医疗保险人群眼羊膜移植的使用模式和成本。

IF 9.5 1区 医学 Q1 OPHTHALMOLOGY
Daniel G Vail, Eric Nudleman, Luay Abdeljaber, Md Enamul Haque, Suzann Pershing
{"title":"医疗保险人群眼羊膜移植的使用模式和成本。","authors":"Daniel G Vail, Eric Nudleman, Luay Abdeljaber, Md Enamul Haque, Suzann Pershing","doi":"10.1016/j.ophtha.2025.08.023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Recent investigations from the Office of the Inspector General and The New York Times have raised concerns about the costs to Medicare of skin substitutes, documenting pervasive fraudulent billing practices outside of ophthalmology. These investigations have not covered the use of tissue in eye care, despite similar reimbursement incentives for the use of sutureless ocular amniotic membrane grafts (AMGs). We examine the volume, cost, and clinical indications associated with sutureless AMGs in eye care.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study of fee-for-service Medicare patients who received sutureless AMGs and eye care providers who bill for sutureless AMGs.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Nationally representative 20% sample of Medicare Part B claims for sutureless AMGs between 2011 and 2020.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We use longitudinal patient-level and provider-level data to specify regression models for our primary outcomes. We estimate Cox proportional hazards survival models for time-to-event analyses and logistic regression models for binary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Clinical indications for AMG use, time from patients' first encounter with a provider to their first AMG, use of AMGs for dry eye, and costs to Medicare.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Dry eye accounted for 44% of all sutureless AMG use in 2020, increased from 7% in 2011. Charges for ocular sutureless AMGs increased from $3.5 million in 2011 to $95.6 million in 2020; charges for AMGs used to treat dry eye increased from $250 000 to $41.4 million over this period. Some 28% of all claims for AMGS were submitted by 1% of providers. Patients are more likely to receive an AMG when seen by an optometrist (hazard ratio, 1.16; P < 0.001). The annual costs to Medicare for a patient with dry eye have increased dramatically among providers who use AMGs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The costs to Medicare for skin substitutes are inflated by reimbursement models that encourage their use even when there is little clinical indication. These concerns may be applicable to eye care as well, where spending on amniotic membrane grafts has increased dramatically, particularly for indications where clinical benefit may be limited. By requiring AMG manufacturers to report accurate sales prices, policymakers could reduce costs without limiting coverage of AMGs for appropriate clinical indications.</p><p><strong>Financial disclosure(s): </strong>Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.</p>","PeriodicalId":19533,"journal":{"name":"Ophthalmology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Utilization Patterns and Costs of Ocular Amniotic Membrane Grafts in the Medicare Population.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel G Vail, Eric Nudleman, Luay Abdeljaber, Md Enamul Haque, Suzann Pershing\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ophtha.2025.08.023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Recent investigations from the Office of the Inspector General and The New York Times have raised concerns about the costs to Medicare of skin substitutes, documenting pervasive fraudulent billing practices outside of ophthalmology. These investigations have not covered the use of tissue in eye care, despite similar reimbursement incentives for the use of sutureless ocular amniotic membrane grafts (AMGs). We examine the volume, cost, and clinical indications associated with sutureless AMGs in eye care.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study of fee-for-service Medicare patients who received sutureless AMGs and eye care providers who bill for sutureless AMGs.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Nationally representative 20% sample of Medicare Part B claims for sutureless AMGs between 2011 and 2020.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We use longitudinal patient-level and provider-level data to specify regression models for our primary outcomes. We estimate Cox proportional hazards survival models for time-to-event analyses and logistic regression models for binary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Clinical indications for AMG use, time from patients' first encounter with a provider to their first AMG, use of AMGs for dry eye, and costs to Medicare.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Dry eye accounted for 44% of all sutureless AMG use in 2020, increased from 7% in 2011. Charges for ocular sutureless AMGs increased from $3.5 million in 2011 to $95.6 million in 2020; charges for AMGs used to treat dry eye increased from $250 000 to $41.4 million over this period. Some 28% of all claims for AMGS were submitted by 1% of providers. Patients are more likely to receive an AMG when seen by an optometrist (hazard ratio, 1.16; P < 0.001). The annual costs to Medicare for a patient with dry eye have increased dramatically among providers who use AMGs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The costs to Medicare for skin substitutes are inflated by reimbursement models that encourage their use even when there is little clinical indication. These concerns may be applicable to eye care as well, where spending on amniotic membrane grafts has increased dramatically, particularly for indications where clinical benefit may be limited. By requiring AMG manufacturers to report accurate sales prices, policymakers could reduce costs without limiting coverage of AMGs for appropriate clinical indications.</p><p><strong>Financial disclosure(s): </strong>Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19533,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2025.08.023\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2025.08.023","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:美国监察长办公室和《纽约时报》最近的调查引起了人们对医疗保险中皮肤替代品成本的担忧,记录了眼科以外普遍存在的欺诈账单行为。尽管使用无缝线眼羊膜移植(AMGs)有类似的报销激励措施,但这些调查并未涵盖组织在眼保健中的使用。我们研究了眼保健中与无缝合线AMGs相关的体积、成本和临床适应症。设计:回顾性队列研究,对接受无缝合线amg的按服务收费的医疗保险患者和为无缝合线amg买单的眼科保健提供者进行研究。研究对象:2011年至2020年期间医疗保险B部分无缝线amg索赔的全国代表性20%样本。方法:我们使用纵向患者水平和提供者水平的数据来指定我们的主要结果的回归模型。我们估计Cox比例风险生存模型用于时间-事件分析,logistic回归模型用于二元结果分析。主要观察指标:AMG使用的临床指征;从患者第一次接触医疗服务提供者到他们第一次AMG的时间;干眼症AMGs的应用;医疗保险的成本。结果:干眼症占2020年所有无缝合线AMG使用的44%,高于2011年的7%。眼部无缝合AMGs的费用从2011年的350万美元增加到2020年的9560万美元;在此期间,用于治疗干眼症的amg的费用从25万美元增加到4140万美元。28%的AMGS索赔是由1%的供应商提交的。当由验光师检查时,患者更有可能接受AMG (HR 1.16, p)。结论:即使在没有临床指征的情况下,也鼓励使用皮肤替代品的报销模式夸大了医疗保险的成本。这些担忧也适用于眼部护理,在这方面,羊膜移植的花费急剧增加,特别是在临床获益可能有限的适应症上。通过要求AMG制造商报告准确的销售价格,政策制定者可以在不限制AMG对适当临床适应症的覆盖范围的情况下降低成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Utilization Patterns and Costs of Ocular Amniotic Membrane Grafts in the Medicare Population.

Purpose: Recent investigations from the Office of the Inspector General and The New York Times have raised concerns about the costs to Medicare of skin substitutes, documenting pervasive fraudulent billing practices outside of ophthalmology. These investigations have not covered the use of tissue in eye care, despite similar reimbursement incentives for the use of sutureless ocular amniotic membrane grafts (AMGs). We examine the volume, cost, and clinical indications associated with sutureless AMGs in eye care.

Design: Retrospective cohort study of fee-for-service Medicare patients who received sutureless AMGs and eye care providers who bill for sutureless AMGs.

Participants: Nationally representative 20% sample of Medicare Part B claims for sutureless AMGs between 2011 and 2020.

Methods: We use longitudinal patient-level and provider-level data to specify regression models for our primary outcomes. We estimate Cox proportional hazards survival models for time-to-event analyses and logistic regression models for binary outcomes.

Main outcome measures: Clinical indications for AMG use, time from patients' first encounter with a provider to their first AMG, use of AMGs for dry eye, and costs to Medicare.

Results: Dry eye accounted for 44% of all sutureless AMG use in 2020, increased from 7% in 2011. Charges for ocular sutureless AMGs increased from $3.5 million in 2011 to $95.6 million in 2020; charges for AMGs used to treat dry eye increased from $250 000 to $41.4 million over this period. Some 28% of all claims for AMGS were submitted by 1% of providers. Patients are more likely to receive an AMG when seen by an optometrist (hazard ratio, 1.16; P < 0.001). The annual costs to Medicare for a patient with dry eye have increased dramatically among providers who use AMGs.

Conclusions: The costs to Medicare for skin substitutes are inflated by reimbursement models that encourage their use even when there is little clinical indication. These concerns may be applicable to eye care as well, where spending on amniotic membrane grafts has increased dramatically, particularly for indications where clinical benefit may be limited. By requiring AMG manufacturers to report accurate sales prices, policymakers could reduce costs without limiting coverage of AMGs for appropriate clinical indications.

Financial disclosure(s): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ophthalmology
Ophthalmology 医学-眼科学
CiteScore
22.30
自引率
3.60%
发文量
412
审稿时长
18 days
期刊介绍: The journal Ophthalmology, from the American Academy of Ophthalmology, contributes to society by publishing research in clinical and basic science related to vision.It upholds excellence through unbiased peer-review, fostering innovation, promoting discovery, and encouraging lifelong learning.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信