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).