Literature DB >> 32652115

Defining the 90-day cost structure of lower extremity revascularization for alternative payment model assessment.

Yazan M Duwayri1, Francesco A Aiello2, Margaret C Tracci3, Susan Nedza4, Patrick C Ryan5, John G Adams6, William P Shutze7, Ying Wei Lum8, Karen Woo9.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The U.S. healthcare system is undergoing a broad transformation from the traditional fee-for-service model to value-based payments. The changes introduced by the Medicare Quality Payment Program, including the establishment of Alternative Payment Models, ensure that the practice of vascular surgery is likely to face significant reimbursement changes as payments transition to favor these models. The Society for Vascular Surgery Alternative Payment Model taskforce was formed to explore the opportunities to develop a physician-focused payment model that will allow vascular surgeons to continue to deliver the complex care required for peripheral arterial disease (PAD).
METHODS: A financial analysis was performed based on Medicare beneficiaries who had undergone qualifying index procedures during fiscal year 2016 through the third quarter of 2017. Index procedures were defined using a list of Healthcare Common Procedural Coding (HCPC) procedure codes that represent open and endovascular PAD interventions. Inpatient procedures were mapped to three diagnosis-related group (DRG) families consistent with PAD conditions: other vascular procedures (codes, 252-254), aortic and heart assist procedures (codes, 268, 269), and other major vascular procedures (codes, 270-272). Patients undergoing outpatient or office-based procedures were included if the claims data were inclusive of the HCPC procedure codes. Emergent procedures, patients with end-stage renal disease, and patients undergoing interventions within the 30 days preceding the index procedure were excluded. The analysis included usage of postacute care services (PACS) and 90-day postdischarge events (PDEs). PACS are defined as rehabilitation, skilled nursing facility, and home health services. PDEs included emergency department visits, observation stays, inpatient readmissions, and reinterventions.
RESULTS: A total of 123,180 cases were included. Of these 123,180 cases, 82% had been performed in the outpatient setting. The Medicare expenditures for all periprocedural services provided at the index procedure (ie, professional, technical, and facility fees) were higher in the inpatient setting, with an average reimbursement per index case of $18,755, $34,600, and $25,245 for DRG codes 252 to 254, DRG codes 268 and 269, and DRG codes 270 to 272, respectively. Outpatient facility interventions had an average reimbursement of $11,458, and office-based index procedures had costs of $11,533. PACS were more commonly used after inpatient index procedures. In the inpatient setting, PACS usage and reimbursement were 58.6% ($5338), 57.2% ($4192), and 55.9% ($5275) for DRG codes 252 to 254, DRG codes 268 and 269, and DRG codes 270 to 272, respectively. Outpatient facility cases required PACS for 13.7% of cases (average cost, $1352), and office-based procedures required PACS in 15% of cases (average cost, $1467). The 90-day PDEs were frequent across all sites of service (range, 38.9%-50.2%) and carried significant costs. Readmission was associated with the highest average PDE expenditure (range, $13,950-$18.934). The average readmission Medicare reimbursement exceeded that of the index procedures performed in the outpatient setting.
CONCLUSIONS: The cost of PAD interventions extends beyond the index procedure and includes relevant spending during the long postoperative period. Despite the analysis challenges related to the breadth of vascular procedures and the site of service variability, the data identified potential cost-saving opportunities in the management of costly PDEs. Because of the vulnerability of the PAD patient population, alternative payment modeling using a bundled value-based approach will require reallocation of resources to provide longitudinal patient care extending beyond the initial intervention.
Copyright © 2020 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Alternative models for payment; Bundled payment; Peripheral arterial disease; Readmission

Year:  2020        PMID: 32652115      PMCID: PMC8189630          DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2020.06.050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vasc Surg        ISSN: 0741-5214            Impact factor:   4.268


  21 in total

1.  Characteristics of high-cost inpatients with peripheral artery disease.

Authors:  Mark Rockley; Daniel Kobewka; Elizabeth Kunkel; Sudhir Nagpal; Daniel I McIsaac; Kednapa Thavorn; Alan Forster
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2020-01-21       Impact factor: 4.268

2.  A systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors for and incidence of 30-day readmission after revascularization for peripheral artery disease.

Authors:  Samuel L Smith; Evan O Matthews; Joseph V Moxon; Jonathan Golledge
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2019-09       Impact factor: 4.268

3.  Medicare risk-adjusted outcomes in elective major vascular surgery.

Authors:  Donald E Fry; Susan M Nedza; Michael Pine; Agnes M Reband; Chun-Jung Huang; Gregory Pine
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2018-06-22       Impact factor: 3.982

Review 4.  Economic analysis of endovascular interventions for femoropopliteal arterial disease: a systematic review and budget impact model for the United States and Germany.

Authors:  Jan B Pietzsch; Benjamin P Geisler; Abigail M Garner; Thomas Zeller; Michael R Jaff
Journal:  Catheter Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2014-05-27       Impact factor: 2.692

5.  Trends in settings for peripheral vascular intervention and the effect of changes in the outpatient prospective payment system.

Authors:  W Schuyler Jones; Xiaojuan Mi; Laura G Qualls; Sreekanth Vemulapalli; Eric D Peterson; Manesh R Patel; Lesley H Curtis
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2015-03-10       Impact factor: 24.094

6.  Evaluating Quality Metrics and Cost After Discharge: A Population-based Cohort Study of Value in Health Care Following Elective Major Vascular Surgery.

Authors:  Charles de Mestral; Konrad Salata; Mohamad A Hussain; Ahmed Kayssi; Mohammed Al-Omran; Graham Roche-Nagle
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 12.969

7.  Comparison of risk factors for length of stay and readmission following lower extremity bypass surgery.

Authors:  Scott M Damrauer; Ann C Gaffey; Ann DeBord Smith; Ronald M Fairman; Louis L Nguyen
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 4.268

8.  Medicare Program; End-Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System, Payment for Renal Dialysis Services Furnished to Individuals With Acute Kidney Injury, End-Stage Renal Disease Quality Incentive Program, Durable Medical Equipment, Prosthetics, Orthotics and Supplies (DMEPOS) Competitive Bidding Program (CBP) and Fee Schedule Amounts, and Technical Amendments To Correct Existing Regulations Related to the CBP for Certain DMEPOS. Final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2018-11-14

9.  Short- and long-term readmission rates after infrainguinal bypass in a safety net hospital are higher than expected.

Authors:  Brianna M Krafcik; Sevan Komshian; Kimberly Lu; Lauren Roberts; Alik Farber; Jeffrey A Kalish; Denis Rybin; Jeffrey J Siracuse
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2017-09-29       Impact factor: 4.268

10.  One-year costs in patients with a history of or at risk for atherothrombosis in the United States.

Authors:  Elizabeth M Mahoney; Kaijun Wang; David J Cohen; Alan T Hirsch; Mark J Alberts; Kim Eagle; Frederique Mosse; Joseph D Jackson; P Gabriel Steg; Deepak L Bhatt
Journal:  Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes       Date:  2008-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.