Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Mar;14(3):e240204.
doi: 10.57264/cer-2024-0204. Epub 2025 Jan 15.

Economic impact of reduced postoperative visits after inflatable penile prosthesis implantation

Affiliations

Economic impact of reduced postoperative visits after inflatable penile prosthesis implantation

Bradley Gill et al. J Comp Eff Res. 2025 Mar.

Erratum in

  • Corrigendum.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] J Comp Eff Res. 2025 Jul;14(7):e250066. doi: 10.57264/cer-2025-0066. Epub 2025 May 6. J Comp Eff Res. 2025. PMID: 40326498 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

Abstract

Aim: This study assessed the economic impact of reducing one postoperative visit following inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation. Methods: Scenario analyses were used to model the effects of eliminating one 30-min IPP postoperative visit from the expected 2.5 visits accounted for by the American Medical Association resource-based relative value scale data. The reduction was attributed to simplified teaching with a modified device. The recaptured time was applied to: the most frequent in-office CPT codes utilized by IPP implanters; evaluation and management of new ED patients pursuing/receiving IPPs; and in-office vasectomy. Physician work time and reimbursement were conservatively estimated using the 2024 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule and an alternative scenario where Advanced Practice Providers conducted IPP teaching was also modeled. Results: Annually, reducing one 30-min IPP postoperative visit for practices performing 25/50/100 IPP implants recaptured 750/1500/3000 min, respectively. This recaptured time translates into as much as $18,325 additional annual Medicare reimbursement. At 25 implants yearly, urologists could help an additional 13-25 patients with office visits and observe an additional $2049-$2270 reimbursement. At 50 implants yearly, office evaluation and counseling for 7 ED patients who progress to IPP implantation results in an additional $4125 reimbursement, excluding any diagnostic procedures and/or downstream surgical cases. At 100 implants yearly, recaptured schedule capacity can facilitate 37 in-office vasectomies, which translates to a $12,563 reimbursement. Conclusion: Achieving fewer IPP postoperative visits can optimize postoperative care and open schedule capacity that improves access to care for patients with urological needs.

Keywords: economic impact; erectile dysfunction; inflatable penile prosthesis; postoperative visits; reimbursement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests disclosure

B Gill, A Sun and P Babbar are practicing urologists and were not compensated for their participation in this study, however each serves as a consultant for Boston Scientific in other capacities. K Durand and S Rojanasarot were employees of Boston Scientific when the study was conducted and hold stock options within the company. YE Shin was a contractor for Boston Scientific when the study was conducted. The authors have no other competing interests or relevant affiliations with any organization/entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

The authors have no other competing interests or relevant affiliations with any organization/entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

Similar articles

References

    1. US Department of Health and Human Services. Physician supply and demand: projections to 2020. https://bhw.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/bureau-health-workforce/data-re... (2006) (Accessed: 28 August 2023).
    1. Nam CS, Daignault-Newton S, Kraft KH, Herrel LA. Projected US Urology Workforce per Capita, 2020–2060. JAMA Netw. Open 4(11), e2133864 (2021). - PMC - PubMed
    2. •• Provides key projections on the declining per capita urology workforce, highlighting the need for efficiency and alternative care models to help manage the increasing demand for urology care.

    1. American Urological Association (AUA). The State of the Urology Workforce and Practice in the United States. https://www.auanet.org/documents/research/census/2021%20Census%20Report.pdf (2021) (Accessed: 15 February 2023).
    2. •• Provides a comprehensive overview of the urology workforce in the US and conveys the impact of these trends on patient access to care and physician workload.

    1. Pannell SC, Soni SM, Giboney P, Santamaria A, Bergman J. Access to urologic care through clinical integration in a large, underserved population. JAMA Surg. 154(11), 1072–1074 (2019). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Leow JJ, Tan WS, Tan WP et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis on delaying surgery for urothelial carcinoma of bladder and upper tract urothelial carcinoma: implications for the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Front. Surg. 9, (2022). - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources