Cost-utility analysis of shockwave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopic stone treatment in adults

National Utilization, Reimbursement, and Urban Versus Rural Trends of Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy and Ureteroscopic Laser Lithotripsy

OBJECTIVE

To describe temporal utilization and reimbursement trends of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and ureteroscopy (URS) with laser lithotripsy.

METHODS

The Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Database was queried for all ESWL and URS performed between 2013 and 2020 using Current Procedural Terminology codes: ESWL - 50590; URS - 52352, 52353, 52356. Cases that lacked rural or urban identification codes were excluded. A total of 347,174 ESWL and 401,899 URS cases were identified. Linear regression was performed with statistical significance set to 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

There was a significant upward trend for URS utilization over the study period (R² = 0.91, P <.001), but there was not a significant trend for ESWL utilization. In 2013, ESWL was used more frequently than URS, but by 2016, URS was used more frequently than ESWL. From 2013 to 2019, URS utilization increased by 241% and 168% by urban and rural urologists, respectively. URS was also associated with a slight increase in physician reimbursement over time (R² = 0.87, P <.001), whereas there was no association between ESWL and physician reimbursement. For URS, rural and urban urologists were reimbursed an average of $312.07 (standard deviation [SD] $14.03) and $404.86 (SD $21.96), respectively. For ESWL, rural and urban urologists were reimbursed an average of $456.22 (SD $5.74) and $562.66 (SD $16.68), respectively.

CONCLUSION

According to the Medicare database, URS has surpassed ESWL in utilization, especially by urban urologists. Physician reimbursement for ESWL remained higher than URS reimbursement, though URS reimbursement increased slightly in recent years.