Private payers' varicose vein policies are inaccurate, disparate, and not evidence based, which mandates a proposal for a reasonable and responsible policy for the treatment of venous disease

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.

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.

Editor's Choice - Short Term Cost Effectiveness of Radiofrequency Ablation and High Ligation and Stripping for Great Saphenous Vein Incompetence

OBJECTIVE

Superficial venous incompetence (SVI) is a common disease that causes significant quality of life (QoL) impairment. There is a need for more health economic evaluations of SVI treatment. The aim of this study was to perform a cost effectiveness analysis in patients with great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence comparing radiofrequency ablation (RFA), high ligation and stripping (HL/S), and no treatment or conservative treatment with one year follow up.

METHODS

Randomised controlled trial economic analysis from an ongoing trial; 143 patients (156 limbs) with GSV incompetence (CEAP clinical class 2 - 6) were included. Treatment was performed with RFA or HL/S. Follow up was performed up to one year using duplex ultrasound, revised venous clinical severity score (r-VCSS), Aberdeen Varicose Vein Questionnaire (AVVQ), and EuroQol-5D-3L (EQ-5D-3L).

RESULTS

Seventy-eight limbs were treated with RFA and HL/S respectively. No treatment or conservative treatment was assumed to have zero in treatment cost and no treatment benefit. In the RFA group, one limb had reflux in the GSV after one month and three limbs after one year. In HL/S, two limbs had remaining reflux in the treated area at one month and one year. Both disease severity (r-VCSS, p = .004) and QoL (AVVQ, p = .021 and EQ-5D-3L, p = .028) were significantly improved over time. The QALY gain was 0.21 for RFA and 0.17 for HL/S. The cost per patient was calculated as €1 292 for RFA and €2 303 for HL/S. The cost per QALY (compared with no treatment or conservative treatment) was €6 155 for RFA and €13 549 for HL/S. With added cost for days absent from work the cost per QALY was €7 358 for RFA and €24 197 for HL/S. The cost per QALY for both methods was well below the threshold suggested by Swedish National Board of Health.

CONCLUSION

RFA is more cost effective than HL/S and no treatment or conservative treatment at one year follow up.

Effect of junctional reflux on the venous clinical severity score in patients with insufficiency of the great saphenous vein (JURY study)

OBJECTIVE

Effective treatment options are available for chronic venous insufficiency associated with superficial venous reflux. Although many patients with C2 and C3 disease based on the CEAP (Clinical-Etiological-Anatomical-Pathophysiological) classification have combined great saphenous vein (GSV) and saphenofemoral junction (SFJ) reflux, some may not have concomitant SFJ reflux. Several payors have determined that symptom severity in patients without SFJ reflux does not warrant treatment. In patients planned for venous ablation, we tested whether Venous Clinical Severity Scores (VCSS) are equivalent in those with GSV reflux alone compared with those with both GSV and SFJ reflux.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted at 10 centers. Inclusion criteria were: candidate for endovenous ablation as determined by treating physician; 18 to 80 years of age; GSV reflux with or without SFJ reflux on ultrasound; and C2 or C3 disease. Exclusion criteria were prior deep vein thrombosis; prior vein ablation on the index limb; ilio-caval obstruction; and renal, hepatic, or heart failure requiring prior hospitalization. An a priori sample size was calculated. We used multiple linear regression (adjusted for patient characteristics) to compare differences in VCSS scores of the two groups at baseline, and to test whether scores were equivalent using a priori equivalence boundaries of +1 and -1. In secondary analyses, we tested differences in VCSS scores in patients with C2 and C3 disease separately.

RESULTS

A total of 352 patients were enrolled; 64.2% (n = 226) had SFJ reflux, and 35.8% (n = 126) did not. The two groups did not differ by major clinical characteristics. The mean age of the cohort was 53.9 ± 14.3 years; women comprised 74.2%; White patients 85.8%; and body mass index was 27.8 ± 6.1 kg/m2. The VCSS scores in patients with and without SFJ reflux were found to be equivalent; SFJ reflux was not a significant predictor of VCSS score; and mean VCSS scores did not differ significantly (6.4 vs 6.6, respectively, P = .40). In secondary subset analyses, VCSS scores were equivalent between C2 patients with and without SFJ reflux, and VCSS scores of C3 patients with SFJ reflux were lower than those without SFJ reflux.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptom severity is equivalent in patients with GSV reflux with or without SFJ reflux. The absence of SFJ reflux alone should not determine the treatment paradigm in patients with symptomatic chronic venous insufficiency. Patients with GSV reflux who meet clinical criteria for treatment should have equivalent treatment regardless of whether or not they have SFJ reflux.

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.

Combined Treatment of the Anterior Accessory Saphenous Vein and the Great Saphenous Vein

The anterior accessory saphenous vein (AASV) is a common source of primary and recurrent lower extremity varicose veins. Reflux in the AASV can occur independently or simultaneously with great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux. A number of published reports describe recommendations and treatment of symptomatic refluxing AASVs, but descriptions of combined treatment are sparse. Treatment options for ablation of the AASV include both thermal and non-thermal techniques, and results are equivalent to ablation of the great and small saphenous veins. Although not commonly performed, concomitant ablation of the AASV and the GSV is effective and safe, and can be accomplished with minimal additional time. Concomitant treatment is an appropriate option that should be discussed with the patient.

Severity of disease and treatment outcomes of anterior accessory great saphenous veins compared with the great saphenous vein

OBJECTIVE

Endovenous therapies are currently the standard of care for the treatment of patients with symptomatic great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux. The effectiveness and long-term outcomes of these therapies for anterior accessory great saphenous veins (AAGSVs) are poorly defined. The objective of this investigation is to determine treatment outcomes in patients with symptomatic AAGSV reflux compared with patients with symptomatic GSV reflux.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected in the Center for Vein Restoration's electronic medical record system (NexGen Healthcare Information System, Irvine, Calif) and retrospectively analyzed. Treatment outcomes after a standalone ablation and ablation + phlebectomy were compared in patients with isolated AAGSV and GSV reflux. Treatment outcomes were assessed at 1 month and 6 months postprocedure using the revised Venous Clinical Severity Score (rVCSS) and the 20-item Chronic Venous Insufficiency Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (CIVIQ20) survey for quality of life. Medical and surgical comorbidities, Clinical-Etiological-Anatomical-Pathophysiological classification, body mass index, gender, race, and the average number of procedures performed were all analyzed.

RESULTS

From January 2015 to December 2018, 31,186 patients and 49,193 limbs were assessed. Of these, 91 patients/103 limbs had isolated AAGSV reflux, and 7704 patients/10,371 limbs had isolated GSV reflux. There were 95% and 75% women in the isolated AAGSV and GSV groups, respectively (P ≤ .001). For the ablation-only patients, AAGSV (n = 57 patients/61 limbs) and GSV (n = 5349 patients/7191 limbs), there were no differences in preintervention (7.0 ± 2.0 vs 6.8 ± 2.8, P = .99), 1-month (4.0 ± 2.4 vs 3.9 ± 2.8, P = .99), and 6-month (3.9 ± 2.6 vs 3.9 ± 2.9, P = .55) rVCSS scores. Similar results were observed when ablations and phlebectomies were performed (AAGSV [n = 34 patients/42 limbs] and GSV [n = 1848 patients/2491 limbs]). CIVIQ20 scores for patients with isolated AAGSV and GSV were 53.3 ± 19.6 vs 50.6 ± 18.8 (P = .43) preintervention, 37.2 ± 17.6 vs 35.7 ± 15.9 (P = .91) at 1 month, and 41.3 ± 21.7 vs 35.1 ± 15.7 (P = .36) at 6 months, respectively. Postprocedure scores within groups improved at 1 and 6 months (P ≤ .02); however, 6-month AAGSV CIVIQ20 scores after an ablation increased slightly compared with 1-month scores and were not different to preintervention GSV scores (P = .07). When phlebectomies were performed with ablations, 6-month CIVIQ20 scores were similar between groups (P = .72). There was no difference in the average number of ablations in patients with phlebectomies in the AAGSV or GSV group (1.24 ± 0.44 vs 1.35 ± 0.49, P = .15).

CONCLUSIONS

Endovenous therapies for the treatment of symptomatic AAGSVs demonstrate similar outcomes to patients with symptomatic GSV reflux. For standalone ablations, the rVCSS scores are similar between the groups; however, CIVIQ20 scores increase to preintervention levels in standalone ablation AAGSV patients at 6 months. This increase disappears when phlebectomies are performed with ablations. Based on these data, patients with symptomatic AAGSV treated with ablation also require treatment of the associated tributaries (varicosities) to achieve similar outcomes to patients with GSV, and this calls into question the effectiveness of ablation for isolated AAGSV reflux.