Location of reflux in the saphenous vein does not affect outcomes of vein ablation

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

GOALS/PURPOSE

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 vs 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.

CONCLUSION

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.

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.

The 2023 Society for Vascular Surgery, American Venous Forum, and American Vein and Lymphatic Society clinical practice guidelines for the management of varicose veins of the lower extremities. Part II: Endorsed by the Society of Interventional Radiology and the Society for Vascular Medicine

The Society for Vascular Surgery, the American Venous Forum, and the American Vein and Lymphatic Society recently published Part I of the 2022 clinical practice guidelines on varicose veins. Recommendations were based on the latest scientific evidence researched following an independent systematic review and meta-analysis of five critical issues affecting the management of patients with lower extremity varicose veins, using the patients, interventions, comparators, and outcome system to answer critical questions. Part I discussed the role of duplex ultrasound scanning in the evaluation of varicose veins and treatment of superficial truncal reflux. Part II focuses on evidence supporting the prevention and management of varicose vein patients with compression, on treatment with drugs and nutritional supplements, on evaluation and treatment of varicose tributaries, on superficial venous aneurysms, and on the management of complications of varicose veins and their treatment. All guidelines were based on systematic reviews, and they were graded according to the level of evidence and the strength of recommendations, using the GRADE method. All ungraded Consensus Statements were supported by an extensive literature review and the unanimous agreement of an expert, multidisciplinary panel. Ungraded Good Practice Statements are recommendations that are supported only by indirect evidence. The topic, however, is usually noncontroversial and agreed upon by most stakeholders. The Implementation Remarks contain technical information that supports the implementation of specific recommendations. This comprehensive document includes a list of all recommendations (Parts I-II), ungraded consensus statements, implementation remarks, and best practice statements to aid practitioners with appropriate, up-to-date management of patients with lower extremity varicose veins.