Article Type
Changed
Fri, 12/14/2018 - 08:05

We thank Dr. Berse and colleagues for their correspondence about our paper.1,2 We are pleased they agreed with our conclusion: Thrombophilia testing has limited clinical utility in most inpatient settings.

Berse and colleagues critiqued details of our methodology in calculating payer cost, including how we estimated the number of Medicare claims for thrombophilia testing. We estimated that there were at least 280,000 Medicare claims in 2014 using CodeMap® (Wheaton Partners, LLC, Schaumburg, IL), a dataset of utilization data from the Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master File from all Medicare Part B carriers.3 This estimate was similar to that reported in a previous publication.4

Berse and colleagues generated a lower cost estimate of $405 for 11 of the 13 thrombophilia tests referenced in our paper (excluding factor V and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase mutations) by using the average Medicare payment.2 However, private insurance companies or self-paying patients often pay multiples of Medicare reimbursement. Our institutional data suggest that the average reimbursement across all payors not based on a diagnosis-related group for 12 of these 13 tests is $1,327 (Table). Importantly, these expenses do not factor in costs related to increased premiums for health, disability, and life insurance that may occur due to an inappropriately ordered, positive thrombophilia test. Nor, for that matter, do they include the psychological stress of the patient that may result from a positive genetic test.

Thus, regardless of the precise estimates, even a conservative estimate of 33 to 80 million dollars of unnecessary spending is far too much. Rather, it is a perfect example of “Things We Do for No Reason.”

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

References

1. Petrilli CM, Mack M, Petrilli JJ, Hickner A, Saint S, Chopra V. Understanding the role of physician attire on patient perceptions: a systematic review of the literature--targeting attire to improve likelihood of rapport (TAILOR) investigators. BMJ Open. 2015;5(1):e006578. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006578. PubMed
2. Berse B, Lynch JA, Bowen S, Grosse SD. In Reference to: “Cost and Utility of Thrombophilia Testing.” J Hosp Med. 2017;12(9):783. 
3. CodeMap® https://www.codemap.com/. Accessed March 2, 2017.
4. Somma J, Sussman, II, Rand JH. An evaluation of thrombophilia screening in an urban tertiary care medical center: A “real world” experience. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;126(1):120-7. DOI:10.1309/KV06-32LJ-8EDM-EWQT. PubMed

Article PDF
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine 12 (9)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
784
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF

We thank Dr. Berse and colleagues for their correspondence about our paper.1,2 We are pleased they agreed with our conclusion: Thrombophilia testing has limited clinical utility in most inpatient settings.

Berse and colleagues critiqued details of our methodology in calculating payer cost, including how we estimated the number of Medicare claims for thrombophilia testing. We estimated that there were at least 280,000 Medicare claims in 2014 using CodeMap® (Wheaton Partners, LLC, Schaumburg, IL), a dataset of utilization data from the Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master File from all Medicare Part B carriers.3 This estimate was similar to that reported in a previous publication.4

Berse and colleagues generated a lower cost estimate of $405 for 11 of the 13 thrombophilia tests referenced in our paper (excluding factor V and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase mutations) by using the average Medicare payment.2 However, private insurance companies or self-paying patients often pay multiples of Medicare reimbursement. Our institutional data suggest that the average reimbursement across all payors not based on a diagnosis-related group for 12 of these 13 tests is $1,327 (Table). Importantly, these expenses do not factor in costs related to increased premiums for health, disability, and life insurance that may occur due to an inappropriately ordered, positive thrombophilia test. Nor, for that matter, do they include the psychological stress of the patient that may result from a positive genetic test.

Thus, regardless of the precise estimates, even a conservative estimate of 33 to 80 million dollars of unnecessary spending is far too much. Rather, it is a perfect example of “Things We Do for No Reason.”

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

We thank Dr. Berse and colleagues for their correspondence about our paper.1,2 We are pleased they agreed with our conclusion: Thrombophilia testing has limited clinical utility in most inpatient settings.

Berse and colleagues critiqued details of our methodology in calculating payer cost, including how we estimated the number of Medicare claims for thrombophilia testing. We estimated that there were at least 280,000 Medicare claims in 2014 using CodeMap® (Wheaton Partners, LLC, Schaumburg, IL), a dataset of utilization data from the Physician Supplier Procedure Summary Master File from all Medicare Part B carriers.3 This estimate was similar to that reported in a previous publication.4

Berse and colleagues generated a lower cost estimate of $405 for 11 of the 13 thrombophilia tests referenced in our paper (excluding factor V and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase mutations) by using the average Medicare payment.2 However, private insurance companies or self-paying patients often pay multiples of Medicare reimbursement. Our institutional data suggest that the average reimbursement across all payors not based on a diagnosis-related group for 12 of these 13 tests is $1,327 (Table). Importantly, these expenses do not factor in costs related to increased premiums for health, disability, and life insurance that may occur due to an inappropriately ordered, positive thrombophilia test. Nor, for that matter, do they include the psychological stress of the patient that may result from a positive genetic test.

Thus, regardless of the precise estimates, even a conservative estimate of 33 to 80 million dollars of unnecessary spending is far too much. Rather, it is a perfect example of “Things We Do for No Reason.”

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

References

1. Petrilli CM, Mack M, Petrilli JJ, Hickner A, Saint S, Chopra V. Understanding the role of physician attire on patient perceptions: a systematic review of the literature--targeting attire to improve likelihood of rapport (TAILOR) investigators. BMJ Open. 2015;5(1):e006578. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006578. PubMed
2. Berse B, Lynch JA, Bowen S, Grosse SD. In Reference to: “Cost and Utility of Thrombophilia Testing.” J Hosp Med. 2017;12(9):783. 
3. CodeMap® https://www.codemap.com/. Accessed March 2, 2017.
4. Somma J, Sussman, II, Rand JH. An evaluation of thrombophilia screening in an urban tertiary care medical center: A “real world” experience. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;126(1):120-7. DOI:10.1309/KV06-32LJ-8EDM-EWQT. PubMed

References

1. Petrilli CM, Mack M, Petrilli JJ, Hickner A, Saint S, Chopra V. Understanding the role of physician attire on patient perceptions: a systematic review of the literature--targeting attire to improve likelihood of rapport (TAILOR) investigators. BMJ Open. 2015;5(1):e006578. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006578. PubMed
2. Berse B, Lynch JA, Bowen S, Grosse SD. In Reference to: “Cost and Utility of Thrombophilia Testing.” J Hosp Med. 2017;12(9):783. 
3. CodeMap® https://www.codemap.com/. Accessed March 2, 2017.
4. Somma J, Sussman, II, Rand JH. An evaluation of thrombophilia screening in an urban tertiary care medical center: A “real world” experience. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006;126(1):120-7. DOI:10.1309/KV06-32LJ-8EDM-EWQT. PubMed

Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine 12 (9)
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine 12 (9)
Page Number
784
Page Number
784
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Article Source

© 2017 Society of Hospital Medicine

Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Christopher Petrilli, MD, Michigan Medicine,1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone: 734-936-5582; Fax: 734-647-9443; E-mail: cpetrill@med.umich.edu
Content Gating
Open Access (article Unlocked/Open Access)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Article PDF Media