Reducing post-operative length of stay, is it worth the effort?

BACKGROUND: Studies show that reducing the length of hospital stay (LOS) for surgical patients leads to cost savings. We hypothesize that LOS has a nonlinear relationship to cost of care and reduction may not have a meaningful impact on it. We have attempted to define the relationship of LOS to cost of care. We utilized the itemized bill, generated in real time, for hospital services. MATERIALS: Adult patients admitted under General, Neuro, and Orthopedic surgery over a 3-month period, with an LOS between 4 and 14 days, were the study population. Itemized bill details were analyzed. Charges in Pakistani rupees were converted to US dollar. Ethical exemption for study was obtained. RESULTS: Of the 853 patients, 38% were admitted to General Surgery, 27% to Neurosurgery, and 35% to Orthopedics. A total of 64% of the patients had an LOS between 4 and 6 days; 36% had an LOS between 7 and 14 days. Operated and conservatively managed constituted 82% and 18%, respectively. Mean total charge for operated patients was higher $3387 versus $1347 for non-operated ones. LOS was seen to have a nonlinear relationship to in-hospital cost of care. The bulk of cost was centered on the day of surgery. This was consistent across all services. The last day of stay contributed 2.4%-3.2% of total charge. CONCLUSIONS: For surgical patients, the cost implications rapidly taper in the postoperative period. The contribution of the last day of stay cost to total cost is small. For meaningful cost containment, focus needs to be on the immediate perioperative period.

Are Quality Scores in the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System Associated With Outcomes After Outpatient Orthopaedic Surgery?

BACKGROUND: The Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) ties reimbursement incentives to clinician performance to improve healthcare quality. It is unclear whether the MIPS quality score can accurately distinguish between high-performing and low-performing clinicians. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What were the rates of unplanned hospital visits (emergency department visits, observation stays, or unplanned admissions) within 7, 30, and 90 days of outpatient orthopaedic surgery among Medicare beneficiaries? (2) Was there any association of MIPS quality scores with the risk of an unplanned hospital visit (emergency department visits, observation stays, or unplanned admissions)? METHODS: Between January 2018 and December 2019, a total of 605,946 outpatient orthopaedic surgeries were performed in New York State according to the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database. Of those, 56,772 patients were identified as Medicare beneficiaries and were therefore potentially eligible. A further 34% (19,037) were excluded because of missing surgeon identifier, age younger than 65 years, residency outside New York State, emergency department visit on the same day as outpatient surgery, observation stay on the same claim as outpatient surgery, and concomitant high-risk or eye procedures, leaving 37,735 patients for analysis. The database does not include a list of all state residents and thus does not allow for censoring of patients who move out of state. We chose this dataset because it includes nearly all hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers in a large geographic area (New York State) and hence is not limited by sampling bias. We included 37,735 outpatient orthopaedic surgical encounters among Medicare beneficiaries in New York State from 2018 to 2019. For the 37,735 outpatient orthopaedic surgical procedures included in our study, the mean ± standard deviation age of patients was 73 ± 7 years, 84% (31,550) were White, and 59% (22,071) were women. Our key independent variable was the MIPS quality score percentile (0 to 19th, 20th to 39th, 40th to 59th, or 60th to 100th) for orthopaedic surgeons. Clinicians in the MIPS program may receive a bonus or penalty based on the overall MIPS score, which ranges from 0 to 100 and is a weighted score based on four subscores: quality, promoting interoperability, improvement activities, and cost. The MIPS quality score, which attempts to reward clinicians providing superior quality of care, accounted for 50% and 45% of the overall MIPS score in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Our main outcome measures were 7-day, 30-day, and 90-day unplanned hospital visits after outpatient orthopaedic surgery. To determine the association between MIPS quality scores and unplanned hospital visits, we estimated multivariable hierarchical logistic regression models controlling for MIPS quality scores; patient-level (age, race and ethnicity, gender, and comorbidities), facility-level (such as bed size and teaching status), surgery and surgeon-level (such as surgical procedure and surgeon volume) covariates; and facility-level random effects. We then used these models to estimate the adjusted rates of unplanned hospital visits across MIPS quality score percentiles after adjusting for covariates in the multivariable models. RESULTS: In total, 2% (606 of 37,735), 2% (783 of 37,735), and 3% (1013 of 37,735) of encounters had an unplanned hospital visit within 7, 30, or 90 days of outpatient orthopaedic surgery, respectively. Most hospital visits within 7 days (95% [576 of 606]), 30 days (94% [733 of 783]), or 90 days (91% [924 of 1013]) were because of emergency department visits. We found very small differences in unplanned hospital visits by MIPS quality scores, with the 20th to 39th percentile of MIPS quality scores having 0.71% points (95% CI -1.19% to -0.22%; p = 0.004), 0.68% points (95% CI -1.26% to -0.11%; p = 0.02), and 0.75% points (95% CI -1.42% to -0.08%; p = 0.03) lower than the 0 to 19th percentile at 7, 30, and 90 days, respectively. There was no difference in adjusted rates of unplanned hospital visits between patients undergoing surgery with a surgeon in the 0 to 19th, 40th to 59th, or 60th to 100th percentiles at 7, 30, or 90 days. CONCLUSION: We found that the rates of unplanned hospital visits after outpatient orthopaedic surgery among Medicare beneficiaries were low and primarily driven by emergency department visits. We additionally found only a small association between MIPS quality scores for individual physicians and the risk of an unplanned hospital visit after outpatient orthopaedic surgery. These findings suggest that policies aimed at reducing postoperative emergency department visits may be the best target to reduce overall postoperative unplanned hospital visits and that the MIPS program should be eliminated or modified to more strongly link reimbursement to risk-adjusted patient outcomes, thereby better aligning incentives among patients, surgeons, and the Centers for Medicare ad Medicaid Services. Future work could seek to evaluate the association between MIPS scores and other surgical outcomes and evaluate whether annual changes in MIPS score weighting are independently associated with clinician performance in the MIPS and regarding clinical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Major Metropolitan Area COVID-19 - Positive Patients Undergoing Emergency and Elective Orthopaedic Surgeries: A Case-matched Control Study.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic affected surgical management in Orthopaedics. This study explores the effect of COVID-19-positive patients on time to surgery from admission, total time spent in preoperative preparation, costs of orthopaedic care, and inpatient days in COVID-19-positive patients. The authors' case-matched study was based on the surgeon, procedure type, and patient demographics. The authors reviewed 58 cases, 23 males and 35 females. The results for the COVID-19-positive and -negative groups are time to admission (362.9; 388.4), time in preparation (127.8; 122.3), inpatient days to surgery (0.2; 0.2), and orthopaedic cost ($81,938; $86,352). With available numbers, no significant difference could be detected for inpatient days until surgery, any associated time to surgery, or orthopaedic costs for operating on COVID-19-positive patients during the pandemic. Perceived increased time and cost of care of COVID-19-positive patients were not proven in this study. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 33(1):014-016, 2024).

How Did Orthopaedic Surgeons Perform in the 2018 Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System?

BACKGROUND: The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the latest value-based payment program implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. As performance-based bonuses and penalties continue to rise in magnitude, it is essential to evaluate this program's ability to achieve its core objectives of quality improvement, cost reduction, and competition around clinically meaningful outcomes. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked the following: (1) How do orthopaedic surgeons differ on the MIPS compared with surgeons in other specialties, both in terms of the MIPS scores and bonuses that derive from them? (2) What features of surgeons and practices are associated with receiving penalties based on the MIPS? (3) What features of surgeons and practices are associated with receiving a perfect score of 100 based on the MIPS? METHODS: Scores from the 2018 MIPS reporting period were linked to physician demographic and practice-based information using the Medicare Part B Provider Utilization and Payment File, the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System Data (NPPES), and National Physician Compare Database. For all orthopaedic surgeons identified within the Physician Compare Database, there were 15,210 MIPS scores identified, representing a 72% (15,210 of 21,124) participation rate in the 2018 MIPS. Those participating in the MIPS receive a final score (0 to 100, with 100 being a perfect score) based on a weighted calculation of performance metrics across four domains: quality, promoting interoperability, improvement activities, and costs. In 2018, orthopaedic surgeons had an overall mean ± SD score of 87 ± 21. From these scores, payment adjustments are determined in the following manner: scores less than 15 received a maximum penalty adjustment of -5% ("penalty"), scores equal to 15 did not receive an adjustment ("neutral"), scores between 15 and 70 received a positive adjustment ("positive"), and scores above 70 (maximum 100) received both a positive adjustment and an additional exceptional performance adjustment with a maximum adjustment of +5% ("bonus"). Adjustments among orthopaedic surgeons were compared across various demographic and practice characteristics. Both the mean MIPS score and the resulting payment adjustments were compared with a group of surgeons in other subspecialties. Finally, multivariable logistic regression models were generated to identify which variables were associated with increased odds of receiving a penalty as well as a perfect score of 100. RESULTS: Compared with surgeons in other specialties, orthopaedic surgeons' mean MIPS score was 4.8 (95% CI 4.3 to 5.2; p < 0.001) points lower. From this difference, a lower proportion of orthopaedic surgeons received bonuses (-5.0% [95% CI -5.6 to -4.3]; p < 0.001), and a greater proportion received penalties (+0.5% [95% CI 0.2 to 0.8]; p < 0.001) and positive adjustments (+4.6% [95% CI 6.1 to 10.7]; p < 0.001) compared with surgeons in other specialties. After controlling for potentially confounding variables such as gender, years in practice, and practice setting, small (1 to 49 members) group size (adjusted odds ratio 22.2 [95% CI 8.17 to 60.3]; p < 0.001) and higher Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) scores (aOR 2.32 [95% CI 1.35 to 4.01]; p = 0.002) were associated with increased odds of a penalty. Also, after controlling for potential confounding, we found that reporting through an alternative payment model (aOR 28.7 [95% CI 24.0 to 34.3]; p < 0.001) was associated with increased odds of a perfect score, whereas small practice size (1 to 49 members) (aOR 0.35 [95% CI 0.31 to 0.39]; p < 0.001), a high patient volume (greater than 500 Medicare patients) (aOR 0.82 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.95]; p = 0.01), and higher HCC score (aOR 0.79 [95% Cl 0.66 to 0.93]; p = 0.006) were associated with decreased odds of a perfect MIPS score. CONCLUSION: Collectively, orthopaedic surgeons performed well in the second year of the MIPS, with 87% earning bonus payments. Among participating orthopaedic surgeons, individual reporting affiliation, small practice size, and more medically complex patient populations were associated with higher odds of receiving penalties and lower odds of earning a perfect score. Based on these findings, we recommend that individuals and orthopaedic surgeons in small group practices strive to forge partnerships with larger hospital practices with adequate ancillary staff to support quality reporting initiatives. Such partnerships may help relieve surgeons of growing administrative obligations and allow for maintained focus on direct patient care activities. Policymakers should aim to produce a shortened panel of performance measures to ensure more standardized comparison and less time and energy diverted from established clinical workflows. The current MIPS scoring methodology should also be amended with a complexity modifier to ensure fair evaluation of surgeons practicing in the safety net setting, or those treating patients with a high comorbidity burden. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Geographic Financial Analysis of Craniosynostosis Surgery in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the financial implications of demographic and socioeconomic factors upon the cost of surgical procedures for craniosynostosis. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of admissions for craniosynostosis surgery in the United States from 2015 through 2020 using the Pediatric Health Information System. Patient demographics, case volume, and surgical approach were analyzed in context of hospital charges. RESULTS: During the study interval, 3869 patients were admitted for surgery for craniosynostosis. In multivariate regression accounting for demographic and socioeconomic factors, hospital admission charges were significantly higher in patients with longer hospital length of stay ( P < 0.001), longer ICU length of stay ( P < 0.001), living in an underserved area ( P = 0.046), preoperative risk factors ( P = 0.016), and those undergoing open procedures ( P < 0.001); hospital admission charges were significantly lower in patients with White race ( P = 0.020) and those treated at high-volume centers ( P < 0.001). In multivariate regression, ICU length of stay was significantly higher in patients with preoperative risk factors ( P < 0.001), undergoing open procedures ( P < 0.001), government insurance ( P = 0.018), and not treated at high-volume centers ( P = 0.005). There were significant differences in admission charges ( P < 0.001), charge-to-cost ratios ( P < 0.001), and likelihood of being treated at high-volume craniofacial centers ( P < 0.001) across geographic regions of the country. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, there is significant sociodemographic variability in charges for craniosynostosis care, with increased hospital charges independently associated with non-White race, preoperative risk factors, and living in an underserved area.

Is There An Association Between Bundled Payments and "Cherry Picking" and "Lemon Dropping" in Orthopaedic Surgery? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The goal of bundled payments-lump monetary sums designed to cover the full set of services needed to provide care for a condition or medical event-is to provide a reimbursement structure that incentivizes improved value for patients. There is concern that such a payment mechanism may lead to patient screening and denying or providing orthopaedic care to patients based on the number and severity of comorbid conditions present associated with complications after surgery. Currently, however, there is no clear consensus about whether such an association exists. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this systematic review, we asked: (1) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the sociodemographic characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (2) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the comorbidities and/or case-complexity characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (3) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the recent use of healthcare resources characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? METHODS: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO before data collection (CRD42020189416). Our systematic review included scientific manuscripts published in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Econlit, Policyfile, and Google Scholar through March 2020. Of the 30 studies undergoing full-text review, 20 were excluded because they did not evaluate the outcome of interest (patient selection) (n = 8); were editorial, commentary, or review articles (n = 5); did not evaluate the appropriate intervention (introduction of a bundled payment program) (n = 4); or assessed the wrong patient population (not orthopaedic surgery patients) (n = 3). This led to 10 studies included in this systematic review. For each study, patient factors analyzed in the included studies were grouped into the following three categories: sociodemographics, comorbidities and/or case complexity, or recent use of healthcare resources characteristics. Next, each patient factor falling into one of these three categories was examined to evaluate for changes from before to after implementation of a bundled payment initiative. In most cases, studies utilized a difference-in-difference (DID) statistical technique to assess for changes. Determination of whether the bundled payment initiative required mandatory participation or not was also noted. Scientific quality using the Adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale had a median (range) score of 8 (7 to 8; highest possible score: 9), and the quality of the total body of evidence for each patient characteristic group was found to be low using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool. We could not assess the likelihood of publication using funnel plots because of the variation of patient factors analyzed in each study and the heterogeneity of data precluded a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the nine included studies that reported on the sociodemographic characteristics of patients selected for care, seven showed no change with the implementation of bundled payments, and two demonstrated a difference. Most notably, the studies identified a decrease in the percentage of patients undergoing an orthopaedic operative intervention who were dual-eligible (range DID estimate -0.4% [95% CI -0.75% to -0.1%]; p < 0.05 to DID estimate -1.0% [95% CI -1.7% to -0.2%]; p = 0.01), which means they qualified for both Medicare and Medicaid insurance coverage. Of the 10 included studies that reported on comorbidities and case-complexity characteristics, six reported no change in such characteristics with the implementation of bundled payments, and four studies noted differences. Most notably, one study showed a decrease in the number of treated patients with disabilities (DID estimate -0.6% [95% CI -0.97% to -0.18%]; p < 0.05) compared with before bundled payment implementation, while another demonstrated a lower number of Elixhauser comorbidities for those treated as part of a bundled payment program (before: score of 0-1 in 63.6%, 2-3 in 27.9%, > 3 in 8.5% versus after: score of 0-1 in 50.1%, 2-3 in 38.7%, > 3 in 11.2%; p = 0.033). Of the three included studies that reported on the recent use of healthcare resources of patients, one study found no difference in the use of healthcare resources with the implementation of bundled payments, and two studies did find differences. Both studies found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at a skilled nursing facility (range DID estimate -0.50% [95% CI -1.0% to 0.0%]; p = 0.04 to DID estimate: -0.53% [95% CI -0.96% to -0.10%]; p = 0.01), while one of the studies also found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at an acute care hospital (DID estimate -0.8% [95% CI -1.6% to -0.1%]; p = 0.03) or as part of home healthcare (DID estimate -1.3% [95% CI -2.0% to -0.6%]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In six of 10 studies in which differences in patient characteristics were detected among those undergoing operative orthopaedic intervention once a bundled payment program was initiated, the effect was found to be minimal (approximately 1% or less). However, our findings still suggest some level of adverse patient selection, potentially worsening health inequities when considered on a large scale. It is also possible that our findings reflect better care, whereby the financial incentives lead to fewer patients with a high risk of complications undergoing surgical intervention and vice versa for patients with a low risk of complications postoperatively. However, this is a fine line, and it may also be that patients with a high risk of complications postoperatively are not being offered surgery enough, while patients at low risk of complications postoperatively are being offered surgery too frequently. Evaluation of the longer-term effect of these preliminary bundled payment programs on patient selection is warranted to determine whether adverse patient selection changes over time as health systems and orthopaedic surgeons become accustomed to such reimbursement models.

What Is the Value of Undergoing Surgery for Spinal Metastases at Dedicated Cancer Centers?

BACKGROUND: The Alliance of Dedicated Cancer Centers is an organization of 11 leading cancer institutions and affiliated hospitals that are exempt from the Medicare prospective system hospital reimbursement policies. Because of their focus on cancer care and participation in innovative cancer treatment methods and protocols, these hospitals are reimbursed based on their actual billings. The perceived lack of incentive to meet a predetermined target price and reduce costs has spurred criticism of the value of cancer care at these institutions. The rationale of our study was to better understand whether dedicated cancer centers (DCCs) deliver high-value care for patients undergoing surgical treatment of spinal metastases. QUESTION/PURPOSE: Is there a difference in 90-day complications and reimbursements between patients undergoing surgical treatment (decompression or fusion) for spinal metastases at DCCs and those treated at nonDCC hospitals? METHODS: The 2005 to 2014 100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files database was queried using ICD-9 procedure and diagnosis codes to identify patients undergoing decompression (03.0, 03.09, and 03.4) and/or fusion (81.0X) for spinal metastases (198.5). The database does not allow us to exclude the possibility that some patients were treated with fusion for stabilization of the spine without decompression, although this is likely an uncommon event. Patients undergoing vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty for metastatic disease were excluded. The Medicare hospital provider identification numbers were used to identify the 11 DCCs. The study cohort was categorized into two groups: DCCs and nonDCCs. Although spinal metastases are known to occur among nonMedicare and younger patients, the payment policies of these DCCs are only applicable to Medicare beneficiaries. Therefore, to keep the study objective relevant to current policy and value-based discussions, we performed the analysis using the Medicare dataset. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 17,776 patients in the study, 6% (1138 of 17,776) of whom underwent surgery at one of the 11 DCCs. Compared with the nonDCC group, DCC group hospitals operated on a younger patient population and on more patients with primary renal cancers. In addition, DCCs were more likely to be high-volume facilities with National Cancer Institute designations and have a voluntary or government ownership model. Patients undergoing surgery for spinal metastases at DCCs were more likely to have spinal decompression with fusion than those at nonDCCs (40% versus 22%; p < 0.001) and had a greater length and extent of fusion (at least four levels of fusion; 34% versus 29%; p = 0.001). Patients at DCCs were also more likely than those at nonDCCs to receive postoperative adjunct treatments such as radiation (16% versus 13.5%; p = 0.008) and chemotherapy (17% versus 9%; p < 0.001), although this difference is small and we do not know if this meets a minimum clinically important difference. To account for differences in patients presenting at both types of facilities, multivariate logistic regression mixed-model analyses were used to compare rates of 90-day complications and 90-day mortality between DCC and nonDCC hospitals. Controls were implemented for baseline clinical characteristics, procedural factors, and hospital-level factors (such as random effects). Generalized linear regression mixed-modeling was used to evaluate differences in total 90-day reimbursements between DCCs and nonDCCs. RESULTS: After adjusting for differences in baseline demographics, procedural factors, and hospital-level factors, patients undergoing surgery at DCCs had lower odds of experiencing sepsis (6.5% versus 10%; odds ratio 0.54 [95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.74]; p < 0.001), urinary tract infections (19% versus 28%; OR 0.61 [95% CI 0.50 to 0.74]; p < 0.001), renal complications (9% versus 13%; OR 0.55 [95% CI 0.42 to 0.72]; p < 0.001), emergency department visits (27% versus 31%; OR 0.78 [95% CI 0.64 to 0.93]; p = 0.01), and mortality (39% versus 49%; OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.62 to 0.89]; p = 0.001) within 90 days of the procedure compared with patients treated at nonDCCs. Undergoing surgery at a DCC (90-day reimbursement of USD 54,588 ± USD 42,914) compared with nonDCCs (90-day reimbursement of USD 49,454 ± USD 38,174) was also associated with reduced 90-day risk-adjusted reimbursements (USD -14,802 [standard error 1362] ; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Based on our findings, it appears that DCCs offer high-value care, as evidenced by lower complication rates and reduced reimbursements after surgery for spinal metastases. A better understanding of the processes of care adopted at these institutions is needed so that additional cancer centers may also be able to deliver similar care for patients with metastatic spine disease. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

What Factors Are Associated with Increased Financial Burden and High Financial Worry For Patients Undergoing Common Hand Procedures?

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined whether orthopaedic surgery, including hand surgery, is associated with patients' financial health. We sought to understand the level of financial burden and worry for patients undergoing two common hand procedures-carpal tunnel release and open reduction and internal fixation for a distal radius fracture-as well as to determine factors associated with a higher financial burden and worry. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In patients undergoing operative treatment for isolated carpal tunnel syndrome with carpal tunnel release or open reduction and internal fixation for a distal radius fracture, we used validated financial burden and worry questionnaires to ask: (1) What percentage of patients report some level of financial burden, and what is the median financial burden composite score? (2) What percentage of patients report some level of financial worry, and what percentage of patients report a high level of financial worry? (3) When accounting for other assessed factors, what patient- and condition-related factors are associated with financial burden? (4) When accounting for other assessed factors, what patient- and condition-related factors are associated with high financial worry? METHODS: In this cross-sectional survey study, a hand and upper extremity database at a single tertiary academic medical center was reviewed for patients 18 years or older undergoing operative treatment in our hand and upper extremity division for an isolated distal radius fracture between October 2017 and October 2019. We then selected all patients undergoing carpal tunnel release during the first half of that time period (given the frequency of carpal tunnel syndrome, a 1-year period was sufficient to ensure comparable patient groups). A total of 645 patients were identified (carpal tunnel release: 60% [384 of 645 patients]; open reduction and internal fixation for a distal radius fracture: 40% [261 of 645 patients). Of the patients who underwent carpal tunnel release, 6% (24 of 384) were excluded because of associated injuries. Of the patients undergoing open reduction and internal fixation for a distal radius fracture, 4% (10 of 261) were excluded because of associated injuries. All remaining 611 patients were approached. Thirty-six percent (223 of 611; carpal tunnel release: 36% [128 of 360]; open reduction and internal fixation: 38% [95 of 251]) of patients ultimately completed two validated financial health surveys: the financial burden composite and financial worry questionnaires. Descriptive statistics were calculated to report the percentage of patients who had some level of financial burden and worry. Further, the median financial burden composite score was determined. The percentage of patients who reported a high level of financial worry was calculated. A forward stepwise regression model approach was used; thus, variables with p values < 0.10 in bivariate analysis were included in the final regression analyses to determine which patient- and condition-related factors were associated with financial burden or high financial worry, accounting for all other measured variables. RESULTS: The median financial burden composite score was 0 (range 0 [lowest possible financial burden] to 6 [highest possible financial burden]), and 13% of patients (30 of 223) reported a high level of financial worry. After controlling for potentially confounding variables like age, insurance type, and self-reported race, the number of dependents (regression coefficient 0.15 [95% CI 0.008 to 0.29]; p = 0.04) was associated with higher levels of financial burden, while retired employment status (regression coefficient -1.24 [95% CI -1.88 to -0.60]; p < 0.001) was associated with lower levels of financial burden. In addition, the number of dependents (odds ratio 1.77 [95% CI 1.21 to 2.61]; p = 0.004) and unable to work or disabled employment status (OR 3.76 [95% CI 1.25 to 11.28]; p = 0.02) were associated with increased odds of high financial worry. CONCLUSION: A notable number of patients undergoing operative hand care for two common conditions reported some degree of financial burden and worry. Patients at higher risk of financial burden and/or worry may benefit from increased resources during their hand care journey, including social work consultation and financial counselors. This is especially true given the association between number of dependents and work status on financial burden and high financial worry. However, future research is needed to determine the return on investment of this resource utilization on patient clinical outcomes, overall quality of life, and well-being. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Provides a Lower and More Accurate Assessment of Costs in the Field of Orthopaedic Surgery Compared With Traditional Accounting Methods.

PURPOSE: To analyze the implementation and benefits of time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) in the field of orthopaedic surgery. METHODS: We performed a search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and Embase in March 2020, using the following terms: "Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing," "TDABC," "Orthopaedic Surgery," and "Cost." Then we selected the studies that used the TDABC methodology to generate costs for a particular aspect of orthopaedic surgery. The included studies were divided into the following 5 main categories for ease of analysis: joint arthroplasty, trauma, hand, electronic medical record (EMR) implementation, and pediatric. We analyzed the overall ability of TDABC in the field of orthopaedic surgery, compared to the standard costing methods. RESULTS: We included a total of 19 studies that implemented the TDABC methodology to generate a cost, which was compared to traditional accounting methods. The orthopaedic subspecialty with the most amount of TDABC implementation has been the field of joint arthroplasty. In these studies, the authors have noted that TDABC has provided a more granular breakdown of costs and has calculated a lower cost compared with traditional accounting methods. CONCLUSION: TDABC is a powerful cost analysis method that has demonstrated benefit over the activity-based costing (ABC) approach in determining a lower and more accurate cost of orthopaedic procedures. Furthermore, the TDABC method generates an average cost reduction of $10,000 and $12,000 for total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty, respectively. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: TDABC can allow health care administration to better determine and understand the cost drivers of particular orthopaedic procedures at their institutions. With improved estimates on the true cost of an activity, hospital administrators and department chairs can adjust to ensure cost-effective, patient-centered health care.

Compensation claims in pediatric orthopedics in Norway between 2012 and 2018: a nationwide study of 487 patients.

Background and purpose - In Norway all compensation claims based on healthcare services are handled by a government agency (NPE, Norsk Pasientskade Erstatning). We provide an epidemiological overview of claims within pediatric orthopedics in Norway, and identify the most common reasons for claims and compensations.Patients and methods - All compensation claims handled by NPE from 2012 to 2018 within pediatric orthopedics (age 0 to 17 years) were reviewed. Data were analyzed with regard to patient demographics, diagnoses, type of injury, type of treatment, reasons for granted compensation, and total payouts.Results - 487 compensation claims (259 girls, 228 boys) within orthopedic surgery in patients younger than 18 years at time of treatment were identified. Mean age was 12 years (0-17). 150 out of 487 claims (31%) resulted in compensation, including 79 compensations for inadequate treatment, 58 for inadequate diagnostics, 12 for infections, and 1 based on the exceptional rule. Total payouts were US$8.45 million. The most common primary diagnoses were: upper extremity injuries (26%), lower extremity injuries (24%), congenital malformations and deformities (12%), spine deformities (11%), disorders affecting peripheral joints (9%), chondropathies (6%), and others (12%).Interpretation - Most claims were submitted and granted for mismanagement of fractures in the upper and lower extremity, and mismanagement of congenital malformations and disorders of peripheral joints. Knowledge of the details of malpractice claims should be implemented in educational programs and assist pediatric orthopedic surgeons to develop guidelines in order to improve patient safety and quality of care.

Malpractice Litigation for Compartment Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze litigation involving compartment syndrome to identify the causes and outcomes of such malpractice suits. A better understanding of such litigation may provide insight into areas where clinicians may make improvements in the delivery of care. METHODS: Jury verdict reviews from the Westlaw database from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2018 were reviewed. The search term "compartment syndrome" was used to identify cases and extract data on the specialty of the physician defendant, the demographics of the plaintiff, the allegation, and the verdict. RESULTS: A total of 124 individual cases involving the diagnosis of compartment syndrome were identified. Medical centers or the hospital was included as a defendant in 51.6% of cases. The most frequent physician defendants were orthopedic surgeons (45.96%) and emergency medicine physicians (20.16%), followed by cardiothoracic/vascular surgeons (16.93%). Failure to diagnose was the most frequently cited claim (71.8% of cases). Most plaintiffs were men, with a mean age of 36.7 years, suffering injuries for an average of 5 years before their verdict. Traumatic compartment syndrome of the lower extremity causing nerve damage was the most common complication attributed to failure to diagnose, leading to litigation. Forty cases (32.25%) were found for the plaintiff or settled, with an average award of $1,553,993.66. CONCLUSIONS: Our study offers a brief overview of the most common defendants, plaintiffs, and injuries involved in legal disputes involving compartment syndrome. Orthopedic surgeons were most commonly named; however, vascular surgeons may also be involved in these cases because of the large number of cases with associated arterial involvement. A significant percentage of cases were plaintiff verdicts or settled cases. Failure to diagnosis or delay in treatment was the most common causes of malpractice litigation. Compartment syndrome is a clinical diagnosis and requires a high level of suspicion for a timely diagnosis. Lack of objective criteria for diagnosis increases the chances of medical errors and makes it an area vulnerable to litigation.

What Is the Financial Impact of Orthopaedic Sequelae of Intravenous Drug Use on Urban Tertiary-care Centers?

BACKGROUND: Orthopaedic sequelae such as skin and soft-tissue abscesses are frequent complications of intravenous drug use (IVDU) and comprise many of the most common indications for emergency room visits and hospitalizations within this population. Urban tertiary-care and safety-net hospitals frequently operate in challenging economic healthcare environments and are disproportionately tasked with providing care to this largely underinsured patient demographic. Although many public health initiatives have been instituted in recent years to understand the health impacts of IVDU and the spreading opioid epidemic, few efforts have been made to investigate its economic impact on healthcare systems. The inpatient treatment of orthopaedic sequelae of IVDU is a high-cost healthcare element that is critically important to understand within the current national context of inflationary healthcare costs. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What were the total healthcare costs incurred and total hospital reimbursements received in the treatment of extraspinal orthopaedic sequelae of IVDU? (2) What were the total healthcare costs incurred and total hospital reimbursements received in the treatment of spinal orthopaedic sequelae of IVDU? (3) How did patient insurance status effect the economic burden of orthopaedic sequelae of IVDU? METHODS: An internal departmental record of all successive patients requiring inpatient treatment of orthopaedic sequelae of IVDU was initiated at Boston Medical Center (Boston, MA, USA) in 2012 and MetroHealth Medical Center (Cleveland, OH, USA) in 2015. A total of 412 patient admissions between 2012 to 2017 to these two safety-net hospitals (n = 236 and n = 176, respectively) for orthopaedic complications of IVDU were included in the study. These sequelae included cellulitis, cutaneous abscess, bursitis, myositis, tenosynovitis, septic arthritis, osteomyelitis, and epidural abscess. Patients were included if they were older than 18 years of age, presented to the emergency department for management of a musculoskeletal infection secondary to IVDU, and required inpatient orthopaedic treatment during their admission. Exclusion criteria included all patients presenting with a musculoskeletal infection not directly secondary to active IVDU. Patients presenting with an epidural abscess (Boston Medical Center, n = 36) were evaluated separately to explore potential differences in costs within this subgroup. A robust retrospective financial analysis was performed using internal financial databases at each institution which directly enumerated all true hospital costs associated with each patient admission, independent of billed hospital charges. All direct, indirect, variable, and fixed hospital costs were individually summed for each hospitalization, constituting a true "bottom-up" micro-costing approach. Labor-based costs were calculated through use of time-based costing; for instance, the cost of nursing labor care associated with a patient admission was determined through ascription of the median hospital cost of a registered nurse within that department (that is, compensation for salary plus benefits) to the total length of nursing time needed by that patient during their hospitalization. Primary reimbursements reflected the true monetary value received by the study institutions from insurers and were determined through the total adjusted payment for each inpatient admission. All professional fees were excluded. A secondary analysis was performed to assess the effect of patient insurance status on hospital costs and reimbursements for each patient admission. RESULTS: The mean healthcare cost incurred for the treatment of extraspinal orthopaedic sequelae of IVDU was USD 9524 ± USD 1430 per patient admission. The mean hospital reimbursement provided for the treatment of these extraspinal sequelae was USD 7678 ± USD 1248 per patient admission. This resulted in a mean financial loss of USD 1846 ± USD 1342 per patient admission. The mean healthcare cost incurred at Boston Medical Center for the treatment of epidural abscesses secondary to IVDU was USD 44,357 ± USD 7384 per patient. Hospital reimbursements within this subgroup were highly dependent upon insurance status. The median (range) reimbursement provided for patients possessing a unique hospital-based nonprofit health plan (n = 4) was USD 103,016 (USD 9022 to USD 320,123), corresponding to a median financial gain of USD 24,904 (USD 2289 to USD 83,079). However, the mean reimbursement for all other patients presenting with epidural abscesses (n = 32) was USD 30,429 ± USD 5278, corresponding to a mean financial loss of USD 5768 ± USD 4861. A secondary analysis demonstrated that treatment of extraspinal orthopaedic sequelae of IVDU for patients possessing Medicaid insurance (n = 309) resulted in a financial loss of USD 2813 ± USD 1593 per patient admission. Conversely, treatment of extraspinal orthopaedic sequelae for patients possessing non-Medicaid insurance (n = 67) generated a mean financial gain of USD 2615 ± USD 1341 per patient admission. CONCLUSIONS: Even when excluding all professional fees, the inpatient treatment of orthopaedic sequelae of IVDU resulted in substantial financial losses driven primarily by high proportions of under- and uninsured people within this patient population. These financial losses may be unsustainable for medical centers operating in challenging economic healthcare landscapes. The development of novel initiatives and support of existing programs aimed at mitigating the health-related and economic impact of IVDU must remain a principal priority of healthcare providers and policymakers in coming years. Advocacy for the expansion of Medicaid accountable care organizations and national syringe service programs (SSPs), and the development of specialized outpatient wound and abscess clinics at healthcare centers may help to substantially alleviate the economic burden of the orthopaedic sequelae of IVDU. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level, IV, economic and decision analyses.

Is Reconstruction of Unstable Midfoot Charcot Neuroarthropathy Cost Effective from a US Payer's Perspective?

BACKGROUND: Charcot neuroarthropathy is a morbid and expensive complication of diabetes that can lead to lower extremity amputation. Current treatment of unstable midfoot deformity includes lifetime limb bracing, primary transtibial amputation, or surgical reconstruction of the deformity. In the absence of a widely adopted treatment algorithm, the decision to pursue more costly attempts at reconstruction in the United States continues to be driven by surgeon preference. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: To examine the cost effectiveness (defined by lifetime costs, quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs] and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER]) of surgical reconstruction and its alternatives (primary transtibial amputation and lifetime bracing) for adults with diabetes and unstable midfoot Charcot neuroarthropathy using previously published cost data. METHODS: A Markov model was used to compare Charcot reconstruction and its alternatives in three progressively worsening clinical scenarios: no foot ulcer, uncomplicated (or uninfected) ulcer, and infected ulcer. Our base case scenario was a 50-year-old adult with diabetes and unstable midfoot deformity. Patients were placed into health states based on their disease stage. Transitions between health states occurred annually using probabilities estimated from the evidence obtained after systematic review. The time horizon was 50 cycles. Data regarding costs were obtained from a systematic review. Costs were converted to 2019 USD using the Consumer Price Index. The primary outcomes included the long-term costs and QALYs, which were combined to form ICERs. Willingness-to-pay was set at USD 100,000/QALY. Multiple sensitivity analyses and probabilistic analyses were performed to measure model uncertainty. RESULTS: The most effective strategy for patients without foot ulcers was Charcot reconstruction, which resulted in an additional 1.63 QALYs gained and an ICER of USD 14,340 per QALY gained compared with lifetime bracing. Reconstruction was also the most effective strategy for patients with uninfected foot ulcers, resulting in an additional 1.04 QALYs gained, and an ICER of USD 26,220 per QALY gained compared with bracing. On the other hand, bracing was cost effective in all scenarios and was the only cost-effective strategy for patents with infected foot ulcers; it resulted in 6.32 QALYs gained and an ICER of USD 15,010 per QALY gained compared with transtibial amputation. As unstable midfoot Charcot neuroarthropathy progressed to deep infection, reconstruction lost its value (ICER USD 193,240 per QALY gained) compared with bracing. This was driven by the increasing costs associated with staged surgeries, combined with a higher frequency of complications and shorter patient life expectancies in the infected ulcer cohort. The findings in the no ulcer and uncomplicated ulcer cohorts were both unchanged after multiple sensitivity analyses; however, threshold effects were identified in the infected ulcer cohort during the sensitivity analysis. When the cost of surgery dropped below USD 40,000 or the frequency of postoperative complications dropped below 50%, surgical reconstruction became cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons aiming to offer both clinically effective and cost-effective care would do well to discuss surgical reconstruction early with patients who have unstable midfoot Charcot neuroarthropathy, and they should favor lifetime bracing only after deep infection develops. Future clinical studies should focus on methods of minimizing surgical complications and/or reducing operative costs in patients with infected foot ulcers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, economic and decision analysis.

Patient Perception of Orthopedic Surgeon Reimbursement.

Significant attention has been directed at evaluating reimbursement rates to orthopedic surgeons for various surgical procedures. To evaluate patients' understanding of the surgeon reimbursement process, studies using patient surveys have been conducted to determine patients' perceptions of orthopedic surgeon compensation. To date, there has been no systematic review to consolidate the data of these studies. This study aimed to synthesize the findings of these individual studies across multiple subspecialties of orthopedic surgery to evaluate the potential discrepancy between how much patients believe orthopedic surgeons are reimbursed and the actual reimbursement rate. We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies that report findings of patient perceptions of orthopedic surgeon reimbursement for various procedures. Searches were conducted using MEDLINE through PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. Summary estimates of reimbursement discrepancies across subspecialties and overall were reported as unweighted averages of the individual study results within each group. Twelve studies were identified that met inclusion criteria, constituting 4309 surveys. These survey studies measured patients' perceptions of how much orthopedic surgeons are reimbursed for common procedures, including anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, arthroscopic meniscectomy, carpal tunnel release, rotator cuff repair, multiple spine procedures and total shoulder, hip, and knee arthroplasty. It was found that patients reported reasonable surgeon's fees to be 11.2 times more than actual Medicare reimbursement. Among individual studies, the largest discrepancies were seen in total hip arthroplasty (26 times), whereas the smallest difference was in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (1.6 times). On average, patients estimated Medicare reimbursement rates to be 5.9 times higher than the actual surgeon reimbursement. Patients consistently overestimate how much orthopedic surgeons are reimbursed for common orthopedic procedures. The results of this systematic review suggest that patients may value these procedures more than what Medicare reimburses. Such information may help educate the public, direct policy, and increase transparency between orthopedic surgeons and patients.

Declining trends in Medicare physician reimbursements for shoulder surgery from 2002 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: As the current health care system evolves toward cost-containment and value-based approaches, evaluating trends in physician reimbursements will be critical for assessing and ensuring the financial stability of shoulder surgery as a subspecialty. METHODS: The Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-up Tool was used to retrieve average reimbursement rates for 39 shoulder surgical procedures (arthroscopy with or without repair, arthroplasty, acromioclavicular or clavicular open reduction-internal fixation, fixation for proximal humeral fracture and/or shoulder dislocation, open rotator cuff repair or tendon release and/or repair, and open shoulder stabilization) from 2002 to 2018. All reimbursement data were adjusted for inflation to 2018 dollars. RESULTS: After adjusting for inflation to 2018 dollars, average reimbursement for all included procedures decreased by 26.9% from 2002 to 2018. After stratifying the analysis by 3 distinct time groups, we observed that reimbursement decreases were the most significant prior to 2010. However, reimbursement rates still declined by an average of 2.9% from 2010 to 2014 and 7.2% from 2014 to 2018. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, capsulorrhaphy, and biceps tenodesis experienced smaller declines in reimbursement than their open-surgery counterparts. CONCLUSION: Medicare physician reimbursements for shoulder surgical procedures have decreased over time. Health care policy makers need to understand the impact of decreasing reimbursements to develop agreeable financial policies that will not only ensure provider satisfaction but also maintain access to care for patients.

Operative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures is not cost-effective.

BACKGROUND: Conventional treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures is nonoperative. Recent studies have implied that operative treatment might result in a faster return to work, resulting in a decreased productivity loss for society. The cost utility of plate fixation vs. nonoperative treatment of displaced midshaft clavicular fractures has not previously been investigated using a societal perspective. METHODS: Decision analytical modeling of incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was performed. Data on utility, hospitalization, and productivity costs were retrieved from a Danish randomized controlled trial. Supplementary data were taken from randomized controlled trials identified in the literature. A 1-year time horizon was applied, and all prices were reported with respect to a 2016 level. RESULTS: Operative treatment was associated with a larger QALY gain in patients and a higher cost compared with nonoperative treatment. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was estimated in Danish currency (Danish krone [kr]) at kr1,360,000 (€182,306) per QALY from a health-sector perspective and kr1,388,738 (€186,158) per QALY from a societal perspective. Considering a subgroup analysis of patients with a high-load shoulder profession, operative treatment was dominated by nonoperative treatment from a health-sector perspective. Considering a societal perspective, the ICER was estimated at -kr889,091 (-€119,181) per reduction of 1 QALY. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed that the results were subject to uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Operative treatment is not cost-effective when considering a threshold of €34,000/QALY. However, for a subgroup of patients with a high-load shoulder profession, operative treatment might be cost-effective compared with nonoperative treatment.

Economic implications of decreased elective orthopaedic and musculoskeletal surgery volume during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

PURPOSE: In order to reduce viral spread, elective surgery was cancelled in most US hospitals for an extended period during the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this study was to estimate national hospital reimbursement and net income losses due to elective orthopaedic surgery cancellation during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) and the Nationwide Ambulatory Surgery Sample (NASS) were used to identify all elective orthopaedic and musculoskeletal (MSK) surgery performed in the inpatient setting and in hospital owned outpatient surgery departments throughout the USA. Total cost, reimbursement, and net income were estimated for all elective orthopaedic surgery and were compared with elective operations from other specialties. RESULTS: Elective MSK surgery accounted for $65.6-$71.1 billion in reimbursement and $15.6-$21.1 billion in net income per year to the US hospital system, equivalent to $5.5-$5.9 billion in reimbursement and $1.3-$1.8 billion in net income per month. When compared with elective surgery from all other specialties, elective MSK surgery accounted for 39% of hospital reimbursement and 35% of hospital net income. Compared with all hospital encounters for all specialties, elective MSK surgery accounted for 13% of reimbursement and 23% of net income. Estimated hospital losses from cancellation of elective MSK surgery during 8 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic were $10.9-$11.9 billion in reimbursement and $2.6-3.5 billion in net income. CONCLUSION: Cancellation of elective MSK surgery for 8 weeks during the COVID-19 pandemic has substantial economic implications on the US hospital system.

Mobilizing Volume: Trauma, Surgical Skill, and Clinical Tourism in South India.

This article considers the ways in which the concept of volume is deployed to create and sustain surgical expertise. Drawing on research at a large plastic and orthopedic surgery hospital in Tamil Nadu, India, I explore the ways in which a steady supply of trauma is converted into medical expertise, reputation, and care. Volume functions as a key metric by which this conversion takes place. This hospital is particularly well known for its cutting-edge treatment of severe trauma, and, while some Indian hospitals have used their combination of low cost and high expertise to attract foreign patients for medical tourism, this hospital has converted its supply of trauma patients into surgical expertise that brings foreign surgeons there to learn. This article therefore also considers the role of visiting foreign doctors in this form of clinical tourism.

Early mobilization versus plaster immobilization of simple elbow dislocations: a cost analysis of the FuncSiE multicenter randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The primary aim was to assess and compare the total costs (direct health care costs and indirect costs due to loss of production) after early mobilization versus plaster immobilization in patients with a simple elbow dislocation. It was hypothesized that early mobilization would not lead to higher direct and indirect costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study used data of a multicenter randomized clinical trial (FuncSiE trial). From August 25, 2009 until September 18, 2012, 100 adult patients with a simple elbow dislocation were recruited and randomized to early mobilization (immediate motion exercises; n = 48) or 3 weeks plaster immobilization (n = 52). Patients completed questionnaires on health-related quality of life [EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) and Short Form-36 (SF-36 PCS and SF-36 MCS)], health care use, and work absence. Follow-up was 1 year. Primary outcome were the total costs at 1 year. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in EQ-5D, SF-36 PCS, and SF-36 MCS between the two groups. Mean total costs per patient were €3624 in the early mobilization group versus €7072 in the plaster group (p = 0.094). Shorter work absenteeism in the early mobilization group (10 versus 18 days; p = 0.027) did not lead to significantly lower costs for loss of productivity (€1719 in the early mobilization group versus €4589; p = 0.120). CONCLUSION: From a clinical and a socio-economic point of view, early mobilization should be the treatment of choice for a simple elbow dislocation. Plaster immobilization has inferior results at almost double the cost.

The total value of time of children undergoing treatment: A contingent valuation from the perspective of parents in the orthopaedic department of a Dutch hospital.

AIM: Children spend substantial amounts of time receiving medical care (patients' time), and this patients' time plays an important role in parental choices for paediatric care. However, it is usually ignored in economic evaluations. This is a concern because economic evaluations are increasingly being used to inform child health policy decision-making. This study aims to quantify the time children spend receiving medical care and attach a monetary value to it for use in economic evaluations. It applied the parents' perspective. Consequently, the derived money values are the time values for both child and the accompanying parent. METHODS: We used the contingent valuation methodology. We collected data on 83 children undergoing orthopaedic treatment in a Dutch hospital. Accompanying parents were asked to quantify and value the patients' time of their children. We separately explored travel, waiting and treatment time. We also checked whether the monetary valuation varied across parents' financial situation, children's health and level of pain. RESULTS: Parents were willing to pay about €33 (confidence interval (CI) 21.2-48.1) for a 1-day reduction in treatment time; about €11.5 (CI 4.2-19.1) for an hour's reduction in waiting time; and about €4.5 (CI 1.5-7.4) for an hour's reduction in travel time. In addition, respondents with better financial conditions have, on average higher, willingness to pays. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first instance that patients' time of children has been monetarily valued. This methodology can be used to further develop economic evaluations of paediatric care and could be applied to larger samples with varying clinical conditions.