Letters To The Editor

Hysteroscopy equipment too expensive for employed or small-group practitioners


 

“2017 UPDATE ON ABNORMAL UTERINE BLEEDING”

HOWARD T. SHARP, MD, AND MARISSA ADELMAN, MD (APRIL 2017)


Hysteroscopy equipment too expensive for employed or small-group practitioners

I could not agree more with Drs. Sharp and Adelman that diagnostic hysteroscopy should be performed in the office whenever possible. However, as a solo gynecologist in private practice, I could not afford or justify the cost of purchasing the equipment as well as its care and maintenance. Sometimes I was able to bring a third-party vendor to provide the equipment and a technician so that I could perform a diagnostic hysteroscopy in my office when I did an ablation with my own Thermachoice equipment and balloon system.

The hysteroscopy was bundled/required for the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code to work in the office. Most of these patients already had undergone an ultrasonography, endometrial biopsy, and some had an outpatient hysteroscopic dilation and curettage under general anesthesia, which did not resolve their bleeding. All of this adds to the cost and increased patient discomfort and inconvenience. Reimbursement for the office procedure was better than when performed at the hospital, and patients avoided $500 to $1,000 copays to the hospital and anesthesiologist.

When I closed my private practice and became employed by the hospital, I proposed that they purchase office hysteroscopy equipment for the other gynecologist and me to share. I continued to perform uterine ablations with my own equipment. Together we performed more than 100 outpatient diagnostic hysteroscopies per year, some with global endometrial ablation. Since there were only 2 gyns, the 2 new hysteroscopy sets they purchased sat in the closet most of the time.

I suggested they “lease” the equipment back to us on a case-by-case basis for office use since they owned and managed our practices. The hospital administration basically saw office procedures as taking away revenue from the hospital and decreasing operating room volume. The patients I treated in the office setting did well, preferred to avoid general anesthesia, and enjoyed the cost savings.

Large ObGyn groups with multiple providers and high volumes can justify the expenses of the equipment, but for those in solo practice or employed by a hospital, it may not be feasible. I sincerely hope that articles focusing on in-office hysteroscopy will open up the discussion to enable and encourage more physicians and hospital administrators to see the advantages of office-based procedures.

Steven R. Moffett, MD
Knoxville, Tennessee

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to rbarbieri@frontlinemedcom.com. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Next Article: