📢 New CPU: 13 expert tips on electrosurgery in therapeutic #Endoscopy. Learn key principles, understand tissue effects, and improve procedural safety. 🎥 Plus, hear the highlights from Drs. @joohahwang and @DennisYangMD.
🔗 https://t.co/jbICKPHExs
@AGA_CGH@AlexanderPodboy
⚡Electrosurgery is central to therapeutic endoscopy — but using it safely requires more than choosing the right settings.
📘Our new CPU published in @AGA_CGH shares 13 expert tips to help optimize outcomes.
🔗https://t.co/qyTaaquXcO
@joohahwang@AlexanderPodboy@DennisYangMD
It was an honor representing @uvagastro at @DDWMeeting!
I got to share my @MedicineUVA MSCR thesis regarding divergent patterns in telehealth access in GI!
Thank you @AlexanderPodboy for the mentorship!
I nerded out and looked at the Medicaid data files from a GI perspective.
And the findings are wild.
Of the 4.1 million colonoscopy claims from 2018-2024
Only 23% were billed as purely diagnostic (45378)
What was even weirder was among high volume proceduralists (>1000 cases)
If truly aberrant, that’s potentially over 17 million in overcharges to Medicaid in a 7 year period on colonoscopy claims alone.
More smoke than fire, but interesting nonetheless
When adjusting for provider location, it was overwhelmingly individual providers rather than ASCs or Hospitals that preferentially billed lower diagnostic codes. With some specific States more prone that others.
Hi Vikas, thanks for your work on this, very interesting and robust analysis.
However I noticed that the sub-speciality analysis is very granular (cardiology alone) and doesn’t capture interspeciality subspeciality ( like interventional cardiology vs structural cards, or general GI vs therapeutic GI)
Do you think some of the gap could be explained by gender differences in subspecialities?