Site of service influence on stent use for hemodialysis access interventions.

Autor:	Madden NJ; Section of Vascular Surgery, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pa. Electronic address: njmadden@gmail.com., Dougherty MJ; Section of Vascular Surgery, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pa., Troutman DA; Section of Vascular Surgery, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pa., Maloni K; Section of Vascular Surgery, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pa., Calligaro KD; Section of Vascular Surgery, Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, Pa.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Journal of vascular surgery [J Vasc Surg] 2020 May; Vol. 71 (5), pp. 1653-1661. Date of Electronic Publication: 2019 Nov 07.
DOI:	10.1016/j.jvs.2019.06.219
Abstrakt:	Objective: With rising health care spending in the United States, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in recent years attempted to use reimbursement rates to influence use of less expensive care sites for covered patients, such as ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) and office-based laboratories (OBLs), in lieu of hospital service sites. It has been suggested that cost savings have not been realized because of more procedures being performed by physicians with ownership interests in nonhospital facilities. CMS adopted massive reimbursement changes for 2019 OBL and ASC-based procedures, which reduced dialysis access angioplasty reimbursement in the ASC setting by 50%, whereas facility reimbursement for stenting increased by 33% above prior levels. The clinical utility of adjunctive stenting in treating dialysis access stenosis remains controversial and highly discretionary. As a vascular group performing such procedures in both a hospital and nonhospital facility in which we have equity interest, we reviewed our use of stents in dialysis access procedures both in the hospital and in the ASC/OBL to determine whether site of service affected stent use. Methods: A retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database was performed from 2014 to 2018. All patients undergoing dialysis access angiography with angioplasty and adjunctive stent placement at our OBL (later ASC) and our primary hospital were included in the study. Results: There were 961 angioplasty or stent procedures performed for dialysis accesses between the two sites, 564 (58.7%) in the hospital setting and 397 (41.3%) at the OBL/ASC. There was a significant difference in race and age between the two sites, with younger, minority patients more frequently being treated in the hospital and older, white patients more likely to be treated in the ambulatory setting; 153 (27.1%) underwent adjunctive stent placement in the hospital and 127 (32.0%) in the ambulatory setting (P = .09). Conclusions: Whereas financial incentives have not yet had an appreciable influence on stent use for dialysis access within previous reimbursement paradigms, the dramatic changes recently adopted by CMS may well alter this dynamic and could lead to substantially higher overall costs without proven clinical advantage. Interventionalists may be incentivized to add stents when performing balloon angioplasty in ASCs. With high failure and reintervention rates and increasingly expensive adjuncts (drug-coated balloons and stents, covered stents), the cost implications of attempts to incentivize interventionalists toward a specific type of procedure or site of care are substantial, and unintended negative consequences are likely to occur. (Copyright © 2019 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu