Search

Background: Medicare (MCR) reimbursement for arthroplasty procedures has been declining, but little has been reported on Medicaid (MCD) reimbursement. We sought to determine MCD reimbursement rates using state MCD data for nine arthroplasty procedure codes and compare them to MCR rates., Methods: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services physician fee schedule was used to collect MCR reimbursement rates, and state MCD fee schedules were accessed to collect MCD rates for nine procedures encompassing primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty surgery. State MCR and MCD rates were compared to determine the mean dollar difference and dollar difference per relative value unit. A cost of living adjustment was performed using the Medicare Wage Index for each state. Coefficients of variation were calculated for each state to determine overall variability between the two systems., Results: The mean reimbursement rates for MCD were lower for eight of the nine codes used in the study. Medicaid reimbursed physicians an average of 11.3% less overall and 23.1% less when adjusted for cost of living. The amount of variability in the MCR rates was low with a consistent coefficient of variation of 0.06, but was higher in the MCD rates with a range of 0.26 to 0.29 in the unadjusted rates and 0.34 to 0.37 in the adjusted rates. There was a mean $6.73 decreased reimbursement per relative value unit for MCD procedures., Conclusions: For the most common arthroplasty procedures, MCD reimbursed physicians less than MCR on average. MCD also demonstrated increased variability when compared to MCR rates between states., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Background: Alternative payment models (APMs) are methods through which insurers reimburse health care providers and are widely used to improve the quality and value of health care. While there is a growing movement to utilize APMs for substance use disorder (SUD) treatment services, they have rarely included SUD prevention strategies. Challenges to using APMs for SUD prevention include underdeveloped program outcome measures, inadequate SUD prevention funding, and lack of clarity regarding what prevention strategies might fit within the scope of APMs., Methods: In November 2023, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), through a contract with Westat, convened an expert panel to refine a preliminary conceptual framework developed for utilizing APMs for SUD prevention and to identify strategies to encourage their adoption., Results: The conceptual framework agreed upon by the panel provides expert consensus on how APMs could finance a variety of prevention programs across diverse populations and settings. Additional efforts are needed to accelerate the support for and adoption of APMs for SUD prevention, and the principles of health equity and community engagement should underpin these efforts. Opportunities to increase the use of APMs for SUD prevention include educating key groups, expanding and promoting the SUD prevention workforce, establishing funding for pilot studies, identifying evidence-based core components of SUD prevention, analyzing the cost effectiveness of APMs for SUD prevention, and aligning funding across federal agencies., Conclusion: Given that the use of APMs for SUD prevention is a new practice, additional research, education, and resources are needed. The conceptual framework and strategies generated by the expert panel offer a path for future research. SUD health care stakeholders should consider ways that SUD prevention can be effectively and equitably implemented within APMs., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: This study was approved by the Westat Institutional Review Board (IRB). Consent for publication: Consent for publication has been obtained. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2025. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Solidarity-based healthcare systems are being challenged by the incremental costs of new and expensive medicines for cancer and rare diseases. To regulate reimbursement of such drugs, the Dutch government introduced a policy instrument known as the Coverage Lock (CL) in 2015. Little is known about the public opinion regarding such policy instruments and their consequences, i.e., reimbursement of some, but not all, expensive medicines. We aimed to identify the preferences of Dutch citizens regarding the reimbursement of expensive medicines, and to investigate the views of the public on the use of the CL as a healthcare policy instrument and their input for improvement., Methods: Web-based survey of a representative sample of 1999 Dutch citizens aged 18 years and older (panel of research company Kantar Public). Potential respondents were approached via e-mail. Several policy measures, real-life cases and statements related to the CL were presented in the survey to respondents. Their responses were analysed by tabulating descriptive statistics (proportions and percentages)., Results: 1179 individuals (response rate 59%) filled in the questionnaire. Although a majority considered the CL policy unjustified, they preferred it to the alternative policy measures that were presented. In four real-life case descriptions of patients in need of expensive medicines, respondents most often indicated effectiveness, lack of availability of alternative treatment and improved quality of life due to treatment as reasons for a positive reimbursement decision. An unfavourable cost-benefit ratio was their main reason to be against reimbursement. Some argued that withholding reimbursement was a way of informing manufacturers that extremely high prices are unacceptable., Conclusion: There is public support for patients in need of expensive medicine. Many respondents supported the CL as a reimbursement policy. However, there is a wish to optimize the interpretation of the assessment criteria and the weight these are attributed in decision making about reimbursement of expensive innovative medicine for patients., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: WLvdP is a member of the scientific advisory board for SMA Europe; provided ad hoc consultancy for Argenx BVBA, Biogen, Roche, Scholar Rock and Novartis genetherapies (fees all paid to employer); is the local PI for SMA trials; and received research support from the Prinses Beatrix Spierfonds, Vriendenloterij, Stichting Spieren voor Spieren and the European Union (Horizon 2020). The other authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2025 Scheijmans et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: This study explores the influence of Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRG) payment reform on hospital cost control and offers pertinent cost management strategies for public hospitals. It situates the research by elucidating the significance of the DRG payment method and comparing its advantages and drawbacks with the traditional 'pay per project' model., Objective: The primary aim is to assess the impact of DRG payment reform on hospital cost control and propose effective cost management strategies for public hospitals. The objective is to provide insights into DRG payment implications and attempt practical recommendations for its implementation in the public healthcare sector., Methods: Employing a comprehensive approach, the study analyzes DRG payment, delineates advantages and drawbacks, and proposes cost management strategies. Methods include staff training, an information management platform, disease analysis, and optimized cost accounting. The study highlights the potential for improved medical diagnosis and treatment through industry-finance integration., Results: Findings reveal advantages and limitations of DRG payment, emphasizing strategies for optimizing hospital operations. Enhanced medical diagnosis and treatment procedures through industry-finance integration contribute to overall cost control effectiveness., Conclusion: The study serves as a practical guide for implementing DRG payment reforms, offering valuable insights for policymakers and healthcare professionals in navigating the complexities of cost control in public healthcare.

Background: Medicare reimbursement rates are essential knowledge for gender-affirming plastic surgeons. The goal of this project was to examine trends in Medicare reimbursement rates for gender-affirming plastic surgery procedures from 2007 to 2020., Methods: Changes in reimbursement rates were measured for 35 commonly used gender-affirming procedure CPT codes from 2007 to 2020 adjusted for inflation to the 2020 US dollar value. The Unadjusted Percent Change in Consumer Price Index (CPI) was calculated using data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Reimbursement rates were adjusted for inflation using the CPI for each year. Student t test was utilized for mean comparisons., Results: Mean percent change in reimbursement rates was +16.01% while the percent change in CPI was +27.45%. Comparison between rate change of inflation versus rate change in adjusted medical reimbursement was significantly higher in the inflation group ( P < 0.0001). Inflation adjustments for the Compound Annual Growth Rate was negative (-0.76%). The adjusted total percent change was also calculated at an average of -8.97%., Conclusions: This is the first study evaluating trends in Medicare reimbursement rates for commonly selected gender-affirming procedures in the United States. After adjusting for inflation, Medicare reimbursement rates for all gender-affirming surgeries analyzed declined from the years 2007 to 2020 compared to expected inflation base. Increased consideration of these trends will be important for US policymakers, hospitals, and surgeons to ensure ease of access to gender-affirming care for transgender individuals., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Because of changing rules and regulations in insurance and reimbursement, critical care physicians must adapt their billing practices to meet the challenges of these complex changes. Reimbursement for critical care billing varies substantially across the country, and staffing models must consider this heterogeneity. This article summarizes the current state of critical care billing and addresses the requirements to generate a critical care bill and the potential circumstances that may result in a denial of payment., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The US healthcare sector is undergoing significant payment reforms, leading to the emergence of Alternative Payment Models (APMs) aimed at improving clinical outcomes and patient experiences while reducing costs. This scoping review provides an overview of the involvement of anesthesiologists in APMs as found in published literature. It specifically aims to categorize and understand the breadth and depth of their participation, revolving around 3 main axes or "Aims": (1) shaping APMs through design and implementation, (2) gauging the value and quality of care provided by anesthesiologists within these models, and (3) enhancing nonclinical abilities of anesthesiologists for promoting more value in care. To map out the existing literature, a comprehensive search of relevant electronic databases was conducted, yielding a total of 2173 articles, of which 24 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 21 prospective or retrospective cohort studies, 2 surveys, and 1 case-control cohort study. Eleven publications (45%) discussed value-based, bundled, or episode-based payments, whereas the rest discussed non-payment-based models, such as Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (7 articles, 29%), Perioperative Surgical Home (4 articles, 17%), or other models (3 articles, 13%).The review identified key themes related to each aim. The most prominent themes for aim 1 included protocol standardization (16 articles, 67%), design and implementation leadership (8 articles, 33%), multidisciplinary collaboration (7 articles, 29%), and role expansion (5 articles, 21%). For aim 2, the common themes were Process-Based & Patient-Centric Metrics (1 article, 4%), Shared Accountability (3 articles, 13%), and Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC) (3 articles, 13%). Furthermore, we identified a wide range of quality metrics, spanning 8 domains that were used in these studies to evaluate anesthesiologists' performance. For aim 3, the main extracted themes included Education on Healthcare Transformation and Policies (3 articles, 13%), Exploring Collaborative Leadership Skills (5 articles, 21%), and Embracing Advanced Analytics and Data Transparency (4 articles, 17%).Findings revealed the pivotal role of anesthesiologists in the design, implementation, and refinement of these emerging delivery and payment models. Our results highlight that while payment models are shifting toward value, patient-centered metrics have yet to be widely accepted for use in measuring quality and affecting payment for anesthesiologists. Gaps remain in understanding how anesthesiologists assess their direct impact and strategies for enhancing the sustainability of anesthesia practices. This review underscores the need for future research contributing to the successful adaptation of clinical practices in this new era of healthcare delivery., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 International Anesthesia Research Society.)

Value-based reimbursement programmes have become increasingly common in attempts to bend the cost curve of healthcare without negative effects on quality. The aim of this study was to analyse the effect of introducing a value-based reimbursement programme on the cost to third-party payer. We performed a retrospective observational study with a before and after design based on the introduction of a value-based reimbursement programme in Sweden. We analysed patient level cost data from inpatient and outpatient care of patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery, 2006-2015. The average 1-year episode cost decreased 11 percent during the first 2 years with the value-based reimbursement. The number of patients increased 22 percent during the same period, causing the total cost to increase by 8 percent. The value to third-party payer increased after the introduction of the value-based reimbursement since more patients were treated and attained a positive outcome. The decreased episode cost may be a result of better coordinated post-discharge care. Another explanation could be that costs previously borne by the third-party payer are shifted onto the healthcare providers. Thus, it is crucial that providers find a sustainable way of delivering care in the long term to retain value. Interlinking patient records facilitates a holistic perspective among healthcare providers raising awareness of health care utilization through the whole care chain., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Eriksson, Tropp, Wiréhn and Levin.)

End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) accounts for a sizable proportion of Medicare spending. Peritoneal dialysis remains an underutilized treatment modality for ESKD despite its quality of life and cost-saving benefits. Medicare policy on reimbursements and patient eligibility for dialysis coverage has been amended numerous times since its inception in 1972. Over the last two decades, Medicare policy on ESKD reimbursements has evolved from a primarily fee-for-service model to a prospective payment system, and within the past few years, it has begun including more experimental payment structures. While prior work has explored the evolution of Medicare's ESKD policy as a whole, we specifically outline the impact of Medicare policy changes on peritoneal dialysis reimbursement rates, uptake by physicians and dialysis facilities, and accessibility to patients. This narrative review offers historical insights, an overview of modern ESKD policy, actionable strategies, and policy opportunities to increase the accessibility of this treatment modality., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Hybrid DRG is a new form of remuneration in the German healthcare system. Selected OPS codes apply to all sectors, which, in combination with a specified ICD, result in a flat fee, regardless of whether the patient is managed as an outpatient or inpatient. This new form of billing has a huge impact on hospitals. The revenue situation is significantly worse than under the previous form of billing and requires adjustments at the locations. If these changes are not made, supply would be demonstrably deficient. Therefore, increased outsourcing to an outpatient setting is necessary. The advantages are the efficient use of staff and a structured selection of patients. Ideally, outpatient surgical units have an advantage here, but outpatient paths can also be created via separate areas in the central operating theatre. Using the example of inguinal hernia, over 50% of patients can be treated on an outpatient basis if selection is optimised. The disadvantage of this form of billing is the necessary financial reserve for innovations, training and the use of expensive operational aids. With the addition of incisional hernias to the hybrid catalogue in 2025, future care will become more cost-oriented., Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) price transparency rule tries to facilitate cost-conscious decision-making. For surgical services, such as pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), factors mediating transparency and real-world reimbursement are not well described., Methods: The Leapfrog Survey was used to identify United States hospitals performing PD. Financial and operational data were obtained from Turquoise Health and CMS Cost Reports. Chi-square tests and modified Poisson regression evaluated associations with reimbursement disclosure. Two-part logistic and gamma regression models estimated effects of hospital factors on commercial, Medicare, and self-pay reimbursements for PD., Results: Of 452 Leapfrog hospitals, 295 (65%) disclosed PD hospital or procedure reimbursements. Disclosing hospitals were larger (beds > 200: 81.0% vs. 71.3%, p = 0.04), reported higher net margins (0.7% vs. - 2.1%, p = 0.04), more likely for-profit (26.1% vs. 6.4%, p < 0.001), and teaching-affiliated (82.0% vs. 65.6%, p < 0.001). Nonprofit status conferred hospitalization reimbursement increases of $8683-$12,329, while moderate market concentration predicted savings up to $5066. Teaching affiliation conferred reimbursement increases of $4589-$16,393 for hospitalizations and $644 for procedures. Top Leapfrog volume ratings predicted an increase of up to $7795 for only Medicare hospitalization reimbursement., Conclusions: Nondisclosure of hospital and procedural reimbursements for PD remains a major issue. Transparency was noted in hospitals with higher margins, size, and academic affiliation. Factors associated with higher reimbursement were non-profit status, academic affiliation, and more equitable market share. Reimbursement inconsistently tracked with PD quality or volume measures. Policy changes may be required to incentivize reimbursement disclosure and translate transparency into increased value for patients., (© 2024. Society of Surgical Oncology.)

Background and Objectives: Bundled payment for care improvement advanced (BPCIA) is a voluntary alternative payment model administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services using value-based care to reduce costs by incentivizing care coordination and improved quality. We aimed to identify drivers of negative financial performance in BPCIA among patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery., Methods: This is a single-institution retrospective review of patients enrolled in BPCIA undergoing spinal fusion with DRGs 453, 454, 455, 459, and 460 from 2018 to 2022. Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with negative financial performance and compare nonelective vs elective surgeries., Results: We identified 172 cases, of which 24% (n = 41) had negative financial performance and 9% (n = 16) were nonelective cases. Nonelective surgery (P < .001, odds ratios 19.81), greater levels instrumented (P < .001), and no anterior procedure (P = .001) were associated with negative financial performance. Surgical outcomes associated with negative financial performance and factors more common in nonelective cases respectively included higher hospital length of stay (P < .001, P = .005), nonhome discharge (P < .001, P < .001), 90-day hospital readmission (P < .001, P < .001), 90-day additional nonspine surgery (P = .01, P < .001), and less days at home of the 90 days (P < .001, P = .01). Nonelective surgeries had higher total spend (P = .01), readmission spend (P = .03), skilled nursing facility spend (P = .02), durable medical equipment spend (P = .003), and professional billing spend (P = .04) despite similar target pricing (P = .60), all of which resulted in greater financial loss compared with elective surgeries (P = .001)., Conclusion: Nonelective spinal surgery is an independent preoperative predictor of negative financial performance in BPCIA. Nonelective spinal surgeries are more likely than elective surgeries to have higher length of stay, nonhome discharge, 90-day hospital readmission, 90-day additional nonspine surgeries, and less time spent at home during the bundled period, all of which contribute to higher health care utilization. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should consider incorporating nonelective spine surgery into risk-adjustment models., (Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2024. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Medicare significantly influences reimbursement rates, setting a standard that impacts private insurance policies. Despite declining rates in various specialties, the magnitude of these trends has not been examined in breast surgery. This study examines Medicare reimbursement trends for breast surgery operations., Methods: Data for 10 breast operations from 2003 to 2023 were collected from the Medicare Physician Fee Look-Up Tool and yearly reimbursement was computed using the conversion factor. The year-to-year percentage change in reimbursement was calculated, and the overall median change was compared with the consumer price index (CPI) for inflation evaluation. All data were adjusted to 2023 United States dollars. The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) was calculated using inflation-adjusted data., Results: Over the study period, reimbursement for the 10 breast operations had a mean unadjusted percentage increase of + 25.17%, while the CPI increased by 69.15% (p < 0.001). However, after adjustment, overall reimbursement decreased by - 20.70%. Only two operations (lumpectomy and simple mastectomy) saw increased inflation-adjusted Medicare reimbursement (+ 0.37% and + 3.58%, respectively). The CAGR was - 1.54% overall but remained positive for the same two operations (+ 0.02% and + 0.18%, respectively). Based on these findings, breast surgeons were estimated to be reimbursed $107,605,444 less in 2023 than if rates had kept pace with inflation over the past decade., Conclusion: Inflation-adjusted Medicare reimbursement rates for breast surgeries have declined from 2003 to 2023. This downward trend may strain resources, potentially leading to compromises in care quality. Surgeons, administrators, and policymakers must take proactive measures to address these issues and ensure the ongoing accessibility and quality of breast surgery., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Despite the growing evidence supporting the benefits of coordinated specialty care (CSC) for early psychosis, access to this multimodal, evidence-based program in the United States has been hindered by a lack of funding for core CSC services and activities. The recent approval of team-based reimbursement codes by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has the potential to fund substantially more CSC services for clients with insurance coverage that accepts the new team-based billing codes. This streamlined and more inclusive billing strategy may reduce administrative burden and support the financial viability of CSC programs., Competing Interests: Dr. Niendam is a founder of and shareholder in Safari Health, Inc. The other authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests. Dr. Dixon is editor of Psychiatric Services; Editor Emeritus Howard H. Goldman, M.D., Ph.D., served as decision editor on the manuscript.

Objectives: To explore and make recommendations to implement direct billing and reimbursement models for nursing care in the United States., Background: Nurses make up the largest group of healthcare professionals and within hospitals, nurses represent approximately a quarter of all resources and associated costs of patient care. This care is mostly hidden in daily room and board charges., Methods: The authors surveyed the recent and historical literature related to costing and billing for nursing care. These results were synthesized and led to the recommendation of several new models to cost, bill, and pay for nursing care provided by nurses who are not currently billing for their services., Results: Two basic billing models are proposed: the 1st is to remove nursing care out of the current daily room or facility-based charges and allocate nursing care time provided to each patient during each day of stay. The 2nd is to expand existing Current Procedural Terminology codes to bill for specific activities and interventions by nurses in all settings where nursing care is delivered., Conclusions: It is feasible to implement the proposed methods to identify patient-level nursing intensity, cost, services, and interventions provided by individual nurses in all healthcare settings., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is continually working to mitigate unnecessary expenditures, particularly in post-acute care (PAC). Medicare reimburses for orthopaedic surgeon services in varied models, including fee-for-service, bundled payments, and merit-based incentive payment systems. The goal of these models is to improve the quality of care, reduce health-care costs, and encourage providers to adopt innovative and efficient health-care practices.This article delves into the implications of each payment model for the field of orthopaedic surgery, highlighting their unique features, incentives, and potential impact in the PAC setting. By considering the historical, current, and future Medicare reimbursement models, we hope to provide an understanding of the optimal payment model based on the specific needs of patients and providers in the PAC setting., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article ( http://links.lww.com/JBJS/H923 )., (Copyright © 2024 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Non-linear reimbursement contracts in healthcare have been increasingly used to quantify providers' responses to financial incentives. In the present research, we utilize a large one-off increase in the reimbursement of rehabilitation care to assess to what extent providers are willing to modify their treating behavior to maximize profits. In order to disincentivize the use of short inpatient stays for rehabilitation care, Dutch policy-makers have instated a two-part stepwise tariff-schedule. A lower tariff-schedule is applied for short hospital stays (≤ 14 days), while a higher tariff-schedule is utilized for longer treatments. Switching from one schedule to the other at day 15 of inpatient care leads to a sudden and large increase in tariffs. We show that, for most care-types, patients are seldom treated in an inpatient setting for less than 15 days, while the majority of patients are discharged after the threshold. Therefore, we conclude that the financial incentive at day 15 leads to considerable distortions in treatment. However, instead of discharging all patients at the threshold point where marginal tariffs are maximized, providers tend to continue treatment indicating altruistic behavior. As healthcare payment systems move away from piecewise reimbursement (e.g., fee-for-service arrangements), and services are increasingly 'lumped' together into e.g., DRGs and bundled payments, the likelihood of such discontinuities in tariff-schedules radically increases. Our research illustrates how such discontinuities in reimbursements can lead to distortions in the amount of healthcare provided contributing to the debate on optimal healthcare contracting design., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the impact of the reimbursement regulation of medical devices (Regulation), introduced by the National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA) in 2013, on patients' access to innovative medical devices in Taiwan., Methods: Analysis of the amount of time needed from application for NHIA reimbursement for new medical devices to receiving the decision from NHIA was done using the nonreimbursement product list featured on the NHIA website. Additionally, Welch analysis of variance was used to compare the amount of time it took from application to NHIA with reimbursement decisions made by the NHIA for different nonreimbursement code categories. Further, related Pharmaceutical Benefit Reimbursement Scheme meeting minutes were analyzed to obtain more detailed information concerning medical devices' reimbursement or not., Results: From December 2012 to June 2021, the overall reimbursement percentage was 56.7%, and the average amount of time between application and reimbursement was 856.7 ± 474.7 days. The mandatory reimbursement rate was about 45%. NHIA reimbursement decisions as special medical devices also take a longer amount of time, because the applicants need to agree to the decision (P < .05). The NHIA decision-making process for nonreimbursement medical devices requires a significantly longer amount of time than for general materials (eg, suture, etc) decisions., Conclusions: Although the Regulation resolves payment issues, it also increases the amount of time to reach reimbursement decisions, thus hindering patient access to innovative medical devices. The study suggests that the review process needs to be simplified concerning reimbursement notification, using local real-world data to support reimbursement decisions., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Author disclosure forms can be accessed below in the Supplemental Material section., (Copyright © 2024 International Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Patient Driven Payment Model (PDPM) was implemented in U.S. skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) in October 2019, shortly before COVID-19. This new payment model aimed to reimburse SNFs for patients' nursing needs rather than the previous model which reimbursed based on the volume of therapy received. Through 156 semi-structured interviews with 40 SNF administrators from July 2020 to December 2021, this qualitative study clarifies the impact of COVID-19 on the administration of PDPM at SNFs. Interview data were analyzed using modified grounded theory and thematic analysis. Our findings show that SNF administrators shifted focus from management of the PDPM to COVID-19-related delivery of care adaptations, staff shortfalls, and decreased admissions. As the pandemic abated, administrators re-focused their attention to PDPM. Policy makers should consider the continued impacts of the pandemic at SNFs, particularly on delivery of care, admissions, and staffing, on the ability of SNF administrators to administer a new payment model., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: D.C.G. reports receiving fees unrelated to this work from the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, AARP, Analysis Group, and GRAIL. Other authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Objective: This study aimed to analyze the trends of Medicare physician reimbursement from 2011 to 2021 and compare the rates across different surgical specialties., Background: Knowledge of Medicare is essential because of its significant contribution in physician reimbursements. Previous studies across surgical specialties have demonstrated that Medicare, despite keeping up with inflation in some areas, has remained flat when accounting for physician reimbursement., Study Design: The Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary data for the calendar year 2021 were queried to extract the top 50% of Current Procedural Terminology codes based on case volume. The Physician Fee Schedule look-up tool was accessed, and the physician reimbursement fee was abstracted. Weighted mean reimbursement was adjusted for inflation. Growth rate and compound annual growth rate were calculated. Projection of future inflation and reimbursement rates were also calculated using the US Bureau of Labor Statistics., Results: After adjusting for inflation, the weighted mean reimbursement across surgical specialties decreased by -22.5%. The largest reimbursement decrease was within the field of general surgery (-33.3%), followed by otolaryngology (-31.5%), vascular surgery (-23.3%), and plastic surgery (-22.8%). There was a significant decrease in median case volume across all specialties between 2011 and 2021 (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: This study demonstrated that, when adjusted for inflation, over the study period, there has been a consistent decrease in reimbursement for all specialties analyzed. Awareness of the current downward trends in Medicare physician reimbursement should be a priority for all surgeons, as means of advocating for compensation and to maintain surgical care feasible and accessible to all patients., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: For most digital health applications (DiGA) only limited evidence of benefit is available. Currently available assessment frameworks do not cover all domains of a full health technology assessment (HTA). Additionally, technology-specific aspects are required for the evaluation of DiGA. This work aimed to analyze the available assessment frameworks and design an evaluation process for DiGA., Methods: By a systematic literature search six assessment frameworks for DiGA were selected and analyzed. A hand search for strategies on DiGA of selected countries was conducted., Results: Of the analyzed assessment frameworks four described study designs. One assessment framework proposed a risk classification of DiGA. Aspects of artificial intelligence were assessed by one assessment framework. The analyzed countries have differing strategies for reimbursement of DiGA., Conclusion: Assessment frameworks for DiGA are very heterogeneous. There are efforts to find regulations for DiGA on a national level. When evaluating DiGA, a staged approach considering risk classes with subsequent evaluation of relevant HTA aspects is recommended., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Site-neutral payment is a policy created by federal rule making and implemented by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that aims to reduce healthcare costs by aligning payment rates for certain services provided in multiple care settings. Site-neutral payments are intended to eliminate the incentive for providers to acquire facilities, such as physician offices or ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), that Medicare reimburses at the lower non-facility rate and convert those settings into hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs), where Medicare reimburses at the higher facility rate. Although initiated by Congress to address payment disparities in Medicare, similar payment discrepancies can be seen in the commercial market where individual and employer-sponsored health plans often pay more for certain outpatient services depending on their location. This analysis presents a simulation of the impact of applying site-neutral payments to the commercial market with respect to overall potential savings for consumers, health plans and the federal government. To conduct the analysis, we use an all-payer claims data base generalizable to the United States. The analysis focused on a select group of outpatient services identified by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC). We mapped the MedPAC identified 68 Ambulatory Payment Classifications (APCs), the codes Medicare uses to reimburse facilities for outpatient services, to the relevant CPT4/HCPCS codes, which the commercial market uses for billing. The potential cost savings of applying the site-neutral payment policy to the commercial insurance market to be $58 billion for year 2022. We estimate the 10-year total (2024-2033) employer market premium reduction ranges from 5.35% to 5.0% and found that those premium reductions would result in employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) tax subsidy savings of $140 billion to the federal government over a 10-year period (2024-2033)., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author received no financial support for this research from The Alliance to Fight for Health Care.

Background: The potential role played by launch price and clinical value in reimbursement decisions has not been sufficiently established in China. This study aimed to investigate the association of launch price and clinical value with reimbursement decisions for anticancer drugs after the implementation of reimbursement-linked price negotiation in China., Methods: Anticancer drugs approved by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) of China from January 2017 to June 2022 were eligible for inclusion. Approval and reimbursement dates of included drug indications were retrieved from publicly available resources. We collected measures of clinical value, including survival, quality of life (QoL), and overall response rate from pivotal clinical trials and calculated treatment price at launch. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were employed to estimate the association between launch price, clinical value, and reimbursement decisions of anticancer drugs in China., Results: The median reimbursement lag was 579 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 402-936) for 93 indications supported by randomized controlled trials and 637 days (IQR: 373-858) for 42 indications supported by single-arm clinical trials. Reimbursement was granted to 60 (65%) and 23 (55%) indications supported by randomized controlled and single-arm clinical trials, respectively. The launch price of anticancer drugs was not associated with reimbursement decisions in multivariate regression analyses. Indications supported by randomized controlled trials with higher clinical value were more likely to be reimbursed (hazard ratio [HR] for survival=1.07, 95% CI: 1.00-1.15, P =.037), while the overall response rate of indications supported by single-arm clinical trials was not associated with the likelihood of being reimbursed (HR=2.09, 95% CI: 0.14-32.28, P =.595)., Conclusion: The launch price of anticancer drugs may not have a significant impact on reimbursement decisions, while the implementation of reimbursement-linked price negotiation in China has prioritized anticancer drugs with higher clinical value, but only for indications supported by randomized controlled trials. Efforts are needed to prioritize indications supported by single-arm clinical trials that have higher value during the process of price negotiation., (© 2024 The Author(s); Published by Kerman University of Medical Sciences This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.)

In addition to numerous care responsibilities, family caregivers are expected to navigate health systems and engage in healthcare management tasks on behalf of their persons living with dementia (PLWD). These challenging tasks pose additional difficulties for Black dementia caregivers. Due to the centuries-old, disadvantaged social history of Black Americans, several unique stressors, vulnerabilities, and resources have emerged which inform and affect Black dementia caregivers' experiences and well-being. Focus groups were held with Black caregivers (N = 19) from the United States to explore the unique experiences and perspectives of this population navigating the U.S. health system on behalf of their PLWD. Five overarching themes were constructed during thematic analysis: Forced Advocacy, Poor Provider Interaction, Payor Source Dictates Care, Discrimination, and Broken Health System. Black dementia caregivers unanimously concurred that the health system that they experience in America is "broken." Gaps in the health system can lead to people [as one caregiver passionately expressed] "falling between the cracks," in terms of care, services, and resources needed. Caregivers agreed that class, sex, utilizing public health insurance, and being a "person of color" contribute to their difficulties navigating the health system. Caregivers perceived being dismissed by providers, forcing them to advocate for both themselves and their PLWD. Healthcare providers and researchers can utilize these findings to improve the experiences and healthcare outcomes of Black persons living with dementia and their caregivers. Additionally, these findings can lead to the development of culturally tailored caregiver education programs., (© 2022 The American Geriatrics Society.)

Stroke contributes an estimated $28 billion to US health care costs annually, and alternative payment models aim to improve outcomes and lower spending over fee-for-service by aligning economic incentives with high value care. This systematic review evaluates historical and current evidence regarding the impacts of alternative payment models on stroke outcomes, spending, and utilization. Included studies evaluated alternative payment models in 4 categories: pay-for-performance (n=3), prospective payments (n=14), shared savings (n=5), and capitated payments (n=14). Pay-for-performance models were not consistently associated with improvements in clinical quality indicators of stroke prevention. Studies of prospective payments suggested that poststroke spending was shifted between care settings without consistent reductions in total spending. Shared savings programs, such as US Medicare accountable care organizations and bundled payments, were generally associated with null or decreased spending and service utilization and with no differences in clinical outcomes following stroke hospitalizations. Capitated payment models were associated with inconsistent effects on poststroke spending and utilization and some worsened clinical outcomes. Shared savings models that incentivize coordination of care across care settings show potential for lowering spending with no evidence for worsened clinical outcomes; however, few studies evaluated clinical or patient-reported outcomes, and the evidence, largely US-based, may not generalize to other settings.

During the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, health care practices have shifted to minimize virus transmission, with unprecedented expansion of telehealth. This study describes self-reported changes in registered dietitian nutritionist (RDN) practice related to delivery of nutrition care via telehealth shortly after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. This cross-sectional, anonymous online survey was administered from mid-April to mid-May 2020 to RDNs in the United States providing face-to-face nutrition care prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. This survey included 54 questions about practitioner demographics and experience and current practices providing nutrition care via telehealth, including billing procedures, and was completed by 2016 RDNs with a median (interquartile range) of 15 (6-27) years of experience in dietetics practice. Although 37% of respondents reported that they provided nutrition care via telehealth prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, this proportion was 78% at the time of the survey. Respondents reported spending a median (interquartile range) of 30 (20-45) minutes in direct contact with the individual/group per telehealth session. The most frequently reported barriers to delivering nutrition care via telehealth were lack of client interest (29%) and Internet access (26%) and inability to conduct or evaluate typical nutrition assessment or monitoring/evaluation activities (28%). Frequently reported benefits included promoting compliance with social distancing (66%) and scheduling flexibility (50%). About half of RDNs or their employers sometimes or always bill for telehealth services, and of those, 61% are sometimes or always reimbursed. Based on RDN needs, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics continues to advocate and provide resources for providing effective telehealth and receiving reimbursement via appropriate coding and billing. Moving forward, it will be important for RDNs to participate fully in health care delivered by telehealth and telehealth research both during and after the COVID-19 public health emergency., (Copyright © 2021 Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Women cardiologists receive lower salaries than men; however, it is unknown whether US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reimbursement also differs by gender and contributes to the lower salaries., Objective: To determine whether gender differences exist in the reimbursements, charges, and reimbursement per charge from CMS., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional analysis used the CMS database to obtain 2016 reimbursement data for US cardiologists. These included reimbursements to cardiologists, charges submitted, and unique billing codes. Gender differences in reimbursement for evaluation and management and procedural charges from both inpatient and outpatient settings were also assessed. Analysis took place between April 2019 and December 2020., Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included median CMS payments received and median charges submitted in the inpatient and outpatient settings in 2016., Results: In 2016, 17 524 cardiologists (2312 women [13%] and 15 212 men [87%]) received CMS payments in the inpatient setting, and 16 929 cardiologists (2151 women [13%] and 14 778 men [87%]) received CMS payments in the outpatient setting. Men received higher median payments in the inpatient (median [interquartile range], $62 897 [$30 904-$104 267] vs $45 288 [$21 371-$73 191]; P < .001) and outpatient (median [interquartile range], $91 053 [$34 820-$196 165] vs $51 975 [$15 622-$120 175]; P < .001) practice settings. Men submitted more median charges in the inpatient (median [interquartile range], 1190 [569-2093] charges vs 959 [569-2093] charges; P < .001) and outpatient settings (median [interquartile range], 1685 [644-3328] charges vs 870 [273-1988] charges; P < .001). In a multivariable-adjusted linear regression analysis, women received less CMS payments compared with men (log-scale β = -0.06; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.02) after adjustment for number of charges, number of unique billing codes, complexity of patient panel, years since graduation of physicians, and physician subspecialty. Payment by billing codes, both inpatient and outpatient, did not differ by gender., Conclusions and Relevance: There may be potential differences in CMS payments between men and women cardiologists, which appear to stem from gender differences in the number and types of charges submitted. The mechanisms behind these differences merit further research, both to understand why such gender differences exist and also to facilitate reductions in pay disparities.

Introduction: Episode-based bundled payment model is actually opposing to fee-for-service model, intending to incentivize coordinated care. The aims of these study were to determine episode-based costs for surgery in early breast cancer patients and to propose a payment model., Methods: OPTISOINS01 was a multicenter prospective study including early breast cancer patients from diagnosis to one-year follow up. Direct medical costs, quality and patient reported outcomes were collected., Results: Data from 604 patients were analyzed. Episode-based costs for surgery were higher in case of: planned radical surgery (OR=9,47 ; IC95 % [3,49-28,01]; P<0,001), hospitalization during more than one night (OR=6,73; IC95% [2,59-17,46]; P<0,001), home hospitalization (OR=11,07 ; IC95 % [3,01-173][3,01-54][3,01-543][3,01-54,33]; P<0,001) and re-hospitalization (OR=25,71 ; IC95 % [9,24-89,17; P<0,001). The average cost was 5 268 € [2 947-18 461] when a lumpectomy was planned and 7408 € [4 222-22 565] in case of radical mastectomy. Bootstrap method was applied for internal validation of the cost model showing the reliability of the model with an area under the curve of 0,83 (95 % CI [0,80-0,86]). Care quality and patient reported outcomes were not related to the costs., Discussion: This is the first report of episode-based costs for breast cancer surgery. An external validation will be necessary to validate our payment model., (Copyright © 2021 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: The goal of bundled payments-lump monetary sums designed to cover the full set of services needed to provide care for a condition or medical event-is to provide a reimbursement structure that incentivizes improved value for patients. There is concern that such a payment mechanism may lead to patient screening and denying or providing orthopaedic care to patients based on the number and severity of comorbid conditions present associated with complications after surgery. Currently, however, there is no clear consensus about whether such an association exists., Questions/purposes: In this systematic review, we asked: (1) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the sociodemographic characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (2) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the comorbidities and/or case-complexity characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (3) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the recent use of healthcare resources characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure?, Methods: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO before data collection (CRD42020189416). Our systematic review included scientific manuscripts published in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Econlit, Policyfile, and Google Scholar through March 2020. Of the 30 studies undergoing full-text review, 20 were excluded because they did not evaluate the outcome of interest (patient selection) (n = 8); were editorial, commentary, or review articles (n = 5); did not evaluate the appropriate intervention (introduction of a bundled payment program) (n = 4); or assessed the wrong patient population (not orthopaedic surgery patients) (n = 3). This led to 10 studies included in this systematic review. For each study, patient factors analyzed in the included studies were grouped into the following three categories: sociodemographics, comorbidities and/or case complexity, or recent use of healthcare resources characteristics. Next, each patient factor falling into one of these three categories was examined to evaluate for changes from before to after implementation of a bundled payment initiative. In most cases, studies utilized a difference-in-difference (DID) statistical technique to assess for changes. Determination of whether the bundled payment initiative required mandatory participation or not was also noted. Scientific quality using the Adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale had a median (range) score of 8 (7 to 8; highest possible score: 9), and the quality of the total body of evidence for each patient characteristic group was found to be low using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool. We could not assess the likelihood of publication using funnel plots because of the variation of patient factors analyzed in each study and the heterogeneity of data precluded a meta-analysis., Results: Of the nine included studies that reported on the sociodemographic characteristics of patients selected for care, seven showed no change with the implementation of bundled payments, and two demonstrated a difference. Most notably, the studies identified a decrease in the percentage of patients undergoing an orthopaedic operative intervention who were dual-eligible (range DID estimate -0.4% [95% CI -0.75% to -0.1%]; p < 0.05 to DID estimate -1.0% [95% CI -1.7% to -0.2%]; p = 0.01), which means they qualified for both Medicare and Medicaid insurance coverage. Of the 10 included studies that reported on comorbidities and case-complexity characteristics, six reported no change in such characteristics with the implementation of bundled payments, and four studies noted differences. Most notably, one study showed a decrease in the number of treated patients with disabilities (DID estimate -0.6% [95% CI -0.97% to -0.18%]; p < 0.05) compared with before bundled payment implementation, while another demonstrated a lower number of Elixhauser comorbidities for those treated as part of a bundled payment program (before: score of 0-1 in 63.6%, 2-3 in 27.9%, > 3 in 8.5% versus after: score of 0-1 in 50.1%, 2-3 in 38.7%, > 3 in 11.2%; p = 0.033). Of the three included studies that reported on the recent use of healthcare resources of patients, one study found no difference in the use of healthcare resources with the implementation of bundled payments, and two studies did find differences. Both studies found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at a skilled nursing facility (range DID estimate -0.50% [95% CI -1.0% to 0.0%]; p = 0.04 to DID estimate: -0.53% [95% CI -0.96% to -0.10%]; p = 0.01), while one of the studies also found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at an acute care hospital (DID estimate -0.8% [95% CI -1.6% to -0.1%]; p = 0.03) or as part of home healthcare (DID estimate -1.3% [95% CI -2.0% to -0.6%]; p < 0.001)., Conclusion: In six of 10 studies in which differences in patient characteristics were detected among those undergoing operative orthopaedic intervention once a bundled payment program was initiated, the effect was found to be minimal (approximately 1% or less). However, our findings still suggest some level of adverse patient selection, potentially worsening health inequities when considered on a large scale. It is also possible that our findings reflect better care, whereby the financial incentives lead to fewer patients with a high risk of complications undergoing surgical intervention and vice versa for patients with a low risk of complications postoperatively. However, this is a fine line, and it may also be that patients with a high risk of complications postoperatively are not being offered surgery enough, while patients at low risk of complications postoperatively are being offered surgery too frequently. Evaluation of the longer-term effect of these preliminary bundled payment programs on patient selection is warranted to determine whether adverse patient selection changes over time as health systems and orthopaedic surgeons become accustomed to such reimbursement models., Competing Interests: All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2021 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Background: Gender disparities in medicine have been demonstrated in the past, including differences in the attainment of roles in administration and in physician income., Objective: Our objective was to determine the differences in Medicare payments based on the provider gender and training track among female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeons., Study Design: Medicare payments from the Provider Utilization Aggregate Files were used to determine the payments made by Medicare to urogynecologists. This database was merged with the National Provider Identifier registry with information on subspecialty training, years since graduation, and the geographic pricing cost index used for Medicare payment adjustments. Physicians with <90% female patients and those who graduated medical school <7 years ago in obstetrics and gynecology or <8 years ago in urology were excluded. The effects of gender, specialty of training, number of services provided, years of practice, and geographic pricing cost index on physician reimbursement were evaluated using linear mixed modeling., Results: A total of 578 surgeons with female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery subspecialty training met the inclusion criteria. Of those, 517 (89%) were trained as gynecologists, whereas 61 (11%) were trained as urologists. Furthermore, 265 (51%) of the gynecology-trained surgeons and 39 (80%) of the urology-trained surgeons were women. Among the urology-trained surgeons, the median female surgeon was paid $85,962 and their male counterparts were paid $121,531 (41% payment difference). In addition, urology-trained female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery surgeons performed a median of 1135 services and their male counterparts performed a median of 1793 services (57% volume difference). Similarly, among gynecology-trained surgeons, the median female payment was $59,277 with 880 services performed, whereas male gynecology-trained surgeons received a median of $66,880 with 791 services performed, representing a difference of 12% in payments and 11% in services. With linear mixed modeling, male physicians were paid more than female physicians while controlling for specialty training, number of services performed, years of practice, and geographic pricing cost index (P<.001)., Conclusion: Although Medicare payments are based on an equation, differences in reimbursement by physician gender exist in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery with female surgeons receiving lower payments from Medicare. The differences in reimbursement could not be solely explained by differences in patient volume, area of practice, or years of experience alone, suggesting that, similar to other fields in medicine, female surgeons in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery are not paid as much as their male counterparts., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)