Literature DB >> 31985616

Impact of Physician Payments on Microvascular Breast Reconstruction: An All-Payer Claim Database Analysis.

Hina Panchal1, Meghana G Shamsunder1, Avraham Sheinin1, Clifford C Sheckter1, Nicholas L Berlin1, Jonas A Nelson1, Robert Allen1, David Rubin1, Jeffrey H Kozlow1, Evan Matros1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Rates of autologous breast reconstruction are stagnant compared with prosthetic techniques. Insufficient physician payment for microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction is one possible explanation. The payment difference between governmental and commercial payers creates a natural experiment to evaluate its impact on method of reconstruction. This study assessed the influence of physician payment differences for microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction and implants by insurance type on the likelihood of undergoing microsurgical reconstruction.
METHODS: The Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database was queried for women undergoing immediate autologous or implant breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2014. Univariate analyses compared demographic and clinical characteristics between different reconstructive approaches. Logistic regression explored the relative impact of insurance type and physician payments on breast reconstruction modality.
RESULTS: Of the women in this study, 82.7 percent had commercial and 17.3 percent had governmental insurance. Implants were performed in 80 percent of women, whereas 20 percent underwent microsurgical autologous reconstruction. Women with Medicaid versus commercial insurance were less likely to undergo microsurgical reconstruction (16.4 percent versus 20.3 percent; p = 0.063). Commercial insurance, older age, and obesity independently increased the odds of microsurgical reconstruction (p < 0.01). When comparing median physician payments, governmental payers reimbursed 78 percent and 63 percent less than commercial payers for microsurgical reconstruction ($1831 versus $8435) and implants ($1249 versus $3359, respectively). Stratified analysis demonstrated that as physician payment increased, the likelihood of undergoing microsurgical reconstruction increased, independent of insurance type (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Women with governmental insurance had lower odds of undergoing microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction compared with commercial payers. Regardless of payer, greater reimbursement for microsurgical reconstruction increased the likelihood of microsurgical reconstruction. Current microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction reimbursements may not be commensurate with physician effort when compared to prosthetic techniques. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, II.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31985616      PMCID: PMC7048410          DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000006453

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg        ISSN: 0032-1052            Impact factor:   5.169


  23 in total

1.  What is value in health care?

Authors:  Michael E Porter
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-12-08       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 2.  Physician response to fee changes with multiple payers.

Authors:  T G McGuire; M V Pauly
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 3.883

3.  Use of autologous and microsurgical breast reconstruction by U.S. plastic surgeons.

Authors:  Anita R Kulkarni; Erika Davis Sears; Dunya M Atisha; Amy K Alderman
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 4.730

4.  Quality of Life and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Breast Cancer Survivors: A Multicenter Comparison of Four Abdominally Based Autologous Reconstruction Methods.

Authors:  Sheina A Macadam; Toni Zhong; Katie Weichman; Michael Papsdorf; Peter A Lennox; Alexes Hazen; Evan Matros; Joseph Disa; Babak Mehrara; Andrea L Pusic
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 4.730

5.  A paradigm shift in U.S. Breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates.

Authors:  Claudia R Albornoz; Peter B Bach; Babak J Mehrara; Joseph J Disa; Andrea L Pusic; Colleen M McCarthy; Peter G Cordeiro; Evan Matros
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.730

6.  Racial disparities in postmastectomy breast reconstruction: National trends in utilization from 2005 to 2014.

Authors:  Sherise Epstein; Bao N Tran; Justin B Cohen; Samuel J Lin; Dhruv Singhal; Bernard T Lee
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-04-16       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of implants versus autologous perforator flaps using the BREAST-Q.

Authors:  Evan Matros; Claudia R Albornoz; Shantanu N Razdan; Babak J Mehrara; Sheina A Macadam; Teresa Ro; Colleen M McCarthy; Joseph J Disa; Peter G Cordeiro; Andrea L Pusic
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 4.730

8.  Trends in immediate breast reconstruction across insurance groups after enactment of breast cancer legislation.

Authors:  Rachel L Yang; Andrew S Newman; Ines C Lin; Caroline E Reinke; Giorgos C Karakousis; Brian J Czerniecki; Liza C Wu; Rachel R Kelz
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-04-12       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Race and Breast Cancer Reconstruction: Is There a Health Care Disparity?

Authors:  Ketan Sharma; David Grant; Rajiv Parikh; Terence Myckatyn
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 4.730

10.  A Cross-Sectional Study of Variations in Reimbursement for Breast Reconstruction: Is A Healthcare Disparity On the Horizon?

Authors:  Elizabeth B Odom; Alexandra C Schmidt; Terence M Myckatyn; Donald W Buck
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 1.539

View more
  1 in total

1.  Breaking Barriers to Breast Reconstruction among Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Patients at a Large Safety-net Hospital.

Authors:  Anna E Meade; Samantha M Cummins; Jordyn T Farewell; Sofia Duque; Sydney K Mulqueen; Ashleigh Chuah; Andrew Y Zhang
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open       Date:  2022-07-05
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.