Premium
Views of Appropriate Use Criteria for catheterization and percutaneous coronary revascularization by practicing interventional cardiologists: Results of a survey of American College of Cardiology Interventional Section members
Author(s) -
Welt Frederick G. P.,
Klein Lloyd W.,
TamisHolland Jaqueline,
Blankenship James,
Duffy Peter L.,
Cigarroa Joaquin,
Anderson H. Ver
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.27931
Subject(s) - medicine , appropriate use criteria , reimbursement , interventional cardiology , revascularization , cardiac catheterization , value based purchasing , value (mathematics) , interventional radiology , medical physics , payment , emergency medicine , cardiology , myocardial infarction , surgery , health care , statistics , world wide web , computer science , economics , economic growth , mathematics
Objectives The American College of Cardiology (ACC) Interventional Section Council leadership sought to examine the views of interventional cardiologists regarding the practical implementation and the value of the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) in their clinical practice. Background The ACC AUC for revascularization were originally intended to assess trends in revascularization patterns by hospitals and physicians to ensure that both under‐ and over‐utilization were minimized. As a quality assurance tool, the AUC were designed to allow physicians to obtain insight into their practice patterns and improve their practice. Recent trends toward tying payment to performance have raised concerns that these criteria will be incorrectly applied to individual patient reimbursement, which is not what they were designed to do. Consequently, the AUC have become controversial, not for their value in quality assessment, but for the manner in which agencies have used the AUC as a tool to potentially deny payment for certain patients. Methods Utilizing an online survey, members of the ACC Interventional Section were queried regarding the use of AUC, how they use them, and how they feel utilization impacts the care of patients. Results We found substantial variability in how the AUC were utilized and concern regarding the value of AUC. Among our findings was that respondents were split (51% vs 49%) regarding the value of AUC to patients and/or their laboratory. Conclusions In this article, we discuss the implications of these findings and consider options on how AUC might be made a better‐accepted and more impactful tool for clinicians and patients.