ABSTRACT
Introduction We examine whether provider-supplied urological catheters result in increased utilization by comparing claims data of providers before and after enrollment in a technology platform that allows them to directly order and manage distribution of prosthetics to patients.
Methods We analyzed trends in per-provider quantity utilization of urological catheters by examining Medicare Part B claims data for HCPCS codes A4351, A4352, and A4353 (and an additional category, ALL CODES, which summed utilization across all 3 codes) from years 2014 to 2019. We then identified 64 referring providers who both submitted claims in at least one of the above three HCPCS codes in 2019 and transitioned to physician-managed distribution in 2021. Finally, we compared overall and per-beneficiary utilization by these providers between 2019 (traditional referral model) and 2021 (provider-supplied model) for each code category.
Results We did not detect a significant increase in utilization for any code category. Overall utilization was not significantly different for code groups ALL CODES (p=0.26) and A4352 (p=0.8). Median A4351 utilization per provider decreased by 23% (p=0.01) after providers converted to the provider-supplied model. Correspondingly, median utilization of A4351 per beneficiary decreased by 23% (p=0.08) in the same span.
Conclusions These findings show that provider-supplied catheter distribution to patients does not lead to increased utilization. In the case of HCPCS code A4351 catheters, physician-managed distribution may reduce wasteful oversupply of units to individual patients, resulting in an overall decrease in utilization.
Competing Interest Statement
TH has received compensation from Rx Redefined as an independent researcher to analyze data and author this study. JH is employed by Rx Redefined.
Funding Statement
The authors received no specific public funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The ethics committee of RxRedefined waived ethical approval for this study, as there was no risk to patients and we did not report identifiable data.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Tom Hata, email: tomhata{at}berkeley.edu
Jayme Hanson, email: jayme{at}rxredefined.com
Conflicts of Interest: TH has received compensation from Rx Redefined as an independent researcher to analyze data and author this study. JH is employed by Rx Redefined.
Funding: The authors received no specific public funding for this work.
Data Availability
The Medicare claims dataset is publicly available from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The RxRedefined claims dataset is propriety, and researchers interested in replication need to seek access by contacting RxRedefined.
