MACRA: background, opportunities and challenges for the neurointerventional specialist

Reimbursement patterns for neurosurgery: Analysis of the NERVES survey results from 2011-2016

OBJECTIVE

In response to rising national health expenditures, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed in 2010, with major provisions implemented in 2014. Due to increasing concerns about workload and compensation among neurosurgeons, we evaluated trends in neurosurgical reimbursement, productivity and compensation before and after the implementation of the major provisions of the ACA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Results from Neurosurgery Executives' Resource Value and Education Society (NERVES) annual surveys were collected, representing data from 2011 to 2016. Responses from different practice settings across the six years were categorized into groups, and inverse variance-weighted averaging was performed within the frameworks of a one-way ANOVA model with year. Data from 2011 to 2013 and 2014-2016 were analyzed similarly for differences among practice setting and region.

RESULTS

The NERVES survey response rates ranged from 20% to 36%. Median values for compensation decreased by 3.66%, 6.42%, and 10.34% within private, hospital, and academic practices respectively after 2014 although these trends did not reach statistical significance. Median work RVUs had a trend to decrease by 5.67%, 13.08%, and 19.44% within private, hospital, and academic practices respectively after 2014. Academic practices showed statistically significant decreases in annual total RVUs, total gross charges and collections.

CONCLUSION

These data demonstrate neurosurgical reimbursement and productivity have trended down during a time that increases in productivity and reimbursement were predicted. This phenomenon is most notable in academic practices compared to private or hospital based practices. Prospective analyses of the impact of healthcare policy reform on neurosurgical productivity are urgently needed.

Comparative Analysis of Utilization of Epidural Procedures in Managing Chronic Pain in the Medicare Population: Pre and Post Affordable Care Act

STUDY DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study of utilization patterns of epidural injections.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess patterns of utilization and variables of in chronic spinal pain in the fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare population, with a comparative analysis of pre- and post-Affordable Care Act (ACA) data from 2000 to 2009 and 2009 to 2016.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Over the years, utilization of interventional pain management techniques, specifically epidural injections have increased creating concern over costs and public health policy.

METHODS

The master data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) physician/supplier procedure summary from 2000 to 2016 was utilized to assess utilization patterns. The descriptive analysis of the database analysis was performed using guidance from the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). Multiple variables were analyzed based on the procedures, specialties, and geography.

RESULTS

Caudal and lumbar interlaminar epidural injections decreased 25% from 2009 to 2016 with an annual decrease of 4% in contrast to lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injection episodes, increasing at an annual rate of 0.3%. In contrast, lumbar interlaminar epidural injections increased 2.4% annually, while transforaminal episodes increased 23% from 2000 to 2009. The ratio of interlaminar epidural injections to transforaminal epidural injection episodes has changed from 7 in 2000 to 1 in 2016, whereas ratio of services changed from 5 to 0.7. From 2009 to 2016, cervical/thoracic interlaminar epidural injections episodes increased at an annual rate of 0.5%, with a decrease of 2.3% for transforaminal epidural injections.

CONCLUSION

Comparative analysis of the utilization of epidural injections from 2000 to 2009 and 2009 to 2016 showed vast differences with overall significant decreases in utilization, specifically for lumbar interlaminar and caudal epidural injections, with a continued, though greatly slowed increase of lumbosacral transforaminal epidural injections.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

The 100 most cited articles in the Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery

Background

The Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery (JNIS) published its first volume in 2009. Over the ensuing years, JNIS flourished and has published a considerable number of high-profile articles. Citation analysis is a method of quantifying various metrics related to scholarly publications.

Objective

To apply citation analysis to the 100 most cited papers in the history of JNIS.

Methods

The most cited articles in JNIS were identified by using the Web of Science database. The top 100 articles were ranked according to their number of citations. Further information was obtained for each article, including citations per year, year of publication, authorship, article topics, and article type and level of evidence.

Results

The total number of citations for the 100 most cited articles in JNIS ranged from 18 to 132 (median 26.0). Most articles (75%) were published between 2012 and 2015 and originated in the USA (79%). Eighteen authors have contributed five or more articles to the top 100 list. The most common topics are related to acute ischemic stroke and cerebral aneurysm.

Conclusions

This study highlights the influence of JNIS over its first decade by providing a comprehensive list of the 100 most cited articles and their authors as well as topics covered. This study also highlights the important factors driving the growth of JNIS.

MACRA 2.5: the legislation moves forward

The Medicare and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 remains the payment policy law of the land. 2017 was the first year in which performance reporting will tangibly impact future physician payments. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) considers 2017 and 2018 transitional years before full implementation in 2019. As such, 2018 increases the reporting requirements over 2017 in the form of a gradual phase-in while introducing several key changes and new elements. Indeed, it is the nature of the transition itself that led to the somewhat unique title of this manuscript, i.e., MACRA 2.5. Stakeholder feedback to the CMS regarding the program has ranged widely from the elimination of core components to expanding reporting to non-government payers. This article explores the potential impact on neurointerventional physicians.

A direct aspiration first-pass technique vs stentriever thrombectomy in emergent large vessel intracranial occlusions

OBJECTIVE

Endovascular thrombectomy in patients with acute ischemic stroke caused by occlusion of the proximal anterior circulation arteries is superior to standard medical therapy. Stentriever thrombectomy with or without aspiration assistance was the predominant technique used in the 5 randomized controlled trials that demonstrated the superiority of endovascular thrombectomy. Other studies have highlighted the efficacy of a direct aspiration first-pass technique (ADAPT).

METHODS

To compare the angiographic and clinical outcomes of ADAPT versus stentriever thrombectomy in patients with emergent large vessel occlusions (ELVO) of the anterior intracranial circulation, the records of 134 patients who were treated between June 2012 and October 2015 were reviewed.

RESULTS

Within this cohort, 117 patients were eligible for evaluation. ADAPT was used in 47 patients, 20 (42.5%) of whom required rescue stentriever thrombectomy, and primary stentriever thrombectomy was performed in 70 patients. Patients in the ADAPT group were slightly younger than those in the stentriever group (63.5 vs 69.4 years; p = 0.04); however, there were no differences in the other baseline clinical or radiographic factors. Procedural time (54.0 vs 77.1 minutes; p < 0.01) and time to a Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (TICI) scale score of 2b/3 recanalization (294.3 vs 346.7 minutes; p < 0.01) were significantly lower in patients undergoing ADAPT versus stentriever thrombectomy. The rates of TICI 2b/3 recanalization were similar between the ADAPT and stentriever groups (82.9% vs 71.4%; p = 0.19). There were no differences in the rates of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage or procedural complications. The rates of good functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale Score 0–2) at 90 days were similar between the ADAPT and stentriever groups (48.9% vs 41.4%; p = 0.45), even when accounting for the subset of patients in the ADAPT group who required rescue stentriever thrombectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study demonstrates that ADAPT and primary stentriever thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke due to ELVO are equivalent with respect to the rates of TICI 2b/3 recanalization and 90-day mRS scores. Given the reduced procedural time and time to TICI 2b/3 recanalization with similar functional outcomes, an initial attempt at recanalization with ADAPT may be warranted prior to stentriever thrombectomy.

Therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks in the treatment of chronic low back pain: cost utility analysis based on a randomized controlled trial

Background

Related to escalating health care costs and the questionable effectiveness of multiple interventions including lumbar facet joint interventions, cost effectiveness or cost utility analysis has become the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine influencing coverage decisions.

Methods

Cost utility of therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks in managing chronic low back pain was performed utilizing data from a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial with a 2-year follow-up, with direct payment data from 2016. Based on the data from surgical interventions, utilizing the lowest proportion of direct procedural costs of 60%, total cost utility per quality adjusted life year (QALY) was determined by multiplying the derived direct cost at 1.67.

Results

Patients in this trial on average received 5.6 ± 2.6 procedures over a period of 2 years, with average relief over a period of 2 years of 82.8 ± 29.6 weeks with 19 ± 18.77 weeks of improvement per procedure. Procedural cost for one-year improvement in quality of life showed USD $2,654.08. Estimated total costs, including indirect costs and drugs with multiplication of direct costs at 1.67, showed a cost of USD $4,432 per QALY.

Conclusions

The analysis of therapeutic lumbar facet joint nerve blocks in the treatment of chronic low back pain shows clinical effectiveness and cost utility at USD $2,654.08 for the direct costs of the procedures, and USD $4,432 for the estimated overall cost per one year of QALY, in chronic persistent low back pain non-responsive to conservative management.

Health Care Economics: A Study Guide for Neuroradiology Fellows, Part 2

In this second article, we continue the review of current health care economics as it relates to radiologists, specifically framed by topics defined by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in the evaluation of neuroradiology fellows. The discussion in this article is focused on topics pertaining to levels 4 and 5, which are the more advanced levels of competency defined by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Neuroradiology Milestones on Health Care Economics and System Based Practice.

The Impact of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act on the Field of Ophthalmology

PURPOSE

To analyze the impact of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) on the field of ophthalmology.

DESIGN

A perspective on the effects of MACRA's Quality Payment Program after analysis of the proposed rule, final rule, and commentary submitted by relevant stakeholders.

RESULTS

Physicians will need to use 1 of 2 payment structures: Merit-Based Incentive Payment Systems (MIPS) or Alternative Payment Models (APMs). APMs and MIPS will focus on bundling payments and reimbursing based on "fee-for-service-plus" models, which take into account clinical outcomes, coordination of care, clinical improvement, and electronic information exchange and security. APMs have substantial advantages, with eligible participants receiving a bonus and a higher rate of annual adjustment over the program's life. For most ophthalmology practices, MIPS may be more appropriate owing to its broader applicability and the current paucity of APMs for ophthalmologists.

CONCLUSION

The Quality Payment Program is a substantial improvement over the negative adjustments under the repealed Substantial Growth Rate model. Ophthalmologists will likely use the MIPS system; however, its comparatively lower reimbursements, as well as its cost, quality, and other reporting measures, may prove problematic.

A multicenter study evaluating the frequency and time requirement of mechanical thrombectomy

Introduction

There are few published data evaluating the incidence of mechanical thrombectomy among stroke centers or the times at which they occur.

Methods

A multicenter retrospective study was performed to identify all patients undergoing emergent thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke during a 3-month period (June through August 2016). Consultations that did not undergo thrombectomy were not included.

Results

Ten institutions participated in the study. During the 92-day study period, a total of 189 patients underwent mechanical thrombectomy. The average number of procedures per hospital over the study period was 18.9 (average of 0.2 cases per day per or 75.6 cases per year). This ranged from 0.09 cases per day at the lowest volume center to 0.49 cases per day at the highest volume center. Procedures were more common on weekdays (p<0.001) and during non-work hours (p<0.001). The most common period for thrombectomy procedures was between 20:00 and 21:00 hours. The median time from notification to groin puncture was 84 min (IQR 56–145 min) and from puncture to closure was 57 min (IQR 33–80 min). The median time from imaging completion to procedural start was 52 min longer for non-work hours than during work hours (p<0.001). There were no differences in procedural length based on day of the week or time of day.

Conclusions

These findings indicate that the majority of mechanical thrombectomy cases occur during non-work hours, with associated off-hours delays, which has important operational implications for hospitals implementing stroke call coverage.

Contextualizing the first-round failure of the AHCA: down but not out

On 8 November 2016 the American electorate voted Donald Trump into the Presidency and a majority of Republicans into both houses of Congress. Since many Republicans ran for elected office on the promise to ‘repeal and replace’ Obamacare, this election result came with an expectation that campaign rhetoric would result in legislative action on healthcare. The American Health Care Act (AHCA) represented the Republican effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Key elements of the AHCA included modifications of Medicaid expansion, repeal of the individual mandate, replacement of ACA subsidies with tax credits, and a broadening of the opportunity to use healthcare savings accounts. Details of the bill and the political issues which ultimately impeded its passage are discussed here.

Future considerations for clinical dermatology in the setting of 21st century American policy reform: The Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act and the Merit-based Incentive Payment System

As the implementation of the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act begins, many dermatologists who provide Medicare Part B services will be subject to the reporting requirements of the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). Clinicians subject to MIPS will receive a composite score based on performance across 4 categories: quality, advancing care information, improvement activities, and cost. Depending on their overall MIPS score, clinicians will be eligible for a positive or negative payment adjustment. Quality will replace the Physician Quality Reporting System and clinicians will report on 6 measures from a list of over 250 options. Advancing care information will replace meaningful use and will assess clinicians on activities related to integration of electronic health record technology into their practice. Improvement activities will require clinicians to attest to completion of activities focused on improvements in care coordination, beneficiary engagement, and patient safety. Finally, cost will be determined automatically from Medicare claims data. In this article, we will provide a detailed review of the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act with a focus on MIPS and briefly discuss the potential implications for dermatologists.

Foundational Changes Critical to Payments for Radiology Services

In early 2015, Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, described the federal administration's goals for delivery of health care in the United States. Prominently featured was a conversion from volume to value through the incorporation of Alternative Payment Models. The Department of Health and Human Services laid the framework, but recognized significant knowledge gaps in how providers and institutions would develop Alternative Payment Models. To that end, the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network was conceived. On March 25, 2015, the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network held its first meeting, which included a broad swath of industry participants. This collaboration was considered mission critical to achieving success in the goals of advancing Alternative Payment Models. This article highlights the Health Care Payment Learning and Action Network and the framework it is proposing for Alternative Payment Models that would have meaningful implications for radiologists.

MACRA, Alternative Payment Models, and the Physician-Focused Payment Model: Implications for Radiology

The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) of 2015 describes alternative payment models (APMs) as new approaches to health care payment that incentivize higher quality and value. MACRA incentivizes increasing APM participation by all physician specialties over the coming years. Some APMs will be deemed Advanced APMs; clinicians who are a Qualifying Participant in an Advanced APM will receive substantial benefits under MACRA including an automatic 5% payment bonus, regardless of their performance and savings within the APM, and a larger payment rate increase beginning in 2026. Existing APMs are most relevant to primary care physicians, and opportunities for radiologists to participate in Advanced APMs fulfilling Qualified Participant requirements are limited. Physician-Focused Payment Models (PFPMs), as described in MACRA, are APMs that target physicians' Medicare payments based on quality and cost of physician services. PFPMs must address a new issue or specialty compared with existing APMs and will thus foster a more diverse range of APMs encompassing a wider range of specialties. The PFPM Technical Advisory Committee is a new independent agency that will review proposals for new PFPMs and provide recommendations to CMS regarding their approval. The PFPM Technical Advisory Committee comprises largely primary care physicians and health policy experts and is not required to consult clinical experts when reviewing new specialist-proposed PFPMs. As PFPMs provide a compelling opportunity for radiologists to demonstrate and be rewarded for their unique contributions toward patient care, radiologists should embrace this new model and actively partner with other stakeholders in developing radiology-relevant PFPMs.

Cost Utility Analysis of Cervical Therapeutic Medial Branch Blocks in Managing Chronic Neck Pain

Background: Controlled diagnostic studies have established the prevalence of cervical facet joint pain to range from 36% to 67% based on the criterion standard of ≥ 80% pain relief. Treatment of cervical facet joint pain has been described with Level II evidence of effectiveness for therapeutic facet joint nerve blocks and radiofrequency neurotomy and with no significant evidence for intraarticular injections. However, there have not been any cost effectiveness or cost utility analysis studies performed in managing chronic neck pain with or without headaches with cervical facet joint interventions. Study Design: Cost utility analysis based on the results of a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of cervical therapeutic medial branch blocks in managing chronic neck pain. Objectives: To assess cost utility of therapeutic cervical medial branch blocks in managing chronic neck pain. Methods: A randomized trial was conducted in a specialty referral private practice interventional pain management center in the United States. This trial assessed the clinical effectiveness of therapeutic cervical medial branch blocks with or without steroids for an established diagnosis of cervical facet joint pain by means of controlled diagnostic blocks. Cost utility analysis was performed with direct payment data for the procedures for a total of 120 patients over a period of 2 years from this trial based on reimbursement rates of 2016. The payment data provided direct procedural costs without inclusion of drug treatments. An additional 40% was added to procedural costs with multiplication of a factor of 1.67 to provide estimated total costs including direct and indirect costs, based on highly regarded surgical literature. Outcome measures included significant improvement defined as at least a 50% improvement with reduction in pain and disability status with a combined 50% or more reduction in pain in Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores. Results: The results showed direct procedural costs per one-year improvement in quality adjusted life year (QALY) of United States Dollar (USD) of $2,552, and overall costs of USD $4,261. Overall, each patient on average received 5.7 ± 2.2 procedures over a period of 2 years. Average significant improvement per procedure was 15.6 ± 12.3 weeks and average significant improvement in 2 years per patient was 86.0 ± 24.6 weeks. Limitations: The limitations of this cost utility analysis are that data are based on a single center evaluation. Only costs of therapeutic interventional procedures and physician visits were included, with extrapolation of indirect costs. Conclusion: The cost utility analysis of therapeutic cervical medial branch blocks in the treatment of chronic neck pain non-responsive to conservative management demonstrated clinical effectiveness and cost utility at USD $4,261 per one year of QALY.

The episode, the PTAC, cost, and the neurointerventionalist

Episodic care forms a payment methodology of increasing relevance to neurointerventional specialists and other providers. Episodic care payment models are currently recognized in both payment paths described by the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Act (MACRA): the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System and Advanced Alternative Payment Models. Understanding the cost of care, as well as how such costs are shaped in the context of episodic care, will be critical to success in both of these paths.

MACRA 2.0: are you ready for MIPS?

The annual cost of healthcare delivery in the USA now exceeds US$3 trillion. Fee for service methodology is often implicated as a cause of this exceedingly high figure. The Affordable Care Act created the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) to pilot test value based alternative payments for reimbursing physician services. In 2015, the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) was passed into law. MACRA has dramatic implications for all US based healthcare providers. MACRA permanently repealed the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate so as to stabilize physician part B Medicare payments, consolidated pre-existing federal performance programs into the Merit based Incentive Payments System (MIPS), and legislatively mandated new approaches to paying clinicians. Neurointerventionalists will predominantly participate in MIPS. MIPS unifies, updates, and streamlines previously existing federal performance programs, thereby reducing onerous redundancies and overall administrative burden, while consolidating performance based payment adjustments. While MIPS may be perceived as a straightforward continuation of fee for service methodology with performance modifiers, MIPS is better viewed as a stepping stone toward eventually adopting alternative payment models in later years. In October 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a final rule for MACRA implementation, providing greater clarity regarding 2017 requirements. The final rule provides a range of options for easing MIPS reporting requirements in the first performance year. Nonetheless, taking the newly offered ‘minimum possible’ approach toward meeting the requirements will still have negative consequences for providers.

The Evolution of Mechanical Thrombectomy for Acute Stroke

OPINION STATEMENT

The natural history of an acute ischemic stroke from a large vessel occlusion (LVO) is poor and has long challenged stroke therapy. Recently, endovascular therapy has demonstrated superiority to medical management in appropriately selected patients. This advance has revolutionized acute care for LVO and mandates a reevaluation of the entire chain of stroke care delivery, including patient selection, intervention, and post-procedural care. Since endovascular therapy is a therapy specifically targeting LVO, its application should be restricted to those patients only. Clinical and radiologic parameters need to be considered in patient selection. Data supports that all patients over the age of 18 years presenting with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) of 6 or greater within 6 hours of symptom onset should be considered for emergent endovascular therapy. Radiologically, those with a LVO of the internal carotid artery (ICA) or middle cerebral artery (MCA) M1 portion, intermediate or good collaterals and without large established infarct should be considered endovascular candidates. Selection beyond these parameters remains an open question and is being actively evaluated. In all cases, revascularization should be attempted with a new generation device (stentriever or direct aspiration), as these techniques are most likely to deliver adequate reperfusion. Post-revascularization, patients are closely monitored in an intensive care setting followed by discharge to rehabilitation, if required, or directly home. Patients should be evaluated in delayed fashion to assess recovery (typically at 3 months post-treatment). Ultimately, the poor natural history of ischemic stroke from LVO and the potential significant benefit from endovascular therapy over medical management alone necessitate a national response to ensure we identify and treat all eligible patients as rapidly and effectively as possible.