of 159,236 in-office intratympanic injections were performed. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimbursed $25,407,086; out-of-pocket patient costs were $6,591,514. The mean Medicare reimbursement rate and out-of-pocket cost per injection were $159.56 and $41.38, respectively. From 2013 to 2021, the number of intratympanic injections increased from 13,117 to 20,711 injections, representing a 57.9% increase. On linear regression, an additional 989.9 injections were performed each year (95% CI 766.4-1,213.4, p < 0.001). The number of providers performing injections also increased from 1,828 to 2,834 from 2013 to 2021 ( b = 125.6 [95% CI 111.3-140.0], p < 0.001). The population-controlled annual mean number of injections varied substantially across the United States, ranging from 12.0 injections per 100,000 beneficiaries in Oklahoma to 255.2 injections per 100,000 beneficiaries in Alabama. The number of intratympanic injections administered in the Medicare population has increased from 2013 to 2021. There is variability in practice patterns and utilization of intratympanic injections among otolaryngologists in the United States.

Trends in Phototherapy Utilization, Payments, and Geographic Distribution: An Analysis of United States Medicare Part B From 2000 to 2021.

Trends in phototherapy utilization in the context of new therapeutics have not been evaluated. This study aimed to evaluate phototherapy utilization, payments, and geographic distribution for Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 to 2021. A longitudinal analysis of the Medicare Part B National Summary Data Files was conducted to obtain phototherapy utilization and payment amounts. Medicare Physician & Other Practitioners by Provider and Service datasets were used to determine provider type and geographic distribution. Between 2000 and 2021, total Medicare phototherapy volume increased from 335,152 to 621,850, correlating with a 3.0% annual growth rate (5.0% between 2000 and 2015, -3.1% between 2016 and 2021). Ultraviolet B phototherapy represented the majority of use, rising from 68.1% in 2000 to 78.0% in 2021. Psoralens plus ultraviolet A decreased by 11.3% annually, while laser treatments increased by 17.3%. Between 2013 and 2021, the number of clinics offering phototherapy declined; facilities were available in only 9.9% of counties, mainly clustered along both coasts and east of the Mississippi. Overall, phototherapy continues to be an important therapeutic option. Limited access in non-urban areas remains a significant challenge, and further work is necessary to both evaluate this impact and reduce disparities.

Comparing Traditional and Newer Glaucoma Procedures by Physician Experience and Practice Location in the United States.

Analysis of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Payment data found that physician certification year, degree of urbanization, and estimated income by zip code were significant in predicting the proportion of traditional glaucoma procedures performed by each provider in the United States. The prevalence of microinvasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS) compared with traditional procedures has been increasing in glaucoma management. It is important to understand whether the uptake of new glaucoma procedures is associated with aspects of the physician practice. In this cross-sectional study, data on glaucoma procedure distribution, degree of urbanization, and physician certification in the United States were extracted from the 2019 CMS Physician Payment and American Board of Ophthalmology databases. The distribution of traditional and MIGS procedure numbers for metropolitan versus non-metropolitan providers was visualized with boxplots and statistically compared using Mann-Whitney U tests. We used two-dimensional histograms and regression analyses to assess the relationship between certification year and volume of traditional versus MIGS procedures. A multivariable linear regression model was created using certification year, rural-urban commuting area code, and estimated income by practice zip code to predict the number and proportion of each type of glaucoma procedure. This study included 2625 providers from the CMS physician payment data who performed only traditional procedures (n = 370), MIGS procedures (n = 1727), or both procedure types (n = 528) in 2019. The median number of MIGS procedures performed by each provider was greater in non-metropolitan areas (31 vs 29, P = 0.015), whereas the proportion of traditional procedures performed by each provider was greater in metropolitan areas (0.24 vs 0.08, P < 0.001). Regression analysis showed a positive relationship between the certification year and the proportion of traditional procedures performed by each provider ( P < 0.001). Multivariable regression models found that certification year, rural-urban commuting area code, and estimated income of practice location were all significant predictors ( P < 0.02) of the proportion of traditional procedures performed by each provider. In the United States, physicians in metropolitan areas and more recent certification years are more likely to perform a larger proportion of traditional procedures. This finding suggests that the distribution of glaucoma procedure types is related to physician factors such as degree of urbanization and duration of practice. More research is needed to better understand how such differences affect patient access and outcomes.

US Primary Care Workforce Growth: A Decade of Limited Progress, and Projected Needs Through 2040

BackgroundDespite efforts to mitigate a projected primary care physician (PCP) shortage required to meet an aging, growing, and increasingly insured population, shortages remain, compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic, growing inequity, and persistent underinvestment.ObjectiveWe examined primary care workforce trends over the past decade and revisited projected primary care clinician workforce needs through the year 2040.Design and ParticipantsUsing data from the AMA Masterfile and Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), we analyzed trends in the number of primary care physicians (PCPs) and in outpatient PCP visits by age and gender over the past decade. We then used the Medicare PECOS and Physician & Other Practitioners datasets to identify nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) in primary care.MeasuresUsing these baseline clinician enumerations and projected population growth estimates from the US Census Bureau for the years 2020–2040, we calculated estimated primary care workforce needs by 2040.Key ResultsThe effects of aging and population growth and baseline shortages in the primary care workforce call for significant increases in the primary care workforce to accommodate rising demands. Office visits to primary care clinicians are projected to increase from 773,606 in 2020 to 893,098 in 2040. We project a need for an additional 57,559 primary care clinicians by 2040.ConclusionsWorkforce shortages in primary care continue to expand due to population aging, growth, and heightened rates of clinician burnout & egress.

Incidental Findings on MRIs for Asymmetric Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Clinical and Economic Analysis.

The gold-standard assessment of asymmetric sensorineural hearing loss (ASNHL) is contrast-enhanced MRI. Although rates of identifying a vestibular schwannoma are low (<5%), it is generally accepted as cost-effective. Yet, the impact of incidentalomas is rarely considered. This study aims to characterize the incidence of incidentalomas in the workup of ASNHL and quantify the associated socioeconomic burden. Retrospective cohort study. Single academic institution in a midsized city in the United States. Radiology records were queried for MRI's ordered for ASNHL between January 2012 and November 2022. Results were characterized as "group 1: normal," "group 2: abnormal read/normal variant," "group 3: abnormal-likely cause of ASNHL," or "group 4: abnormal-follow-up needed." Subsequent costs of workup for group 4 were estimated using Medicare Physician Fee Schedule for Medicare costs, US Congressional Budgeting Office data for private insurer costs, and USC-Brookings Schaeffer Initiative for Health Policy estimates for uninsured individuals. Six hundred patients met the inclusion criteria. Eighteen (3.0%) were categorized in group 3, whereas 40 (6.7%) were categorized in group 4. Of these patients, 7.5% (n = 3) had interventions to manage their incidental findings. Estimated per patient cost for further workup of incidental findings amounted to approximately $744, $1,534, and $2,260 for Medicare, private insurance, and uninsured costs, respectively. Incidentalomas occur over twice as often as retrocochlear pathologies responsible for ASNHL. Although the number of patients requiring treatment for incidentaloma is low, the economic impact is not insubstantial and should be considered for both individual patients and health system payers.

Total knee arthroplasty reimbursement is declining overall and at a marginally faster rate amongst female orthopaedic surgeons: A Medicare analysis

While the prevalence of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is increasing, reimbursement is declining. The purpose of this study was to determine how surgeon gender influences procedure volume, reimbursement, practice style, and patient demographics for TKAs nationally and regionally between 2013 and 2021. The Medicare Physician and Other Practitioners database was queried from 2013 to 2021 for procedure volume, TKA reimbursement, surgeon characteristics, and patient demographics for any surgeon who performed at least ten primary TKAs per year. Statistical tests were conducted to analyze differences based on surgeon gender, geography, and year. Of the 2,415,802 TKAs performed between 2013 and 2021, 1.5% were billed by female surgeons. The number of TKAs performed annually increased by 29.1% for female surgeons and decreased by 2.6% for male surgeons. Between 2013 and 2021, reimbursement for TKAs decreased by 23.9% for male surgeons and 26.2% for female surgeons. In 2021, male surgeons were reimbursed $1017 per TKA while female surgeons were reimbursed $964 (p=0.049). Male surgeons performed more TKAs annually in 2021 (Male: 39.3, Female: 30.9, p<0.001), more total billable services (Male: 4148.0, Female: 2719.3, p<0.001), and more unique billable services (Male: 70.7, Female: 55.3, p<0.001) than female surgeons. Female representation among surgeons who perform TKAs is increasing nationally. However, male surgeons treat more patients, perform more total billable services, and perform more unique billable services than female surgeons. TKA reimbursement is decreasing at a faster rate for female surgeons than male surgeons, although this is likely due to geographical differences.

The Decline of Medicare Reimbursement in Clinical Pathology

Abstract Introduction/Objective Access to clinical pathology services nationwide is threatened by the lack of an annual inflationary update for physician reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services (CMS). Most recently, the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) implemented an overall 2.0% reduction in pathology reimbursement. The effects of recent inflationary trends on clinical pathology physician reimbursement are unknown. Thus, our study sought to analyze trends in Medicare reimbursement rates from 2004 to 2024 for clinical pathology procedures. Methods/Case Report The Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from the CMS was queried for the top 30 CPT codes utilized, and physician reimbursement data extracted. Monetary data was subsequently adjusted for inflation utilizing the Consumer Price Index and reported in 2024 US dollars. The average annual and total percent change in reimbursement were calculated for included procedures. A subset analysis was conducted to assess physician pathology clinical consultation services average annual and total percent change in reimbursement pre- and post- 2022 MPFS Update. The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) was calculated using 2024 and 2000 inflation- adjusted monetary data. Results (if a Case Study enter NA) Prior to adjusting for inflation, the average physician reimbursement decreased by 6.8% from 2004 to 2024 for included clinical pathology CPT codes. After adjusting for inflation, the average physician reimbursement decreased by 44.0% for included CPT codes. The greatest decrease in reimbursement observed from 2004 to 2024 was for flow cytometry interpretation, 2-8 minutes at 69.5% ($114.44 to $34.95) followed by flow cytometry interpretation, 9-15 minutes at 57.8% ($142.77 to $60.25) and flow cytometry interpretation, &amp;gt;16 minutes at 56.6% ($188.05 to $81.55). The average CAGR was -2.86%. Prior to adjusting for inflation, the average physician reimbursement for clinical pathology consultation services pre-2022 decreased by 0.9%, and when adjusted for inflation, decreased by 30.0%. Post-2022 MPFS revision, the average physician reimbursement for clinical pathology consultation services decreased by 3.5%, and when adjusted for inflation, decreased by 12.2%. The average CAGR pre-2022 was -2.0% and post-2022 was -4.3%. Conclusion Medicare physician reimbursement for common clinical pathology procedures is decreasing at an untenable rate annually. It is critical that policymakers understand these trends to ensure continued access to quality clinical pathology care at healthcare institutions.

The Decline of Medicare Reimbursement in Anatomic Pathology

Abstract Introduction/Objective Lack of an annual inflationary update for physician reimbursement from the Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services (CMS) jeopardizes access to anatomic pathology services at healthcare institutions nationwide. The effects of recent inflationary trends on anatomic pathology physician reimbursement are unknown. Thus, our study sought to analyze trends in Medicare reimbursement rates from 2004 to 2024 for anatomic pathology procedures. Methods/Case Report The Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from the CMS was queried for the top 30 CPT codes utilized, and physician reimbursement data extracted. Monetary data was subsequently adjusted for inflation utilizing the Consumer Price Index and reported in 2024 US dollars. The average annual and total percent change in reimbursement were calculated for included procedures. The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) was calculated using 2024 and 2000 inflation-adjusted monetary data. Results (if a Case Study enter NA) Prior to adjusting for inflation, the average physician reimbursement increased by 9.7% from 2004 to 2024 for all included anatomic pathology CPT codes. After adjusting for inflation, the average physician reimbursement decreased by 34.2% for included CPT codes. The greatest decrease in reimbursement observed from 2004 to 2024 was for outside slide consultation at 60.5% ($330.12 to $130.49), followed by pathology consultation during surgery at 59.0% ($83.54 to $34.29). The average CAGR was -2.19%. Conclusion Our study demonstrates that Medicare physician reimbursement for common anatomic pathology procedures is declining annually at an unsustainable rate. This downward trend necessitates policy action to prevent access barriers to quality anatomic pathology care nationwide, especially for Medicare beneficiaries.