A review of United States endovenous ablation practice trends from the Medicare Data Utilization and Payment Database

Objective: The growth of endovenous ablation in the United States over the last few years has raised concerns of overuse by many vascular societies and payers. Reasons for such growth are unclear (ie, increased awareness, less invasive procedure, or inappropriate overuse). The Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment database was analyzed to define metrics of current practice trends in Medicare patients by providers. Methods: The Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment database was queried for endothermal ablation Current Procedural Terminology codes (36475, 36476, 36478, and 36479) from 2012 through 2015. These results were imported into a relational database program. Queries were designed to ascertain the practice trends of all providers, inclusive of all specialties, and the data were exported to a spreadsheet program for analysis. Analysis for ablations per patient was calculated by assessing the number of beneficiaries who underwent at least one ablation by a provider in relation to the total number of ablations performed by that provider. Results: Most saphenous vein ablations were done by vascular surgeons (29%), cardiologists (21%), or general surgeons (14%). The remaining one-third was performed by 33 other provider specialties ranging from nuclear medicine specialists to ophthalmologists. Regional variation was significant with 51% of ablations being performed in the south (Florida,15.7% and Texas,11.4%). The Western region had the greatest percentage growth of 62% with the addition of 14,788 cases added between 2012 and 2015. Ablations per patient averaged 1.8 in the aggregate dataset. Over the 4-year period, there was a steady increase seen in the number of patients undergoing ablation, number of ablations performed, number of providers performing ablation, average amount of ablations being performed as well as the number and proportion of providers performing more than ablations per patient. The number of ablations per patient was higher than average in specialties without any formal vascular training. Conclusions: Endovenous ablation is performed by a wide variety of subspecialists with different levels of formal training for the management of chronic venous disease. This data analysis can help to establish better guidelines and governance over the use of endovenous ablation, but care should be taken to realize this is only an average and many patients will require more than two ablations for appropriate care. As our health care system shifts from a fee-for-service to a value-based system, and taxpayer-funded resources in Medicare patients become less available, it is important that practice trends be scrutinized using data-driven initiatives so that the appropriate physician treats the appropriate patient for the appropriate reasons.