The effect of commercial insurance policies on outcomes of venous ablation

American Insurance Coverage of Endovenous Ablation for Greater and Lesser Saphenous Varicose Veins

BACKGROUND

Severe cases of varicose veins can cause psychological distress as well as physical symptoms including skin discoloration, wounds, and burning sensations. One intervention, endovenous laser/radiofrequency ablation, is variably covered by insurance. Insurance coverage for this procedure was assessed for all indications of endovenous laser/radiofrequency ablation as medically necessity criteria.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis was conducted of 57 insurance policies for endovenous laser/radiofrequency ablation. The insurance companies were selected based on the greatest state enrollment and market share. A web-based search and telephone interviews were utilized to identify the policies. Medically necessary criteria were then extracted from the publicly available policies.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven (57) insurance policies were assessed, with 36 (63.2%) of these policies providing coverage for endovenous radiofrequency or laser ablation. Six indications existed for coverage, with the most common indication being the demonstration of valvular reflux (n = 29, 80.6%). Of the 29 companies that indicated coverage for valvular reflux, 19 (52.8%) specifically required saphenous reflux. Significantly more companies required saphenous reflux versus other specified types of valvular reflux (52.8% vs 8.3%, P < 0.001 for saphenous vs junctional reflux and 52.8% vs 16.7%, P < 0.003 for saphenous vs nonspecific). Prior to proceeding with endovenous laser or radiofrequency ablation, up to 33% of insurance companies required a trial of conservative management as medically necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a great discrepancy in insurance policy criteria for coverage of endovenous laser/radiofrequency ablation for the treatment of varicose veins, particularly regarding the requirements for valvular reflux and a trial of conservative therapy.

Factors associated with lack of clinical improvement after vein ablation in the vascular quality initiative

BACKGROUND

Insurance companies have adopted variable and inconsistent approval criteria for chronic venous disease (CVD) treatment. Although vein ablation (VA) is accepted as the standard of care for venous ulcers, the treatment criteria for patients with milder forms of CVD remain controversial. This study aims to identify factors associated with a lack of clinical improvement (LCI) in patients with less severe CVD without ulceration undergoing VA to improve patient selection for treatment.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing VA for CEAP C2 to C4 disease in the Vascular Quality Initiative varicose veins database from 2014 to 2023. Patients who required intervention in multiple veins, had undergone prior interventions, or presented with CEAP C5 to C6 disease were excluded. The difference (Δ) in venous clinical severity score (VCSS; VCSS before minus after the procedure) was used to categorize the patients. Patients with a ΔVCSS of ≤0 were defined as having LCI after VA, and patients with ≥1 point decrease in the VCSS after VA (ΔVCSS ≥1) as having some benefit from the procedure and, therefore, "clinical improvement." The characteristics of both groups were compared, and multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify factors independently associated with LCI. A second analysis was performed based on the VVSymQ instrument, which measures patient-reported outcomes using five specific symptoms (ie, heaviness, achiness, swelling, throbbing pain, and itching). Patients with LCI showed no improvement in any of the five symptoms, and those with clinical improvement had a decrease in severity of at least one symptom.

RESULTS

A total of 3544 patients underwent initial treatment of CVD with a single VA. Of the 3544 patients, 2607 had VCSSs available before and after VA, and 420 (16.1%) had LCI based on the ΔVCSS. Patients with LCI were more likely to be significantly older and African American and have CEAP C2 disease compared with patients with clinical improvement. Patients with clinical improvement were more likely to have reported using compression stockings before treatment. The vein diameters were not different between the two groups. The incidence of complications was overall low, with minor differences between the two groups. However, the patients with LCI were significantly more likely to have symptoms after intervention than those with improvement. Patients with LCI were more likely to have technical failure, defined as vein recanalization. On multivariable regression, age (odds ratio [OR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.02) and obesity (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.09-2.00) were independently associated with LCI, as was treatment of less severe disease (CEAP C2; OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.30-2.56) compared with more advanced disease (C4). The lack of compression therapy before intervention was also associated with LCI (OR, 6.05; 95% CI, 4.30-8.56). The analysis based on the VVSymQ showed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

LCI after VA is associated with treating patients with a lower CEAP class (C2 vs C4) and a lack of compression therapy before intervention. Importantly, no significant association between vein size and clinical improvement was observed.

Variations and inconsistencies in venous ablation coverage policies between single-state and multistate carriers in the United States

BACKGROUND

Vein ablation is a common and effective treatment for patients with chronic venous insufficiency. The overuse of vein ablation despite the existence of evidence-based guidelines has resulted in insurance companies developing restrictive policies for coverage that create barriers to appropriate care. This study compares the insurance coverage by single-state carriers (SSCs) and multistate carriers (MSCs), highlighting the variations and inconsistencies in the various policies.

METHODS

The American Venous Forum Venous Policy Navigator was reviewed for the various policies available in the United States. The policies were divided into SSCs and MSCs. The characteristics of the policies, including the anatomic and hemodynamic criteria for specific veins, duration of conservative treatment, disease severity, symptoms, and types of procedures covered, were compared between the two groups. SAS, version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc) was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 122 policies were analyzed and divided between SSCs (n = 85; 69.7%) and MSCs (n = 37; 30.3%). A significant variation was found in the size requirement for great saphenous vein ablation. Although 48% of the policies did not specify a size criterion, the remaining policies indicated a minimal size, ranging from 3 to 5.5 mm. However, no significant differences were found between SSCs and MSCs. Similar findings were encountered for the small and anterior accessory saphenous veins. MSCs were more likely to define a saphenous reflux time >500 ms compared with SSCs (81.1% vs 58.8%; P = .04). A significant difference was found between the SSCs and MSCs in the criteria for perforator ablation in terms of size and reflux time. MSCs were significantly more likely to provide coverage for mechanochemical ablation than were SSCs (24.3% vs 8.2%; P = .03). SSCs were more likely to require ≥12 weeks of compression stocking therapy than were MSCs (76.5% vs 48.7%; P = .01). No significant differences were found in the clinical indications between the two groups; however, MSCs were more likely to mention major hemorrhage than were SSCs.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study highlight the variations in policies for venous ablation, in particular, the striking inconsistencies in size criteria. MSCs were more likely to cover mechanochemical ablation and require a shorter duration of conservative therapy before intervention compared with SSCs. Evidence-based guidance is needed to develop more coherent policies for venous ablation coverage.

Residual incompetent tributaries after varicose vein surgery increased the need for reintervention after 8 years

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine whether residual incompetent tributaries after varicose vein surgery affected the reintervention rate after longer follow-up.

METHODS

The study is a retrospective review of data from a cohort of a previous randomized controlled study comparing surgery with and without preoperative duplex ultrasound, with follow-up after 2 months, 2 years, and 5 to 9 years clinically and with duplex ultrasound. The cohort was subdivided according to the duplex ultrasound findings 2 months after surgery: no venous incompetence, residual incompetent tributaries only, truncal incompetence, and combined truncal and tributary incompetence. Reintervention rates were compared between groups.

RESULTS

There were 280 patients (326 legs) who attended follow-up 2 months postoperatively and 164 patients (190 legs) after a median of 8 years (5-9 years). Another 53 patients (62 legs) were interviewed by telephone or had been reoperated on earlier during follow-up; thus, information was available for 217 patients (252 legs). Of the 252 legs, 56 (22%) were reoperated on during follow-up. In the subgroup with no venous incompetence at all 2 months postoperatively, 4 of 74 legs (5%) were reoperated on; and in the group with residual incompetent tributaries without truncal incompetence, 16 of 56 legs (29%) were reoperated on (P = .000). There was no significant difference in reintervention rate of the group with incompetent tributaries only compared with those with truncal incompetence without incompetent tributaries (12/42 legs [29%]; P = 1) or with combined incompetence of truncal vein and tributaries (22/64 legs [34%]; P = .495). The presence of perforating vein incompetence at 2 months postoperatively did not significantly alter the rate of reoperations (P = .159). In legs that had not been reoperated on, more incompetent veins could be seen progressively. In the group without any incompetent veins postoperatively, 37% still had normal findings at 8 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Residual incompetent tributaries after treatment of varicose veins will increase the reintervention rate in the long term, as much as leaving a trunk vein untreated. Patients should be informed about the increased risk of reintervention if not all incompetent veins are targeted.