BACKGROUND: Despite growing demand for breast reconstruction, financial disincentives to perform breast reconstruction in patients with government-sponsored insurance plans may lead to longer wait times and decreased access to care. We identify the variation in reimbursement for implant and autologous reconstruction as a step toward understanding these financial implications, to develop safeguards to minimize effects on access to care. METHODS: Billing data were collected over a 10-year period for patients undergoing implant-based (19357) or free-flap (19364) breast reconstruction. Patients were placed into cohorts according to insurance type-Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance, and these were directly compared. RESULTS: A total of 2691 women underwent breast reconstruction between 2003 and 2013; 71.2% had private insurance, 13.3% had Medicaid, and 14.49% had Medicare. For implant-based reconstructions, the average reimbursement of total charges was 16.3% for Medicaid, 28.3% for Medicare, and 67.2% for private insurance. For autologous reconstruction, average reimbursement was 12.37% for Medicaid, 22.9% for Medicare, and 35.35% for private insurance. Hourly reimbursement estimates for Medicaid patients undergoing autologous reconstruction were lowest. The highest hourly reimbursement estimate was for privately insured patients undergoing implant-based reconstruction. Over time, reimbursement for autologous reconstruction has declined significantly for all payor types, whereas implant-based reimbursement disparities are narrowing. CONCLUSIONS: We found that wide variations in reimbursement for breast reconstruction procedures exist and may preclude some surgeons from offering certain reconstructive options to a subset of patients. Understanding these discrepancies is a key first step in minimizing a potential care delivery disparity for this patient population.
BACKGROUND: Despite growing demand for breast reconstruction, financial disincentives to perform breast reconstruction in patients with government-sponsored insurance plans may lead to longer wait times and decreased access to care. We identify the variation in reimbursement for implant and autologous reconstruction as a step toward understanding these financial implications, to develop safeguards to minimize effects on access to care. METHODS: Billing data were collected over a 10-year period for patients undergoing implant-based (19357) or free-flap (19364) breast reconstruction. Patients were placed into cohorts according to insurance type-Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance, and these were directly compared. RESULTS: A total of 2691 women underwent breast reconstruction between 2003 and 2013; 71.2% had private insurance, 13.3% had Medicaid, and 14.49% had Medicare. For implant-based reconstructions, the average reimbursement of total charges was 16.3% for Medicaid, 28.3% for Medicare, and 67.2% for private insurance. For autologous reconstruction, average reimbursement was 12.37% for Medicaid, 22.9% for Medicare, and 35.35% for private insurance. Hourly reimbursement estimates for Medicaid patients undergoing autologous reconstruction were lowest. The highest hourly reimbursement estimate was for privately insured patients undergoing implant-based reconstruction. Over time, reimbursement for autologous reconstruction has declined significantly for all payor types, whereas implant-based reimbursement disparities are narrowing. CONCLUSIONS: We found that wide variations in reimbursement for breast reconstruction procedures exist and may preclude some surgeons from offering certain reconstructive options to a subset of patients. Understanding these discrepancies is a key first step in minimizing a potential care delivery disparity for this patient population.
Authors: Caprice K Christian; Joyce Niland; Stephen B Edge; Rebecca A Ottesen; Melissa E Hughes; Richard Theriault; John Wilson; Charles A Hergrueter; Jane C Weeks Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Chang-Yeon Kim; Daniel H Wiznia; Yuexin Wang; Ameya V Save; Nidharshan S Anandasivam; Carrie R Swigart; Richard R Pelker Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2016-02-20 Impact factor: 2.230
Authors: Claudia R Albornoz; Peter G Cordeiro; Babak J Mehrara; Andrea L Pusic; Colleen M McCarthy; Joseph J Disa; Evan Matros Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Claudia R Albornoz; Wess A Cohen; Shantanu N Razdan; Babak J Mehrara; Colleen M McCarthy; Joseph J Disa; Joseph H Dayan; Andrea L Pusic; Peter G Cordeiro; Evan Matros Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Ian C Sando; Kevin C Chung; Kelley M Kidwell; Jeffrey H Kozlow; Sunitha Malay; Adeyiza O Momoh Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Yassir Eltahir; Lisanne L C H Werners; Marieke M Dreise; Ingeborg A Zeijlmans van Emmichoven; Paul M N Werker; Geertruida H de Bock Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Amanda R Sergesketter; Samantha M Thomas; Whitney O Lane; Jonah P Orr; Ronnie L Shammas; Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Rachel A Greenup; Scott T Hollenbeck Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Vivian J Hu; Sean P McCleary; Carolyn P Smullin; Ricardo Rosales Morales; Andrew L Da Lio Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2022-04-18
Authors: Hina Panchal; Meghana G Shamsunder; Avraham Sheinin; Clifford C Sheckter; Nicholas L Berlin; Jonas A Nelson; Robert Allen; David Rubin; Jeffrey H Kozlow; Evan Matros Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 5.169