Search

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate changes in regional and national variations in reimbursement to arthroplasty surgeons, procedural volumes, and patient populations for total hip arthroplasty (THA) from 2013 to 2021., Methods: The Medicare Physician and Other Practitioners database was queried for all billing episodes of primary THA for each year between 2013 and 2021. Inflation-adjusted surgeon reimbursement, procedural volume, physician address, and patient characteristics were extracted for each year. Data were stratified geographically based on the United States Census regions and rural-urban commuting codes. Kruskal-Wallis and multivariable regressions were utilized., Results: Between 2013 and 2021, the overall THA volume and THAs per surgeon increased at the highest rate in the West (+48.2%, +20.2%). A decline in surgeon reimbursement was seen in all regions, most notably in the Midwest (-20.3%). Between 2013 and 2021, the average number of Medicare beneficiaries per surgeon declined by 12.6%, while the average number of services performed per beneficiary increased by 18.2%. In 2021, average surgeon reimbursement was the highest in the Northeast ($1,081.15) and the lowest in the Midwest ($988.03) (P < .001). Metropolitan and rural areas had greater reimbursement than micropolitan and small towns (P < .001). Patient age, race, sex, Medicaid eligibility, and comorbidity profiles differ between regions. Increased patient comorbidities, when controlling for patient characteristics, were associated with lower reimbursement in the Northeast and West (P < .01)., Conclusions: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) volume and reimbursement differ between US regions, with the Midwest exhibiting the lowest increase in volume and greatest decline in reimbursement throughout the study period. Alternatively, the West had the greatest increase in THAs per surgeon. Patient comorbidity profiles differ between regions, and increased patient comorbidity is associated with decreased reimbursement in the Northeast and the West. This information is important for surgeons and policymakers as payment models regarding reimbursement for arthroplasty continue to evolve., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Gender inequities and limited representation are an obstacle to surgical workforce diversification. There has been limited examination of gender-based disparities in billing practices among surgeons., Objective: To evaluate variations in practice metrics and billing practices among female and male surgeons and identify factors associated with gender disparities in Medicare reimbursements., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cross-sectional study used publicly available Medicare Fee-for-Service Provider Utilization and Payment data from January to December 31, 2021, to identify demographics, annual services provided, and financial payments and charges for general surgeons, surgical oncologists, and colorectal surgeons. Data were analyzed from November 2023 to February 2024., Exposure: The primary exposure of interest was surgeon gender (ie, female or male)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The annual total submitted charges and payments submitted in 2021 by female and male surgeons were assessed. Additionally, the total number and types of services provided each year and the number of beneficiaries treated were examined. Multivariable linear regression models were used to evaluate the association of surgeon gender with payments, number of services, and beneficiaries., Results: A total of 20 549 general surgeons (5036 [24.5%] female; 15 513 [75.5%] male), 1065 surgical oncologists (450 [42.3%] female; 615 [57.7%] male), and 1601 colorectal surgeons (432 [27.0%] female; 1169 [73.0%] male) were included. Across all surgical subspecialties, female surgeons billed fewer mean (SE) Medicare charges (general surgeons: 30.1% difference; $224 934.80 [$3846.97] vs $321 868.50 [$3933.57]; surgical oncologists: 27.5% difference; $277 901.70 [$22 857.37] vs $382 882.90 [$19 566.06]; colorectal surgeons: 21.7% difference; $274 091.70 [$10 468.48] vs $350 146.10 [$8741.66]; all P < .001) and received significantly lower mean (SE) reimbursements (general surgeons: 29.0% difference; $51 787.61 [$917.91] vs $72 903.12 [$890.35]; surgical oncologists: 23.6% difference; $57 945.18 [$3853.28] vs $75 778.22 [$2622.75]; colorectal surgeons: 24.5% difference; $63 117.01 [$2248.10] vs $83 598.53 [$1934.77]; all P < .001). On multivariable analysis, a reimbursement gap remained across all 3 surgical subspecialties (general surgeons: -$14 963.46 [95% CI, -$18 822.27 to -$11 104.64] [P < .001]; surgical oncologists: -$8354.69 [95% CI, -$15 018.12 to -$1691.25] [P = .01]; colorectal surgeons: -$4346.73 [95% CI, -$7660.15 to -$1033.32] [P = .01])., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, there was considerable gender-based variation in practice patterns and reimbursement among different surgical subspecialties serving the Medicare population. Differences in mean payment per service were associated with variations in billing and coding strategies among female and male surgeons.

Background: The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between risk and reimbursement for both surgeons and hospitals among Medicare patients undergoing primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA)., Methods: The "2021 Medicare Physician and Other Provider" and "2021 Medicare Inpatient Hospitals" files were used. Patient comorbidity profiles were collected, including the mean patient hierarchal condition category (HCC) risk score. Surgeon data included all primary TJA procedures (inpatient and outpatient) billed to Medicare in 2021, while hospital data included all such inpatient episodes. Surgeon and hospital reimbursements were collected. All episodes were split into a "sicker cohort" with an HCC risk score of 1.5 or more and a "healthier cohort" with HCC risk scores less than 1.5. Variables were compared across cohorts., Results: In 2021, 386,355 primary total hip and knee arthroplasty procedures were billed to Medicare and were included. The mean surgeon reimbursement among the sicker cohort was $1,021.91, which was less than for the healthier cohort of $1,060.13 (P < .001). Meanwhile, for the hospital analysis, 112,012 Medicare TJA patients were admitted as inpatients and included. The mean reimbursement to hospitals was significantly greater for the sicker cohort at $13,950.66, compared to the healthier cohort of $8,430.46. For both analyses, the sicker patient cohorts had a significantly higher rate of all comorbidities assessed (P < .001)., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that mean surgeon reimbursement was lower for primary TJA among sicker patients in comparison to their healthier counterparts, while hospital reimbursement was higher for sicker patients. This represents a discrepancy in the incentivization of care for complex patients, as hospitals receive increased remuneration for taking on extra risk, while surgeons get paid less on average for performing TJA on sicker patients. Such data should inform future policy to assure continued access to arthroplasty care among complex patients., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The authors provide a brief overview for thoracic surgeons in topics essential to achieving financial well-being as a student, trainee, practicing surgeon, and beyond. While broad in nature, the authors' article is comprehensive, and they cover topics including student loans, asset and wealth management, investment opportunities, financial and estate planning, and insurances. It is hoped that the information provided will allow thoracic surgeons to become more familiar with the financial topics that pertain to thoracic surgeons and provide an introduction to explore financial wellness and literacy more thoroughly., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The aim of this study is to assess cost-effectiveness of general practitioner (GP) versus surgeon-led colon cancer survivorship care from a societal perspective., Methods: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the I CARE study, which included 303 cancer patients (stages I-III) who were randomised to survivorship care by a GP or surgeon. Questionnaires were administered at baseline, 3-, 6-, 12-, 24- and 36-months. Costs included healthcare costs (measured by iMTA MCQ) and lost productivity costs (SF-HLQ). Disease-specific quality of life (QoL) was measured using EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score and general QoL using EQ-5D-3L quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Missing data were imputed. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated to relate costs to effects on QoL. Statistical uncertainty was estimated using bootstrapping., Results: Total societal costs of GP-led care were significantly lower compared to surgeon-led care (mean difference of - €3895; 95% CI - €6113; - €1712). Lost productivity was the main contributor to the difference in societal costs (- €3305; 95% CI - €5028; - €1739). The difference in QLQ-C30 summary score over time between groups was 1.33 (95% CI - 0.049; 3.15). The ICER for QLQ-C30 was - 2073, indicating that GP-led care is dominant over surgeon-led care. The difference in QALYs was - 0.021 (95% CI - 0.083; 0.040) resulting in an ICER of 129,164., Conclusions: GP-led care is likely to be cost-effective for disease-specific QoL, but not for general QoL., Implications for Cancer Survivors: With a growing number of cancer survivors, GP-led survivorship care could help to alleviate some of the burden on more expensive secondary healthcare services., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate associations between spine surgeon characteristics and different types of industry payments., Summary of Background Data: Industry funding has played an important role in research and technological innovation within spine surgery, and industry payments supporting research have risen significantly in comparison to funding from other sources. To our knowledge, no studies have investigated academic spine surgeon characteristics associated with different categories of industry payments., Materials and Methods: A query was conducted of the North American Spine Society Spine Fellowship Directory from 2021 to 2022 to identify all orthopaedic or neurosurgical spine fellowship selection committee members. A PubMed search was utilized to collect information on surgeon academic productivity up through December 31, 2021. The authors then conducted a query on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services open payments website from 2015 to 2021 to collect payment records of spine fellowship selection committee members., Results: On linear regression analysis, total publications (8203, P <0.001), attending years (48,823, P <0.001), and publication rate (57,528, P =0.017) were associated with higher general payments. Southeast spine surgeons (80,043, P =0.038) and fellowship directors (79,874, P =0.007) were associated with more research payments. Total publications (7409, P <0.001), attending years (47,100, P <0.001), and publication rate (47,511, P =0.040) were significantly associated with higher royalties. Having a Twitter/X account (60,800, P =0.018), being a director (51,605, P =0.034), total publications (492, P <0.001), and publication rate (6444, P <0.001) were all predictive of greater consulting payments., Conclusions: Spine surgeons who are experienced, academically productive, fellowship directors, and engage with social media receive greater payments on average than their peers across various payment types. As industry influence continues to make its way into health care, experienced leaders in their respective fields will shoulder the responsibility to integrate private innovation in an effective and scientifically rigorous manner., Level of Evidence: 3., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We sought to determine the premium associated with a career in academic surgery, as measured by compensation normalized to the work relative value unit (wRVU)., Background: An academic surgical career embodying innovation and mentorship offers intrinsic rewards but is not well monetized. We know compensation for academic surgeons is less than their nonacademic counterparts, but the value of clinical effort, as normalized to the wRVU, between academic and nonacademic surgeons has not been well characterized. Thus, we analyzed the variations in the valuation of academic and nonacademic surgical work from 2010 to 2022., Methods: We utilized Medical Group Management Association Provider Compensation data from 2010, 2014, 2018, and 2022 to compare academic and nonacademic surgeons. We analyzed raw total cash compensation (TCC), wRVU, TCC per wRVU (TCC/wRVU), and TCC to collections (TCCtColl). We calculated collections per wRVU (Coll/wRVU). We adjusted TCC and TCCtColl for inflation using the Consumer Price Index. Linear modeling for trend analysis was performed., Results: Compared with nonacademic, academic surgeons had lower TCC (2010: $500,415.0±23,666 vs $631,515.5±23,948.2, -21%; 2022: $564,789.8±23,993.9 vs $628,247.4±15,753.2, -10%), despite higher wRVUs (2022: 9109.4±474.9 vs 8062.7±252.7) and higher Coll/wRVU (2022: 76.68±8.15 vs 71.80±6.10). Trend analysis indicated that TCC will converge in 2038 at an estimated $660,931., Conclusions: In 2022, academic surgeons had more clinical activity and superior organizational revenue capture, despite less total and normalized clinical compensation. On the basis of TCC/wRVUs, academia charges a premium of 16% over nonacademic surgery. However, trend analysis suggests that TCC will converge within the next 20 years., Competing Interests: T.Z. is currently receiving grant funding from the NIH (T32GM144274). The remaining authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Bundled payment programs for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) have become popular among both private and public payers. Because these programs provide surgeons with financial incentives to decrease costs through reconciliation payments, there is an advantage to identifying and emulating cost-efficient surgeons. The objective of this study was to utilize the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Quality Payment Program (QPP) in combination with institutional data to identify cost-efficient surgeons within our region and, subsequently, identify cost-saving practice patterns., Methods: Data was obtained from the CMS QPP for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgeons within a large metropolitan area from January 2019 to December 2021. A simple linear regression determined the relationship between surgical volume and cost-efficiency. Internal practice financial data determined whether patients of identified surgeons differed with respect to x-ray visits, physical therapy visits, out-of-pocket payments to the practice, and whether surgery was done in hospital or surgical center settings., Results: There were 4 TKA and 3 THA surgeons who were cost-efficiency outliers within our area. Outliers and nonoutlier surgeons had patients who had similar body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Score, and age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index scores. Patients of these surgeons had fewer x-ray visits for both TKA and THA (1.06 versus 1.11, P < .001; 0.94 versus 1.15, P < .001) and lower out-of-pocket costs ($86.10 versus $135.46, P < .001; $116.10 versus $177.40, P < .001). If all surgeons performing > 30 CMS cases annually within our practice achieved similar cost-efficiency, the savings to CMS would be $17.2 million for TKA alone ($75,802,705 versus $93,028,477)., Conclusions: The CMS QPP can be used to identify surgeons who perform cost-efficient surgeries. Practice patterns that result in cost savings can be emulated to decrease the cost curve, resulting in reconciliation payments to surgeons and institutions and cost savings to CMS., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background:  Autologous breast reconstruction offers superior long-term patient reported outcomes compared with implant-based reconstruction. Universal adoption of free tissue transfer has been hindered by procedural complexity and long operative time with microsurgery. In many specialties, co-surgeon (CS) approaches are reported to decrease operative time while improving surgical outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesizes the available literature to evaluate the potential benefit of a CS approach in autologous free tissue breast reconstruction versus single-surgeon (SS)., Methods:  A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE from inception to December 2022. Published reports comparing CS to SS approaches in uni- and bilateral autologous breast reconstruction were identified. Primary outcomes included operative time, postoperative outcomes, processes of care, and financial impact. Risk of bias was assessed and outcomes were characterized with effect sizes., Results:  Eight retrospective studies reporting on 9,425 patients were included. Compared with SS, CS approach was associated with a significantly shorter operative time (SMD -0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.01 to -0.29, p  < 0.001), with the largest effect size in bilateral reconstructions (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.02, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.67, p  < 0.00001). CS was also associated with a significant decrease in length of hospitalization (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.07, p  = 0.02). Odds of flap failure or surgical complications including surgical site infection, hematoma, fat necrosis, and reexploration were not significantly different., Conclusion:  CS free tissue breast reconstruction significantly shortens operative time and length of hospitalization compared with SS approaches without compromising postoperative outcomes. Further research should model processes and financial viability of its adoption in a variety of health care models., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Academic surgery is the best career one could ever aspire to have; however, given the long duration of training and the anticipated education debt, surgeon compensation has not kept pace with the compensation of other comparable careers. As surgeon compensation has experienced increased downward pressure, it has become of growing importance to those in academic medicine/surgery. Competitive compensation is necessary, even if not sufficient, for successful faculty recruitment and retention. The optimal compensation system should encourage the best possible patient care, inspire teamwork, maximize the department's or physician practice's ability to recruit and retain faculty, support all missions, and be viewed as equitable and transparent. The goal of an optimal compensation system is to have faculty minds focused on things other than compensation-those elements of their job that are most important, such as career development, multidisciplinary clinical programs, research, and education. One way to ensure that compensation stays in the background for academic surgeons is for leadership to keep this front and center. Compensation plans can influence behavior and time management and affect the clinical, academic, and educational contributions of surgeons and physicians of all specialties. As we strive to optimize the productivity and engagement of a health system's most valuable resource-those who deliver surgical care and create new knowledge-compensation is an important variable in need of constant attention., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Mohs micrographic surgery efficiently treats skin cancer through staged resection, but surgeons' varying resection rates may lead to higher medical costs., Objective: To evaluate the cost savings associated with a quality improvement., Materials and Methods: The authors conducted a retrospective cohort study using 100% Medicare fee-for-service claims data to identify the change of mean stages per case for head/neck (HN) and trunk/extremity (TE) lesions before and after the quality improvement intervention from 2016 to 2021. They evaluated surgeon-level change in mean stages per case between the intervention and control groups, as well as the cost savings to Medicare over the same time period., Results: A total of 2,014 surgeons performed Mohs procedures on HN lesions. Among outlier surgeons who were notified, 31 surgeons (94%) for HN and 24 surgeons (89%) for TE reduced their mean stages per case with a median reduction of 0.16 and 0.21 stages, respectively. Reductions were also observed among outlier surgeons who were not notified, reducing their mean stages per case by 0.1 and 0.15 stages, respectively. The associated total 5-year savings after the intervention was 92 million USD., Conclusion: The implementation of this physician-led benchmarking model was associated with broad reductions of physician utilization and significant cost savings., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, Inc.)

Background: The Intercollegiate Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons (MRCS) examination is a mandatory requirement for higher specialty surgical training in the UK. However, there is a significant economic impact on trainees which raises the question of whether the costs of this exam hinder surgical career progression. This study explores the burden of these exams on trainees., Methods: A 37-point questionnaire was distributed to all trainees who were preparing for or have sat MRCS examinations. Univariate analyses included the cost of the preparatory resources, extra hours worked to pay for these and the examinations, and the number of annual leave (AL) days taken to prepare. Pearson correlation coefficients were used to identify possible correlation between monetary expenditure and success rate., Results: On average, trainees (n ​= ​145) spent £332.54, worked 31.2 ​h in addition to their rostered hours, and used 5.8 AL days to prepare for MRCS Part A. For MRCS Part B/ENT, trainees spent on average £682.92, worked 41.7 extra hours, and used 5 AL days. Overall, the average trainee spent 5-9% of their salary and one-fifth of their AL allowance to prepare for the exams. There was a positive correlation between number of attempts and monetary expenditure on Part A preparation (r(109)=0.536, p ​< ​0.001)., Conclusions: There is a considerable financial and social toll of the MRCS examination on trainees. Reducing this is crucial to tackle workforce challenges that include trainee retention and burnout. Further studies exploring study habits can help reform study budget policies to ease this pressure on trainees., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (Scottish charity number SC005317) and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients often evaluate the reputations of plastic surgeons based on their performances on physician review websites. This article aims to compare rating methodologies and conduct a cost-benefit analysis of physician review websites to further understand how plastic surgeons and their patients can utilize review websites to inform their practice and care., Methods: A review of online literature, blogs, and 17 of the most common physician review websites was conducted to identify information on review website methodology, cost, and benefits most pertinent to plastic surgeons and their patients., Results: Physician review websites utilize various combinations of physician-related and unrelated criteria to evaluate plastic surgeons. Across 17 reviewed platforms, most (71%) utilize star ratings to rate physicians, 18% require an appointment to conduct a review, and 35% feature search engine optimization. Many websites (53%) allow physicians to pay for benefits or extension packages, with benefits offered including advertising, search engine optimization, competitor blocking, social media marketing, consultant services, and data analytics. Competitor blocking was provided by the most number of websites who offered additional services for pay (78%)., Conclusions: Appointments are not required to post physician reviews on many review websites, and many websites allow physicians to purchase packages to enhance their search engine optimization or consumer reach. Accordingly, plastic surgeons' reputations on review websites may be influenced by factors extraneous to actual patient care. Patients and physicians should be cognizant that physician review websites may not be reflective of factors related to quality of patient care., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest and sources of funding: none declared., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Surgeon-scientists are uniquely positioned to facilitate translation between the laboratory and clinical settings to drive innovation in patient care. However, surgeon-scientists face many challenges in pursuing research, such as increasing clinical demands that affect their competitiveness to apply for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding compared with other scientists., Objective: To examine how NIH funding has been awarded to surgeon-scientists over time., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used publicly available data from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results) database for research project grants awarded to departments of surgery between 1995 and 2020. Surgeon-scientists were defined as NIH-funded faculty holding an MD or MD-PhD degree with board certification in surgery; PhD scientists were NIH-funded faculty holding a PhD degree. Statistical analysis was performed from April 1 to August 31, 2022., Main Outcome: National Institutes of Health funding to surgeon-scientists compared with PhD scientists, as well as NIH funding to surgeon-scientists across surgical subspecialties., Results: Between 1995 and 2020, the number of NIH-funded investigators in surgical departments increased 1.9-fold from 968 to 1874 investigators, corresponding to a 4.0-fold increase in total funding (1995, $214 million; 2020, $861 million). Although the total amount of NIH funding to both surgeon-scientists and PhD scientists increased, the funding gap between surgeon-scientists and PhD scientists increased 2.8-fold from a $73 million difference in 1995 to a $208 million difference in 2020, favoring PhD scientists. National Institutes of Health funding to female surgeon-scientists increased significantly at a rate of 0.53% (95% CI, 0.48%-0.57%) per year from 4.8% of grants awarded to female surgeon-scientists in 1995 to 18.8% in 2020 (P < .001). However, substantial disparity remained, with female surgeon-scientists receiving less than 20% of NIH grants and funding dollars in 2020. In addition, although there was increased NIH funding to neurosurgeons and otolaryngologists, funding to urologists decreased significantly from 14.9% of all grants in 1995 to 7.5% in 2020 (annual percent change, -0.39% [95% CI, -0.47% to -0.30%]; P < .001). Despite surgical diseases making up 30% of the global disease burden, representation of surgeon-scientists among NIH investigators remains less than 2%., Conclusion and Relevance: This study suggests that research performed by surgeon-scientists continues to be underrepresented in the NIH funding portfolio, highlighting a fundamental need to support and fund more surgeon-scientists.

Importance: Women have made substantial advancements in academic surgery, but research funding disparities continue to hamper their progress, and current literature on the status of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding awarded to women surgeon-scientists appears to be conflicting., Objective: To examine gender-based differences in NIH funding awarded to surgeon-scientists by comparing total grant amounts awarded and the distribution of grants by gender and research type., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study was performed using a previously created database of NIH-funded surgeons from 2010 to 2020. Active physician data from the Association of American Medical Colleges were used to calculate total surgeon populations. This study was performed at the NIH using the NIH internal data platform, iSearch Grants. A total of 715 men and women surgeon-scientists funded by the NIH in 2010 and 1031 funded in 2020 were included in the analysis., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the number of women among the total number of surgeons who received NIH grants and the total grant amounts awarded to them. Bivariate χ2 analyses were performed using population totals and substantiated by z tests of population proportions., Results: This study included 715 physicians (n = 579 men [81.0%]) in 2010 and 1031 physicians (n = 769 men [74.6%]) in 2020. In 2020, women comprised 27.4% of the surgical workforce and 25.4% of surgeons with research funding in the US, but they received only 21.7% of total NIH research funding awarded to all surgeons. The number of funded women surgeon-scientists, however, significantly increased from 2010 to 2020 (262 [25.4%] in 2020 vs 136 [19.0%] in 2010; P < .001) as did their funding ($189.7 million [21.7%] in 2020 vs $75.9 million [12.3%] in 2010; P < .001). Furthermore, the proportion of US women surgeons overall with NIH funding significantly increased in 2020 vs 2010 (0.7% vs 0.5%; P < .001). Basic science, clinical outcomes, and clinical trial R01 grants also increased among women surgeon-scientists. Women and men K grant holders had a similar mean (SD) number of R01 application attempts before success (2.7 [3.01] vs 2.3 [3.15]; P = .60) and similar K-to-R award conversion rates (23.5% vs 26.7%; P = .55)., Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found an increasing number of women surgeon-scientists receiving NIH funding in 2020 vs 2010 as well as increases in the median grant amounts awarded. Although these results are promising, a discrepancy remains in the proportion of women in the surgical workforce compared with those funded by the NIH and the total grant amounts awarded to them.

Objective: National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for academic (noncardiac) thoracic surgeons at the top-140 NIH-funded institutes in the United States was assessed. We hypothesized that thoracic surgeons have difficulty in obtaining NIH funding in a difficult funding climate., Methods: The top-140 NIH-funded institutes' faculty pages were searched for noncardiac thoracic surgeons. Surgeon data, including gender, academic rank, and postfellowship training were recorded. These surgeons were then queried in NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results for their funding history. Analysis of the resulting grants (1980-2019) included grant type, funding amount, project start/end dates, publications, and a citation-based Grant Impact Metric to evaluate productivity., Results: A total of 395 general thoracic surgeons were evaluated with 63 (16%) receiving NIH funding. These 63 surgeons received 136 grants totaling $228 million, resulting in 1772 publications, and generating more than 50,000 citations. Thoracic surgeons have obtained NIH funding at an increasing rate (1980-2019); however, they have a low percentage of R01 renewal (17.3%). NIH-funded thoracic surgeons were more likely to have a higher professorship level. Thoracic surgeons perform similarly to other physician-scientists in converting K-Awards into R01 funding., Conclusions: Contrary to our hypothesis, thoracic surgeons have received more NIH funding over time. Thoracic surgeons are able to fill the roles of modern surgeon-scientists by obtaining NIH funding during an era of increasing clinical demands. The NIH should continue to support this mission., (Copyright © 2021 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Vascular surgeon-scientists shape the future of our specialty through rigorous scientific investigation and innovation in clinical care and by training the next generation of surgeon-scientists. The Society for Vascular Surgery Foundation (SVSF) supports the development of surgeon-scientists through the Mentored Research Career Development Award (SVSF-CDA) program, providing supplemental funds to recipients of National Institutes of Health (NIH) K08/K23 grants. We evaluated the ongoing success of this mission., Methods: The curriculum vitae of the 41 recipients of the SVSF supplemental funding from 1999 to 2021 were collected and reviewed to evaluate the academic achievements, define the programmatic accomplishments and return on investment, and identify areas for strategic improvement., Results: For nearly 22 years, the SVSF has awarded supplemental funds for 31 K08 and 10 K23 grants to SVS members from 32 institutions. Of the 41 awardees, 34 have completed their K-funding and 7 are still being supported. Eleven awardees (27%) were women, including six of the current awardees (75%). However, only slight ethnic/racial diversity was found in the program. The awardees had obtained K-funding ∼4 years after becoming faculty. Eleven awardees (27%) were supported by Howard Hughes, NIH F32, or NIH T32 grants during training. To date, the SVSF has committed $12 million to the SVSF-CDA program. Among the 34 who have completed their K-funding, 21 (62%) successfully obtained NIH R01, Veterans Affairs, or Department of Defense funding. The awardees have secured >$114 million in federal funding, representing a 9.5-fold financial return on investment for the SVSF. In addition to research endeavors, 11 awardees (27%) hold endowed professorships and 19 (46%) have secured tenure at their institution. Many of the awardees hold or have held leadership positions, including 18 division chiefs (44%), 11 program directors (27%), 5 chairs of departments of surgery (12%), and 1 dean (2%). Eleven (27%) have served as president of a regional or national society, and 24 (59%) participate in NIH study sections. Of the 34 who have completed their K-funding, 15 (44%) have continued to maintain active independent research funding., Conclusions: The SVSF-CDA program is highly effective in the development of vascular surgeon-scientists who contribute to the leadership and growth of academic vascular surgery with a 9.5-fold return on investment. The number of female awardees has increased in recent years but ethnic/racial diversity has remained poor. Although 62% successfully transitioned to federal funding, fewer than one half have remained funded over time. Retention in research and increasing diversity for the awardees are major concerns and important areas of strategic focus for the SVSF., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective/background: Over the past decade, multidisciplinary "toe and flow" programs have gained great popularity, with proven benefits in limb salvage. Many vascular surgeons have incorporated podiatrists into their practices. The viability of this practice model requires close partnership, hospital support, and financial sustainability. We intend to examine the economic values of podiatrists in a busy safety-net hospital in the Southwest United States., Methods: An administrative database that captured monthly operating room (OR) cases, clinic encounters, in-patient volume, and total work relative value units (wRVUs) in an established limb salvage program in a tertiary referral center were examined. The practice has a diverse patient population with >30% of minority patients. During a period of 3 years, there was a significant change in the number of podiatrists (from 1 to 4) within the program, whereas the clinical full-time employees for vascular surgeons remained relatively stable., Results: The limb salvage program experienced >100% of growth in total OR volumes, clinic encounters, and total wRVUs over a period of 4 years. A total of 35,591 patients were evaluated in a multidisciplinary limb salvage clinic, and 5535 procedures were performed. The initial growth of clinic volume and operative volume (P < .01) were attributed by the addition of vascular surgeons in year one. However, recruitment of podiatrists to the program significantly increased clinic and OR volume by an additional 60% and >40%, respectively (P < .01) in the past 3 years. With equal number of surgeons, podiatry contributed 40% of total wRVUs generated by the entire program in 2019. Despite the fact that that most of the foot and ankle procedures that were regularly performed by vascular surgeons were shifted to the podiatrists, vascular surgeons continued to experience an incremental increase in operative volume and >10% of increase in wRVUs., Conclusions: This study shows that the value of close collaboration between podiatry and vascular in a limb salvage program extends beyond a patient's clinical outcome. A financial advantage of including podiatrists in a vascular surgery practice is clearly demonstrated., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2010 mandated that all industry payments to physicians be publicly disclosed. To date, industry support of plastic surgeons has not been longitudinally characterized. The authors seek to evaluate payment trends from 2013 to 2018 and characteristics across plastic surgeon recipients of industry payments., Methods: The authors cross-referenced those in the 2019 American Society of Plastic Surgeons member database with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database physician profile identification number indicating industry funds received within the study period. We categorized surgeons by years since American Board of Plastic Surgery certification, practice region, and academic affiliation., Results: A sum of $89,436,100 (247,614 payments) was received by 3855 plastic surgeons. The top 1 percent of earners (n = 39) by dollar amount received 52 percent of industry dollars to plastic surgeons; of these, nine (23 percent) were academic. Overall, 428 surgeons (11 percent) were academic and received comparable dollar amounts from industry as their nonacademic counterparts. Neither geographic location nor years of experience were independent predictors of payments received. The majority of individual transactions were for food and beverage, whereas the majority of industry dollars were typically for royalties or license., Conclusions: Over half of all industry dollars transferred went to just 1 percent of American Society of Plastic Surgeons members receiving payments between 2013 and 2018. Considerable heterogeneity exists when accounting for payment subcategories., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: The Open Payments database was created to increase transparency of industry payment relationships within medicine. The current literature often examines only 1 year of the database. In this study, the authors use 5 years of data to show trends among industry payments to plastic surgeons from 2014 to 2018. In addition, the authors lay out the basics of conflict-of-interest reporting for the new plastic surgeon. Finally, the authors suggest an algorithm for the responsible management of industry relationships., Methods: This study analyzed nonresearch payments made to plastic surgeons from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018. Descriptive statistics were calculated using R Statistical Software and visualized using Tableau., Results: A total of 304,663 payments totaling $140,889,747 were made to 8148 plastic surgeons; 41 percent ($58.28 million) was paid to 50 plastic surgeons in the form of royalty or license payments. With royalties excluded, average and median payments were $276 and $25. The average yearly total per physician was $2028. Of the 14 payment categories, 95 percent of the total amount paid was attributable payments in one of six categories. Seven hundred thirty companies reported payments to plastic surgeons from 2014 to 2018; 15 companies (2 percent) were responsible for 80 percent ($66.34 million) of the total sum paid. Allergan was responsible for $24.45 million (29.6 percent) of this amount., Conclusions: Although discussions on the proper management of industry relationships continue to evolve, the data in this study illustrate the importance of managing industry relationships. The simple guidelines suggested create a basis for managing industry relationships in the career of the everyday plastic surgeon., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: Program directors use US Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) scores as criteria for ranking applicants. First-time pass rates of the American Board of Surgery (ABS) Qualifying (QE) and Certifying (CE) Examinations have become important measures of residency program quality. USMLE Step 1 will become pass/fail in 2022., Study Design: American Board of Surgery QE and CE success rates were assessed considering multiple characteristics of highly ranked (top 20) applicants to 22 general surgery programs in 2011. Chi-square, t-test, Wilcoxon Rank sum, linear and logistic regression were used, as appropriate., Results: The QE and CE first attempt pass rates were 96% (235/244) and 86% (190/221), respectively. QE/CE success was not significantly associated with sex, race, research experience, or publications. Alpha Omega Alpha (AΩA) status was associated with success on the index CE (98% vs 83%; p = 0.008). Step 1 and Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK) scores of surgeons who passed QE on their first attempt were higher than scores of those who failed (Step 1: 233 vs 218; p = 0.016); (Step 2CK: 244 vs 228, p = 0.009). For every 10-point increase in Step 1 and 2CK scores, the odds of passing CE on the first attempt increased 1.5 times (95% CI 1.12, 2.0; p = 0.006) and 1.5 times (95% CI 1.11, 2.02, p = 0.008), respectively. For every 10-point increase in Steps 1 and 2CK scores, the odds of passing the QE on the first attempt increased 1.85 times (95% CI 1.11, 3.09; p = 0.018) and 1.86 times (95% CI 1.14, 3.06, p = 0.013), respectively., Conclusions: USMLE Step 1 and Step 2 CK examination scores correlate with American Board of Surgery QE and CE performance and success. The USMLE decision to transition Step 1 to a pass/fail examination will require program directors to identify other factors that predict ABS performance for ranking applicants., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: As operating room (OR) expenditures increase, faculty and surgical trainees will play a key role in curbing future costs. However, supply cost utilization varies widely among providers and, despite requirements for cost education during surgical training, little is known about trainees' comfort discussing these topics. To improve OR cost transparency, our institution began delivering real-time supply "receipts" to faculty and trainees after each surgical case. This study compares faculty and surgical trainees' perceptions about supply receipts and their effect on individual practice and cultural change., Study Design: Faculty and surgical trainees (residents and fellows) from all adult surgical specialties at a large academic center were emailed separate surveys., Results: A total of 120 faculty (30.0% response rate) and 119 trainees (35.7% response rate) completed the survey. Compared with trainees, faculty are more confident discussing OR costs (p < 0.001). Two-thirds of trainees report discussing OR costs with faculty as opposed to 77.0% of faculty who acknowledge having these conversations (p = 0.08). Both groups showed a strong commitment to reduce OR expenditures, with 87.3% of faculty and 90.0% of trainees expressing a responsibility to curb OR costs (p = 0.84). After 1 year of implementation, faculty continue to have high interest levels in supply receipts (82.4%) and many surgeons review them after each case (67.7%). In addition, 74.3% of faculty are now aware of how to lower OR costs and 52.5% have changed the OR supplies they use. Trainees, in particular, desire additional cost-reducing efforts at our institution (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Supply receipts have been well received and have led to meaningful cultural changes. However, trainees are less confident discussing these issues and desire a greater emphasis on OR cost in their curriculum., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective/background: With increased collaboration between surgeons and industry, there has been a push towards improving transparency of conflicts of interest (COIs). This study aims to determine the accuracy of reporting of COIs among studies in major vascular surgery journals., Methods: A literature search identified all comparative studies published from January 2018 through December 2018 from three major United States vascular surgery journals (Journal of Vascular Surgery, Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, and Annals of Vascular Surgery). Industry payments were collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. COI discrepancies were identified by comparing author declaration statements with payments found for the year of publication and year prior., Results: A total of 239 studies (1642 authors) were identified. Two hundred twenty-one studies (92%) and 669 authors (63%) received undisclosed payments when utilizing a cut-off payment amount of $250. In 2018, 10,778 payments (totaling $22,174,578) were made by 145 companies. Food and beverage payments were the most commonly reported transaction (42%), but accounted for only 3% of total reported monetary values. Authors who accurately disclosed payments received significantly higher median general payments compared with authors who did not accurately disclose payments ($56,581 [interquartile range, $2441-$100,551] vs $2361 [interquartile range, $525-$9,699]; P < .001). When stratifying by dollar-amount discrepancy, the proportions of authors receiving undisclosed payments decreased with increasing payment thresholds. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that first and senior authors were both significantly more likely to have undisclosed payments (odds ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.6 and odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-5.2, respectively)., Conclusions: There is a significant discordance between self-reported COI in vascular surgery studies compared with payments received in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database. This study highlights the need for increased efforts to both improve definitions of what constitutes a relevant COI and encourage a standardized reporting process for vascular surgery studies., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Surgeons are critical for the success of any health care enterprise. However, few studies have examined the potential impact of value-based care on surgeon compensation., Methods: This review presents value-based financial incentive models that will shape the future of surgeon compensation. The following incentivization models will be discussed: pay-for-reporting, pay-for-performance, pay-for-patient-safety, bundled payments, and pay-for-academic-productivity. Moreover, the authors suggest the application of the congruence model-a model developed to help business leaders understand the interplay of forces that shape the performance of their organizations-to determine surgeon compensation methods applicable in value-based care-centric environments., Results: The application of research in organizational behavior can assist health care leaders in developing surgeon compensation models optimized for value-based care. Health care leaders can utilize the congruence model to determine total surgeon compensation, proportion of compensation that is short term versus long term, proportion of compensation that is fixed versus variable, and proportion of compensation based on seniority versus performance., Conclusion: This review provides a framework extensively studied by researchers in organizational behavior that can be utilized when designing surgeon financial compensation plans for any health care entity shifting toward value-based care., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: The Physician Payments Sunshine Act was enacted to understand financial relationships with industry that might influence provider decisions. We investigated how industry payments within the congenital heart community relate to experience and reputation., Methods: Congenital cardiothoracic surgeons and pediatric cardiologists were identified from the Open Payments Database. All payments from 2013 through 2017 were matched to affiliated hospitals' U.S. News & World Report (USNWR) rankings, The Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Congenital Heart Surgery Public Reporting Star Ratings, and Optum Center of Excellence (COE) designation. Surgeon payments were linked to years since terminal training. Univariable analyses were conducted., Results: The median payment amount per surgeon ($71; interquartile range [IQR], $41-$99) was nearly double the median payment amount per cardiologist ($41; IQR, $18-$84; P < .05). For surgeons, median individual payment was 56% higher to payees at USNWR top 10 children's hospitals ($100; IQR, $28-$203) vs all others ($64; IQR, $23-$140; P < .001). For cardiologists, median individual payment was 26% higher to payees at USNWR top 10 children's hospitals ($73; IQR, $28-$197) vs all others ($58; IQR, $19-$140; P < .001). Findings were similar across The Society of Thoracic Surgeons-Congenital Heart Surgery star rankings and Optum Center of Excellence groups. By surgeon experience, surgeons 0 to 6 years posttraining (first quartile) received the highest number of median payments per surgeon (17 payments; IQR, 6.5-28 payments; P < .001). Surgeons 21 to 44 years posttraining (fourth quartile) received the lowest median individual payment ($51; IQR, $20-132; P < .001)., Conclusions: Industry payments vary by hospital reputation and provider experience. Such biases must be understood for self-governance and the delineation of conflict of interest policies that balance industry relationships with clinical innovation., (Copyright © 2021 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports mentored research career development awards (K awards) to increase the pipeline of independently funded scientists. This study analyzed the portfolio of K grants that were awarded to orthopaedic surgery departments and characterized the factors that were associated with successful transition to independent NIH research funding, including R01 grants., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of K-award recipients in orthopaedic surgery departments in the United States from 1996 to 2018. A query was performed on the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) database for NIH grants that were awarded to departments of orthopaedic surgery, general surgery, otolaryngology, obstetrics and gynecology, ophthalmology, and urology. Rates of transition to independent research funding were compared by specialty for K grants that were awarded from 1996 to 2011. The percentage of faculty with mentored research career development awards and the return on investment (ROI) were calculated. An internet and Scopus (Elsevier) database search determined the investigator characteristics. The factors that were associated with successful transition to independent funding were determined via chi-square and unpaired t tests., Results: Sixty K-award recipients were identified in orthopaedic surgery departments. Most were men (77%) and research scientists (53%). Fifty percent of the K-award recipients transitioned to independent research funding. Research scientists had the highest rate of transition to independent research funding (71%, p = 0.016) relative to clinicians (0%) and orthopaedic surgeons (40%). Higher levels of publication productivity were associated with successful transition to independent research funding. Similar rates of transition to independent research funding existed among surgical specialties (p = 0.107). Orthopaedic surgery had the lowest percentage of faculty with a K award (1.4%) but had the highest ROI (198%) of these awards., Conclusions: Orthopaedic surgery had similar rates of transition to independent research funding when compared with other surgical specialties but had a lower prevalence of K awards among faculty. Orthopaedic surgeon-scientists have lower rates of transition to independent research funding when compared with their research-scientist colleagues. These findings highlight a need for greater support to foster the pipeline of future NIH-funded orthopaedic investigators., Clinical Relevance: As the largest support of biomedical research in the U.S., the NIH is an important stakeholder in orthopaedic innovations and discoveries. This study highlights barriers in the procurement of NIH funding across surgical specialties and affirms the need for greater resources toward supporting NIH funding in orthopaedic surgery., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The authors indicated that no external funding was received for any aspect of this work. The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJS/G510)., (Copyright © 2021 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Background: Gender disparities in medicine have been demonstrated in the past, including differences in the attainment of roles in administration and in physician income., Objective: Our objective was to determine the differences in Medicare payments based on the provider gender and training track among female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgeons., Study Design: Medicare payments from the Provider Utilization Aggregate Files were used to determine the payments made by Medicare to urogynecologists. This database was merged with the National Provider Identifier registry with information on subspecialty training, years since graduation, and the geographic pricing cost index used for Medicare payment adjustments. Physicians with <90% female patients and those who graduated medical school <7 years ago in obstetrics and gynecology or <8 years ago in urology were excluded. The effects of gender, specialty of training, number of services provided, years of practice, and geographic pricing cost index on physician reimbursement were evaluated using linear mixed modeling., Results: A total of 578 surgeons with female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery subspecialty training met the inclusion criteria. Of those, 517 (89%) were trained as gynecologists, whereas 61 (11%) were trained as urologists. Furthermore, 265 (51%) of the gynecology-trained surgeons and 39 (80%) of the urology-trained surgeons were women. Among the urology-trained surgeons, the median female surgeon was paid $85,962 and their male counterparts were paid $121,531 (41% payment difference). In addition, urology-trained female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery surgeons performed a median of 1135 services and their male counterparts performed a median of 1793 services (57% volume difference). Similarly, among gynecology-trained surgeons, the median female payment was $59,277 with 880 services performed, whereas male gynecology-trained surgeons received a median of $66,880 with 791 services performed, representing a difference of 12% in payments and 11% in services. With linear mixed modeling, male physicians were paid more than female physicians while controlling for specialty training, number of services performed, years of practice, and geographic pricing cost index (P<.001)., Conclusion: Although Medicare payments are based on an equation, differences in reimbursement by physician gender exist in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery with female surgeons receiving lower payments from Medicare. The differences in reimbursement could not be solely explained by differences in patient volume, area of practice, or years of experience alone, suggesting that, similar to other fields in medicine, female surgeons in female pelvic medicine and reconstructive surgery are not paid as much as their male counterparts., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective(s): Identifying provider variation in surgical costs could control rising healthcare expenditure and deliver cost-effective care. While these efforts have mostly focused on complex and expensive operations, provider-level variation in costs of thyroidectomy has not been well examined., Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 921 consecutive total thyroidectomies performed by 14 surgeons at our institution between September 2011 and July 2016. Data were extracted from the Change Healthcare Performance Analytics Program., Results: Mean patient age was 47.4 ± 0.5 y, 81% were females, 64.7% were Caucasians, and 18.8% were outpatients. The number of thyroidectomies performed by the 14 surgeons ranged from 4 to 597 (mean = 66). The mean costs per provider varied widely from $4,293 to $15,529 (P < 0.001). The mean length of stay was 1d ± .03 with wide variation among providers (0-6 d). Providers whose hospital cost exceeded the institutional mean demonstrated significantly higher anesthesia fees and lab costs (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: We found substantial variation in hospital cost among providers for thyroidectomy despite practicing in the same academic institution, with some surgeons spending 3x more for the same operation. Implementing institutional standards of practice could reduce variation and the costs of surgical care., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Introduction: The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) has spread rapidly since it was identified. We sought to understand its effects on vascular surgery practices stratified by VASCON surgical readiness level and determine how these effects have changed during the course of the pandemic., Methods: All members of the Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Society were sent electronic surveys questioning the effects of COVID-19 on their practices in the early pandemic in April (EP) and four months later in the pandemic in August (LP) 2020., Results: Response rates were 206/731 (28%) in the EP group and 108/731 (15%) in the LP group (P < 0.0001). Most EP respondents reported VASCON levels less than 3 (168/206,82%), indicating increased hospital limitations while 6/108 (6%) in the LP group reported this level (P < 0.0001). The EP group was more likely to report a lower VASCON level (increased resource limitations), and decreased clinic, hospital and emergency room consults. Despite an increase of average cases/week to pre-COVID-19 levels, 46/108 (43%) of LP report continued decreased compensation, with 57% reporting more than 10% decrease. Respondents in the decreased compensation group were more likely to have reported a VASCON level 3 or lower earlier in the pandemic (P = 0.018). 91/108(84%) of LP group have treated COVID-19 patients for thromboembolic events, most commonly acute limb ischemia (76/108) and acute DVT (76/108). While the majority of respondents are no longer delaying the vascular surgery cases, 76/108 (70%) feel that vascular patient care has suffered due to earlier delays, and 36/108 (33%) report a backlog of cases caused by the pandemic., Conclusions: COVID-19 had a profound effect on vascular surgery practices earlier in the pandemic, resulting in continued detrimental effects on the provision of vascular care as well as compensation received by vascular surgeons., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate trends in Medicare reimbursement for common vascular procedures over the last decade. To enrich the context of this analysis, vascular procedure reimbursement is directly compared to inflation-adjusted changes in other surgical specialties., Methods: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary file was utilized to identify the 20 procedures most commonly performed by vascular surgeons from 2011-2021. A similar analysis was performed for orthopedic, general, and neurological surgeons. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician-Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool was queried for each procedure, and reimbursement data was extracted. All monetary data was adjusted for inflation to 2021 dollars utilizing the consumer price index. Average year-over-year and total percentage change in reimbursement were calculated based on adjusted data for included procedures. Comparisons to other specialty data were made with ANOVA., Results: From 2011-2021, the average, unadjusted change in reimbursement for vascular procedures was -7.2%. Accounting for inflation, the average procedural reimbursement declined by 20.1%. The greatest decline was observed in phlebectomy of varicose veins (-50.6%). Open arteriovenous fistula revision was the only vascular procedure with an increase in inflation-adjusted reimbursement (+7.5%). Year-over-year, inflation-adjusted reimbursement for common vascular procedures decreased by 2.0% per year. Venous procedures experienced the largest decrease in average adjusted reimbursement (-42.4%), followed by endovascular (-20.1%) and open procedures (-13.9%). These changes were significantly different across procedural subgroups (P < 0.001). During the same period, the average adjusted change in reimbursement for the 20 most common procedures in orthopedic surgery, general surgery, and neurosurgery was -11.6% vs. -20.1% for vascular surgery (P = 0.004)., Conclusion: Medicare reimbursement for common surgical procedures has declined over the last decade. While absolute reimbursement has remained relatively stable for several procedures, accounting for a decade of inflation demonstrates the true diminution of buying power for equivalent work. The most alarming observation is that vascular surgeons have faced a disproportionate decrease in inflation-adjusted reimbursement in comparison to other surgical specialists. Awareness of these trends is a crucial first step towards improved advocacy and efforts to ensure the "value" of vascular surgery does not continue to erode., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Over time, NIH funding has become increasingly competitive. In addition, academic surgeons' research competes with time required for patient care, operating, and administrative work. Due to these competing interests for surgeons, we hypothesize that the percentage of NIH grants awarded to researchers from departments of surgery is decreasing., Methods: The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was queried for the number and value of new and renewal R01 grants, and career development awards noting which surgery departments received awards from 1998 to -2018. Statistical analysis was performed using univariate and multivariable logistic regression., Results: The number of career development awards granted to researchers from departments of surgery decreased significantly over time (P = 0.007) while new R01's and R01 renewal awards were stable. The number of grants awarded to researchers from all procedural departments were compared to non-procedural departments and again, career development awards decreased significantly (P = 0.005) over time but new R01's and R01 renewals stayed stable. Looking at the difference in average dollar amount received for new R01, renewal R01, or career development awards between department of surgery awardees and non-surgery over time, there was no significant difference., Conclusions: NIH funding is becoming increasingly competitive and surgeons have many competing interests. Our study found that there has been a significant decrease in career development awards to department of surgery awardees and procedural specialists. The decrease in receipt of these awards is particularly concerning given that they are meant to provide protected time for developing researchers and thus have potential consequences for future research., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has transformed the delivery of medical and surgical services globally. Subsequently, all elective and aesthetic procedures have been cancelled or deferred in accordance with government-mandated quarantine measures. The Cosmetic Surgery Governance Forum (CSGF) is a network of aesthetic plastic surgery consultants which has enabled a sharing of expertise during challenging times. We conducted a cross-sectional survey to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on aesthetic plastic surgeons and their practice in the UK., Methods: On 15 June 2020, 131 respondents from the CSGF and wider aesthetic plastic surgeons in the UK were invited to respond to an online survey. An anonymised questionnaire was created using SmartSurvey TM and distributed at the end of the quarantine period. Questions regarding their current scope of practice, willingness to recommence face-to-face consultations, financial loss and psychological impact were asked., Results: A total of 101 Consultant Plastic surgeons (76%) completed the questionnaire. If strict protocols and adequate personal protective equipment were available, 50-55% of respondents would consider offering non-surgical treatments as soon as the private clinic was open. Furthermore, 51% would consider procedures under general anaesthetic, whilst 89% of respondents would offer local anaesthetic only in the initial phase. Moreover, 66% reported experiencing a psychological impact and 100% of respondents reported a significant financial impact., Conclusions: This survey aims to give an account of the current state (May-July 2020) of aesthetic plastic surgery in the UK. There is ongoing uncertainty and deliberation regarding the timing and organisational changes required for aesthetic practice to restart., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Philanthropy in plastic surgery supports research, clinical care, academic infrastructure, and education in the United States and internationally. Plastic surgeons have opportunities to innovatively address unmet needs in their local and global communities by forming philanthropic nonprofit organizations., Methods: The authors queried three national philanthropic databases (Charity Navigator, Guidestar, and ProPublica) for Internal Revenue Service 990 form tax return information related to philanthropic plastic surgery organizations. The authors analyzed the financial information publicly available about current plastic surgery philanthropic organizations and their funding sources., Results: Seventy-three federally tax-exempt groups identified plastic surgery as their primary area of work to the Internal Revenue Service in 2019, and 52 of those organizations said they engaged in clinical and/or educational philanthropy.3 In 2017, a total of $158.5 million was donated to these groups in cash and noncash donations including equipment and time. Analyses of 6 years (2013 to 2018) of tax records from groups that provide plastic surgery clinical, research, or educational philanthropy reveal that government grants provide very little funding for this work. Eighty-six percent of money raised for these groups in 2017 was collected by means of direct donations. Money obtained from fundraising events contributed 2 percent to their total monies raised in 2017 on average and 8 percent came from noncash gifts., Conclusions: A broad body of academic research is reviewed here that guides best practices and measuring a group's impact and outcomes. The details of a philanthropic group's organization and finances directly influence the impact of their work and, as such, are worthy of our sustained attention., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Background: Plastic surgeons are evaluated not only by the number of patients served but also by relative value, quantified by the Medicare relative value unit system, which can affect advancement and compensation. Procedures that demand a high operative time without an increase in relative value units are, by definition, inefficient. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the number of relative value units actually corresponds to operative time., Methods: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data sets over a 9-year period were queried for plastic surgery operations. The primary CPT codes representing the 100 most common operations were compared for operative time and total relative value units., Results: A total of 53,701 cases were included. There was a high degree of correlation between operative time and number of relative value units (Pearson correlation coefficient, 0.82). The average efficiency was 10.201 ± 3.386 relative value units per hour. Pressure ulcer excisions and breast reconstruction were among the most efficient (e.g., Excision, sacral pressure ulcer, CPT 19357, generated 20.819 relative value units per hour). Skin excisions, débridements, and flap delays were among the least efficient (e.g., Excision, excessive skin and subcutaneous tissue, CPT 15847, generated 1.752 relative value units per hour)., Conclusions: As a general trend, the most common plastic surgical procedures requiring longer operative times are associated with more relative value units. Cases with higher relative value units assigned tended to be more efficient. For the 100 most common procedures, relative value units and operative time are not evenly distributed. These data suggest modifications to the current relative value unit designation system to more equally allocate these units based on effort and time., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Surgeon-scientists provide critical perspectives to academic medicine, both as lead scientists and as collaborators. Successfully applying for and obtaining funding is critical to sustain a research program; however, significant challenges exist. It is imperative to be aware of and consider all funding sources available to surgeons during the evolution of one's career. Additionally, a deep understanding of intramural and extramural nonfinancial resources, such as mentorship relationships, grant writing, and career development courses, and research infrastructure are required. In this article, we present a set of recommendations and guidelines for surgeon-scientists to leverage funding resources with active planning longitudinally during their careers to sustain their research programs and provide their unique perspectives on surgical disease to the scientific community., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Summary: The progress of biotechnology, medical instruments, and applied sciences contributes to a rapidly expanding space for the advancement of the medical field. Surgeons experience first-hand the limitations of current medical devices and thus have unique insight into problems that could be solved with new products. The process of turning an idea into a product capable of success in the marketplace, however, is often unfamiliar to surgeons. The authors seek to illuminate this process and provide an ordered list of tasks that can make bringing ideas to market more achievable for surgeons. The first step in this process is the generation and protection of a new idea. Next, the process of making an idea into a product is outlined. This phase involves team assembly, business planning, and product development. Market research and valuation are key to understanding how a product can be applied in the market, and meticulous research during this phase allows for informed decision-making that will help secure funding down the road. Finally, various options for financing are discussed and compared to help surgeon-entrepreneurs find an option that best fits their project, and steps to maximize leverage are described. The development of new products can be a complicated process for surgeons. Organized into four phases, with ordered instructional steps to advance through each phase, the process of bringing an idea to the market is clarified. Facilitating this process will possibly contribute to the continual improvement of medical and surgical abilities through the introduction of new devices and technologies., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)

Physician compensation varies by specialty, gender, race, years in practice, type of practice, location, and individual productivity. We reviewed the disparities in compensation regarding the variation between medical and surgical specialties, between academic and private practice, between gender, race, and rank, and by practice location. The physician personal debt perspective was also considered to quantify the effect of disparities in compensation. Strategies toward eliminating the pay gap include salary transparency, pay equity audit, paid parental leave, mentoring, sponsorship, leadership, and promotion pathways. Pay parity is important because paying women less than men contributes to the gender pay gap, lowers pension contributions, and results in higher relative poverty in retirement. Pay parity will also affect motivation and relationships at work, ultimately contributing to a diverse workforce and business success. Rewarding all employees fairly is the right thing to do. As surgeons and leaders in medicine, establishing pay equity is a matter of ethical principle and integrity to further elevate our profession., (Copyright © 2021 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Summary: Social media are a powerful tool that creates a unique opportunity for the young plastic surgeon and trainee to share content, brand oneself, educate the public, and develop one's own professional voice early. The majority of all plastic surgery programs and particularly those that are highly ranked have social media opportunities for their residents, yet clear rules to guide implementation of social media programming in residency have remained unspecified. These guidelines and pitfalls can be used to inform a productive and professional entry into plastic surgery social media use for the resident and young plastic surgeon. Details regarding specific platform use to maximize exposure are provided. The core principles of patient safety and privacy, authentic photography, plastic surgery education and advocacy, and professionalism inform these guidelines. Pitfalls include establishment of an online physician-patient relationship, engaging in debate by means of online reviews, providing medical entertainment, and engaging in non-plastic surgery politics. Use of these guidelines will allow the young plastic surgeon and trainee to succeed by means of social media platforms in an ethical and professional manner., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.)