Mohs Micrographic Surgery Volume and Payment Patterns Among Dermatologists in the Medicare Population, 2013
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) has expanded markedly in recent years but there is limited information on volume, practice patterns or reimbursement. This study characterizes MMS utilization in the Medicare population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data: Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File Calendar Year 2013 data set for provider service volume and reimbursement for dermatologists who did and did not perform MMS procedures. RESULTS: Total Medicare-funded MMS procedures increased 25% from 2009 (558,447) to 2013 (700,262). Dermatologists who performed MMS had significantly more average services per provider (5419.4 vs. 3627.1, r=0.16, P<0.0001), were reimbursed significantly more in average total procedure-related compensation ($475,883.64 vs. $144,564.74, r=0.49, P<0.0001) than dermatologists who did not perform MMS, and made up 71.3% of the top decile of dermatologists ranked by total reimbursement received from Medicare. Total MMS service volume and reimbursement was concentrated among a subset of providers. Among MMS providers, a higher volume of MMS procedures was correlated with a greater likelihood of performing procedures on lesions located on the trunk, arms or legs (r=0.27, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In 2013 reimbursement for MMS comprised almost 19% of the amount reimbursed by Medicare Part B Fee For Service to dermatologists and greater than half a percent of the total amount reimbursed to all physicians participating in the program. Further studies incorporating clinical and outcomes data are needed to evaluate appropriate utilization of this procedure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".