The effect of commercial insurance policies on outcomes of venous ablation

Objective: The use of venous ablation (VA) for treatment of chronic venous insufficiency has exponentially increased. To limit cost and overuse, insurance companies have adopted aleatory policies. The goal of this study was to compare the policies of five major local insurance carriers and to determine whether treatment within the criteria of a certain policy is associated with improved patient outcomes.

Methods: A retrospective single-center review of patients treated with VA was performed. Demographics, comorbidities, symptoms, and clinical class (Clinical, Etiology, Anatomy, and Pathophysiology classification) were recorded. Clinical success was defined on chart review by the patients' reporting of improvement or resolution of symptoms in the leg treated on follow-up, and technical success was defined by vein closure on ultrasound. Patients underwent a telephone survey inquiring about intensity of symptoms on a numeric rating scale of 0 to 10 before and after treatment of each leg as well as effects on quality of life (QOL). The policies of Aetna, Cigna, Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, UnitedHealthcare, and Connecticut Care were reviewed. The clinical and technical success rates were compared when veins were treated within the criteria of each policy. A subgroup analysis looking at patients who had clinical success only was performed to determine the potential rate of denial of coverage for each policy. A multivariable analysis was performed to determine independent predictors of clinical success.

Results: There were 253 patients with 341 legs treated. The mean age was 58.5 ± 15.2 years (68% women). The most common symptom was pain (89.7%), with 47.8% of patients having C3 disease. The clinical success, technical success, and complication rates were 84.2%, 95.1%, and 5.6%, respectively. On survey, there was improvement of the numeric rating scale score in 84.3% of legs treated after the procedure, and 76.7% continued to experience improvement after a mean follow-up of 26.8 months. There was improvement of QOL in 76.5% of patients. There was no significant difference in procedural success, technical success, complication rate, or improvement in QOL when patients were treated within any of the five insurance policies. On multivariable analysis, there was no single policy significantly associated with clinical success. However, subgroup analysis of procedures with clinical success (n = 287) showed a significant difference between the five policies on analysis of the potential denial of coverage, ranging from 5.6% for Connecticut Care to 64.1% for UnitedHealthcare (P < .0001).

Conclusions: The different insurance policies have no correlation with outcomes of VA. Policies with more stringent criteria typically restrict treatment to larger veins and deny procedures to a significant number of patients with chronic venous insufficiency who can benefit from them.