Trends in the utilization and reimbursement of coronary revascularization in the United States Medicare population from 2010 to 2018.
coronary artery bypass grafting
coronary artery disease
percutaneous coronary intervention
Journal
Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions : official journal of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions
ISSN: 1522-726X
Titre abrégé: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100884139
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 08 2021
01 08 2021
Historique:
revised:
05
02
2021
received:
26
10
2020
accepted:
12
03
2021
pubmed:
25
3
2021
medline:
21
10
2021
entrez:
24
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To determine utilization and reimbursement trends of coronary revascularization procedures in the US Medicare population from 2000 to 2018. US Medicare population is increasing, and coronary revascularization decreased in the 2000s. This is a population-based, cross sectional study of US Medicare beneficiaries from 2010 to 2018. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' database was queried for revascularization procedures using the coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) current procedural terminology (CPT) codes. Trends in Medicare enrollees, PCIs, CABGs, and physician reimbursements were analyzed. Total utilization and reimbursement decreased for both revascularization procedures. The national CABG and PCI utilization per enrollee has decreased by 40.7% (best fit line: b coefficient, 95% CI; -0.297, -0.358 to -0.235) and 26.4% (best fit line: -0.229, -0.373 to -0.0858), respectively. For CABG, annual Medicare payout per enrollee and physician compensation per procedure has decreased by 49.3% (best fit line: -0.250, -0.315 to -0.185) and 14.5% (best fit line: -11.54, -15.62 to -7.452), respectively, and for PCI, decreased by 53.3% (best fit line: -0.373, -0.560 to -0.186) and 36.6% (best fit line: -34.15, -49.35 to -18.95), respectively. Amongst the states, there was significant variability in procedure utilization, and CABG reimbursement rates but minimal variability in PCI reimbursement rates. Even though the US population has aged, revascularization utilization and reimbursement continue to decline. Advancement in medical intervention strategies, particularly non-surgical management, may account for these trends. Further understanding of these trends will allow health systems to tailor resources to the aging population.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
To determine utilization and reimbursement trends of coronary revascularization procedures in the US Medicare population from 2000 to 2018.
BACKGROUND
US Medicare population is increasing, and coronary revascularization decreased in the 2000s.
METHODS
This is a population-based, cross sectional study of US Medicare beneficiaries from 2010 to 2018. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' database was queried for revascularization procedures using the coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) current procedural terminology (CPT) codes. Trends in Medicare enrollees, PCIs, CABGs, and physician reimbursements were analyzed.
RESULTS
Total utilization and reimbursement decreased for both revascularization procedures. The national CABG and PCI utilization per enrollee has decreased by 40.7% (best fit line: b coefficient, 95% CI; -0.297, -0.358 to -0.235) and 26.4% (best fit line: -0.229, -0.373 to -0.0858), respectively. For CABG, annual Medicare payout per enrollee and physician compensation per procedure has decreased by 49.3% (best fit line: -0.250, -0.315 to -0.185) and 14.5% (best fit line: -11.54, -15.62 to -7.452), respectively, and for PCI, decreased by 53.3% (best fit line: -0.373, -0.560 to -0.186) and 36.6% (best fit line: -34.15, -49.35 to -18.95), respectively. Amongst the states, there was significant variability in procedure utilization, and CABG reimbursement rates but minimal variability in PCI reimbursement rates.
CONCLUSION
Even though the US population has aged, revascularization utilization and reimbursement continue to decline. Advancement in medical intervention strategies, particularly non-surgical management, may account for these trends. Further understanding of these trends will allow health systems to tailor resources to the aging population.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
E205-E212Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Sanchis-Gomar F, Perez-Quilis C, Leischik R, Lucia A. Epidemiology of coronary heart disease and acute coronary syndrome. Ann Transl Med. 2016;4(13):1-12. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2016.06.33.
Zhang Z, Kolm P, Grau-Sepulveda MV, et al. Cost effectiveness of revascularization strategies: results from the American College of Cardiology Foundation and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons collaboration on the comparative effectiveness of revascularization strategies (ASCERT). J Am Coll Caradiol. 2015;65(1):1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.03.040.
Ryan J, Cohen DJ. Are drug-eluting stents cost-effective? It depends on whom you ask. Circulation. 2006;114(16):1736-1743. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.546010.
Schmidt T, Abbott J. Coronary stents: history, design, and construction. J Clin Med. 2018;7(6):126. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm7060126.
Lai CH, Lee WL, Sung SH, et al. Comparison of bare-metal stent and drug-eluting stent for the treatment of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery disease - long-term result from a single center experience. Acta Cardiol Sin. 2015;31(5):381-389. https://doi.org/10.6515/ACS20140630G.
Ferko N, Ferrante G, Hasegawa JT, et al. Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with cobalt-chromium everolimus eluting stents versus bare metal stents: results from a patient level meta-analysis of randomized trials. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;89(6):994-1002. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.26700.
Mäkikallio T, Holm NR, Lindsay M, et al. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2016;388:2743-2752. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32052-9.
Thuijs DJFM, Kappetein AP, Serruys PW, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: 10-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAX trial. Lancet. 2019;394(10206):1325-1334. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31997-X.
Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2013 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2013;127(1):5-6. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e31828124ad.
AHA. Cardiovascular disease: a costly burden for AMERICA projections through 2035. Am Hear Assoc. 2017:1-14.
Riley RF, Don CW, Powell W, Maynard C, Dean LS. Trends in coronary revascularization in the United States from 2001 to 2009 recent declines in percutaneous coronary intervention volumes. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011;4(2):193-197. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.110.958744.
Culler SD, Kugelmass AD, Brown PP, Reynolds MR, Simon AW. Trends in coronary revascularization procedures among medicare beneficiaries between 2008 and 2012. Circulation. 2015;131(4):362-370. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.012485.
Alkhouli M, Holmes DR, Carroll JD, et al. Racial disparities in the utilization and outcomes of TAVR: TVT registry report. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12(10):936-948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2019.03.007.
Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2015 ACC/AHA/SCAI focused update on primary percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. An update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention and the 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the circulation. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;133(11):1135-1147. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000336.
Patel MR, Calhoon JH, Dehmer GJ, et al. ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2017 appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology appropriate use criteria task force, American association. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;69(17):2212-2241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2017.02.001.
Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA, et al. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(25):2375-2384. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1211585.
Maron DJ, Hochman JS, Reynolds HR, et al. Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(15):1395-1407. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1915922.
Al-Lamee R, Thompson D, Dehbi HM, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10115):31-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32714-9.
Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(15):1503-1516.
Gaudino M, Benedetto U, Fremes S, et al. Radial-artery or saphenous-vein grafts in coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(22):2069-2077. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1716026.
Kusu-Orkar T-E, Masharani K, Harky A, Muir A. Redo coronary artery bypass grafting in the era of advanced PCI. Brazilian J Cardiovasc Surg. 2020;1-8. https://doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2019-0206.
Vora AN, Dai D, Gurm H, et al. Temporal trends in the risk profile of patients undergoing outpatient percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry's CathPCI Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9(3):1-9. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.115.003070.
Blankenship JC, Marshall JJ. Reimbursement for coronary intervention. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;81(5):745-747. https://doi.org/10.1002/ccd.24903.
George JC, Popma JJ. Reduced reimbursement for cardiovascular services by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009;2(9):894-896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2009.08.002.
Bayindir EE, Mandic PK. Medicare and private insurance variations in new medical technology: the case of drug eluting stents. Heal Econ Outcomes Res. 2016;2(2):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.03.040.
Price PKA. Medicare “fix” that really works: eliminate the limiting charge. Mo Med. 2010;107(5):291-294.
Gornick M, Newton M, Hackerman C. Factors affecting differences in Medicare reimbursements for physicians' services. Health Care Financ Rev. 1980;1(4):15-37.