Ricardo Jesus Martinez Garcia1, Will Lindquester2, Rajoo Dhangana3, Shantanu Warhadpande2, Nikhil Amesur2. 1. University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 3550 Terrace St, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States of America. 2. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), Department of Radiology, PUH Suite 200, 200 Lothrop Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States of America. 3. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), Department of Radiology, PUH Suite 200, 200 Lothrop Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, United States of America. Electronic address: rajdhangana@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to provide an update on trends in physician volume and payments for enteric tube placement and maintenance procedures by method, provider specialty, and practice setting amongst Medicare beneficiaries from 2010 to 2018. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Claims from the Medicare Part B Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master File (PSPSMF) for the years 2010 to 2018 were extracted using current procedural terminology (CPT) codes for gastrostomy and jejunostomy placement, as well as conversion of gastrostomy to gastrojejunostomy, fluoroscopy guided and non-image guided replacement. Total volumes and provider reimbursement were analyzed by provider specialty and practice setting. RESULTS: Volume of de novo placement of all enteric tubes decreased from 157,123 to 106,549 (-32.2%). While endoscopic placement decreased from 133,658 to 81,171 (-39.3%), the volume of fluoroscopic placement increased from 17,999 to 21,277 (18.2%). Fluoroscopic placement was largely performed by interventional radiology (IR) (91.7% in 2018). Surgical placement decreased from 5466 to 4101 (-25.0%). Volume of fluoroscopic replacement increased from 24,799 to 38,470 (55.1%), while non-image guided replacements decreased from 61,377 to 55,116 (-10.2%). Share of both fluoroscopic and non-image guided replacements by advanced practice providers (APPs) more than doubled over this time period. CONCLUSION: De novo placement of enteric tubes decreased from 2010 to 2018, likely related to increased awareness of the complications and limited benefits in scenarios such as end of life care. In contrast to the diminishing volume for gastroenterologists, there was increased participation by IR in both placement and maintenance procedures under fluoroscopic guidance. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Decreasing placement of enteric tubes suggests shifting attitudes and recommendations around end-of-life care. Increase in role by IR/APPs highlights the need for comprehensive care in these patients.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to provide an update on trends in physician volume and payments for enteric tube placement and maintenance procedures by method, provider specialty, and practice setting amongst Medicare beneficiaries from 2010 to 2018. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Claims from the Medicare Part B Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master File (PSPSMF) for the years 2010 to 2018 were extracted using current procedural terminology (CPT) codes for gastrostomy and jejunostomy placement, as well as conversion of gastrostomy to gastrojejunostomy, fluoroscopy guided and non-image guided replacement. Total volumes and provider reimbursement were analyzed by provider specialty and practice setting. RESULTS: Volume of de novo placement of all enteric tubes decreased from 157,123 to 106,549 (-32.2%). While endoscopic placement decreased from 133,658 to 81,171 (-39.3%), the volume of fluoroscopic placement increased from 17,999 to 21,277 (18.2%). Fluoroscopic placement was largely performed by interventional radiology (IR) (91.7% in 2018). Surgical placement decreased from 5466 to 4101 (-25.0%). Volume of fluoroscopic replacement increased from 24,799 to 38,470 (55.1%), while non-image guided replacements decreased from 61,377 to 55,116 (-10.2%). Share of both fluoroscopic and non-image guided replacements by advanced practice providers (APPs) more than doubled over this time period. CONCLUSION: De novo placement of enteric tubes decreased from 2010 to 2018, likely related to increased awareness of the complications and limited benefits in scenarios such as end of life care. In contrast to the diminishing volume for gastroenterologists, there was increased participation by IR in both placement and maintenance procedures under fluoroscopic guidance. SUMMARY STATEMENT: Decreasing placement of enteric tubes suggests shifting attitudes and recommendations around end-of-life care. Increase in role by IR/APPs highlights the need for comprehensive care in these patients.