scholarly journals Physician Payment 2008 for Interventionalists: Current State of Health Care Policy

2007 ◽  
Vol 5;10 (9;5) ◽  
pp. 607-626
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Growth Rate ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
The United States ◽  
Ripple Effect ◽  
Physician Payment ◽  
Sustained Growth ◽  
The Us ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Fee Schedule

Physicians in the United States have been affected by significant changes in the pattern(s) of medical practice evolving over the last several decades. These changes include new measures to 1) curb increasing costs, 2) increase access to patient care, 3) improve quality of healthcare, and 4) pay for prescription drugs. Escalating healthcare costs have focused concerns about the financial solvency of Medicare and this in turn has fostered a renewed interest in the economic basis of interventional pain management practices. The provision and systemization of healthcare in North America and several European countries are difficult enterprises to manage irrespective of whether these provisions and systems are privatized (as in the United States) or nationalized or semi-nationalized (as in Great Britain, Canada, Australia and France). Consequently, while many management options have been put forth, none seem to be optimally geared toward affording healthcare as a maximized individual and social good, and none have been completely enacted. The current physician fee schedule (released on July 12, 2007) includes a 9.9% cut in payment rate. Since the Medicare program was created in 1965, several methods have been used to determine physicians’ rate(s) for each covered service. The sustained growth rate (SGR) system, established in 1998, has evoked negative consequences on physician payment(s). Based on the current Medicare expenditure index, practice expenses are projected to increase by 34.5% from 2002 to 2016, whereas, if actual practice inflation is considered, this increase will be 90%. This is in contrast to projected physician payment cuts that are depicted to be 51%. No doubt, this scenario will be devastating to many practices and the US medical community at large. Resolutions to this problem have been offered by MedPAC, the Government Accountability Office, physician organizations, economists, and various other interested groups. In the past, temporary measures have been proposed (and sometimes implemented) to eliminate physician payment cuts. At present, the US Senate and House of Representatives are separately working on 2 different mechanisms to address and rectify these cost-payment discrepancies. The effects of both the problem and the potential solutions on interventional pain management may be somewhat greater than those on other specialties. Physician payments in interventional pain management may evidence cuts of 10% to 15%, whereas if procedures are performed in an office setting, such cuts may range from 29% to 39% over the period of the next 3 years if the proposed 9.9% cut is not reversed. Medicare cuts also impact other insurance payments, incurring a “ripple effect” such that many insurers will seek to pay at or around the Medicare rate. In this manuscript, we discuss universal healthcare systems, the CMS proposed ruling and its attendant ripple effect(s), historical aspects of the Medicare payment system, the Sustained Growth Rate system, and the potential consequences incurred by both proposed cuts and potential solutions to the discrepant cost-payment issue(s). As well, ethical issues of policy development upon the infrastructure and practice of interventional pain management are addressed. Key words: Health policy, physician payment policy, physician fee schedule, Medicare, sustained growth rate formula, interventional pain management, regulatory reform, ethics

scholarly journals Physician Payment Outlook for 2012: Déjà Vu

2012 ◽  
Vol 1;15 (1;1) ◽  
pp. E27-E52
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Growth Rate ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Conversion Factor ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sustainable Growth ◽  
Physician Payment ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Fee Schedule ◽  
The Impact

Physician spending is complex related to national health care spending, government regulations, health care reform, private insurers, physician practice, and patient utilization patterns. In determining payment rates for each service on the fee schedule, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) considers the amount of work required to provide a service, expenses related to maintaining a practice, and liability insurance costs. The value of 3 types of resources are adjusted on a yearly basis of the combined total multiplied by a standard dollar amount, called the fee schedules conversion factor, which was $33.98 in 2011, to arrive at the payment amount. This factor will stay almost the same ($34.03) unless a 27.4% cut in the sustainable growth rate (SGR) takes place or CMS enacts further reductions. With a 27.4% cut, the conversion factor will be $24.67 in 2012 after the first 2 months if Congress fails to act. Since the inception of Medicare programs in 1965, several methods have been used to determine the amounts paid to physicians for each covered service. The SGR was enacted in 1997 to determine physician payment updates under Medicare Part B with intent to reduce Medicare physician payment updates to offset the growth and utilization of physician services that exceed gross domestic product (GDP) growth. This is achieved by setting an overall target amount of spending for physicians’ services and adjusting payment rates annually to reflect differences between actual spending and the spending target. Since 2002, the SGR has annually recommended reductions in Medicare reimbursements. Payments were cut in 2002 by 4.8%. Since then, Congress has intervened on 13 separate occasions to prevent additional cuts from being imposed. The Medicare physician payment rule of 2012, which is still undergoing revisions -- but considered as the final rule-- is a 1,235 page document, released in November 2011. In this manuscript, we will describe important aspects of the 2012 physician fee schedule which include potentially disvalued services under the physician fee schedule, expansion of the multiple procedure payment reduction (MPPR) policy, establishment of the valuebased payment modifier, changes to direct practice expenses (PEs), electronic prescribing, the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), and lab testing signatures, along with their implications. Additionally, the impact of multiple changes on interventional pain management will be described. In conclusion, interventional pain management is facing widespread challenges in the U.S. health care system. A historic reform, which has been passed by Congress and signed into law, whose survivability is not quite known yet, is affecting medicine drastically in the United States. Interventional pain management, like other evolving specialties, will probably most likely suffer under the new affordable health care law and regulatory burden. Key words: Health policy, physician payment policy, physician fee schedule, Medicare, sustained growth rate formula, interventional pain management, regulatory reform

scholarly journals Interventional Pain Management at Crossroads: The Perfect Storm Brewing for a New Decade of Challenges

2010 ◽  
Vol 2;13 (1;2) ◽  
pp. E111-E140
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Growth Rate ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Health Care Costs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Physician Payment ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Care Costs

The health care industry in general and care of chronic pain in particular are described as recessionproof. However, a perfect storm with a confluence of many factors and events —none of which alone is particularly devastating — is brewing and may create a catastrophic force, even in a small specialty such as interventional pain management. Multiple challenges related to interventional pain management in the current decade will include individual and group physicians, office practices, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), and hospital outpatient departments (HOPD). Rising health care costs are discussed on a daily basis in the United States. The critics have claimed that health outcomes are the same as or worse than those in other countries, but others have presented the evidence that the United States has the best health care system. All agree it is essential to reduce costs. Numerous factors contribute to increasing health care costs. They include administrative costs, waste, abuse, and fraud. It has been claimed the U.S. health care system wastes up to $800 billion a year. Of this, fraud accounts for approximately $200 billion a year, involving fraudulent Medicare claims, kickbacks for referrals for unnecessary services, and other scams. Administrative inefficiency and redundant paperwork accounts for 18% of health care waste, whereas medical mistakes account for $50 billion to $100 billion in unnecessary spending each year, or 11% of the total. Further, American physicians spend nearly 8 hours per week on paperwork and employ 1.66 clerical workers per doctor, more than any other country. It has been illustrated that it takes $60,000 to $88,000 per physician per year, equal to one-third of a family practitioner’s gross income, and $23 to $31 billion each year in total to interact with health insurance plans. The studies have illustrated that an average physician spends $68,274 per year communicating with insurance companies and performing other non-medical functions. For an office-based practice, the overall total in the United States is $38.7 billion, or $85,276 per physician. In the United States there are 2 types of physician payment systems: private health care and Medicare. Medicare has moved away from the Medicare Economic Index (MEI) and introduced the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula which has led to cuts in physician payments on a yearly basis. In 2010 and beyond into the new decade, interventional pain management will see significant changes in how we practice medicine. There is focus on avoiding waste, abuse, fraud, and also cutting costs. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) and comparative effectiveness research (CER) have been introduced as cost-cutting and rationing measures, however, with biased approaches. This manuscript will analyze various issues related to interventional pain management with a critical analysis of physician payments, office facility payments, and ASC payments by various payor groups. Key words: Interventional pain management, interventional techniques, physician payment reform, ambulatory surgery center payment, hospital outpatient department payments, sustained growth rate formula, targeted growth rate formula, fraud, abuse, administrative expenses, evidence-based medicine, health care costs

scholarly journals Proposed Physician Payment Schedule for 2013: Guarded Prognosis for Interventional Pain Management

2012 ◽  
Vol 5;15 (5;9) ◽  
pp. E615-E627
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Growth Rate ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Regulatory Reform ◽  
Sustainable Growth ◽  
Physician Payment ◽  
Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists ◽  
Sustainable Growth Rate ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Fee Schedule ◽  
The Impact

As happens every year, on July 1, 2012, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a proposed policy and payment rate for services furnished under the Medicare physician fee schedule for 2013. The proposed rule would provide certified registered nurse anesthetists to practice independent interventional pain management. Other issues, though no less important, include a 27% sustainable growth rate formula cut in reimbursement, along with a 2% sequester, which could lead to a potential cut of 29%. Since the inception of Medicare programs in 1965, several methods have been used to determine the amounts paid to physicians for each covered service. The sustainable growth rate was enacted in 1997 to determine physician payment updates under Medicare Part B. Its intent was to reduce Medicare physician payment updates to offset the growth and utilization of physician services that exceed gross domestic product growth. This is achieved by setting an overall target amount of spending for physicians’ services and adjusting payment rates annually to reflect differences between actual spending and the spending target. Since 2002, the sustainable growth rate has annually been used to recommend reductions in Medicare reimbursements. Payments were cut in 2002 by 4.8%. Since then, Congress has intervened on multiple occasions to prevent additional cuts from being imposed. In this manuscript, we will describe important proposed changes to the physician fee schedule. Additionally, the impact of multiple changes on interventional pain management will be briefly described. Key words: Health policy, physician payment policy, physician fee schedule, Medicare, sustained growth rate formula, interventional pain management, regulatory reform.

scholarly journals Medicare Physician Payment Systems: Impact of 2011 Schedule on Interventional Pain Management

2011 ◽  
Vol 1;14 (1;1) ◽  
pp. E5-E33
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Growth Rate ◽  
The United States ◽  
Payment System ◽  
Physician Services ◽  
Payment Systems ◽  
Physician Payment ◽  
Medicare Program ◽  
Relative Value ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Fee Schedule

Physicians in the United States have been affected by significant changes in the patterns of medical practice evolving over the last several decades. The recently passed affordable health care law, termed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (the ACA, for short) affects physicians more than any other law. Physician services are an integral part of health care. Physicians are paid in the United States for their personal services. This payment also includes the overhead expenses for maintaining an office and providing services. The payment system is highly variable in the private insurance market; however, governmental systems have a formula-based payment, mostly based on the Medicare payment system. Physician services are billed under Part B. Since the inception of the Medicare program in 1965, several methods have been used to determine the amounts paid to physicians for each covered service. Initially, the payment systems compensated physicians on the basis of their charges. In 1975, just over 10 years after the inception of the Medicare program, payments changed so as not to exceed the increase in the Medical Economic Index (MEI). Nevertheless, the policy failed to curb increases in costs, leading to the determination of a yearly change in fees by legislation from 1984 to 1991. In 1992, the fee schedule essentially replaced the prior payment system that was based on the physician’s charges, which also failed to live up to expectations for operational success. Then, in 1998, the sustainable growth rate (SGR) system was introduced. In 2009, multiple attempts were made by Congress to repeal the formula – rather unsuccessfully. Consequently, the SGR formula continues to hamper physician payments. The mechanism of the SGR includes 3 components that are incorporated into a statutory formula: expenditure targets, growth rate period, and annual adjustments of payment rates for physician services. Further, the relative value of a physician fee schedule is based on 3 components: physician work, practice expense (PE), and malpractice expense that are used to determine a value ranking for each service to which it is applied. On average, the work component represents 53.5% of a service’s relative value, the fee component represents 43.6%, and the malpractice component represents 3.9%. The final schedule for physician payment was issued on November 24, 2010. This was based on a total cut of 30.8% with 24.9% of the cut attributed to SGR. However, as usual, with patchwork efficiency, Congress passed a one-year extension of the 0% update, effective through December 2011. Consequently, CMS issued an emergency update of the 2011 Medicare fee schedule, with multiple revisions, resulting in a reduction of the conversion factor of $36.8729 from December 2010 to $33.9764 for 2011. Key words: Health policy, physician payment policy, physician fee schedule, Medicare, sustained growth rate formula, interventional pain management, regulatory reform

scholarly journals Variations in Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injection Practice Patterns by Interventional Pain Management Physicians in the United States

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (21;1) ◽  
pp. E493-E499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Doan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Image Guidance ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Steroid Injection ◽  
The United States ◽  
Needle Size ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Interlaminar Epidural Steroid Injection ◽  
Epidural Steroid

Background: Previous surveys have identified variations in practice patterns related to epidural steroid injections. Since then, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has required the addition of drug warning labels for injectable corticosteroids. Updated evidence, as well as scrutiny from regulatory agencies, may affect practice patterns. Objective: To provide an update on interlaminar epidural steroid injection (ILESI) practice patterns, we surveyed interventional pain management (IPM) physicians in the United States. Study Design and Setting: This was a cross-sectional survey of IPM physicians in the United States. Methods: A web-based survey was distributed to IPM physicians in the United States selected from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education accredited pain medicine fellowship program list as well as the American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians membership database. Physicians were queried about ILESI practices, including needle size, use of image guidance, level of injection, identification of the epidural space, and preference for injectate. Results: A total of 249 responses were analyzed. All respondents used image guidance for ILESI. There were variations in needle size, use of contrast, number of fluoroscopic views utilized, technique for identifying the epidural space, and choice of injectate. Limitations: The response rate is a limitation, thus the results may not be representative of all United States IPM physicians. Conclusions: Though all respondents used image guidance for ILESI, variations in other ILESI practices still exist. Since the closure of this survey, a multi-society pain workgroup published recommendations regarding ESI practices. Our survey findings support the need for more evidencebased guidelines regarding ESI. Key words: Epidural injection, epidural steroids, survey, low back pain, neck pain, technique

scholarly journals Reframing Medicare Physician Payment Policy for 2019: A Look at Proposed Policy

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (21;1) ◽  
pp. 415-432 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Pain Management ◽  
Coding System ◽  
Incentive Payment ◽  
Physician Payment ◽  
Office Setting ◽  
Ambulatory Surgery Centers ◽  
Payment Policy ◽  
Level Ii ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Fee Schedule

On July 12, 2018, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the proposed 2019 Medicare physician fee schedule and quality payment program, combining these 2 rules for the first time. This occurred in a milieu of changing regulations that have been challenging for interventional pain management specialists. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) continuous to be amended by multiple administrative changes. This July 12th rule proposes substantial payment changes for evaluation and management (E&M) services, with documentation requirements, and blending of Level II to V CPT codes for E&M into a single payment. In addition, various changes in the quality payment program with liberalization of some metrics have been published. Recognizing that there are differing impacts based on specialty and practice type, as a whole interventional pain management specialists would likely see favorable reimbursement trends for E&M services as a result of this proposal. Moreover, in comparison with recent CMS final ruling, this proposed rule has relatively limited changes in procedural reimbursement performed in a facility or in-office setting. CMS, in the new rule, has proposed an overhaul of the E&M documentation and coding system ostensibly to reduce the amount of time physicians are required to spend inputting information into patients’ records. The new proposed rule blends Level II to V codes for E&M services into a single payment of $93 for office outpatient visits for established patients and $135 for new patient visits. This will also have an effect with blended payments for services provided in hospital outpatients. CMS also has provided additional codes to increase the reimbursement when prolonged services are provided with total reimbursement coming to Level V payments. Interventional pain managementcentered care has been identified as a specialty with complexity inherent to E&M associated with these services. Among the procedural payments, there exist significant discrepancies for the services performed in hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), and offices. A particularly egregious example is peripheral neurolytic blocks, which is reimbursed at 1,800% higher in hospital outpatient department (HOPD) settings as compared with procedures done in the office. The majority of hospital based procedures have faced relatively small cuts as compared with office based practice. The only significant change noted is for spinal cord stimulator implant leads when performed in office setting with 19.2% increase. However, epidural codes, which have been initiated with a lower payment, continue to face small reductions for physician portion. This review describes the effects of the proposed policy on interventional pain management reimbursement for E&M services, procedural services by physicians and procedures performed in office settings. Key words: Physician payment policy, physician fee schedule, Medicare, Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, interventional pain management, regulatory tsunami, Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015

scholarly journals The Effect of COVID-19 on Interventional Pain Management Practices: A Physician Burnout Survey

2020 ◽  
Vol 4S;23 (8;4S) ◽  
pp. S271-S282
Author(s):  
Amol Soin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
The United States ◽  
Online Marketing ◽  
Pain Medicine ◽  
Physician Burnout ◽  
Physician Practices ◽  
Interventional Pain Management

Background: Burnout has been a commonly discussed issue for the past ten years among physicians and other health care workers. A survey of interventional pain physicians published in 2016 reported high levels of emotional exhaustion, often considered the most taxing aspect of burnout. Job dissatisfaction appeared to be the leading agent in the development of burnout in pain medicine physicians in the United States. The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically affected the entire health care workforce and interventional pain management, with other surgical specialties, has been affected significantly. The COVID-19 pandemic has placed several physical and emotional stressors on interventional pain management physicians and this may lead to increased physician burnout. Objective: To assess the presence of burnout specific to COVID-19 pandemic among practicing interventional pain physicians. Methods: American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) administered a 32 question survey to their members by contacting them via commercially available online marketing company platform. The survey was completed on www.constantcontact.com. Results: Of 179 surveys sent, 100 responses were obtained. The data from the survey demonstrated that 98% of physician practices were affected by COVID and 91% of physicians felt it had a significant financial impact. Sixty seven percent of the physicians responded that inhouse billing was responsible for their increased level of burnout, whereas 73% responded that electronic medical records (EMRs) were one of the causes. Overall, 78% were very concerned. Almost all respondents have been affected with a reduction in interventional procedures. 60% had a negative opinion about the future of their practice, whereas 66% were negative about the entire health care industry. Limitations: The survey included only a small number of member physicians. Consequently, it may not be generalized for other specialties or even pain medicine. However, it does represent the sentiment and present status of interventional pain management. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic has put interventional pain practices throughout the United States under considerable financial and psychological stress. It is essential to quantify the extent of economic loss, offer strategies to actively manage provider practice/wellbeing, and minimize risk to personnel to keep patients safe. Key Words: Interventional pain management, burnout, interventional pain physician, corona COVID-19, financial stress, anxiety, depression

scholarly journals Forecasting the Spread of COVID-19 under Different Reopening Strategies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meng Liu ◽  
Raphael Thomadsen ◽  
Song Yao
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Growth Rate ◽  
Population Density ◽  
The United States ◽  
Sir Model ◽  
Social Distancing ◽  
Mobility Data ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Us ◽  
Case Data

ABSTRACTWe combine COVID-19 case data with demographic and mobility data to estimate a modified susceptible-infected-recovered (SIR) model for the spread of this disease in the United States. We find that the incidence of infectious COVID-19 individuals has a concave effect on contagion, as would be expected if people have inter-related social networks. We also demonstrate that social distancing and population density have large effects on the rate of contagion. The social distancing in late March and April substantially reduced the number of COVID-19 cases. However, the concave contagion pattern means that when social distancing measures are lifted, the growth rate is considerable but will not be exponential as predicted by standard SIR models. Furthermore, counties with the lowest population density could likely avoid high levels of contagion even with no social distancing. We forecast rates of new cases for COVID-19 under different social distancing norms and find that if social distancing is eliminated there will be a massive increase in the cases of COVID-19, about double what would occur if the US only restored to 50% of the way to normalcy.

scholarly journals Proposed Medicare Physician Payment Schedule for 2017: Impact on Interventional Pain Management Practices

2016 ◽  
Vol 7;19 (7;9) ◽  
pp. E935-E955
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Payment System ◽  
Incentive Payment ◽  
Physician Payment ◽  
Office Setting ◽  
Hospital Outpatient ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Fee Schedule

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released the proposed 2017 Medicare physician fee schedule on July 7, 2016, addressing Medicare payments for physicians providing services either in an office or facility setting, which also includes payments for office expenses and quality provisions for physicians. This proposed rule occurs in the context of numerous policy changes, most notably related to the Medicare Access & CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA) and its Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The proposed rule affects interventional pain management specialists in reimbursement for evaluation and management services, as well as procedures performed in a facility or in-office setting. Changes in the proposed fee schedule impacting interventional pain management practices include adjustments to the meaningful use (MU) program, care management in patientcentered services, identification and review of potentially misvalued services, evaluation of moderate sedation services, Medicare telehealth services, updated geographic practice cost index, data collection on resources used in furnishing global services, reporting of modifier 25 for zero day global services, Medicare Advantage Part C provider and supplier enrollment, appropriate use criteria (AUC) for advanced imaging services, and Medicare shared savings programs. The proposed schedule has provided rates for new epidural codes with or without imaging (fluoroscopy or computed tomography [CT]) and a fee schedule for a new code covering endoscopic spinal decompression. Review of payment rates show major discrepancies in payment schedules with high payments for hospitals, 2,156% higher than in-office procedures. Some procedures which were converted from in-office settings to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) are being reimbursed at 1,366% higher than ASCs. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) recommendation on avoiding the discrepancies and site-of-service differentials in in-office settings, hospital outpatient settings, and ASCs has not been agreed to by CMS. Thus, even though the changes appear to be minor in physician services and in-office service payment, these changes cumulatively have been reducing payments for interventional procedures. Further, in-office reimbursement is overall significantly lower than ASCs and hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) specifically for intraarticular injections, peripheral nerve blocks, and peripheral neurolytic injections. The significant advantage also continues for hospitals in their reimbursement for facility fee for evaluation and management services. This health policy review describes various issues related to health care expenses, health care reform, and finally its effects on physician payments for all services and also for the services provided in an office setting. Key words: Physician payment policy, physician fee schedule, Medicare, Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, interventional pain management, regulatory tsunami, Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015

scholarly journals Rapid displacement of SARS-CoV-2 variant B.1.1.7 by B.1.617.2 and P.1 in the United States

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandre Bolze ◽  
Elizabeth T Cirulli ◽  
Shishi Luo ◽  
Simon White ◽  
Tyler Cassens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Growth Rate ◽  
Rapid Growth ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vaccination Rate ◽  
The Us ◽  
Viral Sequencing

The SARS-CoV-2 variant of concern B.1.617.2 displaced B.1.1.7 as the dominant variant in England and other countries. This study aimed to determine whether B.1.617.2 was also displacing B.1.1.7 in the United States. We analyzed PCR testing results and viral sequencing results of samples collected across the United States, and showed that B.1.1.7 was rapidly being displaced and is no longer responsible for the majority of new cases. The percentage of SARS-CoV-2 positive cases that are B.1.1.7 dropped from 70% in April 2021 to 42% in just 6 weeks. Our analysis showed rapid growth of variants B.1.617.2 and P.1 as the primary drivers for this displacement. Currently, the growth rate of B.1.617.2 was higher than P.1 in the US (0.61 vs. 0.22), which is consistent with reports from other countries. Lastly, we showed that B.1.617.2 was growing faster in counties with a lower vaccination rate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document