
Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Author(s) -
Sheng Wu,
Dane J. Genther,
Peter J. Ciolek,
Brandon Prendes,
Brent Hopkins,
Johnson Ku
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
otolaryngology–head and neck surgery
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.232
H-Index - 121
eISSN - 1097-6817
pISSN - 0194-5998
DOI - 10.1177/0194599817717250b
Subject(s) - reconstructive surgery , plastic surgery , medicine , surgery
estimate the potential impact clinician-performed ultrasounds may have on the traditional model of radiology-based ultrasound examinations. Methods: For each of the years available in the data set, the files were filtered to include 2 provider types: diagnostic radiology (DR) and otolaryngology (OTO-HNS). Billable procedures are listed by HCPCS code, and a filter was applied to include the following 3 codes: 76536 Ultrasound, soft tissues of the head and neck (eg, thyroid, parathyroid, parotid), real time with image documentation; 76942 Ultrasonic guidance for needle placement (eg, biopsy, aspiration, injection, localization device), imaging supervision and interpretation; and 10022 Fine-needle aspiration, with imaging guidance. Results: In 2014, otolaryngologists submitted charges for 13.6% of all 3 head and neck–related ultrasounds performed on Medicare beneficiaries. A total of 249 otolaryngologists submitted 4032 charges for 76532, 3045 charges for 10022, and 2779 charges for 76942. Individual otolaryngologists submitted 11 to 631 charges apiece, averaging 16 submitted charges per year. Ten percent of otolaryngologists submitted more than 100 charges during 2014, as compared with a smaller proportion of radiologists (3.6%) who did so. Conclusions: Otolaryngologists accounted for over more than % of 685,985 head and neck–related ultrasound studies performed on Medicare beneficiaries in 2014. A greater proportion of otolaryngologists than radiologists (10% vs 3.6%) could be considered “super users,” while the overall impact on total charges remained modest.