Advertisement

RUC Operative Time Estimates are Inaccurate, Resulting in Decreased Work RVU Assignments for Longer Urologic Procedures

      Objective

      To assess whether inaccurate operative time estimates utilized by the Relative Value Update Committee (RUC) contribute to the undervaluation of longer urologic procedures.

      Methods

      The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data sets were reviewed from 2015 to 2017. NSQIP operative time is directly measured, contrasting with CMS times which are determined by the RUC via survey-generated estimates. The 50 most frequently coded urology current procedural terminologies were included. Operative time difference was compared between the 2 data sets, and Spearman's correlation coefficient was utilized to assess differences in wRVU/h.

      Results

      A total of 105,931 cases were included. Overall, RUC operative time estimates were longer than NSQIP (124.4 vs 103.5 minutes, P < .001). RUC data overestimated operative time by 42.9% for procedures ≤90 minutes and 16.4% for longer procedures (P < .001). Using NSQIP, procedures ≤90 minutes had higher wRVU/h than longer procedures (12.2 vs 8.7, P < .001), but this was not statistically different using RUC estimates (8.4 vs 7.7, P = .13). Spearman's correlation coefficient confirmed a statistically significant negative relationship between wRVU/h and operative time using NSQIP data (r = −0.57, 95% confidence interval: −7.4 to −0.36), and no statistically significant relationship using RUC data (r = −0.24, 95% confidence interval: −0.49 to 0.04).

      Conclusion

      The RUC-intended wRVU/h is more equitable than the NSQIP real-world wRVU/h with regard to operative time. Inaccurate RUC operative time estimates contribute to the undervaluation of longer urologic procedures.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. National Health Policy Forum. Relative value units. Available at:https://www.nhpf.org/library/the-basics/Basics_RVUs_01-12-15.pdf. Accessed June 06, 2019. 2015.

        • Baadh A
        • Peterkin Y
        • Wegener M
        • Flug J
        • Katz D
        • Hoffmann JC
        The relative value unit: history, current use, and controversies.
        Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2016; 45: 128-132
        • Jacobs JP
        • Lahey SJ
        • Nichols FC
        • et al.
        How is physician work valued?.
        Ann Thorac Surg. 2017; 103: 373-380
        • Litwin MS
        • Sacher SJ
        • Cohen WS
        The resource-based relative value scale: methods, results and impacts on urology.
        J Urol. 1993; 150: 981-987
        • Stecker EC
        • Schroeder SA
        Adding value to relative-value units.
        N Engl J Med. 2013; 369: 2176-2179
        • Chan DC
        • Huynh J
        • Studdert DM
        Accuracy of valuations of surgical procedures in the Medicare fee schedule.
        N Engl J Med. 2019; 380: 1546-1554
        • Chakiryan NH
        • Jiang DD
        • Gillis KA
        • Chen Y
        • Martinez acevedo A
        • Sajadi KP
        Relative value units do not adequately account for operative time in urologic surgery.
        J Urol. 2020; 203: 1003-1007https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000619
        • Sodhi N
        • Piuzzi NS
        • Khlopas A
        • et al.
        Are we appropriately compensated by relative value units for primary vs revision total hip arthroplasty?.
        J Arthroplast. 2018; 33: 340-344
        • Peterson J
        • Sodhi N
        • Khlopas A
        • et al.
        A comparison of relative value units in primary versus revision total knee arthroplasty.
        J Arthroplast. 2018; 33: S39-S42
        • Sodhi N
        • Yao B
        • Newman JM
        • et al.
        A comparison of relative value units in primary versus revision total ankle arthroplasty.
        Surg Technol Int. 2017; 31: 322-326
        • Doval AF
        • Nguyen-lee JJ
        • Beal LL
        • Zheng F
        • Echo A
        Does complexity relate to compensation? A comparison of relative value units in initial versus recurrent inguinal hernia repair.
        Hernia. 2020; 24: 245-250https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-019-02020-9
        • Shah DR
        • Bold RJ
        • Yang AD
        • Khatri VP
        • Martinez SR
        • Canter RJ
        Relative value units poorly correlate with measures of surgical effort and complexity.
        J Surg Res. 2014; 190: 465-470