Implementation of the New Medicare-Mandated Patient-Reported Outcomes After Joint Arthroplasty Performance Measure.

A new mandatory hospital-level, risk-standardized performance measure for elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) based on patient-reported outcomes (THA/TKA PRO-PM) has been implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). All THA and TKA in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries at inpatient facilities are included. The THA/TKA PRO-PM is the proportion of risk-standardized THA or TKA patients meeting or exceeding the substantial clinical benefit threshold between preoperative and postoperative outcomes measures (Hip dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement). This binary outcome (yes/no) is then divided by all eligible patients creating a percentage of patients reaching substantial clinical benefit. The percentile score among hospitals will be reported. Following 2 voluntary reporting periods, mandatory reporting will begin in 2025. The CMS requires 50% reporting rates; failure leads to annual payment reduction in fiscal year 2028. The CMS intends the THA/TKA PRO-PM to be a patient-centered, meaningful, and relatable measure of hospital performance reported to the public. For surgeons, this is an opportunity to collaborate with hospitals for developing and implementing a THA/TKA data collection system to avoid penalties for the hospital. Further implementation for outpatient surgery and in ambulatory surgery centers has been announced by CMS. Major resources will be needed to succeed in the expected capture rates.

The International Initiative to Measure Perceived Risk in Arthroplasty: The Results From a Multinational Survey.

BACKGROUND: There is an inherent moral imperative to avoid complications from arthroplasty. Doing so at ideal cost is also associated with surgeon reputation, and, increasingly in health care delivery systems that measure and competitively score outcomes, reimbursement to the surgeons and their hospitals. As a result, patients who are perceived to be in higher risk comorbidity groups, such as the obese and diabetics, as well as those challenged by socioeconomic factors may face barriers to access elective arthroplasty. METHODS: In this initiative, surveys were sent to surgeons in 8 different countries, each adapted for their own unique payment, remuneration, and punitive models. The questions in the surveys pertained to surgeons' perception of risk regarding medical and socioeconomic factors in patients indicated for total hip or knee arthroplasty. This paper primarily reports on the results from Canada, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. RESULTS: The health care systems varied between a universal/state funded health care system (Canada) to those that were almost exclusively private (India). Some health care systems have "bundled" payment with retention of fees for postoperative complications requiring readmission/reoperation and including some with public publication of outcome data (United States and the United Kingdom), whereas others had none (Canada). There were some major discrepancies across different countries regarding the perceived risk of diabetic patients, who have variable Hemoglobin A1c cut-offs, if any used. However, overall the perception of risk for age, body mass index, age, sex, socioeconomic, and social situations remained surprisingly consistent throughout the health care systems. Any limitations set were primarily driven by surgeon decision making and not external demands. CONCLUSION: Surgeons will understandably try and optimize the health status of patients who have reversible risks as shown by best available evidence. The evidence is of variable quality, and, especially for irreversible social risk factors, limited due to concerns over cost and quality outcomes that can be influenced by experience-driven perceptions of risk. The results show that perceptions of risk do have such influence on access across many health care delivery environments. The authors recommend better risk-adjustment models for medical and socioeconomic risk factors with possible stratification/exclusions regarding reimbursement adjustments and reporting to help reverse disparities of access to arthroplasty.

Development of a Knee Arthroplasty Episode-Based Cost Measure for Evaluating Cost in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System.

BACKGROUND: Under the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS), the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) evaluate clinicians who manage Medicare patients on the basis of cost and quality outcomes. CMS contractor Acumen, LLC, convened an expert panel to develop a knee arthroplasty episode-based cost measure (EBCM) for use in the MIPS. METHODS: A Clinical Subcommittee of 28 clinician experts affiliated with 27 specialty societies provided guidance in developing the knee arthroplasty EBCM. The Clinical Subcommittee specified all aspects of the EBCM including triggering of the episode, services within the episode, risk adjustment, subgrouping, and exclusions. Services were counted only if the Clinical Subcommittee deemed them under the influence of the clinician assigned to the EBCM (selective service assignment; SSA). We assessed the reliability of the EBCM and compared it with an alternative population-based cost measure constructed without SSA. RESULTS: We identified 249,301 knee arthroplasty episodes from June 1, 2016, to May 31, 2017, with 10,681 clinicians having at least 10 attributed episodes. The mean episode cost was $19,321 with a standard deviation of $1,816. SSA increased the reliability score from 0.71 to 0.81 relative to an alternative measure that counted all patient costs. SSA also led to reclassification of 41.8% of clinicians into different quintiles of performance. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the use of SSA in the creation of the EBCM substantially reduces random noise (i.e., unrelated medical procedures or costs) and offers a tool for assessing clinicians' costs of management that is focused on care directly related to knee arthroplasty.

Impact of Neuraxial Versus General Anesthesia on Discharge Destination in Patients Undergoing Primary Total Hip and Total Knee Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacement (THR) are 2 of the most common orthopedic surgical procedures in the United States. These procedures, with fairly low mortality rates, incur significant health care costs, with almost 40% of the costs associated with post acute care. We assessed the impact of general versus neuraxial anesthesia on discharge destination and 30-day readmissions in patients who underwent total knee and hip replacement in our health system. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of 24,684 patients undergoing total knee or hip replacement in 13 hospitals of a large health care network. Following propensity score matching, we studied the impact of type of anesthetic technique on discharge destination (primary outcome) and postoperative complications including readmissions in 8613 patients who underwent THR and 13,004 patients for TKR. RESULTS: Our results showed that in patients undergoing THR and TKR, neuraxial anesthesia is associated with higher odds of being discharged from hospital to home versus other facilities compared to general anesthesia (odds ratio [OR] = 1.63, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.52-1.76; P < .01) and (OR = 1.58, 95% CI, 1.49-1.67; P < .01), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest an association between use of neuraxial anesthesia for total joint arthroplasty and a higher probability of discharge to home and a reduction in readmissions.

A modeling approach to derive baseline risk estimates for GRADE recommendations: Concepts, development, and results of its application to the American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines on prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to develop an approach that can be used where baseline risk estimates that are directly applicable to prioritized patient-important outcomes are not available from published studies. STUDY DESIGN: The McMaster University GRADE Centre and the ASH guideline panel for the prevention of VTE in surgical patients developed a modeling approach based on explicit assumptions about the distribution of symptoms, anatomical location, and severity of VTE events. RESULTS: We applied the approach to derive modeled estimates of baseline risk. These estimates were used to calculated absolute measures of anticipated effects that informed the discussion of the evidence and the formulation of 30 guideline recommendations. CONCLUSION: Our approach can assist guideline developers facing a lack of information about baseline risk estimates that directly apply to outcomes of interest. The use of modeled estimates increases transparency in the process and makes the baseline risk used by guideline experts explicit during their decision-making.

Arthroplasty During COVID-19: Surveillance of AAHKS Members in the First Year of the Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a severe impact on the practices of adult reconstruction surgeons, primarily due to the elective nature of hip and knee arthroplasty. METHODS: To capture the impact of COVID-19 on its members, the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons sent 6 surveys over a span of 7 months from late March until September of 2020 querying its members regarding the effects of COVID on the health and well-being of their personal, financial, and clinical practice. RESULTS: Ninety-two percent of surgeons reported a cessation of elective inpatient cases during the height of the crisis. The reduction was greatest for surgeries performed in hospital-based sites of care. Ninety-one percent reported a drop in clinic volume. At the final surveys, these numbers where 7% and 59%, respectively. In addition, there was a widespread increase in the use of telemedicine during this period. Only a small number of orthopedic practices permanently closed because of COVID-19; 68% of surgeons, however, sought federal funding to offset their loss of revenue because of the restrictions placed on elective surgeries. Finally, once elective surgeries were reinstated, most surgeons reported no restrictions with surgical cases and that they believed they were adapting to the challenges of COVID successfully. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of COVID-19 in 2020 on the practice of arthroplasty resulted in nearly universal loss of volume and significant financial stress. Recovery has been consistent but incomplete for most practices. Continued monitoring of the members of American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons will be needed in 2021 to measure the strength of the demonstrated adaptive recovery of 2020.

Perception of Risk: A Poll of American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Members.

BACKGROUND: Providers of total hip and knee replacements are being judged regarding quality/cost by payers using competition-based performance measures with poor medical and no socioeconomic risk adjustment. Providers might assume that other providers shed risk and the perception of added risk can influence practice. A poll was collected to examine such perceptions. METHODS: In 2019 a poll was sent to the 2800 surgeon members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons using Survey Monkey while protecting respondent anonymity/confidentiality. The questions asked whether the perception of poorly risk-adjusted medical comorbidities and socioeconomic risk factors influence surgeons to selectively offer surgery. RESULTS: There were 474 surgeon responses. Prior to elective total hip arthroplasty/total knee arthroplasty, 95% address modifiable risk factors; 52% require a body mass index <40, 64% smoking cessation, 96% an adequate hemoglobin A1C; 82% check nutrition; and 63% expect control of alcohol 2. Due to lack of socioeconomic risk adjustment, 83% reported feeling pressure to avoid/restrict access to patients with limited social support, specifically the following: Medicaid/underinsured, 81%; African Americans, 29%; Hispanics/ethnicities, 27%; and low socioeconomic status, 73%. Of the respondents, 93% predicted increased access to care with more appropriate risk adjustment. CONCLUSION: Competition-based quality/cost performance measures influence surgeons to focus on medical risk factors in offering lower extremity arthroplasty. The lack of socioeconomic risk adjustment leads to perceptions of added risk from such factors as well. This leads to marginal loss of access for patients within certain medical and socioeconomic classes, contributing to existing healthcare disparities. This represents an unintended consequence of competition-based performance measures.

Orthopaedic Systems Response to and Return from the COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons for Future Crisis Management.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has become the dominant health-care issue of this generation and has reached every corner of the health-care delivery spectrum. Our 3 orthopaedic departments enacted a response to the COVID-19 pandemic within our organizations. We discuss our health-care systems' response to the outbreak and offer discussion for the recovery of the orthopaedic service line within large health-care systems.

After the COVID-19 Pandemic: Returning to Normalcy or Returning to a New Normal?

The novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), pandemic has delivered a profound and negative impact on the United States. The suspension of elective surgeries including arthroplasty will have a lasting effect on all stakeholders including patients, physicians, and healthcare organizations within the US healthcare system. Resumption of elective hip and knee arthroplasty will need to be carefully focused. The purpose of this work is to address potential strategies, concerns, and regulatory barriers in restarting elective hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States.

Survey of AAHKS International Members on the Impact of COVID-19 on Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Practices.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic poses an important risk to global health. METHODS: This study surveyed 370 international orthopedic surgeons affiliated with the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons to help identify the global impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient care. RESULTS: A total of 99 surgeons (27% of those surveyed) completed the questionnaire representing 32 different countries. Except for surgeons in Japan, all respondents noted that their practice had been affected to some degree and 70% of the surgeons have canceled elective procedures. More than a third of the surgeons have had to close their practices altogether and the remaining open practices were estimated to be sustainable for 7 weeks on average given their current situation. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in marked changes to the majority of international arthroplasty practices.

Personal Protective Equipment: Current Best Practices for Orthopedic Teams.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) virus is challenging healthcare providers across the world. Current best practices for personal protective equipment (PPE) during this time are rapidly evolving and fluid due to the novel and acute nature of the pandemic and the dearth of high-level evidence. Routine infection control practices augmented by airborne precautions are paramount when treating the COVID-19-positive patient. Best practices for PPE use in patients who have unknown COVID-19 status are a highly charged and emotional issue. The variables to be considered include protection of patients and healthcare providers, accuracy and availability of testing, and responsible use of PPE resources. This article also explores the concerns of surgeons regarding possible transmission to their own family members as a result of caring for COVID-19 patients.

Assessment of a Satisfaction Measure for Use After Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction after total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a core outcome selected by the Outcomes Measurement in Rheumatology. Up to 20% of THA/TKA patients are dissatisfied. Improving patient satisfaction is hindered by the lack of a validated measurement tool that can accurately measure change. METHODS: The psychometric properties of a proposed satisfaction instrument, consisting of 4 questions rated on a Likert scale, scored 1-100, were tested for validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change using data collected between 2007 and 2011 in an arthroplasty registry. RESULTS: We demonstrated construct validity by confirming our hypothesis; satisfaction correlated with similar constructs. Satisfaction correlated moderately with pain relief (TKA ρ = 0.61, THA ρ = 0.47) and function (TKA ρ = 0.65, THA ρ = 0.51) at 2 years; there was no correlation with baseline/preoperative pain/function values, as expected. Overall Cronbach's alpha >0.88 confirmed internal consistency. Test-retest reliability with weighted kappa ranged 0.60-0.75 for TKA and 0.36-0.56 for THA. Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score/Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores quality of life improvement (>30 points) corresponds to a mean satisfaction score of 93.2 (standard deviation, 11.5) after THA and 90.4 (standard deviation, 13.8) after TKA, and increasing relief of pain and functional improvement increased the strength of their association with satisfaction. The satisfaction measure has no copyright and is available free of cost and represents minimal responder burden. CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction with THA/TKA can be measured with a validated 4-item questionnaire. This satisfaction measure can be included in a total joint arthroplasty core measurement set for total joint arthroplasty trials.

Validation of the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Pain and Function Subscales for Use in Total Hip Replacement and Total Knee Replacement Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Total hip replacement (THR)/total knee replacement (TKR) studies do not uniformly measure patient centered domains, pain, and function. We aim to validate existing measures of pain and function within subscales of standard instruments to facilitate measurement. METHODS: We evaluated baseline and 2-year pain and function for THR and TKR using Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS)/Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), with primary unilateral TKR (4796) and THR (4801). Construct validity was assessed by correlating HOOS/KOOS pain and activities of daily living (ADL), function quality of life (QOL), and satisfaction using Spearman correlation coefficients. Patient relevant thresholds for change in pain and function were anchored to improvement in QOL; minimally clinically important difference (MCID) corresponded to "a little improvement" and a really important difference (RID) to a "moderate improvement." Pain and ADL function scores were compared by quartiles using Kruskal-Wallis. RESULTS: Two-year HOOS/KOOS pain and ADL function correlated with health-related QOL (KOOS pain and Short Form 12 Physical Component Scale ρ = 0.54; function ρ = 0.63). Comparing QOL by pain and function quartiles, the highest levels of pain relief and function were associated with the most improved QOL. MCID for pain was estimated at ≥20, and the RID ≥29; MCID for function ≥14, and the RID ≥23. The measures were responsive to change with large effect sizes (≥1.8). CONCLUSION: We confirm that HOOS/KOOS pain and ADL function subscales are valid measures of critical patient centered domains after THR/TKR, and achievable thresholds anchored to improved QOL. Cost-free availability and brevity makes them feasible, to be used in a core measurement set in total joint replacement trials.

American Society of Hematology 2019 guidelines for management of venous thromboembolism: prevention of venous thromboembolism in surgical hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common source of perioperative morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVE: These evidence-based guidelines from the American Society of Hematology (ASH) intend to support decision making about preventing VTE in patients undergoing surgery. METHODS: ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel balanced to minimize bias from conflicts of interest. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic reviews. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 30 recommendations, including for major surgery in general (n = 8), orthopedic surgery (n = 7), major general surgery (n = 3), major neurosurgical procedures (n = 2), urological surgery (n = 4), cardiac surgery and major vascular surgery (n = 2), major trauma (n = 2), and major gynecological surgery (n = 2). CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing major surgery in general, the panel made conditional recommendations for mechanical prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, for pneumatic compression prophylaxis over graduated compression stockings, and against inferior vena cava filters. In patients undergoing total hip or total knee arthroplasty, conditional recommendations included using either aspirin or anticoagulants, as well as for a direct oral anticoagulant over low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). For major general surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis, using LMWH or unfractionated heparin. For major neurosurgery, transurethral resection of the prostate, or radical prostatectomy, the panel suggested against pharmacological prophylaxis. For major trauma surgery or major gynecological surgery, the panel suggested pharmacological prophylaxis over no prophylaxis.