Search

Historically, our health care system has been based on a fee-for-service model, which has resulted in high-cost and fragmented care. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services is moving toward a paradigm in which health care providers are incentivized to provide cost-effective, coordinated, value-based care in an effort to control costs and ensure high-quality care for all patients. In 2015, the Medicare Access and Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act repealed the Sustainable Growth Rate and the fee-for-service model, replacing them with a 2-track system: Merit-based Incentive Payment System and the advanced Alternative Payment Model (aAPM) system. In 2016, the American Urogynecologic Society Payment Reform Committee was created and tasked with developing aAPMs for pelvic floor disorders. The purpose of this article is to describe the stress urinary incontinence aAPM framework, the data selected and associated data plan, and some of the challenges considered and encountered during the aAPM development.

Objective To design an endometrial cancer (EC) alternative payment (ECAP) model focused on surgical management of EC, as well as identify drivers of cost in order to develop opportunities for cost-savings while maintaining quality of care. Methods National practice patterns and reimbursements were compared between private payers (MarketScan data, years 2009–13) and public payers (Medicare, year 2014) of EC patients who underwent hysterectomy. An episode of care for EC included the hysterectomy, stratified by surgical approach (laparotomy versus robotic versus laparoscopy), and in- and outpatient reimbursements from 30days preoperatively to 60days postoperatively. Reimbursements were categorized into cost centers. A decision model informed modifiable components influencing overall reimbursements for EC surgical care. Variations in length of stay (LOS), emergency department (ED visits), and readmissions were analyzed to create an optimal care model. Results A total of MarketScan (n=29,558) and Medicare (n=377) patients were included. Mean total reimbursement for an episode of care was $19,183 (SD $10,844) for Medicare and $30,839 (SD $19,911) for MarketScan. Mean reimbursements were greatest for abdominal cases in Medicare ($25,553; SD $11,870) and MarketScan ($35,357; SD $21,670), followed by robotic and laparoscopic. Among MarketScan patients, 7.6% of women were readmitted within 60days after surgery and 11.7% had an evaluation in the ED. The median reimbursement per patient for readmission was $14,474 (IQR $8584 to $26,149), and for ED visit was $6327 (IQR $1369 to $29,153). In an optimized care model, increasing the rate of minimally invasive surgery by 5% while reducing LOS by 10% and ED visits/readmissions by 10%, lowered the average case reimbursement by $903 (2.9%) for MarketScan and $1243 (5.9%) for Medicare. Conclusion An ECAP model demonstrates that reimbursements vary by public versus commercial payers in the U.S. for the surgical management of endometrial cancer patients, and that opportunities for cost savings exist. Nominal increases in the rate of minimally invasive surgery and reduction in the rate of ED visits/readmissions and length of stay can result in substantial savings for endometrial cancer care.

Health care in the United States is in the midst of a significant transformation from a "fee for service" to a "fee for value" based model. The Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 has only accelerated this transition. Anticipating these reforms, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology developed the Future of Physician Payment Reform Task Force (PPRTF) in 2015 to develop strategies to ensure fair value based reimbursement policies for gynecologic cancer care. The PPRTF elected as a first task to develop an Alternative Payment Model for thesurgical management of low risk endometrial cancer. The history, rationale, and conceptual framework for the development of an Endometrial Cancer Alternative Payment Model are described in this white paper, as well as directions forfuture efforts.

In 2015, there was an 18% reduction in the Relative Value Units (RVUs) that the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) assigned to the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 58571 (Laparoscopy, surgical, with total hysterectomy, for uterus 250g or less; with removal of tube(s) and/or ovary(s)→TLH+BSO). The other CPT codes for laparoscopic hysterectomy and laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy (58541-58544 and 58570-58573) lost between 12 and 23% of their assigned RVUs. In 2016, the laparoscopic lymph node dissection codes 38570 (Laparoscopy, surgical; with retroperitoneal lymph node sampling (biopsy), single or multiple), 38571 (Laparoscopy, surgical; with bilateral total pelvic lymphadenectomy), and 38572 (Laparoscopy, surgical; with bilateral total pelvic lymphadenectomy and para-aortic lymph node sampling (biopsy), single or multiple) lost between 5.5 and 16.3% of their RVU's. The goals of this article from the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) Task force on Coding and Reimbursement are 1) to inform the SGO members on why CMS identified these codes as a part of their misvalued services screening program and then finalized a reduction in their payment levels; and 2) outline the role individual providers have in CMS' methodology used to determine the reimbursement of a surgical procedure.