Alexa De la Fuente Hagopian, Souha Farhat, Narainsai K Reddy, Sebastian Guadarrama-Sistos Vazquez, Pablo L Padilla, Anthony Echo
{"title":"Is Reconstructive Plastic Surgery Appropriately Valued? Comparison of Reimbursement per Unit Time for Reconstructive versus Aesthetic Procedures.","authors":"Alexa De la Fuente Hagopian, Souha Farhat, Narainsai K Reddy, Sebastian Guadarrama-Sistos Vazquez, Pablo L Padilla, Anthony Echo","doi":"10.1097/GOX.0000000000006313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The work relative value units (wRVUs) system was established as a quantifier of physician labor, technical skill, medical decision-making, and training time required to complete a surgical procedure; hence, more challenging operations should theoretically result in higher reimbursement or compensation. Our purpose was to highlight the discrepancies between insurance-based reconstructive and fee-for-service aesthetic procedures based upon dollar/unit time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed national data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, Aesthetic Surgery Databank, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to compare reimbursement for 8 reconstructive microsurgery and 3 aesthetic procedures and assessed operative times and reimbursement rates, then calculated \"relative value unit per unit time\" to measure compensation efficiency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This difference in remuneration translates to a 4.7× difference, with an overwhelming gap of $25.26 per minute between microsurgical reconstructive and aesthetic cases. These findings suggest that aesthetic cases are more profitable considering the compensation per unit time. Based on national rates of reimbursement, there is a large discrepancy between reimbursement in microsurgical reconstructive procedures and aesthetic procedures.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We demonstrated that complexity and time are not directly related to compensation.</p>","PeriodicalId":20149,"journal":{"name":"Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open","volume":"12 11","pages":"e6313"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11608644/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000006313","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The work relative value units (wRVUs) system was established as a quantifier of physician labor, technical skill, medical decision-making, and training time required to complete a surgical procedure; hence, more challenging operations should theoretically result in higher reimbursement or compensation. Our purpose was to highlight the discrepancies between insurance-based reconstructive and fee-for-service aesthetic procedures based upon dollar/unit time.
Methods: We analyzed national data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, Aesthetic Surgery Databank, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to compare reimbursement for 8 reconstructive microsurgery and 3 aesthetic procedures and assessed operative times and reimbursement rates, then calculated "relative value unit per unit time" to measure compensation efficiency.
Results: This difference in remuneration translates to a 4.7× difference, with an overwhelming gap of $25.26 per minute between microsurgical reconstructive and aesthetic cases. These findings suggest that aesthetic cases are more profitable considering the compensation per unit time. Based on national rates of reimbursement, there is a large discrepancy between reimbursement in microsurgical reconstructive procedures and aesthetic procedures.
Conclusions: We demonstrated that complexity and time are not directly related to compensation.
期刊介绍：
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open is an open access, peer reviewed, international journal focusing on global plastic and reconstructive surgery.Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open publishes on all areas of plastic and reconstructive surgery, including basic science/experimental studies pertinent to the field and also clinical articles on such topics as: breast reconstruction, head and neck surgery, pediatric and craniofacial surgery, hand and microsurgery, wound healing, and cosmetic and aesthetic surgery. Clinical studies, experimental articles, ideas and innovations, and techniques and case reports are all welcome article types. Manuscript submission is open to all surgeons, researchers, and other health care providers world-wide who wish to communicate their research results on topics related to plastic and reconstructive surgery. Furthermore, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open, a complimentary journal to Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, provides an open access venue for the publication of those research studies sponsored by private and public funding agencies that require open access publication of study results. Its mission is to disseminate high quality, peer reviewed research in plastic and reconstructive surgery to the widest possible global audience, through an open access platform. As an open access journal, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open offers its content for free to any viewer. Authors of articles retain their copyright to the materials published. Additionally, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery—Global Open provides rapid review and publication of accepted papers.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
