Variability in Medicare utilization and payment among urologists.

OBJECTIVE To analyze variability in urologists' Medicare utilization and payment and estimate potential cost savings of standardized service utilization using information from the recently released Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File (PUF) and to highlight potential limitations of PUF analysis. MATERIALS AND METHODS The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services just released the PUF with payment or utilization data for 8792 urologists participating in Medicare in 2012. Linear regression correlated total number of patient visits with total Medicare payments to each urologist. Physicians were categorized into quartiles by actual payment in excess of predicted payment modeled by this regression. Utilization variability was calculated as a relative risk for the 40 most highly reimbursed services per patient visit, comparing the highest vs lowest quartile of urologists. Potential cost savings for those 40 services were calculated if services per visit >50% above the median were eliminated. RESULTS Medicare reimbursement was strongly predicted by the number of patient visits (R(2) = 0.70). Utilization variability of services performed per visit had a relative risk up to 3.52. The potential cost savings was $125,199,007 (9.0% of total 2012 Medicare urologist reimbursements). CONCLUSION Overall Medicare payment to urologists was strongly predicted by number of patient visits. Substantial variability existed in utilization of services per patient visit. Standardized utilization may result in significant Medicare cost savings. However, future analyses accounting for variable patient characteristics are needed to accurately determine appropriate service utilization.

[1]  B. Landon,et al.  Measuring low-value care in Medicare. , 2014, JAMA internal medicine.

[2]  J. Sunshine,et al.  Ownership or leasing of CT scanners by nonradiologist physicians: a rapidly growing trend that raises concern about self-referral. , 2008, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[3]  C. Roehrborn,et al.  The value of your time: evaluation of effects of changes in medicare reimbursement rates on the practice of urology. , 2004, The Journal of urology.

[4]  Victor R Fuchs,et al.  The perfect storm of overutilization. , 2008, JAMA.

[5]  D. G. Wagle Reimbursement policy and androgen-deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. , 2011, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  Lucy A Savitz,et al.  How Intermountain trimmed health care costs through robust quality improvement efforts. , 2011, Health affairs.

[7]  D. Asch,et al.  Choosing wisely: low-value services, utilization, and patient cost sharing. , 2012, JAMA.

[8]  S. Taneja,et al.  The effect of changes in Medicare reimbursement on the practice of office and hospital‐based endoscopic surgery for bladder cancer , 2010, Cancer.

[9]  P. Dasgupta,et al.  Robotic technology in urology , 2006, Postgraduate Medical Journal.

[10]  Douglas K Owens,et al.  High-Value, Cost-Conscious Health Care: Concepts for Clinicians to Evaluate the Benefits, Harms, and Costs of Medical Interventions , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[11]  Jean M. Mitchell Urologists' use of intensity-modulated radiation therapy for prostate cancer. , 2013, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  R. Andersen,et al.  Understanding the context of healthcare utilization: assessing environmental and provider-related variables in the behavioral model of utilization. , 1998, Health services research.

[13]  D. Berwick,et al.  The need for access to Medicare fee-for-service claims data. , 2013, JAMA.