Siddarth Rathi1, Chris A Andrews2, David S Greenfield3, Joshua D Stein4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York. 2. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Center for Eye Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida. 4. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Center for Eye Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: jdstein@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To characterize the use of laser and incisional glaucoma surgeries among Medicare beneficiaries from 2008 through 2016 and to compare the use of these surgeries by glaucoma subspecialists versus nonsubspecialists. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries (n = 1 468 035) undergoing ≥1 laser or incisional glaucoma surgery procedure during 2008 through 2016. METHODS: Claims data from a 20% sample of enrollees in fee-for-service Medicare throughout the United States were analyzed to identify all laser and incisional glaucoma surgeries performed from 2008 through 2016. We assessed use of traditional incisional glaucoma surgery techniques (trabeculectomy and glaucoma drainage implant [GDI] procedure) and microinvasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS). Enrollee and procedure counts were multiplied by 5 to estimate use throughout all of Medicare. Linear regression was used to compare trends in use of glaucoma surgeries between ophthalmologists who could be characterized as glaucoma subspecialists versus nonsubspecialists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers of laser and incisional glaucoma surgeries performed overall and stratified by glaucoma subspecialist status. RESULTS: The number of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing any glaucoma therapeutic procedure increased by 10.6%, from 218 375 in 2008 to 241 565 in 2016. The total number of traditional incisional glaucoma surgeries decreased by 11.7%, from 37 225 to 32 885 (P = 0.02). The total number of MIGS procedures increased by 426% from 13 705 in 2012 (the first year MIGS codes were available) to 58 345 in 2016 (P = 0.001). Throughout the study period, glaucoma subspecialists performed most of the trabeculectomies (76.7% in 2008, 83.1% in 2016) and GDI procedures (77.7% in 2008, 80.6% in 2016). Many MIGS procedures were performed by nonsubspecialists. The proportions of endocyclophotocoagulations, iStent (Glaukos; San Clemente, CA) insertions, goniotomies, and canaloplasties performed by glaucoma subspecialists in 2016 were 22.0%, 25.2%, 56.9%, and 62.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: From 2008 through 2016, a large shift in practice from traditional incisional glaucoma surgeries to MIGS procedures was observed. Although glaucoma subspecialists continue to perform most traditional incisional glaucoma surgeries, many MIGS procedures are performed by nonsubspecialists. These results highlight the importance of training residents in performing MIGS procedures and managing these patients perioperatively. Future studies should explore the impact of this shift in care on outcomes and costs.
PURPOSE: To characterize the use of laser and incisional glaucoma surgeries among Medicare beneficiaries from 2008 through 2016 and to compare the use of these surgeries by glaucoma subspecialists versus nonsubspecialists. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries (n = 1 468 035) undergoing ≥1 laser or incisional glaucoma surgery procedure during 2008 through 2016. METHODS: Claims data from a 20% sample of enrollees in fee-for-service Medicare throughout the United States were analyzed to identify all laser and incisional glaucoma surgeries performed from 2008 through 2016. We assessed use of traditional incisional glaucoma surgery techniques (trabeculectomy and glaucoma drainage implant [GDI] procedure) and microinvasive glaucoma surgery (MIGS). Enrollee and procedure counts were multiplied by 5 to estimate use throughout all of Medicare. Linear regression was used to compare trends in use of glaucoma surgeries between ophthalmologists who could be characterized as glaucoma subspecialists versus nonsubspecialists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers of laser and incisional glaucoma surgeries performed overall and stratified by glaucoma subspecialist status. RESULTS: The number of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing any glaucoma therapeutic procedure increased by 10.6%, from 218 375 in 2008 to 241 565 in 2016. The total number of traditional incisional glaucoma surgeries decreased by 11.7%, from 37 225 to 32 885 (P = 0.02). The total number of MIGS procedures increased by 426% from 13 705 in 2012 (the first year MIGS codes were available) to 58 345 in 2016 (P = 0.001). Throughout the study period, glaucoma subspecialists performed most of the trabeculectomies (76.7% in 2008, 83.1% in 2016) and GDI procedures (77.7% in 2008, 80.6% in 2016). Many MIGS procedures were performed by nonsubspecialists. The proportions of endocyclophotocoagulations, iStent (Glaukos; San Clemente, CA) insertions, goniotomies, and canaloplasties performed by glaucoma subspecialists in 2016 were 22.0%, 25.2%, 56.9%, and 62.8%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: From 2008 through 2016, a large shift in practice from traditional incisional glaucoma surgeries to MIGS procedures was observed. Although glaucoma subspecialists continue to perform most traditional incisional glaucoma surgeries, many MIGS procedures are performed by nonsubspecialists. These results highlight the importance of training residents in performing MIGS procedures and managing these patients perioperatively. Future studies should explore the impact of this shift in care on outcomes and costs.
Authors: Allen M Fremont; Paul P Lee; Carol M Mangione; Kanika Kapur; John L Adams; Steven L Wickstrom; José J Escarce Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2003-06
Authors: Anna M Tan; Muthuraman Chockalingam; Maria C Aquino; Zena I-L Lim; Jovina L-S See; Paul Tk Chew Journal: Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: Paula Anne Newman-Casey; Maria A Woodward; Leslie M Niziol; Paul P Lee; Lindsey B De Lott Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Colin I Clement; George Kampougeris; Faisal Ahmed; M Francesca Cordeiro; Philip A Bloom Journal: Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2013-01-24 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: L Jay Katz; William C Steinmann; Azad Kabir; Jeanne Molineaux; Sheryl S Wizov; George Marcellino Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Maria Cecilia D Aquino; Keith Barton; Anna Marie W T Tan; Chelvin Sng; Xiang Li; Seng Chee Loon; Paul T K Chew Journal: Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2014-06-21 Impact factor: 4.207
Authors: Yasmin F K Islam; Elizabeth A Vanner; Syed G Khurshid; Harry W Flynn; David S Greenfield Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2022-06-02 Impact factor: 2.290
Authors: Hasan Ul Banna; Ahmed Zanabli; Brian McMillan; Maria Lehmann; Sumeet Gupta; Michael Gerbo; Joel Palko Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-02-15 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Mark J Gallardo; Mark F Pyfer; Steven D Vold; Steven R Sarkisian; Anita Campbell; Inder Paul Singh; Brian Flowers; Kavita Dhamdhere Journal: Clin Ophthalmol Date: 2022-04-21