Changes in use of autologous and prosthetic postmastectomy reconstruction after medicaid expansion in New York state

Implants versus autologous tissue flaps for breast reconstruction following mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Women who have a mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction may be offered different options for breast reconstruction, including use of implants or the woman's own tissue (autologous tissue flaps). The choice of technique depends on factors such as the woman's preferences, breast characteristics, preoperative imaging, comorbidities, smoking habits, prior chest or breast irradiation, and planned adjuvant therapies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of implants versus autologous tissue flaps for postmastectomy breast reconstruction on women's quality of life, satisfaction, and short- and long-term surgical complications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registries in July 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that compared implant-based reconstruction with autologous tissue-based reconstruction following mastectomy for breast cancer treatment or risk reduction. The minimum eligible sample size was 100 participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data using standard Cochrane procedures. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-five non-randomised studies with 57,555 participants met our inclusion criteria. There were nine prospective cohort studies and 26 retrospective cohort studies. We judged 26 studies at serious overall risk of bias and the remaining studies at moderate overall risk of bias. Some studies measured quality of life and satisfaction using the BREAST-Q (scale of 0 to 100, higher is better). Implants may reduce postoperative psychosocial well-being compared with autologous tissue flaps (mean difference (MD) -4.26 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4.91 to -3.61; I² = 0%; 6 studies, 3335 participants; low-certainty evidence). Implants may reduce or have little to no effect on postoperative physical well-being compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -1.92 points, 95% CI -4.44 to 0.60; I² = 87%; 6 studies, 3335 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Implants may reduce postoperative sexual well-being compared with autologous reconstruction (MD -6.63 points, 95% CI -7.55 to -5.72; I² = 0; 6 studies, 3335 participants; low-certainty evidence). Women who undergo breast reconstruction with implants versus autologous tissue flaps may be less satisfied with the breast, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -8.17 points, 95% CI -11.41 to -4.92; I² = 90%; 6 studies, 3335 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This outcome refers to a woman's satisfaction with breast size, bra fit, appearance in the mirror (clothed or unclothed), and how the breast feels to touch. Women who undergo breast reconstruction with implants versus autologous tissue flaps may be less satisfied with the reconstruction (MD -5.96 points, 95% CI -10.24 to -1.68; I² = 62%; 4 studies, 1196 participants; low-certainty evidence). This outcome refers to whether the aesthetic outcome has met the woman's expectations, the impact surgery has had on her life, and whether she thinks she made the right decision to have the reconstruction. Implants may reduce or have little to no effect on the risk of short-term complications compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.03; I² = 91%; 22 studies, 34,244 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Implants may increase long-term complications compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.22; I² = 94%; 17 studies, 26,930 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Implants may have little to no effect on the need for reintervention compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.68; I² = 93%; 15 studies, 14,171 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Implants may reduce the duration of surgery compared with autologous tissue flaps, but the evidence is very uncertain (MD -125.04 minutes, 95% CI -131.41 to -118.67; I² = 0; 2 studies, 836 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review show that autologous tissue-based reconstruction compared with implant-based reconstruction may improve participant-reported outcomes such as psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, and satisfaction with the reconstruction. There is also very uncertain evidence to suggest that autologous tissue-based reconstruction increases satisfaction with the breast and reduces the risk of long-term complications compared with implants. Implant-based reconstruction may be a shorter procedure, but the evidence is very uncertain. Despite the growing demand for breast reconstruction, the best technique has not been adequately studied in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and the evidence provided by non-randomised studies is often unsatisfactory. There is no superior breast reconstruction technique for all women. Future research should focus on the definition of decisional drivers to guide an evidence-based shared decision-making process in reconstructive breast surgery.

Racial Disparities in Breast Reconstruction at a Comprehensive Cancer Center

INTRODUCTION

Breast reconstruction after a mastectomy is an important component of breast cancer care that improves the quality of life in breast cancer survivors. African American women are less likely to receive breast reconstruction than Caucasian women. The purpose of this study was to further investigate the reconstruction disparities we previously reported at a comprehensive cancer center by assessing breast reconstruction rates, patterns, and predictors by race.

METHODS

Data were obtained from women treated with definitive mastectomy between 2000 and 2012. Sociodemographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics were compared between African American and Caucasian women, and logistic regression was used to identify significant predictors of reconstruction by race.

RESULTS

African American women had significantly larger proportions of public insurance, aggressive tumors, unilateral mastectomies, and modified radical mastectomies. African American women had a significantly lower reconstruction rate (35% vs. 49%, p < 0.01) and received a larger proportion of autologous reconstruction (13% vs. 7%, p < 0.01) compared to Caucasian women. The receipt of adjuvant radiation therapy was a significant predictor of breast reconstruction in Caucasian but not African American women.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified breast reconstruction disparities in rate and type of reconstruction. These disparities may be due to racial differences in sociodemographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics. The predictors of breast reconstruction varied by race, suggesting that the mechanisms underlying breast reconstruction may vary in African American women. Future research should take a target approach to examine the relative contributions of sociodemographic, tumor, and treatment determinants of the breast reconstruction disparities in African American women.

The Impact of Policy Reform on Utilization of Popular Reconstructive Procedures

OBJECTIVES

Medicaid beneficiaries systematically face challenges in accessing healthcare, especially with regard to specialty services like reconstructive surgery. This study evaluated the impact of 2 healthcare reform policies, Medicaid expansion and global hospital budgeting, on utilization of reconstructive surgery by Medicaid patients.

METHODS

Utilization of reconstructive surgery by Medicaid patients in New Jersey (Medicaid expansion/no global budget), Maryland (Medicaid expansion/with global budgets), and Florida (no Medicaid expansion/no global budget) between 2012 and 2016 was compared using quasi-experimental, interrupted time-series modeling. Subgroup analyses by procedure type and urgency were also undertaken.

RESULTS

During the study period, the likelihood of Medicaid patients using reconstructive surgery significantly increased in expansion states (Maryland: 0.3% [95% confidence interval = 0.17% to 0.42%] increase per quarter, P < 0.001; New Jersey: 0.4% [0.31% to 0.52%] increase per quarter, P = 0.004) when compared with Florida (nonexpansion state). Global budgeting did not significantly impact overall utilization of reconstructive procedures by Medicaid beneficiaries. Upon subgroup analyses, there was a greater increase in utilization of elective procedures than emergent procedures by Medicaid beneficiaries after Medicaid expansion (elective: 0.9% [0.8% to 1.3%] increase per quarter, P = 0.04; emergent/urgent: 0.2% [0.1% to 0.4%] increase per quarter, P = 0.02). In addition, Medicaid expansion had the greatest absolute effect on breast reconstruction (1.0% [95% confidence interval = 0.7% to 1.3%] increase per quarter) compared with other procedure types.

CONCLUSIONS

Medicaid expansion increased access to reconstructive surgery for Medicaid beneficiaries, especially for elective procedures. Encouragingly, although cost-constrictive, global hospital budgeting did not limit longitudinal utilization of reconstructive surgery by Medicaid patients, who are traditionally at higher risk for complications/readmissions.

Factors Associated With State-Specific Medicaid Expansion and Receipt of Autologous Breast Reconstruction Among Patients Undergoing Mastectomy

IMPORTANCE

Despite demonstrated psychosocial benefits, autologous breast reconstruction remains underutilized. An analysis of the association between Medicaid expansion and autologous breast reconstruction has yet to be performed.

OBJECTIVE

To compare autologous breast reconstruction rates and determine the association between Medicaid expansion and breast reconstruction.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective cross-sectional study was performed using the State Inpatient Database from January 1, 2012, through September 30, 2015, and included 51 340 patients. Patients were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes for breast cancer, mastectomy, and autologous breast reconstruction. Data from states that expanded Medicaid (New Jersey, New York, and Washington) were compared with states that did not expand Medicaid (Florida, North Carolina, and Wisconsin). Data were analyzed from June 1, 2020, through February 28, 2021.

EXPOSURES

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion was implemented in 2014; the preexpansion period ranged from 2012 to 2013 (2 years), whereas the postexpansion period ranged from 2014 to 2015 quarter 3 (1.75 years).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcomes included use of autologous breast reconstruction before and after expansion. Independent covariates included patient demographics, comorbidities, and state of residence.

RESULTS

Among 45 850 patients who underwent mastectomy and 9215 patients who received autologous breast reconstruction, 36 777 (67%) were White and 32 205 (59%) had private insurance. The use of immediate or delayed autologous reconstruction increased from 18.1% (4951 of 27 290) to 23.0% (4264 of 18 560) throughout the study period. Compared with 2012, the odds of reconstruction were 64% higher in 2015 (odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI, 1.48-1.80; P < .001). African American (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.33-1.55; P < .001) and Hispanic (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.31-1.60; P < .001) patients had higher odds of reconstruction compared with White patients regardless of state of residence. However, Medicaid expansion was associated with a 28% decrease in the odds of reconstruction (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61-0.87; P < .001) for African American patients, a 40% decrease (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.50-0.74; P < .001) for Hispanic patients, and 20% decrease (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67-0.96; P = .01) for patients with Asian, Native American, or other minority race/ethnicity. Medicaid expansion was not associated with changes in the odds of reconstruction for White patients.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, although the odds of receiving autologous breast reconstruction increased annually, Medicaid expansion was associated with decreased odds of reconstruction for African American patients, Hispanic patients, and other patients of color.

Medicaid for the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeon

Medicaid is a complex federally and state funded health insurance program in the United States that insures an estimated 76 million individuals, approximately 20 percent of the U.S. population. Many physicians may not receive formal training or education to help understand the complexities of Medicaid. Plastic surgeons, residents, and advanced practice practitioners benefit from a basic understanding of Medicaid, eligibility requirements, reimbursement methods, and upcoming healthcare trends. Medicaid is implemented by states with certain federal guidelines. Eligibility varies from state to state (in many states it's linked to the federal poverty level), and is based on financial and nonfinancial criteria. The passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 permitted states to increase the federal poverty level eligibility cutoff to expand coverage for low-income adults. The aim of this review is to provide a brief history of Medicaid, explain the basics of eligibility and changes invoked by the Affordable Care Act, and describe how federal insurance programs relate to plastic surgery, both at academic institutions and in community practice environments.

Impact of Physician Payments on Microvascular Breast Reconstruction: An All-Payer Claim Database Analysis

BACKGROUND

Rates of autologous breast reconstruction are stagnant compared with prosthetic techniques. Insufficient physician payment for microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction is one possible explanation. The payment difference between governmental and commercial payers creates a natural experiment to evaluate its impact on method of reconstruction. This study assessed the influence of physician payment differences for microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction and implants by insurance type on the likelihood of undergoing microsurgical reconstruction.

METHODS

The Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database was queried for women undergoing immediate autologous or implant breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2014. Univariate analyses compared demographic and clinical characteristics between different reconstructive approaches. Logistic regression explored the relative impact of insurance type and physician payments on breast reconstruction modality.

RESULTS

Of the women in this study, 82.7 percent had commercial and 17.3 percent had governmental insurance. Implants were performed in 80 percent of women, whereas 20 percent underwent microsurgical autologous reconstruction. Women with Medicaid versus commercial insurance were less likely to undergo microsurgical reconstruction (16.4 percent versus 20.3 percent; p = 0.063). Commercial insurance, older age, and obesity independently increased the odds of microsurgical reconstruction (p < 0.01). When comparing median physician payments, governmental payers reimbursed 78 percent and 63 percent less than commercial payers for microsurgical reconstruction ($1831 versus $8435) and implants ($1249 versus $3359, respectively). Stratified analysis demonstrated that as physician payment increased, the likelihood of undergoing microsurgical reconstruction increased, independent of insurance type (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with governmental insurance had lower odds of undergoing microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction compared with commercial payers. Regardless of payer, greater reimbursement for microsurgical reconstruction increased the likelihood of microsurgical reconstruction. Current microsurgical autologous breast reconstruction reimbursements may not be commensurate with physician effort when compared to prosthetic techniques.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Risk, II.

Disparities in Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Modified Framework for Advancing Research Toward Intervention

BACKGROUND

As the United States' population diversifies, eliminating disparities in health and healthcare has become increasingly important across all disciplines of medicine, including plastic and reconstructive surgery. This is evidenced by the growing body of literature in recent years focusing on disparities in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. No study to date has evaluated whether this research is progressing appropriately to promote tangible evidence-based interventions to reduce these disparities.

METHODS

A systematic literature review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines was performed to identify studies focusing on disparities in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. A previously established public health framework for advancing health disparities research was used to inform analysis of the quality and progression of the included studies. This triphasic framework categorizes disparities research as follows: detecting (identifies and measures disparities in vulnerable populations), understanding (establishes determinants of disparities), or reducing (proposes and evaluates interventions for eliminating disparities).

RESULTS

Ninety-five studies were identified between 1979 and 2016, with 61 (64.2%) published after 2010. The majority of studies (51.6%) were retrospective cohort or case-control studies (American Society of Plastic Surgery level III evidence). Fifty-eight (63.7%), 31 (34.1%), and 2 (2.2%) studies provided detecting-, understanding- and reducing-phase disparities research, respectively. Non-plastic and reconstructive surgery journals accounted for 70.5% of all articles and for most higher phase research articles, publishing 83.9% and 100% of second and third phase studies, respectively. Disparity categories investigated included race/ethnicity, age, income, insurance status/type, geography, and education level, with race/ethnicity being the most common (73.7%). The most commonly measured outcome was percent of subpopulation receiving reconstruction (63, 66.3%), followed by reconstruction type (14, 16.7%). Patient-, provider-, system-, and research-level factors were all identified as potential targets for interventions to reduce disparities.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a recent increase in literature focusing on postmastectomy breast reconstruction disparities, the majority focuses on identifying vulnerable populations with inadequate progression to second (understanding) and third (reducing) phases. Increasing research funding, availability of language-concordant and culturally concordant educational materials, and advocacy and sociopolitical awareness within the plastic surgery community is necessary to advance research on postmastectomy breast reconstruction and, ultimately, eliminate it.

Regional Variation and Trends in the Timing of Lower Extremity Reconstruction: A 10-Year Review of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample

BACKGROUND

The ideal timing of soft-tissue coverage for open lower extremity fractures remains controversial. Using U.S. national data, this study aims to characterize secular trends and regional variation in the timing of soft-tissue coverage.

METHODS

Using discharge data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2002 to 2011), the authors identified 888 encounters admitted from the emergency department with isolated open lower extremity fractures treated with pedicled or free tissue transfer. Soft-tissue coverage timing was assessed by patient factors, hospital characteristics, and fracture patterns. Statistical significance and secular trends were analyzed with generalized linear models.

RESULTS

The mean day of soft-tissue reconstruction was at 6.64 days. Over the 10-year period, the day of reconstruction increased significantly (from 6.12 days in 2002 to 12.50 days in 2011; coefficient, 0.09; 95 percent CI, 0.05 to 0.12; p < 0.001). Demographic and facility factors did not significantly impact timing. Elixhauser comorbidity scores greater than 2 were associated with later coverage (10.13 days versus 6.29 days; p = 0.001) along with multisite fractures (8.35 days; p = 0.022) and external fixators (8.78 days; p < 0.001). The U.S. Census division showed significant variation in timing ranging from 0.94 days (East North Central) to 9.84 days (Pacific).

CONCLUSIONS

A progressive delay in the timing of soft-tissue reconstruction was noted and may be attributed to negative-pressure wound therapy. The timing of soft-tissue coverage varied by region after adjusting for patient and hospital factors. Additional studies are needed to understand the impact of delayed soft-tissue coverage on patient outcomes and health services utilization.

The Influence of Physician Payments on the Method of Breast Reconstruction: A National Claims Analysis

BACKGROUND

Flap-based breast reconstruction demands greater operative labor and offers superior patient-reported outcomes compared with implants. However, use of implants continues to outpace flaps, with some suggesting inadequate remuneration as one barrier. This study aims to characterize market variation in the ratio of implants to flaps and assess correlation with physician payments.

METHODS

Using the Blue Health Intelligence database from 2009 to 2013, patients were identified who underwent tissue expander (i.e., implant) or free-flap breast reconstruction. The implant-to-flap ratio and physician payments were assessed using quadratic modeling. Matched bootstrapped samples from the early and late periods generated probability distributions, approximating the odds of surgeons switching reconstructive method.

RESULTS

A total of 21,259 episodes of breast reconstruction occurred in 122 U.S. markets. The distribution of implant-to-flap ratio varied by market, ranging from the fifth percentile at 1.63 to the ninety-fifth percentile at 43.7 (median, 6.19). Modeling the implant-to-flap ratio versus implant payment showed a more elastic quadratic equation compared with the function for flap-to-implant ratio versus flap payment. Probability modeling demonstrated that switching the reconstructive method from implants to flaps with a 0.75 probability required a $1610 payment increase, whereas switching from flaps to implants at the same certainty occurred at a loss of $960.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a correlation between the ratio of flaps to implants and physician reimbursement by market. Switching from implants to flaps required large surgeon payment increases. Despite a relative value unit schedule over twice as high for flaps, current flap reimbursements do not appear commensurate with physician effort.

Breast reconstruction after mastectomy at a comprehensive cancer center

Background

Breast reconstruction after mastectomy is an integral part of breast cancer treatment that positively impacts quality of life in breast cancer survivors. Although breast reconstruction rates have increased over time, African American women remain less likely to receive breast reconstruction compared to Caucasian women. National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers, specialized institutions with more standardized models of cancer treatment, report higher breast reconstruction rates than primary healthcare facilities. Whether breast reconstruction disparities are reduced for women treated at comprehensive cancer centers is unclear. The purpose of this study was to further investigate breast reconstruction rates and determinants at a comprehensive cancer center in St. Louis, Missouri.

Methods

Sociodemographic and clinical data were obtained for women who received mastectomy for definitive surgical treatment for breast cancer between 2000 and 2012. Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with the receipt of breast reconstruction.

Results

We found a breast reconstruction rate of 54 % for the study sample. Women who were aged 55 and older, had public insurance, received unilateral mastectomy, and received adjuvant radiation therapy were significantly less likely to receive breast reconstruction. African American women were 30 % less likely to receive breast reconstruction than Caucasian women.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that racial disparities in breast reconstruction persist in comprehensive cancer centers. Future research should further delineate the determinants of breast reconstruction disparities across various types of healthcare institutions. Only then can we develop interventions to ensure all eligible women have access to breast reconstruction and the improved quality of life it affords breast cancer survivors.