Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Approval of Cardiac Ablations in Ambulatory Surgery Centers: Challenges and Emerging Models Shaping the Future of Cardiac Electrophysiology

DOI: 10.19102/icrm.2026.17015

ARASH ARYANA, MD, PhD¹ and VIJENDRA SWARUP, MD²

¹Mercy General Hospital and Dignity Health Heart and Vascular Institute, Sacramento, CA, USA

²The Arizona Heart Rhythm Center, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Download PDF

Follow Us >> Tweet

KEYWORDS. Ambulatory surgery center, ASC, atrial fibrillation, catheter ablation, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Dr. Swarup has ownership in an ambulatory surgery center. Dr. Aryana reports no conflicts of interest for the published content. No funding information was provided.
Manuscript received December 10, 2025. Final version accepted December 10, 2025.
Address correspondence to: Arash Aryana, MD, PhD, FHRS, Cardiovascular Service Line, Cardiac Electrophysiology Laboratory, Mercy General Hospital and Dignity Health Heart and Vascular Institute, Creighton University School of Medicine, 3941 J Street, Suite #350, Sacramento, CA 95819, USA. Email: a_aryana@outlook.com.

Over the past decade, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) have expanded across a wide range of specialties by offering lower costs, greater efficiency, and a superior patient experience as compared to hospital outpatient departments (HODs).^1–3 As a result, various cardiovascular procedures, including cardiac implantable electronic devices, coronary angiography, elective percutaneous coronary intervention, and many vascular interventions, have steadily migrated into ASC settings. Although cardiac ablation had historically lagged behind this trend, the recent decision by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to add several key ablation codes to the ASC Covered Procedures List represents a pivotal shift in the site-of-care landscape for cardiac electrophysiology (EP).⁴ This commentary summarizes the clinical evidence, operational requirements, economic considerations, and strategic implications of performing cardiac ablation in ASCs, offering a clear and practical framework for cardiac electrophysiologists and health systems navigating this transition.

Background

The current ASC model originated in 1970, when two Arizona physicians, Wallace Reed and John Ford, established the first freestanding center offering same-day procedures—an innovation that invoked a trend in the national expansion of outpatient procedures and surgeries.⁵ Since the 1980s, ASC growth has been steady, with dozens of new centers opening annually. Today, more than 6300 Medicare-certified ASCs perform over 23 million procedures each year.⁵ The CMS has approved roughly 3500 procedures for ASC reimbursement, and this list continues to grow.

ASCs typically operate around focused service lines and are designed to provide hospital-level care, albeit with greater efficiency and lower overhead. These advantages translate into substantial system-wide savings. A 2023 BlueCross BlueShield Association report found that HOD-based procedures remain significantly more costly than those performed in ASCs. Increasingly, commercial payers also incentivize ASC utilization through more favorable reimbursement arrangements.⁶

Catheter ablation: The scope of the problem

Catheter ablation is increasingly used as early or first-line therapy for many cardiac arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation (AF). Procedural volumes continue to rise due to improved safety and efficacy; expanded indications; and rapid technological advances in mapping, imaging, and ablation. Meanwhile, many US hospitals face capacity constraints, resulting in prolonged wait times that pose clinical consequences. Delays in catheter ablation are associated with increased risks of mortality, heart failure, stroke (12.2%), hospitalization (11.8%), emergency department use (30.9%), and higher overall health care spending.^7,8 With catheter ablation volumes projected to grow 14% annually between 2025 and 2030—doubling over 8 years—capacity challenges will intensify unless alternative sites of service, including ASCs, are fully leveraged.⁹

Same-day discharge after catheter ablation

Advances in cardiac ablation technology and standardized care pathways have made same-day discharge routine for most patients. Many academic and community hospitals now achieve same-day discharge rates exceeding 90%.¹⁰ A substantial body of evidence, including CMS claims analyses and multicenter observational studies, supports these practices.^11,12 Across more than 200,000 evaluated patients, studies comparing same-day discharge with overnight hospital monitoring demonstrate no differences in complication rates, readmissions, or emergency department visits. The consistency of these findings across diverse populations reinforces the safety and scalability of outpatient ablation workflows.

Catheter ablations in ambulatory surgery centers

The migration of cardiac ablation to ASCs represents the next logical step in cardiovascular care delivery.¹³ ASC-based ablation can expand access, reduce exposure to hospital-acquired infections, and lower system-wide costs.¹⁴ In November 2025, the CMS finalized the 2026 Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System and ASC Payment System rule, adding the codes for catheter ablation of atrioventricular node, supraventricular tachycardia, AF, and ventricular arrhythmias as well as cardioversion to the ASC Covered Procedures List.⁴

This policy change followed multiple published studies demonstrating the safety and feasibility of ASC-based ablation, including multicenter series totaling more than 4000 cases.^15–20 It should be emphasized that contemporary data show major adverse event rates of <1% for cardiac ablation with current National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) benchmarks at 0.6%—nearly 10-fold lower than two decades ago.^21–23 For context, the NCDR CathPCI Registry reports a 1.83% major adverse event rate for percutaneous coronary intervention—a procedure currently approved and frequently performed in ASCs across the United States.²⁴ Total hip and knee arthroplasty complication rates also range between 1.8% and 9%.^25,26 CMS’s approval of the cardiac ablation codes, therefore, represents not only a regulatory milestone but also an evidence-based endorsement. Economic analyses further suggest substantial savings for payers and reduced out-of-pocket burden for patients, improved affordability, and equity in rhythm management.¹⁴

Emergence of cardiac electrophysiology–capable ambulatory surgery centers

The trends observed in orthopedic surgery and gastrointestinal ASCs offer a preview of the likely evolution in cardiac EP, wherein emerging technologies enable outpatient migration, standardized protocols ensure safety, CMS expands coverage, and commercial payers accelerate adoption. Cardiac EP is currently following the same trajectory; yet, several barriers remain. State regulations vary widely, and certificate-of-need rules may limit expansion. While some states permit cardiovascular procedures, others restrict interventions requiring hemodynamic monitoring. Additional challenges include transfer agreement requirements, the capital intensity of EP laboratories, specialized staffing, and reimbursement gaps for select technologies.

The development of cardiac EP–capable ASCs, therefore, requires coordinated planning across multiple domains, as follows:

1. Infrastructure. EP laboratories equipped with fluoroscopy, intracardiac and transesophageal echocardiography, mapping and ablation platforms, radiation shielding, crash carts, and resuscitation equipment.
2. Operations. Electronic medical record systems, ASC management, billing and coding, payer contracting, supply chain management (including reprocessed products and devices), and emergency pathways.
3. Staffing. Nurses, technicians, and anesthesia teams with EP-specific expertise and familiarity with same-day discharge workflows.
4. Data. Systems to track success rates, 30-day readmissions, major adverse events, transfers, and patient-reported outcomes.

Ambulatory surgery center ownership models

Ownership of ASCs generally involves three key stakeholder groups: (1) physicians, (2) ASC management companies, and (3) hospital systems, resulting in five common equity models²⁷:

1. Sole physician ownership. Physicians hold 100% equity, providing full authority over governance and operations, retaining complete control over all decisions and distributions. Management services may be contracted without relinquishing equity. This model still remains the most common nationally.
2. Physician–management company joint venture. Either party may be the majority owner. Physicians retain clinical control while benefiting from management expertise, contracting, and revenue cycle support.
3. Physician–hospital joint venture. Hospitals are increasingly pursuing this type of model to retain the outpatient market share. Physicians may benefit from improved payer contracting and financial stability.
4. Three-way joint venture. A shared ownership model among physicians, management firms, and hospitals, in which all parties contribute expertise. Majority ownership may be shared to maintain balance and alignment.
5. Sole hospital ownership. Hospitals operate ASCs independently, often with physician co-management agreements. This type of model seems to be growing nationally.

Successful blueprints for cardiac electrophysiology ambulatory surgery centers

Despite growing participation from hospitals and corporate entities, physician ownership continues to remain central to ASCs, such that 90% include some degree of physician ownership and 65% are fully physician-owned.²⁸ Compliance with Stark Law safe harbors is essential. Physician-owners must perform at least one-third of their procedures in the ASC, purchase equity at fair market value, and receive distributions strictly according to ownership percentage.²⁸ Operationally, physician-owned ASCs must manage contracting, staffing, financial oversight, and regulatory compliance, which may necessitate external management support. As this can dilute ownership, many physicians often prefer the autonomy, efficiency, and patient-centric culture of physician-led ASCs.²⁹

What is currently missing?

Although widespread interest in EP-dedicated ASCs has continued to expand, cardiac electrophysiologists have lacked centralized, affordable, specialty-aligned resources to guide the development and operations of such entities. Instead, most rely on fragmented consultants, management companies, or vendors, each addressing only narrow components of the complete process. This fragmentation not only increases cost but also slows development, reduces efficiency, and can shift strategic control away from physicians. In many scenarios, external partners assume disproportionate influence or ownership, ultimately diminishing physician control and involvement.

Hence, what the field avidly needs is a physician-governed, nationally coordinated, specialty-aligned framework that provides organized, end-to-end support for developing EP-capable ASCs—without taking on corporate ownership! Such an organization would preserve physician autonomy while supplying the operational, regulatory, and technical capabilities required for safe and scalable growth. This includes EP-specific facility design tailored to EP workflows, equipment and capital planning, accreditation and compliance pathways, safety protocols, revenue cycle optimization and contracting support, data infrastructure, and cost-efficient supply chains. Incorporating modern artificial intelligence–enabled documentation, scheduling, and cost analytics would further reduce administrative burden and strengthen financial sustainability. Just as importantly, this structure would provide a counterbalance to large management firms or health systems whose involvement—while sometimes helpful—can come at the expense of physician ownership or long-term strategic control. An affordable, coordinated, and physician-led model would help ensure that cardiac electrophysiologists retain clinical control and economic authority over their ASCs, while expanding access to high-quality outpatient cardiac EP and ablation services nationally.

The proposed model

An emerging example of such a coordinated, physician-governed framework is the ACCESS ecosystem. ACCESS includes two complementary structures: (1) the ACCESS Foundation, which is a nonprofit entity dedicated to EP-specific ASC education, safety standards, regulatory training, workforce development, and best-practice guidelines, and (2) ACCESS, Inc., which is an operational arm providing non-equity support, such as compliance pathways, accreditation readiness, digital workflow tools, revenue cycle optimization, and supply chain coordination. Together, these complementary entities aim to preserve physician control and ownership, promote transparent and standardized workflows, and create a unified national framework for the safe and sustainable adoption of cardiac EP–capable ASCs.

In short, the growth of EP ASCs requires more than policy change and clinical feasibility. It requires a unified support system built to protect physician leadership to ensure sustainable, scalable, and equitable development across the cardiac EP specialty. Disruptive models coordinated nationally and led by physicians are necessary and will likely play an important role in shaping the future and evolution of cardiac EP.

Conclusion

ASCs can offer a safe, efficient, and clinically validated setting for many cardiac EP procedures, including cardiac ablation. Technological advancements, standardized workflows, and robust evidence supporting same-day discharge demonstrate that complex EP care can be delivered outside hospitals without compromising safety or quality. Following recent CMS policy changes, economic and regulatory incentives now strongly support the expansion of cardiac EP ASCs.

Yet, the remaining challenges are primarily infrastructural and organizational. Consistent regulatory frameworks, standardized operational models, and physician-centered support structures will determine the pace and safety of nationwide ASC adoption in EP. Without such frameworks, development may remain fragmented, costly, and at risk of eroding physician control. Physician-led models, such as the ACCESS Foundation and ACCESS, Inc., offer a promising pathway for safe and sustainable expansion. Addressing current gaps will enable EP ASCs to meet the rising procedural demands, reduce wait times, enhance patient experience, lower system costs, and preserve physician leadership in the next era of cardiovascular and arrhythmia care.

References

1. Munnich EL, Parente ST. Procedures take less time at ambulatory surgery centers, keeping costs down and ability to meet demand up. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014;33(5):764–769. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Crawford DC, Li CS, Sprague S, Bhandari M. Clinical and cost implications of inpatient versus outpatient orthopedic surgeries: a systematic review of the published literature. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2015;7(4):6177. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Rana P, Brennan J, Johnson A, Patton CM, Turcotte JJ. Outcomes and cost-effectiveness of hospital outpatient versus ambulatory surgery center lumbar decompression surgery. Global Spine J. 2024;15(4):2193–2200. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Fact Sheets: Calendar Year 2026 Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System (OPPS) and Ambulatory Surgical Center Final Rule (CMS-1834-FC). Baltimore, MD, USA: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services; 2025. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/calendar-year-2026-hospital-outpatient-prospective-payment-system-opps-ambulatory-surgical-center.
5. Advancing Surgical Care (ASC). History of ASCs. Alexandria, VA, USA: Ambulatory Surgery Center Association. Available at: https://www.ascassociation.org/advancingsurgicalcare/asc/historyofascs.
6. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas. Outpatient Surgery Codes with Reimbursement Increase When Performed at an Ambulatory Surgery Center. Richardson, TX, USA: Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas; 2022. Available at: https://www.bcbstx.com/provider/standards/standards-requirements/gri/gri-info/op-surg-code-reimb-inc-asc.
7. Qeska D, Qiu F, Manoragavan R, Wijeysundera HC, Cheung CC. Relationship between wait times and postatrial fibrillation ablation outcomes: a population-based study. Heart Rhythm. 2024;21(9):1477–1484. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Qeska D, Singh SM, Qiu F, et al. Variation and clinical consequences of wait-times for atrial fibrillation ablation: population level study in Ontario, Canada. Europace. 2023;25(5):euad074. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Allied Market Research^®. Electrophysiology (EP) Market Expected to Reach $22.651 Billion by 2030. New Castle, DE, USA: Allied Market Research; 2019. Available at: https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/press-release/electrophysiology-devices-market.html.
10. Deyell MW, Hoskin K, Forman J, et al. Same-day discharge for atrial fibrillation ablation: outcomes and impact of ablation modality. Europace. 2023;25(2):400-407. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Field ME, Goldstein L, Corriveau K, Khanna R, Fan X, Gold MR. Same-day discharge after catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation in a large nationwide administrative claims database. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2021;32(9):2432–2440. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Field ME, Goldstein L, Corriveau K, Khanna R, Fan X, Gold MR. Evaluating outcomes of same-day discharge after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in a real-world cohort. Heart Rhythm O2. 2021;2(4):333–340. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Shanker AJ, Jones SO, Aryana A, et al. HRS/ACC scientific statement: guiding principles on performance of intracardiac ablation procedures in ambulatory surgical centers. Heart Rhythm. Published online November 3, 2026. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Milliman. Cardiac Ablations in Ambulatory Surgical Centers: Estimated Costs, Utilization, and Projected Savings. Seattle, WA, USA: Milliman, Inc.; 2025. Avail-able at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/millimaninc5660-milliman6442-prod27d5-0001/media/Milliman/PDFs/2025-Articles/5-16-25_Cardiac-ablations-in-ambulatory-surgical-centers-Report.pdf.
15. Zagrodzky W, Zagrodzky J, Kueffer F, Kulstad EB. Length of stay after atrial fibrillation ablation in a U.S. ambulatory surgical setting compared to a hospital setting. Circulation. 2021;44(suppl_1):A10427. [CrossRef]
16. Thihalolipavan S, Lemery R, Swarup S, Hantla JD, Swarup V. Interventional electrophysiology in the ambulatory surgical center during SARS-COV-2 pandemic. Heart Rhythm. 2022;19(5):S423–S424. [CrossRef]
17. Willcox ME, Baker I, Sedwick J 3rd, Cerveny M, Compton SJ. Ablation of atrial fibrillation in an ambulatory outpatient setting. Heart Rhythm O2. 2023;4(8):478-482. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Aryana A, Thihalolipavan S, Willcox ME, et al. Safety and feasibility of cardiac electrophysiology procedures in ambulatory surgery centers. Heart Rhythm. 2025;22(3):717–724. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19. Kanthasamy V, Finlay M, Earley M, et al. Safety and efficacy of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in an ambulatory day surgery center outside the hospital setting. Heart Rhythm. 2025;22(8):1935–1945. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Aryana A, Dunlay M, Torbenson MN, et al. PO-03-012: Outcomes of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in ambulatory surgery centers versus hospital outpatient departments. Heart Rhythm. 2025;22(Suppl 4):S340–S341. [CrossRef]
21. Wilber DJ, Pappone C, Neuzil P, et al. Comparison of antiarrhythmic drug therapy and radiofrequency catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2010;303(4):333–340. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Hsu JC, Darden D, Du C, et al. Initial findings from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry of atrial fibrillation ablation procedures. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023;81(9):867–878. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Verma A, Haines DE, Boersma LV, et al. Pulsed field ablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation: PULSED AF pivotal trial. Circulation. 2023;147(19):1422–1432. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Li K, Kalwani NM, Heidenreich PA, Fearon WF. Elective percutaneous coronary intervention in ambulatory surgery centers. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2021;14(3):292–300. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Goldfarb CA, Bansal A, Brophy RH. Ambulatory surgical centers: a review of complications and adverse events. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017;25(1):12–22. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Qin C, Lee C, Ho S, Koh J, Athiviraham A. Complication rates following hip arthroscopy in the ambulatory surgical center. J Orthop 2019;20:28–31. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Badlani N. Ambulatory surgery center ownership models. J Spine Surg. 2019;5(Suppl 2):S195–S203. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
28. Xu AL, Jain A, Humbyrd CJ. Ethical considerations surrounding surgeon ownership of ambulatory surgery centers. J Am Coll Surg. 2022;235(3):539–543. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Administration and Ownership. Ambulatory Surgery Center Association. Available at: https://www.ascassociation.org/asca/about-ascs/surgery-centers/ownership.