Skip to main content
2026 SVS Annual Meeting Main banner
Icon Legend
This session is not in your schedule.
This session is in your schedule. Click again to remove it.
Presentation Icons
Ticket Required
Ticket Required
AI Presentation
AI Presentation
Hot Topic
Hot Topic
Taste of Boston
Taste of Boston

P7: Plenary 7/Late Breaking Abstracts

SS15 - The Reimbursement Gap Between Acute and Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia: Same DRG Different Reality

Saturday, June 13, 2026
7:00 AM - 7:11 AM ET
Location: Hynes CC, Third Level, Ballroom A
Objectives: Acute limb ischemia (ALI) and chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) are reimbursed under the same diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) despite important differences in clinical complexity and resource utilization. The adequacy of current DRG reimbursement in covering hospital costs for ALI compared with CLTI remains unclear. This study compares hospital costs and profit margins for patients treated for ALI vs CLTI.

Methods: All patients undergoing inpatient treatment for ALI or CLTI at a quaternary medical center between 2016–2024 were reviewed. Patients were identified using ICD-10 codes and stratified by presentation (ALI vs. CLTI) and treatment modality (open vs. endovascular). Exclusion criteria included outpatient cases, those treated with only medical management, and incomplete financial data. Costs were a combination of the professional and technical charges for the entire hospitalization, while profit was defined as reimbursement minus cost. Analyses were stratified by payer type.

Results: A total of 2,712 patients were included (ALI: 656; CLTI: 2,056). The payer mix was predominantly government insured (59% Medicare, 14% Medicaid), while the remaining 27% were commercially insured. Among Medicare beneficiaries, ALI admissions were associated with substantially higher costs compared to CLTI ($50,894 vs. $29,183, p< 0.001) (Table 1) with significantly worse losses (–$12,673 vs. –$6,343, p< 0.001) (Table 2). When restricted to open surgical interventions, costs and profit margins were similar between ALI and CLTI (Tables 1 and 2). In contrast, among Medicare endovascular interventions, ALI admissions were more than twice as expensive as CLTI admissions ($50,894 vs $23,884, p< 0.001) and resulted in greater than double the losses (–$13,716 vs –$4,613, p< 0.001). Major contributors were the costs of implantable devices ($5,997 vs $3,745, p< 0.001), the OR ($7,891 vs $4,903, p< 0.001), and increased length of stay (9 days vs 7 days, p=0.004) in endovascular ALI cases.

Conclusions: In an era of endovascular management, within a real-world payer mix in which Medicare predominates, ALI care is associated with markedly higher resource utilization and substantial hospital losses. Current reimbursement structures inadequately account for the intensity of acute disease management, particularly for Medicare-funded endovascular interventions. Policy adjustments, including refinement of DRG weights or targeted CMS add-on payments for high-cost services, warrant consideration to more accurately align reimbursement with the clinical realities of ALI care.