Introduction: The growing cost of stroke care has created the need for outcome-oriented and cost-saving payment models. Identifying imbalances in the current reimbursement model is an essential step toward designing impactful value-based reimbursement strategies. This study describes the variation in reimbursement fees for ischemic stroke management across the USA. Methods: This Medicare Fee-For-Service claims study examines USA beneficiaries who suffered an ischemic stroke from 2021Q1 to 2022Q2 identified using the Medicare-Severity Diagnosis-Related Groups (MS-DRGs). Demographic national and regional US data were extracted from the Census Bureau. The MS-DRG codes were grouped into four categories according to treatment modality and clinical complexity. Our primary outcome of interest was payments made across individual USA and US geographic regions, assessed by computing the mean incremental payment in cases of comparable complexity. Differences between states for each MS-DRG were statistically evaluated using a linear regression model of the logarithmic transformed payments. Results: 227,273 ischemic stroke cases were included in our analysis. Significant variations were observed among all DRGs defined by medical complexity, treatment modality, and states (p < 0.001). Differences in mean payment per case with the same MS-DRG vary by as high as 500% among individual states. Although higher payment rates were observed in MS-DRG codes with major comorbidities or complexity (MCC), the variation was more expressive for codes without MCC. It was not possible to identify a standard mean incremental fee at a state level. At a regional level, the Northeast registered the highest fees, followed by the West, Midwest, and South, which correlate with poverty rates and median household income in the regions. Conclusions: The payment variability observed across USA suggests that the current reimbursement system needs to be aligned with stroke treatment costs. Future studies may go one step further to evaluate accurate stroke management costs to guide policymakers in introducing health policies that promote better care for stroke patients.

1.
Kleindorfer
DO
,
Towfighi
A
,
Chaturvedi
S
,
Cockroft
KM
,
Gutierrez
J
,
Lombardi-Hill
D
et al
.
2021 guideline for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association
.
Stroke
.
2021
;
52
(
7
):
e364
467
.
2.
Strilciuc
S
,
Grad
DA
,
Radu
C
,
Chira
D
,
Stan
A
,
Ungureanu
M
et al
.
The economic burden of stroke: a systematic review of cost of illness studies
.
J Med Life
.
2021
;
14
(
5
):
606
19
.
3.
Owolabi
MO
,
Thrift
AG
,
Mahal
A
,
Ishida
M
,
Martins
S
,
Johnson
WD
et al
.
Primary stroke prevention worldwide: translating evidence into action
.
Lancet Public Health
.
2022
;
7
(
1
):
e74
85
.
4.
Benjamin
EJ
,
Muntner
P
,
Alonso
A
,
Bittencourt
MS
,
Callaway
CW
,
Carson
AP
et al
.
Heart disease and stroke statistics – 2019 update: a report from the American Heart Association
.
Circulation
.
2019
;
139
(
10
):
e56
528
.
5.
Feigin
VL
,
Brainin
M
,
Norrving
B
,
Martins
S
,
Sacco
RL
,
Hacke
W
et al
.
World stroke organization (WSO): global stroke fact sheet 2022
.
Int J Stroke
.
2022
;
17
(
1
):
18
29
.
6.
Porter
ME
,
Kaplan
RS
.
How to pay for health care
.
Harv Bus Rev
.
2016
94
7–8
88
98, 100, 134
.
7.
Agarwal
R
,
Liao
JM
,
Gupta
A
,
Navathe
AS
.
The impact of bundled payment on health care spending, utilization, and quality: a systematic review
.
Health Aff
.
2020
;
39
(
1
):
50
7
.
8.
Hirsch
JA
,
Leslie-Mazwi
TM
,
Barr
RM
,
McGinty
G
,
Nicola
GN
,
Silva
E
et al
.
The bundled payments for care improvement initiative
.
J Neurointerv Surg
.
2016
;
8
(
5
):
547
8
.
9.
Baseman
S
,
Boccuti
C
,
Moon
M
,
Griffin
S
,
Dutta
T
.
Payment and delivery system reform in Medicare
.
Wash DC Kais Fam Found
.
2016
.
10.
Joynt Maddox
K
,
Bleser
WK
,
Crook
HL
,
Nelson
AJ
,
Hamilton Lopez
M
,
Saunders
RS
et al
.
Advancing value-based models for heart failure: a call to action from the value in healthcare initiative's value-based models learning collaborative
.
Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes
.
2020
;
13
(
5
):
e006483
.
11.
Services (USDHHS)
.
US Department of Health and Human HHS to deliver value-based transformation in primary care. [Internet]
. Available from: https://innovation.cms.gov/innovation-models/comprehensive-primary-care-initiative.
12.
Lindner
L
,
Lorenzoni
L
.
Innovative providers’ payment models for promoting value-based health systems: start small, prove value, and scale up
2023
.
13.
Milad
MA
,
Murray
RC
,
Navathe
AS
,
Ryan
AM
.
Value-based payment models in the commercial insurance sector: a systematic review
.
Health Aff
.
2022
;
41
(
4
):
540
8
.
14.
Lichtman
JH
,
Leifheit-Limson
EC
,
Goldstein
LB
.
Centers for medicare and medicaid services medicare data and stroke research: goldmine or landmine
.
Stroke
.
2015
;
46
(
2
):
598
604
.
15.
Zachrison
KS
,
Li
S
,
Reeves
MJ
,
Adeoye
O
,
Camargo
CA
,
Schwamm
LH
et al
.
Strategy for reliable identification of ischaemic stroke, thrombolytics and thrombectomy in large administrative databases
.
Stroke Vasc Neurol
.
2021
;
6
(
2
):
194
200
.
16.
Hartman
M
,
Martin
AB
,
Washington
B
,
Catlin
A
National Health Expenditure Accounts Team
.
National health care spending in 2020: growth driven by federal spending in response to the COVID-19 pandemic
.
Health Aff
.
2022
;
41
(
1
):
13
25
.
17.
Siddiqi
A
,
White
PB
,
Mistry
JB
,
Gwam
CU
,
Nace
J
,
Mont
MA
et al
.
Effect of bundled payments and health care reform as alternative payment models in total joint arthroplasty: a clinical review
.
J Arthroplasty
.
2017
;
32
(
8
):
2590
7
.
18.
Bliss
HE
,
George
P
,
Adashi
EY
.
The primary cares initiative: value-based redesign of primary care
.
Am J Med
.
2020
;
133
(
5
):
528
9
.
19.
DuBard
CA
,
Mullineaux
A
.
An update on the financial impact of value-based care innovations in North Carolina
.
N C Med J
.
2023
84
1
).
20.
Liao
JM
,
Navathe
AS
.
The path ahead for bundled payments
.
JAMA
.
2022
;
328
(
16
):
1592
4
.
21.
Kaye
AD
,
Okeagu
CN
,
Pham
AD
,
Silva
RA
,
Hurley
JJ
,
Arron
BL
et al
.
Economic impact of COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare facilities and systems: international perspectives
.
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol
.
2021
;
35
(
3
):
293
306
.
22.
Martins
SO
,
Mont’Alverne
F
,
Rebello
LC
,
Abud
DG
,
Silva
GS
,
Lima
FO
et al
.
Thrombectomy for stroke in the public health care system of Brazil
.
N Engl J Med
.
2020
;
382
(
24
):
2316
26
.
23.
de Souza
AC
,
Martins
SO
,
Polanczyk
CA
,
Araújo
DV
,
Etges
APB
,
Zanotto
BS
et al
.
Cost-effectiveness of mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke in Brazil: results from the RESILIENT trial
.
Int J Stroke
.
2022
;
17
(
8
):
855
62
.
24.
Etges
APBd S
,
Marcolino
MAZ
,
Ogliari
LA
,
de Souza
AC
,
Zanotto
BS
,
Ruschel
R
et al
.
Moving the Brazilian ischaemic stroke pathway to a value-based care: introduction of a risk-adjusted cost estimate model for stroke treatment
.
Health Policy Plan
.
2022
;
37
(
9
):
1098
106
.
25.
Brinjikji
W
,
Rabinstein
AA
,
Cloft
HJ
.
Hospitalization costs for acute ischemic stroke patients treated with intravenous thrombolysis in the United States are substantially higher than Medicare payments
.
Stroke
.
2012
;
43
(
4
):
1131
3
.
26.
Simpson
KN
,
Simpson
AN
,
Mauldin
PD
,
Hill
MD
,
Yeatts
SD
,
Spilker
JA
et al
.
Drivers of costs associated with reperfusion therapy in acute stroke: the Interventional Management of Stroke III Trial
.
Stroke
.
2014
;
45
(
6
):
1791
8
.
27.
Brown
K
,
El Husseini
N
,
Grimley
R
,
Ranta
A
,
Kass-Hout
T
,
Kaplan
S
et al
.
Alternative payment models and associations with stroke outcomes, spending, and service utilization: a systematic review
.
Stroke
.
2022
;
53
(
1
):
268
78
.
28.
CMS Wage Index regulations [Internet]
2023
. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/medicare/medicare-fee-for-service-payment/acuteinpatientpps/wageindex.
You do not currently have access to this content.