ArticleCureus2023
Current Trends in Autologous Breast Reconstruction and the Implications of Impending Changes to Insurance Reimbursement.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Autologous Versus Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: Insights From Recent Oncologic and Plastic Surgery Guidelines.Cureus · 2026Review
- Breast Reconstruction for Inflammatory Breast Cancer: Improving Patient-Reported Outcomes in a High-Risk Population.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Beyond the Posts: Analyzing Breast Implant Illness Discourse With Natural Language Processing and Deep Learning.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2025Article
- Counselling Framework for GermlineCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction In 2019, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) combined all autologous breast flap procedures under one billing code, effective from December 31, 2024. This change will result in equal insurance reimbursement rates for popular flap options, such as transverse rectus abdominis muscle (TRAM) and deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps, which were previously billed separately using S-codes based on complexity. Methods This study aimed to analyze insurance code changes for autologous breast reconstruction flap procedures. Data were collected from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons' annual plastic surgery statistics reports, including specific insurance codes and case volumes from 2007 to 2020. A comprehensive analysis was conducted to assess recent trends in flap utilization rates, documenting any modifications or additions to the existing codes and their implementation years. Results The study analyzed billing codes and case volumes for autologous breast reconstruction procedures, with a focus on the DIEP flap and other alternatives. Non-autologous breast reconstruction procedures showed consistently higher case volumes compared to autologous procedures from 2007 to 2020. Notably, the popularity of the DIEP flap surpassed that of other flap options after 2011. Conclusion The removal of S-codes for autologous breast reconstruction by CMS and the subsequent potential decrease in insurance coverage for the DIEP flap may lead to a decrease in its utilization and a shift toward more invasive options, like the TRAM flap. This change could result in financial burdens for patients and widen socioeconomic disparities in breast reconstruction, limiting access to preferred reconstructive methods and impacting patient autonomy and overall well-being.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.