Manes, R. Peter

Objective: To evaluate geographic and temporal trends in Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) billing and reimbursements across female otolaryngologists (ORL). Methods: We performed a cross-sectional, retrospective analysis of the 2017 Medicare Physician and Other Suppliers Aggregate File. We analyzed differences in the number of services, patients, reimbursements, unique Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes used, and services billed per patient among female ORLs. Results: Female ORLs accounted for 15.2% of the 8453 Medicare-reimbursed ORLs. Female ORLs who graduated between 2000 and 2010 were reimbursed a median of $58 031.9 (IQR: $32 286.5-$91 512.2) and performed a median of 702 (IQR: 359.5-1221.5) services, significantly less than those who graduated between 1990 and 1999 (median: $67 508.9; IQR: 37 018.0-110 471.5; P < .001; median: 1055.5; IQR: 497.3-1944; P < .001). Female ORLs who graduated between 2000 and 2010 saw a median of 232 patients (IQR: 130.5-368), significantly less than those who graduated between 1990 and 1999 (median: 308; IQR: 168.3-496; P < .001) patients, significantly more than those. Female ORLs in urban settings performed a median of 795 (IQR: 364-1494.3) services and billed for a median of 42 (IQR: 28-58) unique codes, significantly fewer than their counterparts in rural settings (median: 1096; IQR: 600-2192.5; P = .002; median: 54; IQR: 31.5-64.5; P = .001). Conclusions: Medicare reimbursements and billing patterns across female ORLs varied by graduation decade and geography. Female ORLs further along in their careers may be reimbursed more with greater clinical volume and productivity. Those practicing in urban settings may have practices with decreased procedural diversity and lower clinical volume compared to their counterparts in rural areas.

BackgroundImproving the quality of healthcare is a complex and resource intensive process. To optimize the allocation of scarce resources, quality improvement (QI) should focus on high‐value diseases that will produce the largest improvement in health system performance. Given the breadth and multidisciplinary nature of sinonasal disease management, the purpose of this study was to transparently develop a prioritized list of sinonasal diseases for QI from the perspective of the specialty of rhinology and the American Rhinologic Society (ARS).MethodsThe RAND modified Delphi methodology was used to rank the priority of nine sinonasal disease categories from 1 (lowest priority) to 9 (highest priority). Two rounds of ranking along with a teleconference meeting was performed by a panel of 9 experts from the ARS Quality Improvement Committee.ResultsThe final QI‐prioritized list of sinonasal diseases are as follows: chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) (mean score = 8.9), recurrent acute rhinosinusitis (RARS) (mean score = 7.9), sinonasal neoplasms (mean score = 7.0), anatomic nasal obstruction (mean score = 5.9), refractory epistaxis (mean score = 5.2), complicated acute rhinosinusitis (mean score = 5.2), chronic nonallergic rhinitis (mean score = 4.4), orbital disease (mean score = 4.3), uncomplicated acute rhinosinusitis (mean score = 4.1), and allergy/allergic rhinitis (mean score = 3.7).ConclusionThe three most important disease categories for QI from the perspective of the specialty of rhinology were CRS, RARS, and sinonasal neoplasms. Future studies need to define and validate quality metrics for each of these important disease categories in order to facilitate appropriate measurement and improvement initiatives.