Howa Yeung1, Marissa L Baranowski1, Robert A Swerlick1,2, Suephy C Chen1,2, Jennifer Hemingway3, Danny R Hughes3,4, Richard Duszak5. 1. Department of Dermatology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Division of Dermatology, Atlanta Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Decatur, Georgia. 3. Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute, Reston, Virginia. 4. School of Economics, Georgia Institute of Technology Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts, Atlanta. 5. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Abstract
Importance: Actinic keratosis is prevalent and has the potential to progress to keratinocyte carcinoma. Changes in the use and costs of actinic keratosis treatment are not well understood in the aging population. Objective: To evaluate trends in the use and costs of actinic keratosis destruction in Medicare patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: A billing claims analysis was performed of the Medicare Part B Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files and National Summary Data of premalignant skin lesion destructions performed from 2007 to 2015 among Medicare Part B fee-for-service beneficiaries. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean number of actinic keratosis lesions destroyed and associated treatment payments in 2015 US dollars estimated per 1000 Medicare Part B fee-for-service beneficiaries. Data analysis was performed from November 2017 to July 2018. Results: More than 35.6 million actinic keratosis lesions were treated in 2015, increasing from 29.7 million in 2007. Treated actinic keratosis lesions per 1000 beneficiaries increased from 917 in 2007 to 1051 in 2015, while mean inflation-adjusted payments per 1000 patients decreased from $11 749 to $10 942 owing to reimbursement cuts. The proportion of actinic keratosis lesions treated by independently billing nurse practitioners and physician assistants increased from 4.0% in 2007 to 13.5% in 2015. Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest that actinic keratosis imposes continuously increasing levels of treatment burden in the Medicare fee-for-service population. Reimbursement decreases have been used to control rising costs of actinic keratosis treatment. Critical research may be warranted to optimize access to actinic keratosis treatment and value for prevention of keratinocyte carcinoma.
Importance: Actinic keratosis is prevalent and has the potential to progress to keratinocyte carcinoma. Changes in the use and costs of actinic keratosis treatment are not well understood in the aging population. Objective: To evaluate trends in the use and costs of actinic keratosis destruction in Medicare patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: A billing claims analysis was performed of the Medicare Part B Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master Files and National Summary Data of premalignant skin lesion destructions performed from 2007 to 2015 among Medicare Part B fee-for-service beneficiaries. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean number of actinic keratosis lesions destroyed and associated treatment payments in 2015 US dollars estimated per 1000 Medicare Part B fee-for-service beneficiaries. Data analysis was performed from November 2017 to July 2018. Results: More than 35.6 million actinic keratosis lesions were treated in 2015, increasing from 29.7 million in 2007. Treated actinic keratosis lesions per 1000 beneficiaries increased from 917 in 2007 to 1051 in 2015, while mean inflation-adjusted payments per 1000 patients decreased from $11 749 to $10 942 owing to reimbursement cuts. The proportion of actinic keratosis lesions treated by independently billing nurse practitioners and physician assistants increased from 4.0% in 2007 to 13.5% in 2015. Conclusions and Relevance: This study's findings suggest that actinic keratosis imposes continuously increasing levels of treatment burden in the Medicare fee-for-service population. Reimbursement decreases have been used to control rising costs of actinic keratosis treatment. Critical research may be warranted to optimize access to actinic keratosis treatment and value for prevention of keratinocyte carcinoma.
Authors: Henry W Lim; Scott A B Collins; Jack S Resneck; Jean L Bolognia; Julie A Hodge; Thomas A Rohrer; Marta J Van Beek; David J Margolis; Arthur J Sober; Martin A Weinstock; David R Nerenz; Wendy Smith Begolka; Jose V Moyano Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Joanna L Walker; Julia A Siegel; Moniyka Sachar; Hyemin Pomerantz; Suephy C Chen; Susan M Swetter; Robert P Dellavalle; George P Stricklin; Abrar A Qureshi; John J DiGiovanna; Martin A Weinstock Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: Adewole S Adamson; Elizabeth A Suarez; Philip McDaniel; Paul A Leiphart; Alana Zeitany; Joslyn S Kirby Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: W G Philipp-Dormston; K Müller; B Novak; K Strömer; C Termeer; U Hammann; J W Glutsch; G Krähn-Senftleben; H Lübbert; M Koller; R M Szeimies Journal: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 6.166
Authors: G H Bernhard; R E Neale; P W Barnes; P J Neale; R G Zepp; S R Wilson; A L Andrady; A F Bais; R L McKenzie; P J Aucamp; P J Young; J B Liley; R M Lucas; S Yazar; L E Rhodes; S N Byrne; L M Hollestein; C M Olsen; A R Young; T M Robson; J F Bornman; M A K Jansen; S A Robinson; C L Ballaré; C E Williamson; K C Rose; A T Banaszak; D -P Häder; S Hylander; S -Å Wängberg; A T Austin; W -C Hou; N D Paul; S Madronich; B Sulzberger; K R Solomon; H Li; T Schikowski; J Longstreth; K K Pandey; A M Heikkilä; C C White Journal: Photochem Photobiol Sci Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Roy Chen; Jeffrey J Wargo; Amy Williams; Elizabeth Cates; Dan F Spandau; Christina Knisely; Jeffrey B Travers Journal: Lasers Surg Med Date: 2019-11-17 Impact factor: 4.025
Authors: Krittin J Supapannachart; Chase W Kwon; Sokol Tushe; Jodie L Guest; Suephy C Chen; Howa Yeung Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 2.732
Authors: Dan F Spandau; Roy Chen; Jeffrey J Wargo; Craig A Rohan; David Southern; Angela Zhang; Mathew Loesch; Jonathan Weyerbacher; Sunil S Tholpady; Davina A Lewis; Matthew Kuhar; Kenneth Y Tsai; Amber J Castellanos; Michael G Kemp; Michael Markey; Elizabeth Cates; Amy R Williams; Christina Knisely; Sabina Bashir; Ryan Gabbard; Robert Hoopes; Jeffrey B Travers Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Louisa Gordon; Catherine Olsen; David C Whiteman; Thomas M Elliott; Monika Janda; Adele Green Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 2.692