Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Research Articles

Comparing Changes in Medicare Reimbursement for Radiation Oncology and Medical Oncology (2010-2020)

A recent study found that radiation oncology (RO) has seen significant declines in Medicare reimbursement (MCR) from 2010-2019. While it is presumed that other cancer subspecialties have seen decreasing MCR, to our knowledge, there are no studies directly comparing changes in MCR between RO and other oncology subspecialties. In this study, we analyze changes in MCR from 2010-2020 for both RO and medical oncology. We hypothesized that the declines in MCR will be similar between the two fields. The publicly available Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) database was used for all years from 2010-2020. All reimbursement for providers with primary provider codes 92 (RO) and 83 and 90 (heme/onc and medical oncology, respectively) were analyzed. For the 150 most highly-reimbursed HCPCS codes for each specialty in 2010, the total allowed charge for each code was corrected for inflation and then divided by the number of submitted claims to calculate average MCR per code for each year. For each code and each specialty, the 2020 billing frequency was multiplied by the calculated average reimbursement per claim in a given year to calculate what the reimbursement would have been in that year using 2020 dollars and utilization rates (projected reimbursement). The projected reimbursement was summed for all HCPCS codes in each year for each specialty to calculate an aggregate MCR for that specialty for that year. This aggregate MCR was then compared with the actual 2020 reimbursement for that basket of codes to calculate the change in MCR over time. Both medical and radiation oncology saw decreases in projected vs. actual MCR from 2010-2020 for this basket of services (Table). Adjusting for inflation and utilization, RO MCR declined by $0.7 billion (B) (-29.0%) from 2010 to 2020 and by $0.2B (-10.5%) from 2015 to 2020 while medical oncology MCR declined by $0.8B (-14.7%) from 2010-2020 and by $0.4B (-6.6%) from 2015-2020. The average decrease per year in projected vs. actual reimbursement for RO was 2.9% (2010 to 2015) and 1.05% (2015 to 2020) and for medical oncology was 1.5% (2010-2015) and 0.7% (2015-2020), respectively. Adjusting for inflation, Medicare reimbursement for a large array of services has declined for both medical oncology and RO from 2010 - 2020. Contrary to our hypothesis, RO reported a 97% greater relative decline in reimbursement compared with medical oncology from 2010 - 2020. Significant decreases in reimbursement to both fields and their potential implications on patient care and access to care should be considered by policymakers while shifting towards an episode-based Alternative Payment Model and when considering further cuts to Medicare reimbursement.

Association and Trends in Medicare Denials and Utilization for Brain CT: Indirect Impacts by Targeted Policy Intervention?

Twenty-five years of annual Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) Master File data were used to assess trends in normalized volume and claim denial rates for brain computerized tomography. Alongside growth in utilization of brain computerized tomography (services, denial rates, fell from 1999-2005 and with relatively leveled growth and less denial rate volatility thereafter. More recent trends in denial rates may be related to policy interventions initially aimed at cost and volume reduction.

Speciality enzymes market predicted to see a surge in the near future

Twenty-five years of annual Medicare Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) Master File data were used to assess trends in normalized volume and claim denial rates for brain computerized tomography. Alongside growth in utilization of brain computerized tomography (services, denial rates, fell from 1999-2005 and with relatively leveled growth and less denial rate volatility thereafter. More recent trends in denial rates may be related to policy interventions initially aimed at cost and volume reduction.

Trends in utilization of reflectance confocal microscopy in the United States, 2017-2019

Trends in utilization of reflectance confocal microscopy in the United States, 2017-2019

Abstract No. 553 The growth of clinical interventional radiology: increasing interventional radiology evaluation and management charges over time

To determine whether interventional radiology (IR) evaluation and management (E&M) charges have increased and to compare with charges from vascular surgery (VS) E&M claims were compared for IR and vascular surgery (VS) using the Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files 2010 to 2018. IR and VS were identified by specialty codes. E&M was defined by relevant CPT codes. The number of E&M claims per year per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries and E&M as a percentage of all Medicare charges were compared for each specialty using linear regression modeling. Subgroup analysis by practice setting (inpatient vs. outpatient) and patient type (new vs. established patient) was performed for IR. Between 2010 and 2018, IR E&M encounters increased from 177 to 412 claims per 100,000 beneficiaries (+133%, P < 0.001, R2 = 0.94). VS E&M encounters increased from 4954 claims per 100,000 beneficiaries to 5373 claims per 100,000 beneficiaries (+8%, P = 0.005, R2 = 0.71). E&M accounted for 1.9% of IR Medicare revenue in 2010 and increased to 2.7% in 2018 (40% relative increase). E&M declined from 7.6% of VS Medicare revenue in 2010 to 5.1% in 2018 (33% relative decrease). For IR, E&M growth was higher for outpatients (+178%) vs. inpatients (+25%) and established patients (+138%) vs. new patients (+122%). Driven primarily by outpatient and established patient encounters, IR E&M claims more than doubled between 2010 and 2018, implying that more IRs are embracing a longitudinal care model that involves pre- and post-procedure outpatient evaluations. Although IR E&M revenue was lower than VS, the rate of increase in E&M revenue was much greater for IR than VS.

Declining Utilization Patterns of Percutaneous Adhesiolysis Procedures in the Fee-For-Service (FFS) Medicare Population

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous epidural adhesiolysis is a minimally invasive therapeutic modality used in the treatment of patients with chronic low back and lower extremity pain, often recalcitrant to other modalities including epidural injections and surgical interventions. While the initial utilization since its introduction and development of appropriate Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes increased up until 2008, but since 2009, there has been a significant decline in utilization of these procedures in the Medicare population. These procedures declined by 53.2% at an annual rate of 10.3% from 2009 to 2016. A recent update analysis on the reversal and decline of growth of utilization of interventional techniques in managing chronic pain in the Medicare population from 2009 to 2018 revealed an even further decline of adhesiolysis procedures. STUDY DESIGN: An analysis of the utilization patterns of percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures in managing chronic low back and lower extremity pain in the Medicare population from 2000 to 2018, with comparative analysis from 2000 to 2009 and 2009 to 2018. OBJECTIVE: To assess the utilization patterns of percutaneous adhesiolysis in managing chronic low back pain in the Medicare population. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master of Fee-For-Service (FFS) Data from 2000 to 2018 was used. In this analysis, various variables were assessed in reference to usage patterns of percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures with analysis of growth or declining utilization patterns. We also assessed specialty-based utilization, as well as statewide utilization. RESULTS: The decline of percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures began in 2009 and has continued since then. From 2009 to 2018, the overall decline was 69.2%, with an annual decline of 12.3% compared to an overall 62.6% increase from 2000 to 2009, with an annual increase of 5.6%. Compared to multiple other interventions, including epidural injections and facet joint interventions, percutaneous adhesiolysis has declined at a rapid rate. CONCLUSIONS: This assessment in the FFS Medicare population in the United States shows an irreversible decline of utilization of percutaneous adhesiolysis procedures, which has been gradually deteriorating with a 69.2% decline from 2009 to 2018 with an annual decline of 12.3% during that same time period. KEY WORDS: Epidural injections, percutaneous adhesiolysis, post-surgery syndrome, spinal stenosis, lumbar disc herniation

Radiation Oncology Patterns of Billing of Advanced Practice Providers (APPs) and Other Medical Specialists

To alleviate workforce shortages, physician practices are increasingly employing APPs. Analysis of the service trends of APPs in radiation oncology is presented and compared with billing practices of other specialties. We analyzed annual data from the Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary covering the period 2010-2018. The data reflect claims paid for by Medicare Part B and include the number of procedures performed by CPT and HCPCS code and provider specialty. Data for consultation and follow-up visits are not available for Radiation Oncology by APP. We employed the number of assigned services, which are those procedures for which Medicare paid and which excludes disallowed claims. We considered procedures grouped into four Process of Care categories defined by ASTRO: Preparing for treatment; Medical radiation physics, dosimetry, planning, treatment devices and special services; Radiation treatment delivery; and radiation treatment management. We defined services provided by APPs using provider specialty codes 50 (Nurse Practitioner) and 97 (Physician Assistant). Other medical specialty data are available separately. Almost 88,000,000 Radiation Oncology procedures were reported during the sample period. PAs and NPs together comprise 0.12% of all procedures. While there may be room for increasing their use in these categories of technical workload, Diagnostic Radiologists bill 1.9% of the total, Dermatologists bill 1.6%, and Urologists bill about 0.3%. Internists, hematologist/oncologists and medical oncologists cumulatively bill about 0.6% APPs bill a small proportion of radiation oncology technical procedures overall. Other physician specialty billing approaches 5% of Radiation Therapy totals.Tabled 1Abstract 2956; TableProviderMedical Physics, DosimetryRT DeliveryRT ManagementPreparing for RTTotalRadiation Oncology + RT Centers33,135,94030,622,01311,434,9628,229,30183,421,914Diagnostic Radiology681,019595,283247,690184,3341,708,325Dermatology196,902847,83780,183289,6961,414,698Urology95,528144,5777,96911,516259,590Internists (Includes Heme/Onc + Med Onc)153,771281,93756,09538,662530,465PA6,12930,5296,11810,83353,609NP5,82629,1527,3398,66150,978Other158,028181,42139,07357,896436,417Total34,433,14332,732,74911,879,4288,830,89987,876,218 Open table in a new tab

Utilization Patterns of Sacroiliac Joint Injections from 2000 to 2018 in Fee-for-Service Medicare Population

Background: Sacroiliac joint is one of the proven causes of low back and lower extremity pain. Prevalence estimates of sacroiliac joint pain range from 10% to 25% in patients with persistent axial low back pain without disc herniation, discogenic pain, or radiculitis based on multiple diagnostic studies and systematic reviews. Over the years, utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections have been increasing in comparison to other interventional techniques. Further, the development of new current procedural terminology (CPT) codes and coverage policies for sacroiliac joint nerve blocks, sacroiliac joint radiofrequency neurotomy, and evolving evidence for sacroiliac joint fusion will further increase the utilization patterns. Study Design: Analysis of growth patterns of sacroiliac joint injections from 2000 to 2018 with comparative analysis of 2000 to 2009 and 2009 to 2018. Objectives: To assess utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections from 2000 to 2018. Methods The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) Master dataset was utilized in this analysis. Results: The results of the evaluation from 2009 to 2018 showed an increase of 11.3% and an annual increase of 1.2% per 100,000 Medicare population. However, from 2000 to 2009, an increase of 299.8% from 2000 to 2009 with an annual increase of 16.6% per 100,000 Medicare population. Limitations: The limitations of this study included a lack of data on the new sacroiliac joint nerve block and radiofrequency neurotomy codes. Further, this data did not include utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint fusions. In addition, Medicare Advantage patients were not included, which constitute approximately 30% of overall Medicare population. Further, there is also a possibility that state claims data may include claims from other states. As with all claims-based data analyses, this study is retrospective and thus potentially limited by bias. Finally, patients who are self or commercially insured are not part of the dataset. Conclusions: This study shows increases in utilization patterns of sacroiliac joint injections; however, at a significantly lower rate with an annual increase of 16.6% prior to 2009 and only 1.2% from 2009 to 2018 per 100,000 Medicare beneficiaries Key words: Chronic spinal pain, low back pain, sacroiliac joint arthritis, interventional techniques, sacroiliac joint injections

Trends in Central Venous Catheter Insertions by Anesthesia Providers: An Analysis of the Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary From 2007 to 2016.

Central line insertion is a core skill for anesthesiologists. Although recent technical advances have increased the safety of central line insertion and reduced the risk of central line-associated infection, noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring and improved intravenous access techniques have also reduced the need for perioperative central venous access. We hypothesized that the number of central lines inserted by anesthesiologists has decreased over the past decade. To test our hypothesis, we reviewed the Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) database from 2007 to 2016. Claims for central venous catheter placement were identified in the Medicare PSPS database for nontunneled and tunneled central lines. Pulmonary artery catheter insertion was included as a nontunneled line claim. We stratified line insertion claims by specialty for Anesthesiology (including Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists and Anesthesiology Assistants), Surgery, Radiology, Pulmonary/Critical Care, Emergency Physicians, Internal Medicine, and practitioners who were not anesthesia providers such as Advanced Practice Nurses (APNs) and Physician Assistants (PAs). Utilization rates per 10,000 Medicare beneficiaries were then calculated by specialty and year. Time-based trends were analyzed using Joinpoint linear regression, and the Average Annual Percent Change (AAPC) was calculated. Between 2007 and 2016, total claims for central venous catheter insertions of all types decreased from 440.9 to 325.3 claims/10,000 beneficiaries (AAPC = -3.4, 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.6 to -3.2: P < .001). When analyzed by provider specialty and year, the number of nontunneled line insertion claims fell from 43.1 to 15.9 claims/10,000 (AAPC = -7.1; -7.3 to -7.0: P < .001) for surgeons, from 21.3 to 18.5 claims/10,000 (AAPC = -2.5; -2.8 to -2.1: P < .001) for radiologists, and from 117.4 to 72.7 claims/10,000 (AAPC = -5.2; 95% CI, -6.3 to -4.0: P < .001) for anesthesia providers. In contrast, line insertions increased from 18.2 to 26.0 claims/10,000 (AAPC = 3.2; 2.3-4.2: P < .001) for Emergency Physicians and from 3.2 to 9.3 claims/10,000 (AAPC = 6.0; 5.1-6.9: P < .001) for PAs and APNs who were not anesthesia providers. Among anesthesia providers, the share of line claims made by nurse anesthetists increased by 14.5% over the time period. We observed a 38.3% decrease in claims for nontunneled central lines placed by anesthesiologists from 2007 to 2016. These findings have implications for anesthesiology resident training and maintenance of competence among practicing clinicians. Further research is needed to clarify the effect of decreasing line insertion numbers on line insertion competence among anesthesiologists.

Increasing Volume of Bone Marrow Biopsies by Radiology Providers: Evaluation of Trends by Physician Specialty and Practice Setting.

The aim of this study was to evaluate trends in bone marrow biopsies performed in the United States by physician specialty and practice setting. The CMS Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary database was queried from 2005 to 2016 for bone marrow biopsies and aspirations (BMBs). Data were categorized according to the largest subspecialty groups (medicine, surgery, radiology, pathology, and other) and encounter setting (office, inpatient hospital, and outpatient hospital). Trends in procedure volume by specialty and practice setting were evaluated. Between 2005 and 2016, an annual average of 11,417 BMBs were performed (range, 10,380-14,204), with no significant year-over-year change in volume. Medicine was the largest provider of BMBs by specialty, although their market share over this time period declined from 60.2% to 36.6%. Radiology saw the greatest growth in BMB market share from 4.1% to 16.2%. The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of BMBs performed by medicine subspecialists demonstrated a decrease in year-over-year procedural volume at-5.16% (P < .001). Both surgery and radiology demonstrated positive trends in the number of BMBs performed, with CAGRs of 6.20% (P < .001) and 12.43% (P < .001), respectively. Independent of physician specialty, there was a decrease in the number of biopsies performed in the office setting, decreasing by a CAGR of-5.59% (P < .001). From 2005 to 2016, medicine has remained the primary provider of BMBs, although their market share has declined. Radiology has experienced the greatest rate of growth in this time period and now represents the third largest individual specialty providing this service.

Recent Trends in Clinical Setting and Provider Specialty for Endovascular Peripheral Artery Disease Interventions for the Medicare Population

PurposeTo describe national trends in peripheral endovascular interventions by physician specialty, anatomic segment of disease, and clinical location of service. Materials and MethodsCurrent Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify claims for peripheral vascular interventions (PVIs) in 2011–2017 Physician Supplier Procedure Summary master files, which contain 100% Part B Medicare billing. Market share was defined as enrollment-adjusted proportion of billed PVI services for each specialty. Annual volume of billed services was additionally evaluated by clinical location (inpatient, outpatient, office-based laboratories) and anatomic segment of disease (iliac, femoral/popliteal, infrapopliteal). ResultsAggregate PVI claims increased 31.3%, from 227,091 in 2011 to 298,127 in 2017. Annual market share remained relatively stable for all specialties: surgery, 48.3%–49.6%; cardiology, 37.2%–35.1%; radiology, 12.8%–13.3%. Accounting for Medicare enrollment, the volume of iliac interventions decreased by 18% over the study period, while femoral/popliteal interventions increased modestly (+7.5%) and infrapopliteal interventions increased (+46%). The greatest proportional increase in infrapopliteal claims occurred among radiologists (surgeons +40.4%, cardiologists +32.1%, radiologists +106.6%). Adjusting for enrollment, claims from office-based laboratories increased substantially (+305.7%), while hospital-based billing decreased (inpatient −25.7%, outpatient −12.9%). Office-based laboratory utilization increased dramatically with all specialties (surgery +331.8%, cardiology +256.0%, radiology +475.7%). ConclusionsUtilization of PVIs continues to increase, while specialty market shares have stabilized since 2011, leaving surgeons and cardiologists as the major providers of endovascular peripheral artery disease care. The greatest relative increases are occurring in infrapopliteal interventions and office-based laboratory procedures, where radiologist involvement has increased dramatically.

Percutaneous Vertebral Augmentation for Vertebral Compression Fractures: National Trends in the Medicare Population (2005-2015).

Retrospective analysis of Medicare data OBJECTIVE.: To analyze trends of vertebral augmentation in the elderly Medicare population in the context of evolving evidence and varied medical society opinions. Percutaneous vertebral augmentation offers a minimally invasive therapy for vertebral compression fractures. Numerous trials have been published on this topic with mixed results. The impact of these studies and societal recommendations on physician practice patterns is not well understood. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services annual Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary database was examined for kyphoplasty and vertebroplasty procedures from 2005 through 2015. Top provider specialties were determined based on annual procedural volume, and grouped into the three broad categories of radiology, surgery, and anesthesia/pain medicine. Data entries were independently analyzed by provider type, site of service, submitted charges, and reimbursement rates for interventions during the study period. Between 2005 and 2015 total annual claims for vertebral augmentation procedures in the Medicare population increased from 108.11% (37,133-77,276) peaking in 2008 and declining by 15.56% in 2009. Radiology is the largest provider of vertebral augmentation by specialty with declining market shares from 71% in 2005 to 43% in 2015. The frequency of vertebroplasty declined by 61.7% (35,409-13,478) from 2005 to 2015 with reduction in Medicare reimbursement. Annual volume of kyphoplasty grew by 18.3% (48,725-57,646) with significant increase in reimbursement for office-based procedures ($728.50/yr, P < 0.001, R = 0.69). The annual volume of vertebral augmentation declined in 2009 following two negative trials on vertebroplasty. Although these publications had a persistent negative impact on practice of vertebroplasty, the overall frequency of vertebral augmentation in the Medicare population has not changed significantly between 2005 and 2015. Instead, there has been a significant shift in provider practice patterns in favor of kyphoplasty in increasingly outpatient and office-based settings. 3.

Characteristics of Physicians and Other Providers Frequently Ordering Intravenous Pyelograms

PurposeTo assess characteristics of physicians and other providers frequently ordering intravenous pyelography (IVP). MethodsThe 2014 Medicare Referring Provider Utilization for Procedures data set was used to identify providers who ordered more than 10 IVP examinations (“high-ordering providers”) in Medicare beneficiaries. The Medicare Provider and Other Supplier Public Use File and Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files were used to obtain physician characteristics and total service counts, respectively. ResultsOf 18,344 IVPs performed in 2014 in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, 6,321 (34.5%) were ordered by just 233 high-ordering providers. Of these, 220 (94.4%) were urologists. These urologists represented just 2.4% of all 8,981 Medicare-participating urologists and ordered an average of 27.1 IVPs (maximum 239). Urologists ordering IVPs (versus those not ordering IVPs) were more likely (P < .05) to practice in rural areas (6.4% versus 2.7%), be in practice more than 15 years (87.4% versus 71.2%), and be in practices with 100 members or fewer (71.3% versus 55.5%). They were also less likely (P < .05) to be female (3.2% versus 7.4%) and in academic practices (5.1% versus 10.7%). High-IVP-ordering urologists were more likely to practice in the South (54.1% versus 36.9%) or Midwest (30.0% versus 21.3%) and less likely to practice in the Northeast (5.0% versus 23.1%) or West (10.9% versus 18.6%). ConclusionAlthough uncommonly performed, IVPs continue to be used in the Medicare population. Providers most likely to frequently order IVPs were later-career urologists in smaller and rural practices in the South. Targeting education and appropriate use criteria initiatives to high-ordering providers may help optimize utilization.

USAGE PATTERNS OF SACROILIAC JOINT INJECTIONS - A COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF PRE AND POST AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IN MEDICARE POPULATION

Background: The sacroiliac joints (SIJ) have been implicated as highly prevalent, pervasive, expensive, causes of chronic low back pain. The utilization of SIJ injections is escalating. A recent analysis demonstrated a reversal of growth of utilization patterns of interventional techniques post passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Bearing that in mind, SIJ injections along with facet joint interventions seem to have increased modestly in that same period. Study Design: Analysis of growth patterns of SIJ injections from 2000 to 2016 with comparative analysis of pre- and post- ACA. Objectives: To assess utilization patterns of SIJ injections from 2000 to 2016. Methods: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary (PSPS) Master dataset was utilized in this analysis. Results: The results of the evaluation from 2000 to 2016 showed, 11.7% increase from 2009 to 2016, with an annual increase of 1.6% per 100,000 Medicare population compared to an increase of 299.8% from 2000 to 2009 with annual increase of 16.6%. Limitations: The limitations of this study included a lack of inclusion of Medicare Advantage patients and the possibility that state claims data may include claims from other states. As with all claims based data analyses, this study is retrospective and thus potentially limited by bias. Finally, patients who are self or commercially insured are not part of the dataset. Conclusions: Study shows dampened increase in utilization patterns of SIJ injections from 2009 to 2016 as compared with a like time period prior. Key words: Chronic spinal pain, low back pain, sacroiliac joint arthritis, interventional techniques, interventional pain management, sacroiliac joint injections

Commentaries on health services research

Commentaries on health services research

Abstract No. 454 Percutaneous interventions for hemodialysis access: national trends in. . . the Medicare population

To evaluate annual national trends in hemodialysis access maintenance procedures in the Medicare population by provider and setting. Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files between 2005-2015 were analyzed for procedure codes of hemodialysis access angiography and percutaneous thrombectomy. Using physician specialty codes, component procedure volume for endovascular services were queried for radiology, medicine, and surgery. Data entries were analyzed by provider type and place of service. Average submitted and allowed charges per intervention were extracted. Linear regression modeling was used to identify trends in number of and allowed charges by specialty and practice setting. Between 2005-2015, the total Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary frequency of dialysis access angiography increased by a total of 74.71% (211,181 to 368,955). Specialty specific analysis demonstrated volume increase of 220.21% (22,128 to 101,109) for surgery, 249.02% (32,690 to 114,094) for medicine and an increase of 2.81% (135,564 to 139, 367) for radiology. By 2015, an increased trend from hospital to non-hospital based procedures associated with significantly higher reimbursement rates to providers (+18,798 non-hospital based cases/year, $46.95/year, p = <.001) was also observed, with medicine performing the highest volume of non-hospital based cases. In this period, there was also a modest total overall increase of percutaneous thrombectomy procedures by 7.75% (61,485 to 66,250). The frequency of endovascular hemodialysis access maintenance procedures in the Medicare fee for service program has increased from 2005-2015 with the majority market share transitioning from radiologists to non-radiologists. Similarly, the majority of access maintenance in this time period changed from hospital to non-hospital based interventions.

Increasing utilization of emergency department neuroimaging in Medicare beneficiaries from 1994 to 2015

ObjectiveTo assess for changes in emergency department (ED) utilization of neuroimaging in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries from 1994 to 2015. MethodsUsing Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files, annual ED volumes of head computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR), and carotid duplex ultrasound (CDUS) were assessed from 1994 through 2015. Annual volumes of head CT angiography (CTA), neck CTA, head MR angiography (MRA), and neck MRA studies were assessed from 2001 (first year of unique reporting codes) through 2015. Longitudinal population-based utilization rates were calculated using annual Medicare Part B enrollment, and utilization rates were normalized annually per 1000 ED visits. ResultsFrom 1994 through 2015, ED neuroimaging utilization rates per 1000 ED visits increased 660% overall (compound annual growth rate [CAGR] 9%); 529% for head CT (CAGR 9%); 1451% for head MRI (CAGR 14%); and by 104% for CDUS (CAGR 3%). From 2001 to 2015, rates increased 14,600% (CAGR 43%) and 17,781% (CAGR 45%) for head and neck CTA, respectively, and 525% (CAGR 14%) and 667% (CAGR 16%) for head and neck MRA, respectively. Trends were similar when volumes were normalized for annual Medicare fee-for-service enrollment. Non-contrast head CT was the most common imaging modality throughout the study period (86% of annual neuroimaging volume in 1994; 89% in 2015). ConclusionsIn Medicare beneficiaries, neuroimaging utilization in the ED grew unabated from 1994 through 2015, with growth of head and neck CTA far outpacing other modalities. Non-contrast head CT remains by far the dominant ED neuroimaging examination.

Hemodialysis Access Maintenance in the Medicare Population: An Analysis Over a Decade of Trends by Provider Specialty and Site of Service

PurposeTo evaluate annual national trends in hemodialysis access maintenance procedures in the Medicare population by specialty and setting. MethodsMedicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files between 2005 and 2015 were analyzed for procedure codes of hemodialysis access angiography and percutaneous thrombectomy. Using physician specialty codes, component procedure volume for endovascular services were queried for radiology, medicine, and surgery. Data entries were analyzed by provider specialty and place of service. Average submitted and allowed charges per intervention were extracted. Linear regression modeling was used to identify trends in number of and allowed charges by specialty and practice setting. ResultsBetween 2005 and 2015, the frequency of dialysis access angiography for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries increased by a total of 74.71% (211,181 to 368,955). Specialty-specific analysis demonstrated volume increases of 220.21% (22,128 to 101,109) for surgery, 249.02% (32,690 to 114,094) for medicine, and 2.81% (135,564 to 139, 367) for radiology. By 2015, an increased trend from hospital-based to non-hospital-based procedures associated with significantly higher reimbursement rates to providers (+18,798 non-hospital-based cases/year, $46.95/year, P ≤ .001) was also observed, with medicine performing the highest volume of non-hospital-based procedures. In this period, there was also a modest total overall increase of percutaneous thrombectomy procedures by 7.75% (61,485 to 66,250). ConclusionsThe frequency of endovascular hemodialysis access maintenance procedures in the Medicare fee-for-service program has increased from 2005 to 2015, with the majority market share transitioning from radiologists to non-radiologists. Similarly, most access maintenance in this time period changed from hospital-based to non-hospital-based interventions.

Changing Musculoskeletal Extremity Imaging Utilization From 1994 Through 2013: A Medicare Beneficiary Perspective

The objective of our study was to assess temporal changes in the utilization of musculoskeletal extremity imaging in Medicare beneficiaries over a recent 20-year period (1994-2013). Medicare Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files from 1994 through 2013 were used to study changing utilization and utilization rates of the four most common musculoskeletal imaging modalities: radiography, MRI, CT, and ultrasound. Utilization rates (per 1000 beneficiaries) for all four musculoskeletal extremity imaging modalities increased over time: 43% (from 441.7 to 633.6) for radiography, 615% (5.4-38.6) for MRI, 758% (1.2-10.3) for CT, and 500% (1.8-10.8) for ultrasound. Radiologists were the most common billing specialty group for all modalities throughout the 20-year period, maintaining dominant market shares for MRI and CT (84% and 96% in 2013). In recent years, the second most common billing group was orthopedic surgery for radiography, MRI, and CT and podiatry for ultrasound. The physician office was the most common site of service for radiography, MRI, and ultrasound, whereas the hospital outpatient and inpatient settings were the most common sites for CT. In the Medicare population, the most common musculoskeletal extremity imaging modalities increased substantially in utilization over the 2-decade period from 1994 through 2013. Throughout that time, radiology remained the most common billing specialty, and the physician office and hospital outpatient settings remained the most common sites of service. These insights may have implications for radiology practice leaders in making decisions regarding capital infrastructure, workforce, and training investments to ensure the provision of optimal imaging services for extremity musculoskeletal care.

The Expanding Role of Advanced Practice Providers in Urologic Procedural Care

To understand the role of Advanced Practice Providers (APPs) in urologic procedural care and its change over time. As the population ages and the urologic workforce struggles to meet patient access demands, the role of APPs in the provision of all aspects of urologic care is increasing. However, little is currently known about their role in procedural care. Commonly performed urologic procedures were linked to Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes from 1994 to 2012. National Medicare Part B beneficiary claims frequency was identified using Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files. Trends were studied for APPs, urologists, and all other providers nationally across numerous procedures spanning complexity, acuity, and technical skill set requirements. Between 1994 and 2012, annual Medicare claims for urologic procedures by APPs increased dramatically. Cystoscopy increased from 24 to 1820 (+7483%), transrectal prostate biopsy from 17 to 834 (+4806%), complex Foley catheter placement from 471 to 2929 (+522%), urodynamics testing from 41 to 9358 (+22,727%), and renal ultrasound from 18 to 4500 (+24,900%) CONCLUSION: We found dramatic growth in the provision of urologic procedural care by APPs over the past 2 decades. These data reinforce the known expansion of the APP role in urology and support the timeliness of ongoing collaborative multidisciplinary educational efforts to address unmet needs in education, training, and guideline formation to maximize access to urologic procedural services.