Physician responses to insurance benefit restrictions: The case of ophthalmology

This study examines the impact of social insurance benefit restrictions on physician behaviour, using ophthalmologists as a case study. We examine whether ophthalmologists use their market power to alter their fees and rebates across services to compensate for potential policy-induced income losses. The results show that ophthalmologists substantially reduced their fees and rebates for services directly targeted by the benefit restriction compared to other medical specialists' fees and rebates. There is also some evidence that they increased their fees for services that were not targeted. High-fee charging ophthalmologists exhibited larger fee and rebate responses while the low-fee charging group raise their rebates to match the reference price provided by the policy environment.

20-year Inflation-Adjusted Medicare Reimbursements (Years: 2000-2020) For Common Lumbar and Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease Procedures

OBJECTIVE

Reimbursement trends for common procedures have persistently declined over the past 2 decades. Spinal instrumentational and fusion procedures are increasingly utilized and have increased in clinical complexity, yet longitudinal inflation-adjusted data for Medicare reimbursements of these procedures have not been evaluated.

METHODS

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool was used to extract Medicare reimbursements for the 5 most common spinal procedures and associated instrumentations from 2000-2020. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes include 22551, 22600, 22633, 63030, and 63047 as well as instrumentation CPT codes 22840 and 22842-6. The nominal values were adjusted for inflation according to the latest consumer price index (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; reported as 2020 USD) and used to calculate average annual percent changes and compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) in reimbursements.

RESULTS

After inflation adjustment, the physician fee reimbursement decreased by 11.05% ± 8.46% (mean ± s.d., from $2,009.89 in 2011 to $1,787.85 in 2020) for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), 28.38% ± 8.42% (from $1,889.38 in 2000 to $1,353.14 in 2020) for posterior cervical fusion, 7.85% ± 8.20% (from $2,111.20 in 2012 to $1,945.49 in 2020) for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), 28.17% ± 13.88% (from $1,421.78 in 2000 to $1,021.22 in 2020) for lower back disc surgery, and 31.88% ± 8.22% (from $1,700.38 in 2000 to $1,158.25 in 2020) for lumbar laminectomy. Instrumentation reimbursements showed an average decrease of 33.43% ± 8.4% over this period. Average CAGR was -1.7% ± .41% for procedures and -2.02% ± .14% for instrumentation.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis reveals a persistent decline in reimbursement rates of the most common spine procedures and instrumentation since the year 2000. If unaddressed, this trend can serve as a substantial disincentive for physicians to perform these procedures and can significantly limit access to spinal care at the population level.

Medicare Reimbursement for Hip and Knee Arthroplasty From 2000 to 2019: An Unsustainable Trend

BACKGROUND

While reimbursement models for physicians continue to evolve, limited data exist regarding recent trends in physician reimbursement for hip and knee arthroplasty. The purpose of this study is to evaluate monetary trends in Medicare reimbursement rates from 2000 to 2019 for the most common hip and knee arthroplasty procedures.

METHODS

The American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons coding reference was queried to determine the Current Procedural Terminology codes most frequently used in hip and knee adult reconstruction. Next, the Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was queried for each Current Procedural Terminology code, and physician fee data were extracted. All monetary data were adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index and expressed in 2019 US dollars. The average annual and the total percent change in reimbursement were calculated based on these adjusted trends for all procedures.

RESULTS

After adjusting for inflation, the average physician reimbursement decreased by 31.9% for all hip arthroplasty procedures and by 33.3% for all knee arthroplasty procedures from 2000 to 2019. During this period, primary total hip arthroplasty physician fees decreased by 37.1% and primary total knee arthroplasty fees decreased by 40.6%. From 2000 to 2019, the inflation-adjusted reimbursement rate for all procedures decreased by an average of 1.7% per year.

CONCLUSION

Throughout the study period, physician reimbursement decreased for all knee and hip arthroplasty procedures. Increased awareness and consideration of these trends will be important for policy-makers, hospitals, and surgeons to assure equitable access to quality hip and knee arthroplasty care in the United States.

Billing Codes Determine Lower Physician Income for Primary Care and Non-Procedural Specialties

The income gap between specialists and primary care physicians and among specialists is well established, but the drivers of this difference are not well delineated. Using the Community Tracking Study (CTS) Physician Survey, we sought to isolate and compare premiums paid to physicians for specialization and the proportion of time spent on offices visit rather than procedures. We divided medical subspecialties according the proportion of Medicare billing for Evaluation and Management (E&M) codes for the specialty as a whole. We report substantial differences in income across physician specialty, and over 70 percent of the difference in income remained controlling for factors that may confound the relationship between income and specialty including gender, location and type of practice, and hours. We note a large variation in premiums for specialization: 11.3-46.8 percent above family medicine after controlling for confounders. Classifying medical subspecialties by E&M billing as procedural versus non-procedural specialties revealed clear income differences. Controlling for confounders, procedural medical specialties earned 37.5 percent more than family medicine, as compared with 15.3 percent for non-procedural medical specialties. This analysis suggests that differences in physician income and resulting incentives are a direct consequence of the payment structure itself, rather than compensation for additional years of training or a reflection of different underlying demographics.