Analysis of 20-Year Trends in Medicare Reimbursement for Reconstructive Microsurgery

Abstract

Background Microsurgery is being increasingly utilized across surgical specialties, including plastic surgery. Microsurgical techniques require greater time and financial investment compared with traditional methods. This study aimed to evaluate 20-year trends in Medicare reimbursement and utilization for commonly billed reconstructive microsurgery procedures from 2000 to 2019.

Methods Microsurgical procedures commonly billed by plastic surgeons were identified. Reimbursement data were extracted from The Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for each current procedural terminology (CPT) code. All monetary data were adjusted for inflation to 2019 U.S. dollars. The average annual and total percentage changes in reimbursement were calculated based on these adjusted trends. To assess utilization trends, CMS physician/supplier procedure summary files were queried for the number of procedures billed by plastic surgeons from 2010 to 2018.

Results After adjusting for inflation, the average reimbursement for all procedures decreased by 26.92% from 2000 to 2019. The greatest mean decrease was observed in CPT 20969 free osteocutaneous flaps with microvascular anastomosis (−36.93%). The smallest mean decrease was observed in repair of blood vessels with vein graft (−9.28%). None of the included procedures saw an increase in reimbursement rate over the study period. From 2000 to 2019, the adjusted reimbursement rate for all procedures decreased by an average of 1.35% annually. Meanwhile, the number of services billed to Medicare by plastic surgeons across the included CPT codes increased by 42.17% from 2010 to 2018.

Conclusion This is the first study evaluating 20-year trends in inflation-adjusted Medicare reimbursement and utilization in reconstructive microsurgery. Reimbursement for all included procedures decreased over 20% during the study period, while number of services increased. Increased consideration of these trends will be important for U.S. policymakers, hospitals, and surgeons to assure continued access and reconstructive options for patients.

Keywords

finance - health policy - insurance - Medicare - microsurgery - reimbursement

^* These authors contributed equally to this study.

Publication History

Received: 25 September 2020

Accepted: 13 January 2021

Article published online:
25 February 2021

• References

• 1 Congressional Budget Office, Congress of the United States. . The 2012 long-term budget outlook. Accessed June 7, 2020 at: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/06-05-Long-Term_Budget_Outlook.pdf
• 2 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015. Pub L No. 114–10, 129 Stat 87. Accessed April 16, 2015 at: https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ10/PLAW-114publ10.pdf
• 3 Haglin JM, Richter KR, Patel NP. Trends in Medicare reimbursement for neurosurgical procedures: 2000 to 2018. J Neurosurg 2019; 132 (02) 649-655
• 4 Carter Clement R, Bhat SB, Clement ME, Krieg JC. Medicare reimbursement and orthopedic surgery: past, present, and future. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2017; 10 (02) 224-232
• 5 Haglin JM, Eltorai AEM, Richter KR, Jogerst K, Daniels AH. Medicare reimbursement for general surgery procedures: 2000 to 2018. Ann Surg 2020; 271 (01) 17-22
• 6 Gupta N, Haglin JM, Marostica CW, Thornburg DA, Casey III WJ. Trends in Medicare reimbursement for reconstructive plastic surgery procedures: 2000 to 2019. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 146 (01) 1541-1551
• 7 Smoldt R, Cortese D, Landman N, Gans D. Medicare physician payment: why it's still a problem, and what to do now, health affairs blog. Accessed January 27, 2017 at: https://ramaonhealthcare.com/medicare-physician-payment-why-its-still-a-problem-and-what-to-do-now/
• 8 Mavrogenis AF, Markatos K, Saranteas T. et al. The history of microsurgery. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2019; 29 (02) 247-254
• 9 Yueh JH, Slavin SA, Adesiyun T. et al. Patient satisfaction in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: a comparative evaluation of DIEP, TRAM, latissimus flap, and implant techniques. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (06) 1585-1595
• 10 Engel H, Lin CH, Wei FC. Role of microsurgery in lower extremity reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (Suppl. 01) 228S-238S
• 11 Deleyiannis FWB, Porter AC. Economic factors affecting head and neck reconstructive microsurgery: the surgeons' and hospital's perspective. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 120 (01) 157-165
• 12 Momeni A, Kattan A, Lee GK. Is microsurgical head and neck reconstruction profitable?: analysis at an academic medical center. Ann Plast Surg 2012; 68 (04) 401-403
• 13 Smith BD, Chandler AR, Braswell A. et al. Prospective analysis of payment per hour in head and neck reconstruction: Fiscally feasible or futile?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 137 (03) 980-984
• 14 CMS. Physician fee schedule look-up tool. Accessed June 1, 2020 at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service108Payment/PFSLookup/index.html?redirect=/PFSLookup
• 15 US inflation calculator. Accessed June 1, 2020 at: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com
• 16 Investopedia. Compound annual growth rate—CAGR. Accessed June 1, 2020 at: http://investopedia.com/terms/c/cagr.asp
• 17 CMS Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary. . Accessed June 1, 2020 at: https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/Physician-Supplier-Procedure-Summary
• 18 Payatakes AH, Zagoreos NP, Fedorcik GG, Ruch DS, Levin LS. Current practice of microsurgery by members of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand. J Hand Surg Am 2007; 32 (04) 541-547
• 19 Odom EB, Schmidt AC, Myckatyn TM, Buck II DW. A cross-sectional study of variations in reimbursement for breast reconstruction: is a healthcare disparity on the horizon?. Ann Plast Surg 2018; 80 (03) 282-286
• 20 Sustainable Growth Rates & Conversion Factors. CMS. Accessed August 21, 2020 at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/SustainableGRatesConFact
• 21 Khansa I, Khansa L, Pearson GD, Jain SA. Effects of the Affordable Care Act on Payer Mix and Physician Reimbursement in Hand Surgery. J Hand Surg Am 2018; 43 (06) 511-515
• 22 Obama B. United States health care reform: progress to date and next steps. JAMA 2016; 316 (05) 525-532
• 23 Bidgood R, Le D. BPCI Advanced (BPCI-A) participation up 58% for Model Year 3. Accessed August 20, 2020 at: https://www.ecgmc.com/thought-leadership/blog/bpci-advanced-bpci-a-participation-up-58-for-model-year-3-my3
• 24 Fetter RB, Freeman JL. Diagnosis related groups: product line management within hospitals. Acad Manage Rev 1986; 11 (01) 41-54
• 25 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Oncology care model. Accessed December 22, 2020 at: http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/Oncology-Care/
• 26 Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ. et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. Breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 131 (01) 15-23
• 27 Momeni A, Kim RY, Kattan A, Tennefoss J, Lee TH, Lee GK. The effect of preoperative radiotherapy on complication rate after microsurgical head and neck reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2011; 64 (11) 1454-1459
• 28 Yun JH, Diaz R, Orman AG. Breast reconstruction and radiation therapy. Cancer Contr 2018; 25 (01) 1073274818795489
• 29 Sheckter CC, Razdan SN, Disa JJ, Mehrara BJ, Matros E. Conceptual considerations for payment bundling in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 141 (02) 294-300
• 30 Spinks T, Guzman A, Beadle BM. et al. Development and feasibility of bundled payments for the multidisciplinary treatment of head and neck cancer: a pilot program. J Oncol Pract 2018; 14 (02) e103-e112
• 31 Tom MC, Ross RB, Koyfman SA. et al. Clinical factors associated with cost in head and neck cancer: Implications for a bundled payment model. J Oncol Pract 2019; 15 (06) e560-e567
• 32 Ibrahim SA, Kim H, McConnell KJ. The CMS comprehensive care model and racial disparity in joint replacement. JAMA 2016; 316 (12) 1258-1259
• 33 Offodile II AC, Mehtsun W, Stimson CJ, Aloia T. An overview of bundled payments for surgical oncologists: origins, progress to date, terminology and future directions. Ann Surg Oncol 2019; 26 (01) 3-7
• 34 Krueger CA, Yayac M, Vannello C, Wilsman J, Austin MS, Courtney PM. Are we at the bottom? BPCI programs now disincentivize providers who maintain quality despite caring for increasingly complex patients. J Arthroplasty 2020; 36 (01) 13-18
• 35 Asaad M, Xu Y, Chu CK, Shih YT, Mericli AF. The impact of co-surgeons on complication rates and healthcare cost in patients undergoing microsurgical breast reconstruction: analysis of 8680 patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2020; 184 (02) 345-356
• 36 Haddock NT, Kayfan S, Pezeshk RA, Teotia SS. Co-surgeons in breast reconstructive microsurgery: what do they bring to the table?. Microsurgery 2018; 38 (01) 14-20
• 37 Razdan SN, Panchal HJ, Hespe GE. et al. The impact of the cosurgeon model on bilateral autologous breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg 2017; 33 (09) 624-629
• 38 Weichman KE, Lam G, Wilson SC. et al. The impact of two operating surgeons on microsurgical breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139 (02) 277-284
• 39 Lee ZH, Alfonso AR, Ramly ET. et al. The latest evolution in virtual surgical planning: customized reconstruction plates in free fibula flap mandibular reconstruction. [published online ahead of print. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 146 (04) 872-879
• 40 Rose GA. From SGR to MACRA to MIPS: what you should know. Accessed August 18, 2020 at: https://www.asecho.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Rose-Echo-2016-MACRA-article.pdf