Discussion:
Esophyx
(too old to reply)
c***@intel.com
2008-03-14 14:38:33 UTC
Permalink
This question is for Howard:

I would like to know your opinion about a new procedure by the name of
Esophyx. I've read that they are now doing this procedure in the
U.S. I would like to know how you think this compares with the
Plicator procedure and if you think the Esophyx procedure has the
potential to become the preferred treatment for GERD.

Thanks,

Christine
H McCollister
2008-03-18 14:28:01 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by c***@intel.com
I would like to know your opinion about a new procedure by the name of
Esophyx. I've read that they are now doing this procedure in the
U.S. I would like to know how you think this compares with the
Plicator procedure and if you think the Esophyx procedure has the
potential to become the preferred treatment for GERD.
Thanks,
Christin
The difference between Esophyx and the NDO Plicator is going to be
mostly marketing IMHO.

I think that this kind of endoluminal surgery will definitely have an
important role in the treatment of GERD (at least in the short run), but
only time will tell (and it will be many years) whether or not it will
become the primary treatment, and whether or not it will be Esophyx,
Plicator, a couple of other things or the horizon, something that hasn't
been invented yet, or none of the above.

This same question, over the years, has been asked about Toupet
procedure, Anglechik prothesis, Gatekeeper, Enteryx, and Stretta. The
answer has always ended up being "no", once the data was in.

HMc
c***@intel.com
2008-03-18 15:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by H McCollister
In article
Post by c***@intel.com
I would like to know your opinion about a new procedure by the name of
Esophyx.  I've read that they are now doing this procedure in the
U.S.  I would like to know how you think this compares with the
Plicator procedure and if you think the Esophyx procedure has the
potential to become the preferred treatment for GERD.
Thanks,
Christin
The difference between Esophyx and the NDO Plicator is going to be
mostly marketing IMHO.
I think that this kind of endoluminal surgery will definitely have an
important role in the treatment of GERD (at least in the short run), but
only time will tell (and it will be many years) whether or not it will
become the primary treatment, and whether or not it will be Esophyx,
Plicator, a couple of other things or the horizon, something that hasn't
been invented yet, or none of the above.
This same question, over the years, has been asked about Toupet
procedure, Anglechik prothesis, Gatekeeper, Enteryx, and Stretta. The
answer has always ended up being "no", once the data was in.
HMc
Thanks Howard!
H McCollister
2008-03-23 14:16:02 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by c***@intel.com
I would like to know your opinion about a new procedure by the name of
Esophyx. I've read that they are now doing this procedure in the
U.S. I would like to know how you think this compares with the
Plicator procedure and if you think the Esophyx procedure has the
potential to become the preferred treatment for GERD.
Thanks,
Christine
SAGES= Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons ... the
leading group of physicians representing current surgical practice.

CPT= Current Procedural Terminology ... a list of procedure codes that
surgeons submit to insurance companies to provide a more-or-less
standardized reimbursement schedule

I was just invited to a meeting at this year's SAGES meeting coming up
in June in Philadelphia there will be a meeting whose purpose is to
develop a position statement that will represent SAGES' position on this
type of endoluminal treatment for GERD. Currently, insurance compananies
won't pay for any such treatment. In fact, there isn't even a CPT code
for it. That means that any time a surgeon does Esophyx or Plicator, he
she must submit the generic CPT code for "unlisted procedure". This
gaurantees scrutiny by the insurance company, and likewise is virtually
certain to result in a denial of precertification. Even with a CPT code
specific to Esophyx or Plicator, it's likely the procedure will still be
labeled "investigational" and most insurance companies won't cover it,
but without SAGES' endorsement, neither procedure has a prayer of EVER
remaining viable.

So, first, the two mfgrs need to get a CPT code approved specific to
endoluminal GERD treatment. Currently, there is a CPT code 43324 (same
code that is used for Nissen Fundoplication) that represents:

"CPT 43324

The physician mobilizes the lower end of the esophagus and folds the
fundus of the stomach around it. The physician accesses the lower
esophagus through an upper abdominal incision. The fundus of the
stomach is moved up and wrapped around the terminal 3 cm to 4 cm of the
esophagus and sutured into place. The lower esophageal sphincter passes
through a short tunnel of stomach muscle, which prevents reflux through
the sphincter. When performed for hiatal hernia, this procedure may
include a sutured tightening of the junction of the diaphragmatic crura
behind the esophagus."

Endogastric Solutions, (mfgr of Esophyx) wants SAGES to endorse changing
that code my removing the line "The physician accesses the lower
esophagus through an upper abdominal incision." That way, Esophyx will
be equated to Nissen, on paper at least. Insurance companies will still
likely deny Esophyx for the time being, but this is a necessary first
step. The other thing Endogastric Solutions wants SAGES to do at this
meeting is actually endorse Esophyx as a primary treatment and support
their bid for legitimacy with the insurance companies. I don't see
Endogastric Solutions on the list of supporters/donors for this year's
meeting, for those of you who might be conspiracy theorists.

Lot's of politics here. The insurance companies don't want to pay for
new treatments. They know that if they make it easier for people to have
surgery for GERD then more people will have that surgery and it will
cost them more money than they pay out now. Endogastric Solutions knows
that if they don't get a CPT code, and if they don't get the insurance
companies to move Esophyx out of the "investigational" category, they'll
go out of business, so we also have Endogastric Solutions running around
behind the scenes lobbying for acceptance of their new and uproven
procedure. And we have a bunch of endoscopic surgeons in the middle, who
aren't sure if this is a valid treatment or not because there is
insufficient data to draw a definitive conclusion.

Anyway...a glimpse into contemporary medical politics.

HMc
starwarsmum
2008-03-26 15:56:49 UTC
Permalink
Thank you for posting this info Howard, I had no idea how the new
procedures came into practice. Makes it rather difficult to get the
real information on how viable the procedure actually is!

You said that the insurance companies don't want more people having
the surgery - do the insurance companies cover the cost of PPIs? Or is
that separate? You'd think the cost of surgery would be worth it
compared to the cost of the drugs and ongoing care of a GERD patient.

Amy (in Canada)
Howard McCollister
2008-03-26 16:34:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by starwarsmum
Thank you for posting this info Howard, I had no idea how the new
procedures came into practice. Makes it rather difficult to get the
real information on how viable the procedure actually is!
You said that the insurance companies don't want more people having
the surgery - do the insurance companies cover the cost of PPIs? Or is
that separate? You'd think the cost of surgery would be worth it
compared to the cost of the drugs and ongoing care of a GERD patient.
Amy (in Canada)
The payback on anti-reflux surgery is about 7 years. At the end of 7 years,
an insurance company spends more on medical treatment than they would on
surgical treatment. The problem is, the average patient stay with their
health insurance plan or company for 2.8 years. So, if an insurance company
can delay surgical intervention, after 2.8 years that patient will become
some other insurance company's problem. I agree, it's fallacious reasoning,
but that's how it works.

HMc
c***@intel.com
2008-03-31 18:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard McCollister
Post by starwarsmum
Thank you for posting this info Howard, I had no idea how the new
procedures came into practice. Makes it rather difficult to get the
real information on how viable the procedure actually is!
You said that the insurance companies don't want more people having
the surgery - do the insurance companies cover the cost of PPIs? Or is
that separate? You'd think the cost of surgery would be worth it
compared to the cost of the drugs and ongoing care of a GERD patient.
Amy (in Canada)
The payback on anti-reflux surgery is about 7 years. At the end of 7 years,
an insurance company spends more on medical treatment than they would on
surgical treatment. The problem is, the average patient stay with their
health insurance plan or company for 2.8 years. So, if an insurance company
can delay surgical intervention, after 2.8 years that patient will become
some other insurance company's problem. I agree, it's fallacious reasoning,
but that's how it works.
HMc
Thanks for this updated information. It's scary when you think about
it! I am curious to know what the position paper, at Sages, will
say. In a way Esophyx sounds similar to a fundoplication. Please keep
us posted.

Christine
Howard McCollister
2008-04-01 12:06:02 UTC
Permalink
In a way Esophyx sounds similar to a fundoplication. Please keep
us posted.

Christine






It *is* a fundoplication. The nature of the way it's done, though, prevents
the surgeon from addressing any laxity of the hiatus of the diaphragm.
Likewise, any associated hiatus hernia can't be fixed. That means that
Esophyx won't be useful in some percentage of patients who would otherwise
be candidates for antifeflux surgery.

I'm pretty confident that SAGES will endorse it, given that organization's
current interest in "natural orifice surgery". I am equally confident that
insurance companies (a significantly large number) will continue to label it
"investigational" no matter what SAGES says.

About 3 years before Stretta folded, Curon Medical was actually successful
in getting a whole new CPT code (43257) specifically for radiofrequency
modification of the LES. It didn't help. Too few patients were having
Stretta because too many insurance companies tended not to pay for it, Curon
lost too much money and went out of business.

Just because SAGES endorses the therapy, or just because there is a CPT code
for it, that doesn't mean the insurance companies have to pay it.

HMc

Loading...