Insurer requirements are having the greatest effect on spine surgeons’ control over patient care, according to a recent Becker’s LinkedIn poll.
Among 187 respondents, 73% selected insurer requirements when asked which force has most significantly affected spine surgeons’ level of control over patient care. Health system policies and government regulation each received 9% of the vote, while private equity ownership received 8%.
The results come as spine surgeons increasingly describe a patient pathway shaped by forces outside the exam room. Insurers, algorithms, reimbursement formulas, referral pathways and federal payment models are influencing when patients reach surgeons, what treatments they must try first, what documentation counts as proof and which procedures are practically available.
Insurers are the clear pressure point
No other response came close to insurer requirements. Recent Becker’s reporting has shown payer involvement extending across much of the spine care pathway. Insurers may require patients to complete physical therapy, injections or other conservative treatments before surgery; dictate specific documentation language; request level-by-level CPT codes, implants and graft materials; and determine whether newer procedures are covered.
For Kasra Ahmadinia, MD, director of minimally invasive spine surgery at Advanced Orthopedics of Oklahoma in Tulsa, that has meant watching authorization requirements change while patients wait.
“The goalposts are moved all the time,” Dr. Ahmadinia told Becker’s.
He described one patient whose path to surgical approval stretched nearly six months. The patient completed physical therapy, injections and insurer-mandated waiting periods. By the time approval was sought again, the insurer considered the earlier physical therapy outdated and required another round.
Algorithms are adding another layer. Bryce Basques, MD, director of minimally invasive and endoscopic spine surgery at Brown University in Providence, R.I., told Becker’s that insurer-specific prior authorization algorithms can turn clinical documentation into an exercise in satisfying automated criteria.
“Writing notes no longer means documenting medical decision-making,” Dr. Basques said.
Spine surgeons have described increasingly granular authorization requirements around conservative care, CPT codes, implants, graft materials, disability scores and specific wording. A missing element can trigger a denial even when a surgeon believes the operation is medically necessary.
Those requirements have continued to expand. Surgeons recently told Becker’s that some insurers are asking for exact graft and implant names before approving certain spinal fusions, on top of level-by-level coding, imaging and detailed documentation of failed conservative treatment.
Payer influence can reach the operation itself
The issue goes beyond whether surgery happens. Coverage policies can affect which operation a surgeon is practically able to offer.
Wilson Ray, MD, chief of spine surgery and vice chair of neurosurgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, recently pointed to hybrid cervical procedures as one example. One spinal level may be best suited to disc replacement while an adjacent level requires fusion, but insurers can categorize the combined approach as experimental.
“That has continued to be a point of frustration,” Dr. Ray told Becker’s.
Lumbar disc arthroplasty can create similar coverage challenges. The result is that a surgeon may identify a motion-preserving option as clinically appropriate and still face a separate question over whether the insurer recognizes that treatment strategy.
That tension is increasingly reaching the spine operating room itself. Recent Becker’s reporting found payer rules influencing fusion approval, motion-preserving approaches, site of care and the economics of which procedures remain sustainable after a surgeon has determined what treatment is clinically appropriate.
The pressure also consumes physician time. Adetokunbo Oyelese, MD, PhD, director of spinal surgery and the Providence, R.I.-based Norman Prince Spine Institute at Brown University Health, has told Becker’s he has stepped out of patient visits, and even scrubbed out of operations, to take insurer peer-to-peer calls.
The result is a paradox: A surgeon can be pulled away from the patient directly in front of them to defend a clinical decision already made for a different patient.
Health system policies and private equity rank far behind
Health system policies received 9% of the vote, while private equity ownership received 8%. The smaller shares do not mean ownership and employment models have no effect on physician autonomy. Rather, the poll suggests respondents see insurer requirements as a substantially more immediate constraint on patient care.
Recent Becker’s conversations have also complicated the traditional debate over private equity versus health system ownership. Surgeons discussing the two models said the more important question may be less about who owns a practice and more about how much influence physicians retain over its decisions.
“Who has a voice in the decisions?” Cory Calendine, MD, an orthopedic surgeon at Bone and Joint Institute of Tennessee in Franklin, told Becker’s.
Health systems can influence referral pathways, sites of service, staffing, technology adoption and other operational decisions, while private equity-backed organizations can introduce different financial and productivity pressures. The degree of clinical independence can depend heavily on governance and physician involvement.
The stakes extend beyond physicians currently practicing independently. Emeka Nwodim, MD, a spine surgeon with Bethesda, Md.-based Centers for Advanced Orthopaedics, recently said that preserving private practice gives physicians an alternative to employment and may require independent groups to build more scale and leverage.
At the same time, reimbursement and administrative pressures are pushing practices of all ownership types to rethink how they operate. Spine and orthopedic surgeons recently told Becker’s they are reconsidering payer participation, staffing, patient access and care pathways as the traditional strategy of increasing volume to offset financial pressure becomes harder to sustain.
Government regulation draws 9%, but its reach is growing
Government regulation also received 9% of responses.
Federal policy is creating new forms of oversight and financial accountability for spine care. CMS’ Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction model brought prior authorization or prepayment medical review into traditional Medicare in six states in 2026 for 17 services, including cervical fusion, epidural steroid injections, percutaneous vertebral augmentation and image-guided lumbar decompression.
Another shift begins Jan. 1, 2027. CMS’ Ambulatory Specialty Model will put certain specialists treating Medicare patients with low back pain in selected geographic areas at individual financial risk based on cost, quality and other measures.
Spine surgeons recently told Becker’s that the model is changing the risk equation for practices by making outcomes tracking, patient-reported measures and the infrastructure surrounding an episode of care increasingly important.
Dr. Basques said practices should understand which episodes are included, how quality measures are scored, and begin building the systems needed to track performance before financial reconciliation begins.
“It is easy to underestimate how hard that is to do well,” he told Becker’s of collecting patient-reported outcome measures.
Government programs and commercial insurer requirements can also overlap. The expansion of prior authorization into traditional Medicare means a tool long used by commercial insurers and Medicare Advantage plans is now part of federal efforts to scrutinize certain services in the fee-for-service program.
The pressure is concentrated
The poll does not suggest spine surgeons have lost clinical authority. What it does show is where respondents believe outside influence is strongest.
Health system policies, private equity ownership and government regulation all registered as concerns. But insurer requirements stood apart: Nearly three in four respondents identified payers as having the greatest effect on surgeons’ control over patient care.
That mirrors what spine surgeons have repeatedly told Becker’s: Surgeons may still make the final clinical decision, but increasingly, outside forces shape whether and how patients reach that point.
Editor’s note regarding LinkedIn polling: Becker’s has no insights on respondents’ organizations or roles.
At the Becker’s 32nd Annual Meeting: The Business and Operations of ASCs, taking place October 29-31 in Chicago, ASC leaders, surgeons and healthcare executives will explore strategies to drive growth, enhance operational performance, navigate reimbursement challenges and prepare for the future of ambulatory surgery. Apply for complimentary registration now.
