Subanalysis taking into account type of charges by facility versus non-facility
OTO had (19) providers utilizing facility and (247) utilizing non-facility charges. Facility fees average submitted $134.58 ± 52.28 versus reimbursed $21.43 ± 0.92 (t-test, p<0.001). Non-facility fees submitted were $280.80 ± 22.32 vs reimbursed $81.34 ± 1.75 (p<0.001). Facility versus non-facility submitted ($134.58 ± 52.28 vs $280.80 ± 22.32, p<0.001) and reimbursed ($21.43 ± 0.92 vs $81.34 ± 1.75, p<0.001).
GS had (46) providers utilizing facility and (160) utilizing non-facility charges. Facility fees average submitted $144.86 ± 23.14 versus reimbursed $21.54 ± 0.34 (t-test, p<0.001). Non-facility fees submitted were $270.36 ± 17.68 vs reimbursed $78.43 ± 2.70 (p<0.001). Facility versus non-facility submitted ($144.86 ± 23.14 vs $270.36 ± 17.68, p<0.001) and reimbursed ($21.54 ± 0.34 vs $78.43 ± 2.70, p<0.001).
ENDO had (112) providers utilizing facility and (1233) utilizing non-facility charges. Facility fees average submitted $125.45 ± 16.16 versus reimbursed $20.33 ± 0.41 (t-test, p<0.001). Non-facility fees submitted were $254.60 ± 5.94 vs reimbursed $84.76 ± 0.78 (p<0.001). Facility versus non-facility submitted ($125.45 ± 16.16 vs $254.60 ± 5.94 , p<0.001) and reimbursed ($20.33 ± 0.41 vs $84.76 ± 0.78, p<0.001).
DR had 9509 facility charge users and 4150 nonfacility charge users. Facility fees submitted were $ 114.15 ± 1.25 vs reimbursed $20.36 ± 0.04 (p<0.001). Non-facility fees average submitted $266.24 ± 4.30 versus reimbursed $73.66 ± 0.80 (t-test, p<0.001). Facility versus non-facility submitted ($114.15 ± 1.25 vs $ 266.24 ± 4.30 , p<0.001) and reimbursed ($20.36 ± 0.04 vs $73.66 ± 0.80, p<0.001).
ANOVA for facility fee reimbursement (p<0.001) included no difference in reimbursment for OTO ($21.43 ± 0.44) versus GS ($21.54 ± 0.18) nor for ENDO ($20.33 ± 0.21 versus DR ($20.36 ± 0.02), however, OTO received more than ENDO (p<0.05) and DR (p<0.05). Likewise, GS received more than ENDO (p<0.01) and DR (p<0.01).
Non-facility fee reimbursements were different overall (ANOVA, p<0.001). There was no difference in reimbursement between OTO ($81.3351 ± 0.8793) and GS ($78.4341 ± 1.3588) nor OTO and ENDO ($84.7592 ± 0.3929). Differences occurred between GS with ENDO (p<0.05) and DR ($73.6561 ± 0.4035, p<0.01), as well as a differences existed between OTO versus DR (p<0.01) and ENDO versus DR (p<0.01).
There was a difference in the ratio of those charging facility versus non-facility charges (ANOVA p<0.001). OTO (19/266, 7.1%) and ENDO (112/1344, 8.3%) had the same ratio. GS (46/206, 22.0%) had a higher ratio than OTO and ENDO. DR (9509/13659, 70.0%) had more facility chargers than all three of the other subspecialties (all ps<0.01).