Private payers' varicose vein policies are inaccurate, disparate, and not evidence based, which mandates a proposal for a reasonable and responsible policy for the treatment of venous disease

Welch, Harold J.; Schul, Marlin; Monahan, Daniel L.; Iafrati, Mark D.

doi:10.1016/j.jvsv.2020.12.076

Cited by 11 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This creates difficulties for the patient and practitioner when the GSV is normal, usually requiring repeated appeals for treatment. 23 In the US, typical reimbursement for CPT code 36475 (laser ablation 1st vein) ranges from US$970 (£716; Medicare) to US$1,700-$2,500 (£1,256-£1,847) from private payers, and CPT code 36476 (laser additional vein) from approximately US$200 (£148; Medicare) to approximately US$500 (£369; private payers). Blue Shield of California insists that all refluxing truncal veins be treated in one session.…”

Section: Reimbursementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combined Treatment of the Anterior Accessory Saphenous Vein and the Great Saphenous Vein

Welch¹

2022

Vascular and Endovascular Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The anterior accessory saphenous vein (AASV) is a common source of primary and recurrent lower extremity varicose veins. Reflux in the AASV can occur independently or simultaneously with great saphenous vein (GSV) reflux. A number of published reports describe recommendations and treatment of symptomatic refluxing AASVs, but descriptions of combined treatment are sparse. Treatment options for ablation of the AASV include both thermal and non-thermal techniques, and results are equivalent to ablation of the great and small saphenous veins. Although not commonly performed, concomitant ablation of the AASV and the GSV is effective and safe, and can be accomplished with minimal additional time. Concomitant treatment is an appropriate option that should be discussed with the patient.

show abstract

Section: Reimbursementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combined Treatment of the Anterior Accessory Saphenous Vein and the Great Saphenous Vein

Welch¹

2022

Vascular and Endovascular Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a result, several insurance agencies have determined that the symptom severity of patients without SFJ reflux does not rise to the level of requiring or receiving treatment. 5 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of junctional reflux on the venous clinical severity score in patients with insufficiency of the great saphenous vein (JURY study)

Vemuri,

Gibson,

Pappas

et al. 2024

Journal of Vascular Surgery: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

American Insurance Coverage of Endovenous Ablation for Greater and Lesser Saphenous Varicose Veins

Onyima,

Hricz,

Zhu

et al. 2025

Annals of Vascular Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Private payers' varicose vein policies are inaccurate, disparate, and not evidence based, which mandates a proposal for a reasonable and responsible policy for the treatment of venous disease

Cited by 11 publications

References 26 publications

Combined Treatment of the Anterior Accessory Saphenous Vein and the Great Saphenous Vein

Combined Treatment of the Anterior Accessory Saphenous Vein and the Great Saphenous Vein

Effect of junctional reflux on the venous clinical severity score in patients with insufficiency of the great saphenous vein (JURY study)

American Insurance Coverage of Endovenous Ablation for Greater and Lesser Saphenous Varicose Veins

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About