ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
Is Reconstructive Plastic Surgery Appropriately Valued? Comparison of Reimbursement per Unit Time for Reconstructive versus Aesthetic Procedures.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The work relative value units (wRVUs) system was established as a quantifier of physician labor, technical skill, medical decision-making, and training time required to complete a surgical procedure; hence, more challenging operations should theoretically result in higher reimbursement or compensation. Our purpose was to highlight the discrepancies between insurance-based reconstructive and fee-for-service aesthetic procedures based upon dollar/unit time. Methods: We analyzed national data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, Aesthetic Surgery Databank, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to compare reimbursement for 8 reconstructive microsurgery and 3 aesthetic procedures and assessed operative times and reimbursement rates, then calculated "relative value unit per unit time" to measure compensation efficiency. Results: This difference in remuneration translates to a 4.7× difference, with an overwhelming gap of $25.26 per minute between microsurgical reconstructive and aesthetic cases. These findings suggest that aesthetic cases are more profitable considering the compensation per unit time. Based on national rates of reimbursement, there is a large discrepancy between reimbursement in microsurgical reconstructive procedures and aesthetic procedures. Conclusions: We demonstrated that complexity and time are not directly related to compensation.
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.