A real world analysis of payment per unit time in a Maryland Vascular Practice

• Published in: Journal of vascular surgery 2010-10, Vol.52 (4), p.1094-1099
• Main Authors: Martin, John D., MD, Warble, Patricia B., CRNP, Hupp, Jon A., MD, Mapes, Jerry E., BSc, Stanziale, Stephen F., MD, Weiss, Linda L., RN, Schiller, Toni B., RN, Hanson, Louise A., CRNP
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy; Biological and medical sciences; Current Procedural Terminology; Emergency and intensive care: renal failure. Dialysis management; Health Care Costs; Health Expenditures; Hospital Costs; Humans; Insurance, Health, Reimbursement - economics; Intensive care medicine; Maryland; Medical sciences; Medicare - economics; Office Visits - economics; Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care) - economics; Practice Management, Medical - economics; Program Evaluation; Prospective Studies; Quality Assurance, Health Care - economics; Relative Value Scales; Surgery; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases; Time and Motion Studies; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; United States; Vascular Diseases - economics; Vascular Diseases - therapy; Vascular surgery: aorta, extremities, vena cava. Surgery of the lymphatic vessels; Vascular Surgical Procedures - economics; Workload - economics
• ISSN: 0741-5214; 1097-6809
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.04.072

Purpose In 1992, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services instituted the Resource Based Relative Value Scale (RBRVS) system to determine physician reimbursement. Relative value units (RVU) were assigned to each Current Procedure Terminology (CPT) code and intended to reflect the time and intensity of work. Little data exist correlating actual procedural and clinical time with respect to reimbursement within the RVU value system. The purpose of this study was to determine how well this system distributes payments per hour for hospital-based procedures in a single vascular practice in the state of Maryland between July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009. Methods As part of an ongoing prospective outcomes program, procedural times for all vascular procedures (time into until time out of room) were recorded. Fifteen minutes were added for administrative functions on procedural day, each hospital day, and office visits during the global period. The combination of all times was reflected in the total care time (TCT) for each procedure. We recorded all physician fees collected for each procedure. This total fee collected for each procedure was then divided by the TCT to determine the procedure-specific payment per unit time. All similar procedures were grouped together and the average reimbursement per procedure was reported. Results Data was collected on all 1103 procedures performed during this period. Insurance carrier distribution was 75% Medicare and 25% private insurance. The average reimbursement was $316/hour for open procedures and $556/hour for endovascular. Higher reimbursing procedures included visceral endovascular procedures ($701/hour) and caval filters ($751/hour). Lower reimbursing procedures included lower extremity bypass ($292/hour), dialysis access ($268/hour) and lower extremity amputations ($223/hour). Striking was the difference between payment based on approach for similar conditions. Reimbursement for carotid stent vs carotid endarterectomy was $643/hour vs $383/hour, endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair vs open $593/hour vs $359/hour. Conclusion This unique study demonstrates a “real world” experience of reimbursement per unit time and raises questions as to the validity of the RBRVS process. The disparity between payments for open and endovascular repair of similar conditions are typical of this inequality. These data do not reflect the intangible time of operative planning, administrative matters, or overhead, and these factor