Better Wound Care Begins With Better Evidence: Outcomes of the Wound Care Evidence Summit

In 2022, the Alliance of Wound Care Stakeholders convened the 2-day Wound Care Evidence Summit™. The Summit brought together a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders that included payers, government agency policymakers, prominent researchers, wound care medical specialty societies, patient and clinical associations, wound care clinics, and manufacturers to discuss wound care evidence and coverage issues. The Summit focused on a wide variety of wound care topics, with an emphasis on the processes payers use to create their coverage policies and the type, quantity, and characteristics of clinical evidence payers require. The most valuable outcome of the Summit was the frank and open discourse among stakeholders, with unprecedented participation from payers and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the subjects of trial design, product-approval pathways, and coverage policy determination. Stakeholders provided actionable ideas for ways to improve clinical trial research and design that will yield better evidence and ultimately better wound care. This article examines the quality, adequacy, and relevance of the existing chronic wound care research base and discusses the gaps, associated problems, and implications for clinical trial design and execution as identified by Summit participants.

Chronic wound prevalence and the associated cost of treatment in Medicare beneficiaries: changes between 2014 and 2019

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost of wound care and prevalence of chronic wounds for Medicare beneficiaries in the aggregate, by wound type, and by setting between the years 2014 and 2019.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis of Medicare claims data included beneficiaries who experienced episodes of care for diabetic foot ulcers and infections; arterial ulcers; skin disorders and infections; surgical wounds and infections; traumatic wounds; venous ulcers and infections; unspecified chronic ulcers; and others. The 2014 data were based on a Medicare 5% Limited Data Set whereas for 2019 the data used were for all fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries. Three methods were used to generate expenditure estimates: (a) a low (Medicare provider payments when the wound was a primary diagnosis, excluding any kind of deductible); (b) mid (primary plus secondary diagnosis with weighted attribution); and (c) high (primary or secondary diagnosis). The main outcomes were the prevalence of each wound type, Medicare expenditure for each wound type and aggregate, and expenditure by type of service.

RESULTS

Over the 5-year period the number of Medicare beneficiaries with a wound increased from 8.2 million to 10.5 million. Wound prevalence increased by 13% from 14.5% to 16.4%. Over the 5-year period, the Medicare beneficiaries with the largest increase in chronic wound prevalence were those aged <65 years (males: 12.5% to 16.3%; females: 13.4% to 17.5%). The largest changes in terms of wound prevalence were increases in arterial ulcers (0.4% to 0.8%), skin disorders (2.6% to 5.3%), and decreases in traumatic wounds (2.7% to 1.6%). Expenditures decreased regardless of the three methods used with a reduction of $29.7 billion to $22.5 billion for the most conservative method. Except for venous ulcers in which costs per Medicare beneficiary increased from $1206 to $1803, cost per wound decreased with surgical wounds remaining the most expensive to treat (2014: $3566; 2019: $2504), and the largest decrease for arterial ulcers ($9651 to $1322). Hospital outpatient fees saw the largest reduction ($10.5 billion to $2.5 billion) although home health agency expenditures decreased from $1.6 billion to $1.1 billion. Physician offices saw an increase from $3.0 billion to $4.1 billion and durable medical equipment increased from $0.3 billion to $0.7 billion.

CONCLUSIONS

It appears that chronic wound care expenditures have shifted to the physician's office from the hospital-based outpatient department. Given that the prevalence of chronic wounds is increasing, especially among the disabled under 65, it will be important to know whether these shifts have positively or negatively affected outcomes.

Wound Center Without Walls: The New Model of Providing Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic poses a major challenge in delivering care to wound patients. Due to multiple comorbidities, wound patients are at an increased risk for the most extreme complications of COVID-19 and providers must focus on reducing their exposure risk. The Federal, State, and local governments, as well as payers, have urged hospitals and providers to reduce utilization of nonessential health services, but they also have given more flexibility to shift the site of necessary care to lower risk environments. Providers must be prepared for disruption from this pandemic mode of health care for the next 18 months, at minimum. The wound provider must accept the new normal during the pandemic by adapting their care to meet the safety needs of the patient and the public. The Wound Center Without Walls is a strategy to untether wound care from a physical location and aggressively triage and provide care to patients with wounds across the spectrum of the health system utilizing technology and community-centered care.

Tips for Navigating the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System Coding Process for New Devices

Obtaining an appropriate Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) code for a new product is the first step in a successful reimbursement strategy. However, applying for a new HCPCS code can be a frustrating, confusing, and complex process even for those who have prepared and submitted applications many times. Although the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) staff provide excellent instructions for the various steps of the process (such as completing the application and presenting at the public meetings), the uninitiated and even veterans can learn tips from those who have been involved in this process for many years. The planning for a new HCPCS code should take place well in advance before the submission actually takes place. The company's reimbursement staff should be involved early in the product research and development and clinical trial discussions. This article addresses the strategy and activities that companies should undertake before applying for a new HCPCS code. In addition, the article also addresses key milestones in the HCPCS coding process, such as completing the HCPCS code application, attending, and speaking at the HCPCS public meeting.

An Economic Evaluation of the Impact, Cost, and Medicare Policy Implications of Chronic Nonhealing Wounds

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the cost of chronic wound care for Medicare beneficiaries in aggregate, by wound type and by setting.

METHODS

This retrospective analysis of the Medicare 5% Limited Data Set for calendar year 2014 included beneficiaries who experienced episodes of care for one or more of the following: arterial ulcers, chronic ulcers, diabetic foot ulcers, diabetic infections, pressure ulcers, skin disorders, skin infections, surgical wounds, surgical infections, traumatic wounds, venous ulcers, or venous infections. The main outcomes were the prevalence of each wound type, Medicare expenditure for each wound type and aggregate, and expenditure by type of service.

RESULTS

Nearly 15% of Medicare beneficiaries (8.2 million) had at least one type of wound or infection (not pneumonia). Surgical infections were the largest prevalence category (4.0%), followed by diabetic infections (3.4%). Total Medicare spending estimates for all wound types ranged from $28.1 to $96.8 billion. Including infection costs, the most expensive estimates were for surgical wounds ($11.7, $13.1, and $38.3 billion), followed by diabetic foot ulcers ($6.2, $6.9, and $18.7 billion,). The highest cost estimates in regard to site of service were for hospital outpatients ($9.9-$35.8 billion), followed by hospital inpatients ($5.0-$24.3 billion).

CONCLUSIONS

Medicare expenditures related to wound care are far greater than previously recognized, with care occurring largely in outpatient settings. The data could be used to develop more appropriate quality measures and reimbursement models, which are needed for better health outcomes and smarter spending for this growing population.

HCPCS Coding: An Integral Part of Your Reimbursement Strategy

The first step to a successful reimbursement strategy is to ensure that your wound care product has the most appropriate Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) code (or billing) for your product. The correct HCPCS code plays an essential role in patient access to new and existing technologies. When devising a strategy to obtain a HCPCS code for its product, companies must consider a number of factors as follows: (1) Has the product gone through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory process or does it need to do so? Will the FDA code designation impact which HCPCS code will be assigned to your product? (2) In what "site of service" do you intend to market your product? Where will your customers use the product? Which coding system (CPT^® or HCPCS) applies to your product? (3) Does a HCPCS code for a similar product already exist? Does your product fit under the existing HCPCS code? (4) Does your product need a new HCPCS code? What is the linkage, if any, between coding, payment, and coverage for the product? Researchers and companies need to start early and place the same emphasis on a reimbursement strategy as it does on a regulatory strategy. Your reimbursement strategy staff should be involved early in the process, preferably during product research and development and clinical trial discussions.

Consensus principles for wound care research obtained using a Delphi process

Too many wound care research studies are poorly designed, badly executed, and missing crucial data. The objective of this study is to create a series of principles for all stakeholders involved in clinical or comparative effectiveness research in wound healing. The Delphi approach was used to reach consensus, using a web-based survey for survey participants and face-to-face conferences for expert panel members. Expert panel (11 members) and 115 wound care researchers (respondents) drawn from 15 different organizations. Principles were rated for validity using 5-point Likert scales and comments. A 66% response rate was achieved in the first Delphi round from the 173 invited survey participants. The response rate for the second Delphi round was 46%. The most common wound care researcher profile was age 46-55 years, a wound care clinic setting, and >10 years' wound care research and clinical experience. Of the initial 17 principles created by the panel, only four principles were not endorsed in Delphi round 1 with another four not requiring revision. Of the 14 principles assessed by respondents in the second Delphi round, only one principle was not endorsed and it was revised; four other principles also needed revision based on the use of specific words or contextual use. Of the 19 final principles, three included detailed numbered lists. With the wide variation in design, conduct, and reporting of wound care research studies, it is hoped that these principles will improve the standard and practice of care in this field.