Disparities between Operative Time and Relative Value Units for Plastic Surgery Procedures

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, debridements, 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.