Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2022; 38(04): 292-295
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1732429
Original Article

Are “Free Flaps” “Free” Flaps?

Geoffrey G. Hallock
1   Division of Plastic Surgery, Sacred Heart Division, St. Luke's Hospital, Allentown, Pennsylvania
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Even standard microvascular tissue transfers are time consuming, require great skill and intensity, and can be stressful. Not surprisingly, work-related relative value units are considered by many microsurgeons to be suboptimal. Some might even say that “free flaps” indeed really are “free” flaps.

Methods A retrospective review of related finances was undertaken for all free flaps performed in a single surgeon private practice during the latest possible year (2014) that included a complete 5-year follow-up to insure receipt of all expected reimbursements from accounts receivable. There were 61 free flaps available; but arbitrarily 12 free flaps were excluded since postmastectomy breast reconstruction always received mandatory insurance payment, as were additional two cases done pro bono as part of an international educational service. This left 47 free flaps to permit determination of gross payments, if any.

Results Compensation summated for three distinct time intervals for all free flaps was preoperative: $10,855.92 (mean: $230.98/flap); intraoperative: $117,015.46 (mean: $2,489.69/flap); and postoperative: $45,296.28 (mean: $963.75/flap). Range of gross payment for the free flap portion only was 529.65 to $4,503.71. Total overall revenue received was $173,167.66 (mean: $3,684.42/flap).

Conclusion A true benefit cost-analysis even if microsurgery specific expenses could be estimated would be inaccurate, so that mean net income for each free flap could not be determined. Albeit a minimal gross payment was obtained for some free flap procedures, in no instance was there zero reimbursement. Based on that fact, there were no truly “free” free flaps in this private practice experience, which should encourage the younger surgeon to realize that economic viability is possible so that their enthusiasm for reconstructive microsurgery can be sustained.

Keywords

free flaps - gross payment - reimbursements - benefit cost-analysis


Publication History

Received: 27 December 2020

Accepted: 12 May 2021

Article published online:
17 August 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Cormack GC, Lamberty BGH. Introduction, The Arterial Anatomy of Skin Flaps. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1986: 1-13
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Taylor GI, Daniel RK. The free flap: composite tissue transfer by vascular anastomosis. Aust N Z J Surg 1973; 43 (01) 1-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Taylor GI, Hallock GG. In pursuit of the “Perforator” in the perforator skin flap. J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; 37 (03) 182-192
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Zbar RIS, Taylor LD, Canady JW. Ethical issues for the plastic surgeon in a tumultuous health care system: dissecting the anatomy of a decision. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122 (04) 1245-1252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Billig JI, Chen JS, Lu YT, Chung KC, Sears ED. The economic burden of out-of-pocket expenses for plastic surgery procedures. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (06) 1541-1551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kanter M. Why doctors are required to work for free. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123 (04) 1401-1402
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Panchal H, Shamsunder MG, Sheinin A. et al. Impact of physician payments on microvascular breast reconstruction: an all-payer claim database analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 145 (02) 333-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Doval AF, Gratzon AC, Neese V, Shuck JW, Friedman J, Echo A. Is our effort appropriately valued? An analysis of work relative value units in immediate breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 146 (03) 502-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hallock GG. In an era of perforator flaps, are muscle flaps passé?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2009; 123 (04) 1357-1363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Introduction to relative units and how Medicare reimbursement is calculated. Accessed May 30, 2021 at: http://labor.alaska.gov/wc/med-serv-comm/cms_rvu_calculations.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gallani S, Witkowski M, Haskins L, Jeffcoat H, Mujumdar V, Opelka F. Today's surgeon compensation models fall short: aligning incentive to create more equitable and value-based compensation models. Am Coll Surg Bull 2021; 106 (04) 33-39
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Reece EM, Tanna N, Rohrich RJ. The missing link: the business of plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 2020; 146 (04) 905-912
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Blank MM, Chen L, Papageorge M, Driscoll D, Graham R, Chatterjee A. The underreporting of cost perspective in cost-analysis research: a systematic review of the plastic surgery literature. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2018; 71 (03) 366-376
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Smith BD, Chandler AR, Braswell A. et al. Prospective analysis of payment per hour in head and neck reconstruction: fiscally feasible or futile?. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 137 (03) 980-984
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar