Trends in Medicare Reimbursement, Use Rates, and Overall Expenditure for Skin Cancer Procedures: 2012-2017

Introduction

Skin cancers are the most common malignancy in the United States, and account for more than 8 billion dollars of health expenditure in the United States annually.¹ Furthermore, due to an aging population, the incidence of skin cancers in the United States continues to rise.² Given these trends, the treatment of skin cancers represents a growing share of national healthcare expenditure.¹ In addition to topical chemotherapy, procedural treatments for skin cancers include Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS), simple surgical excision, shave excision, as well as destructive modalities including laser surgery, electrosurgery, and cryosurgery. Each of these treatment modalities differs with respect to cost, cure rate, and risk of recurrence.³

Medicare is the largest healthcare payer in the United States, and Medicare reimbursement rates often serve as the starting point for negotiation with private payers.⁴ In an attempt to contain growing healthcare expenditures, policymakers have curbed Medicare reimbursement per relative value unit (RVU) over the past 20 years.⁵ Over this time period, however, the United States economy has had general inflation of more than 50%, leading to increased operating costs for physicians.⁶ Taken together, these trends raise an important question: what are the economic effects of declining Medicare reimbursement rates on skin cancer treatments? Do declining reimbursement rates incentivize increased utilization, or conversely, reduce access to necessary treatment? Do they incentivize use of higher cost treatment modalities instead of lower cost options?

Prior studies have described trends in the use of skin cancer procedures.³ Similarly, other studies have separately described the costs of skin cancer procedures.⁷ However, to the best of our knowledge, no study to date has described the relationship between procedure reimbursement rates and corresponding use rates. The purpose of this study was to quantify trends in Medicare reimbursement and use rates for skin cancer procedures from 2012 to 2017. the primary aim of this study is to describe the relationship between reimbursement rates, use rates, and overall Medicare expenditure on skin cancer procedures.

Methods

The Medicare Physician Supplier and Other Provider Public Use File (POSPUF) provides reimbursement and utilization data on all services and procedures provided to Medicare fee-forservice beneficiaries.⁸ HCPCS codes for the following procedure classes were queried from the CMS Physician Fee Schedule: simple excision, MMS, shave excision, and destruction of malignant lesions (destruction of malignant lesions includes laser surgery, electrosurgery, cryosurgery, chemosurgery, surgical curettement). HCPCS codes for benign lesions were excluded from this analysis. The HCPCS codes used in this analysis are listed in Table 1. Using the Medicare POPSUF, we aggregated the volume of services, number of providers, unique patient-provider interactions, and average Medicare reimbursement, for each HCPCS code from January 2012 to December 2017. We adjusted reimbursement rates for inflation by converting payment amounts into units of 2017 dollars. For each HCPCS code, we estimated total Medicare expenditure by multiplying the average Medicare reimbursement by the volume of services. We calculated aggregate data for each procedure class. The number of providers for each procedure class was estimated by averaging the number of providers for each HCPCS code within the procedure class. The number of unique patient-provider interactions was calculated by summing the number of interactions for each HCPCS code within the procedure class. Total Medicare expenditure for each procedure class was calculated by summing the total Medicare expenditure on each HCPCS code within the procedure class. Total use rate was calculated by summing the number of services for each HCPCS code within the procedure class. The average payment for each procedure class was calculated by dividing total Medicare expenditure by the total use rate for each procedure class. Annual overall Medicare expenditure for skin cancer surgery was estimated by summing the total expenditures for each procedure class.

This study was exempt from IRB review as the dataset is publicly available and contains no patient identifiers. Data analysis was conducted using JMP version 14.

Results

The results of our analysis are summarized in Table 2. From 2012 to 2017, MMS had the highest average Medicare reimbursement, whereas shave excision had the lowest average Medicare reimbursement. Over this time period, inflation-adjusted reimbursement rates declined for each procedure class with the exception of shave excision. The use rates of simple excisions, shave excisions, and destruction of malignant lesions declined from 2012 to 2017. However, the use rate of MMS increased 23% from 1,170,682 services in 2012 to 1,440,886 in 2017 (Figure 1). Similarly, over this time period, the number of unique patient-provider interactions declined for simple excisions, shave excisions, and destruction of malignant lesions. However, the number of unique patient-provider interactions for MMS increased 28% from 798,295 in 2012 to 1,024,639 in 2017.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

From 2012 to 2017, total inflation-adjusted Medicare expenditure on simple excisions decreased 14%, and declined 11% for destruction of malignant lesions. During the same time period, total inflation-adjusted Medicare expenditure on MMS increased 18%, and increased 16% for shave excision (Figure 1).

Overall inflation-adjusted Medicare expenditure for skin cancer procedures increased 9% from $743,222,614 in 2012 to $806,392,161 in 2017. Concurrently, inflation-adjusted Medicare expenditure on Mohs surgery increased by $83,363,703 (Figure 2). In addition, expenditure on MMS represented 61% of overall Medicare skin cancer procedure spending in 2012 and this proportion increased to 67% in 2017.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Discussion

This study describes the most recent trends in Medicare reimbursement rates, use rates, and overall Medicare expenditure for skin cancer procedures. From 2012 to 2017, overall inflation-adjusted Medicare expenditure on skin cancer procedures increased 9%. This increase was primarily driven by a 23% increase in the use rate of MMS. However, during the same time period, use rates for simple excisions, shave excisions, and destruction of malignant lesions all declined. These trends suggest that increased use of MMS replaced use of lower reimbursement modalities.

Average Medicare reimbursement for MMS HCPCS codes ($372.88 in 2017) was markedly higher than for other classes of skin cancer procedures. Therefore, from an economic perspective, Medicare reimbursement rates incentivized the use of MMS in relation to other treatment modalities. Previous studies have described wide variation in use rates and practice patterns amongst Mohs surgeons, prompting the American College of Mohs Surgery to develop appropriate use criteria (AUC) for MMS in 2012.^9–11 Yet, the results of this study suggest that the use rate of MMS continued to increase despite the adoption of AUC. However, numerous factors beyond economic incentives may have also contributed to this trend. For one, the aging population of the United States has led to a 33% increase in non-melanoma skin cancer cases over the last 10 years.² In addition, MMS provides more precise treatment with higher cure rates, thus the increased use of MMS may represent improved standards of care.¹²

The findings of this study have important implications for dermatologists and policy makers. In light of increasing national healthcare expenditures, policy makers have sought to slow spending growth, at least in part, by reducing physician reimbursement rates with respect to inflation. Yet, the trends described in this study suggest that reducing reimbursement rates may, in fact, incentivize increased use of high cost procedures and lead to increased overall healthcare expenditures. We describe the incentives created by Medicare’s existing fee-for-service payment model in Figure 3. Moreover, the findings of this study underscore the importance of adopting value-based payment models that link reimbursement to patient outcomes, rather than the volume of procedures.¹³ In order to build value-based payment models, dermatologists must first define the optimal treatment modalities for different subsets of skin cancer patients.¹⁴ To date, only one randomized controlled clinical trials has been performed comparing MMS to wide local excision for basal cell carcinoma. This study did not show statistically significant reductions in recurrence rates with MMS.¹⁵ Additional studies are needed to compare different treatment modalities head to head.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

The results of this study should be considered in the context of several limitations. First, this study reports trends from administrative claims data, and as such, did not incorporate clinical data including patient or tumor characteristics. Second, due to the ecological design of this study, the trends we describe should not be interpreted as causal. To the same end, the trends we describe should be considered in light of the United States’ changing population age structure and increasing incidence of non-melanoma skin cancers. Third, the design of this study did not account for the use of non-procedural treatment modalities such as topical medications or radiation therapy. Fourth, this study did not account for ancillary costs associated with skin cancer treatment procedures such as facility charges and pathology charges.

In summary, this study describes trends suggesting declining Medicare reimbursement rates have been associated with increasing use rates for higher cost skin cancer procedures. This has resulted in overall inflation-adjusted spending growth on skin cancer procedures for Medicare. Therefore, clinicians and policy makers should collaborate to develop value-based payment models that incentivize patient outcomes rather than procedural volumes.