Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak presents unique challenges to the healthcare system. The lack of unified guidelines on what constitutes elective surgery left plastic surgeons without a clear framework to guide their practices. More urgently, the ambiguity in defining elective surgery leaves plastic surgeons without clear guidance as states begin to phase in these procedures.MethodsRecommendations issued by state governing bodies as of April 28, 2020, were reviewed. National society and federal guidelines pertaining to postponement and resumption of elective surgeries affected by the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak were also reviewed. Recommendations based on the above are collated for plastic surgeons.ResultsThirty-six states and the District of Columbia provide recommendations regarding elective surgery. Cosmetic surgery is considered an elective surgery and should be postponed; this may be among the first elective surgeries to safely resume. Societal guidelines provide disease-specific recommendations for cancer-related surgery and breast reconstruction. Trauma, other cancer-related reconstruction, and hand surgeries are considered nonelective if postponement threatens life or limb or if a patient is highly symptomatic. Postponement and resumption of oncology, trauma, and hand surgery cases depend on disease stage and complexity of reconstruction. Pediatric craniofacial surgery presents unique challenges due to the time-sensitive nature of the interventions.ConclusionsGuidance on elective surgery is vague for plastic surgeons. Government recommendations and societal guidelines provide a framework for plastic surgeons to assess the elective nature of a surgical intervention and safety of resumption; however, a nuanced assessment must be made on local disease transmission, supply availability, and hospital capacity.
Project description:BackgroundPlastic surgeons regularly perform injections for both cosmetic and functional purposes. This article examines the most common injections utilized by plastic surgeons under Medicare and how their usage and billing has changed between 2012 and 2019.MethodsUsing the earliest and latest data available on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Provider Utilization and Payment Data File, we first determined Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System injection codes most billed to Medicare in 2012 and 2019. The number of services, amount of Medicare beneficiaries, and reimbursement rates were collected and analyzed for each Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code from the Provider Utilization and Payment Data File for years 2012 and 2019. We compared the change in reimbursement rate for each injection to the rate of inflation in US dollars over the same period.ResultsThe unadjusted Medicare reimbursement rate for eight included injection types increased an average of 31.63% during the study period. This was not significantly different from the rate of inflation during the same period (+11.33%, P = 0.311). When all Medicare reimbursement data were adjusted for inflation to 2019 dollars, the average percentage change in reimbursement for all included injections in this study increased by 17.58% from 2012 to 2019.ConclusionsThe findings from our study suggest that injections administered by plastic surgeons appear to be unique in their general stability in reimbursement rates as compared to rates in other fields. Further research should be performed to better understand the driving factors for usage and reimbursement changes.
Project description:Background: Despite limited oncologic benefit, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) rates have increased in the United States over the past 15 years. CPM is often accompanied by breast reconstruction, thereby requiring an interdisciplinary approach between breast and plastic surgeons. Despite this, little is known about plastic surgeons' (PS) perspectives of CPM. The purpose of this study was to assess PS practice patterns, knowledge of CPM oncologic benefits, and perceptions of the CPM decision-making process. Methods: An electronic survey was sent to 2,642 members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS). Questions assessed demographics, practice patterns, knowledge of CPM oncologic benefits, and perceptions of the CPM decision-making process. Results: ASPS response rate was 12.5% (n = 329). Most responders worked in private practice (69%), were male (81%) and had been in practice for ≥15 years (60%). The median number of CPM reconstructions performed per month was 2-4. Fifty-five percent of PS reported routine attendance at a breast multidisciplinary conference. Responders reported CPM discussion was most likely to be initiated by the patient (51%) followed by the breast surgeon (38%), and plastic surgeon (7.3%). According to PS, the most common reason patients choose CPM is a perceived increased contralateral cancer risk (86%). Most plastic surgeons (63%) assessed the benefits of CPM as worth the risk of additional surgery and the majority (53%) estimated the complication rate at 2X the risk of unilateral surgery. The majority (61%) of PS estimated risk of contralateral cancer in an average risk patient between <2 and 5% over 10 years, which is consistent with data reported from the current literature. Most plastic surgeons (87%) reported that there was no evidence or limited evidence for breast cancer specific survival benefit with CPM. A minority of PS (18.5%) reported discomfort with a patient's choice for CPM. Of those surgeons reporting discomfort, the most common reasons for their reservations were a concern with the risk/benefit ratio of CPM and with lack of patient understanding of expected outcomes. Common reasons for PS comfort with CPM were a respect for autonomy and non-oncologic benefits of CPM. Discussion: To our knowledge, this is the first survey reporting PS perspectives on CPM. According to PS, CPM dialogue appears to be patient driven and dominated by a perceived increased risk of contralateral cancer. Few PS reported discomfort with CPM. While many PS acknowledge both the limited oncologic benefit of CPM and the increased risk of complications, the majority have the opinion that the benefits of CPM are worth the additional risk. This apparent contradiction may be due to an appreciation of the non-oncologic benefits CPM and a desire to respect patients' choices for treatment.
Project description:In less than two decades, the world has experienced three outbreaks of deadly Coronaviruses, including the recent pandemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China. COVID-19 posed an emergency of international concerns, and cases have been reported in more than 200 countries/regions that resulted in health, lives, and economic losses. China's economic growth is projected to fall to 5.6% this year, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) projected that policy investment and tax policies to implement $3.3 trillion and contributes further $4.5 trillion. IMF forecasts grow from 3.7% of global gross domestic product (GDP) in 2019 to 9.9% in 2020. GDP ratio projected from 3.0% in 2019 to grow 10.7% in 2020, the US ratio expected to increase from 5.8% to 15.7%. France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom (UK) each reported public sector funding programs totalling > 10% of their yearly GDP. There is a dire need for regional and international co-operation to extend hands to prevent further spreading of COVID-19.
Project description:The American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) clinical practice guidelines were constructed to help direct evidence-based surgical management in plastic surgery. Societal member awareness of the recommendations for breast reconstruction has yet to be studied among ASPS members.MethodsUnivariate and multivariate analyses were performed using electronic survey data from 243 ASPS members. Characteristics, including respondent demographics, practice distribution, and geographic locations, were correlated to the awareness of autologous and expander/implant-based reconstruction guidelines.ResultsOf the respondents, 52% and 35.7% reported awareness for autologous breast reconstruction and expander/implant-based reconstruction guidelines, respectively. Surgeons who performed more general and autologous breast reconstruction were more likely to be aware of autologous breast reconstruction and expander/implant-based guidelines (P = 0.0034 and 0.032). Autologous breast reconstruction guideline awareness was geographically disparate (P = 0.031), with greater awareness in the Northeast (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.63-12.53; P = 0.01) and Southwest (OR, 3.91; 95% CI, 1.18-13.83; P = 0.01). Respondents with larger practice percentages of breast reconstruction and those with higher annual academic meeting attendance reported greater awareness of expander/implant-based guidelines (P = 0.044 and 0.040). Meeting attendance (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.15-8.91; P = 0.022) and practice-based (OR, 3.14; 95% CI, 1.52-8.91; P = 0.027) awareness disparities were also appreciated on multivariate analysis.ConclusionsGuideline awareness in plastic surgery varies by practice composition and geography. These findings can be used to help inform more targeted educational and implementation strategies in breast reconstruction.Clinical question/level of evidenceQuality Improvement/Level IV.
Project description:Background: Orphan drugs (ODs) are pharmaceuticals manufactured for rare conditions that affect less than 200,000 people in the US. ODs are therefore produced in small quantities to meet sparse demand. Since 2010, OD shortages have become frequent, but no comprehensive, quantitative studies exist. Objective: The objective of this study is to assess the rates of OD shortages per therapeutic class and their trends over time in the United States. Study design: OD approvals were collected from publicly available information on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website on 13 June 2016. Data on OD shortages were collected from the FDA and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) websites. We reviewed the number of shortages per year and per therapeutic area. Multiple indications for the same drug were counted individually. Results: Of 569 ODs approved, 50% were approved in the decade ending in 2015. Oncology was found to be the most represented therapeutic area (34% of all OD approvals), followed by endocrinology (11%). Shortage data were available from 2008. In total, there were 66 (12%) OD shortages, with an average shortage duration of 455.5 days. Shortages were observed mainly for oncology products (19 cases, 13% of oncology ODs) and endocrinology products (14 cases, 22% of endocrinology ODs) Conclusion: Despite the FDA strategic plan for preventing and mitigating drug shortages (October 2013), remaining OD shortages still pose an enduring challenge to patient care, with a median shortage duration of almost 15 months. In many instances, ODs are the only available therapy for rare diseases, and OD shortages can lead to serious health deterioration and death. More research is needed to elucidate the causes of shortages and their impact on patients' health.
Project description:BackgroundIn many countries, the worldwide spread of COVID-19 has led to a near total stop of non-urgent, elective surgeries across all specialties during the first wave's peak of the pandemic. For providers of aesthetic surgery procedures or minimal invasive cosmetic treatments, this led to a huge socio-economic impact worldwide. In order to evaluate valid clinical management strategies for future pandemic events and to overcome the challenges imposed by the current pandemic, it is paramount to analyse the socio-economic effects caused by the COVID-19 crisis.MethodsAn online survey comprising 18 questions was sent out five times by e-mail to all members of the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ISAPS) between June and August 2020. The data set was statistically analyzed and grouped into an overall group and into subgroups of countries with high (n = 251) vs. low (n = 440) gross domestic product per capita (GDP p.c.) and five defined world regions (Europe (n = 214); North America (NA; n = 97); South America (SA; n = 206); Asia and Oceania (Asia + OC; n = 99); Africa and Middle East (Africa + ME; n = 75)).ResultsA total of 691 recipients completed the survey. The majority of the participants experienced severe operating restrictions resulting in a major drop of income from surgical patients. Low GDP p.c. countries experienced a bigger negative economic impact with less aesthetic (non-) surgical procedures, whereas the high GDP p.c. subgroup was less affected by the COVID-19 crisis. Most of the survey participants had already adopted the ISAPS guidelines for patient (pre-) appointment screening and clinical/patient-flow management. For surgical and non-surgical aesthetic procedures, in the high GDP p.c. subgroup more basic-level PPE (surgical mask) was used, whereas the low GDP p.c. subgroup relied more on advanced-level PPE (N-95 respirator mask or higher). Comparing the different world regions, Europe and Africa used more basic-level PPE.ConclusionsMeasurable differences in the socio-economic impact and in the adaptation of safety protocols between high and low GDP p.c. subgroups and between different world regions were present. Since the COVID-19 pandemic is an international crisis, aligned, expedient and universal actions should be taken.Level of evidence vThis journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine Ratings, please refer to Table of Contents or online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Project description:The crisis facing the world's oceans from plastics is well documented, yet there is little knowledge of the perspectives, experiences and options of the coastal communities facing overwhelming quantities of plastics on their beaches and in their fishing waters. In emerging economies such as those in the Coral Triangle, the communities affected are among the poorest of their countries. To understand the consequences of ocean plastic pollution in coastal regions, through the eyes of local people, this study examines the knowledge, use, disposal and local consequences of single use plastics in remote island communities in two archipelagos of southern Sulawesi, Indonesia. Using mixed methods-a survey of plastic literacy and behaviour, household interviews about purchasing and disposal, and focus group discussions to generate shared mental models-we identify a complex set of factors contributing to extensive plastic leakage into the marine environment. The rising standard of living has allowed people in low resource, remote communities to buy more single-use plastic items than they could before. Meanwhile complex geography and minimal collection services make waste management a difficult issue, and leave the communities themselves to shoulder the impacts of the ocean plastic crisis. Although plastic literacy is low, there is little the coastal communities can do unless presented with better choice architecture both on the supply side and in disposal options. Our results suggest that for such coastal communities improved waste disposal is urgent. Responsible supply chains and non-plastic alternatives are needed. Producers and manufacturers can no longer focus only on low-cost packaged products, without taking responsibility for the outcomes. Without access to biodegradable, environmentally friendly products, and a circular plastic system, coastal communities and surrounding marine ecosystems will continue to be inundated in plastic waste.