Correlation Between Ophthalmology Market Saturation and Medicare Utilization Rates

Effects of Cost Sharing on Ophthalmic Care Utilization in the Affordable Care Act Marketplace

PURPOSE

To determine the distribution and quantity of ophthalmic care consumed on Affordable Care Act (ACA) plans, the demographics of the population utilizing these services, and the relationship between ACA insurance coverage plan tier, cost sharing, and total cost of ophthalmic care consumed.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study analyzed ACA individual and small group market claims data from the Wakely Affordable Care Act (WACA) 2018 dataset, which contains detailed claims, enrollment, and premium data from Edge Servers for 3.9 million individual and small group market lives. We identified all enrollees with ophthalmology-specific billing, procedure, and national drug codes. We then analyzed the claims by plan type and calculated the total cost and out-of-pocket (OOP) cost.

RESULTS

Among 3.9 million enrollees in the WACA 2018 dataset, 538,169 (13.7%) had claims related to ophthalmology procedures, medications, and/or diagnoses. A total of $203 million was generated in ophthalmology-related claims, with $54 million in general services, $42 million in medications, $20 million in diagnostics and imaging, and $86 million in procedures. Average annual OOP costs were $116 per member, or 30.9% of the total cost, and were lowest for members with platinum plans (16% OOP) and income-driven cost sharing reduction (ICSR) subsidies (17% OOP). Despite stable ocular disease distribution across plan types, beneficiaries with silver ICSR subsidies consumed more total care than any other plan, higher than platinum plan enrollees and almost 1.5× the cost of bronze plan enrollees.

CONCLUSIONS

Ophthalmic care for enrollees on ACA plans generated substantial costs in 2018. Plans with higher OOP cost sharing may result in lower utilization of ophthalmic care.

Ophthalmology Workforce Projections in the United States, 2020 to 2035

PURPOSE

To analyze ophthalmology workforce supply and demand projections from 2020 to 2035.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study using data from the National Center for Health Workforce Analysis (NCHWA).

METHODS

Data accessed from the Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) website were compiled to analyze the workforce supply and demand projections for ophthalmologists from 2020 to 2035.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Projected workforce adequacy over time.

RESULTS

From 2020 to 2035, the total ophthalmology supply is projected to decrease by 2650 full-time equivalent (FTE) ophthalmologists (12% decline) and total demand is projected to increase by 5150 FTE ophthalmologists (24% increase), representing a supply and demand mismatch of 30% workforce inadequacy. The level of projected adequacy was markedly different based on rurality by year 2035 with 77% workforce adequacy versus 29% workforce adequacy in metro and nonmetro geographies, respectively. By year 2035, ophthalmology is projected to have the second worst rate of workforce adequacy (70%) of 38 medical and surgical specialties studied.

CONCLUSIONS

The HRSA's Health Workforce Simulation Model forecasts a sizeable shortage of ophthalmology supply relative to demand by the year 2035, with substantial geographic disparities. Ophthalmology is one of the medical specialties with the lowest rate of projected workforce adequacy by 2035. Further dedicated workforce supply and demand research for ophthalmology and allied professionals is needed to validate these projections, which may have significant future implications for patients and providers.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Patient Accessibility to Eye Care in the United States

PURPOSE

The United States (US) federal government uses health provider shortage areas (HPSAs) to define patient accessibility to primary care physicians. It is unclear whether HPSAs can be applied to eye care providers (ECPs). Our study determined the applicability of federal HPSA designations to ECP availability in the US.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

US general population and ophthalmologists/optometrists in the Medicare database.

METHODS

The primary care HPSA score, visual impairment prevalence, and ECP location were determined for each census tract or county using data from the US Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Association of HPSA with vision loss and ECP density was examined. The 2-step floating catchment area approach was used to newly define eye care shortage areas (patient accessibility score [PAS], higher being worse accessibility) for every county in the US, by weighting the 2-step FCA scores by prevalence of vision loss and ECP density. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify sociodemographic variables associated with areas of ECP shortage.

RESULTS

Among 72 735 census tracts included, statistically significant but weak correlations of HPSA score with visual impairment (VI) (r = 0.38; P < 0.0001) and ECP density per county population (r = -0.18; P < 0.0001) were found. Only 54.0% of census tracts with < 25th percentile ECP density per county were HPSAs (P < 0.0001). Of census tracts > than 75th percentile for VI only 58.0% were HPSAs (P < 0.0001). Multivariable regression found a higher odds of ECP PAS ≥ 75th percentile (worse accessibility) in rural counties (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.93-3.67; P < 0.001) and counties with a greater prevalence of residents with less than a high school education (aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.19-1.25; P < 0.001), residents ≥ 65 years of age (aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.13; P < 0.001), and uninsured residents (aOR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06; P < 0.001). Counties with a greater proportion of men (aOR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.967; P < 0.001) or White residents (aOR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99) had a lower odds of ECP PAS ≥ 75th percentile.

CONCLUSIONS

Current HPSAs only weakly correlate with ECP supply. We propose a new approach to identify counties with high need but limited access to eye care.

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S)

Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Economic Evaluation of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System for Ophthalmologists: Analysis of 2019 Quality Payment Program Data

Importance

The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is intended to promote high-value health care through quality-related Medicare payment adjustments.

Objective

To assess the economic evaluation of MIPS scoring and reporting on ophthalmologists.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this retrospective, cross-sectional, multicenter economic evaluation conducted from October 10 to November 30, 2021, MIPS performance and related payment adjustments were evaluated using the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service (CMS) public data files for ophthalmologists. Participants were stratified by reporting affiliation. Analysis of variance and summary statistics were used to characterize and compare total and subcategory MIPS scores and adjustments received by participants. Reported CMS methodology and performance year (PY) 2019 payment percentages were used to estimate payment adjustments for the following categories: positive MIPS adjustment plus potential additional adjustment for exceptional performance, positive MIPS adjustment, neutral payment adjustment, negative MIPS payment adjustment, and maximum negative MIPS payment adjustment. Study participants included ophthalmologists registered for Medicare Part B with participation in the Quality Payment Program (QPP) in PY 2019.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Proportion of ophthalmologists qualifying for payment adjustments and payment adjustments.

Results

For PY 2019, 76.5% of ophthalmologists (13 621) who registered for Medicare participated in the MIPS pathway of the QPP. Ophthalmologists practiced in a predominantly large metropolitan area (12 302; 90.3%). Roughly 99% of participants (11 182) received nonnegative reimbursement adjustments, and 92.6% (10 367) received positive adjustments. Ophthalmologists filing as individuals were less likely to achieve exceptional performance scores compared with those who had a filing category of advanced alternative payment model (APM; odds ratio [OR], 0.0003; 95% CI, 0.00002-0.00481) or group (OR, 0.21013; 95% CI, 0.19020-0.23215). When analyzing participating ophthalmologists with available Medicare payment data (11 193), a total of 8777 (78.4%) achieved exceptional MIPS scores corresponding to mean (SD) adjustments per physician of $244.60 ($217.36) to $4864.78 ($4323.08), or 0.07% ($2 146 835.21 of $3 212 011 252.88) to 1.33% ($42 698 166.89 of $3 212 011 252.88), of the total nondrug Medicare payment.

Conclusions and Relevance

Results of this economic evaluation showed that although 78.4% of ophthalmologists received exceptional positive payment adjustments, roughly 84% (798916 of 954615) of all health care professionals nationally achieved this benchmark. Exceptional MIPS was associated with filing as group or APM, resulting in, on average, a relatively small additional payment per participant; this suggests that ophthalmologists who file as individuals should consider an alternative filing approach. Changes in MIPS methodology may disproportionately affect certain ophthalmologists, which warrants further study.