Trends in reimbursement for primary and revision total elbow arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Relative value units (RVUs) are an essential component of reimbursement calculations from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. RVUs are calculated based on physician work, practice expense, and professional liability insurance. Procedures that are more complex, such as revision arthroplasty, require greater levels of physician work and should therefore be assigned a greater RVU. The purpose of this study is to compare RVUs assigned for primary and revision total elbow arthroplasty (TEA). METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to collect all primary and revision total elbow arthroplasties performed between January 2015 and December 2017. Variables collected included age at time of surgery, RVUs assigned for the procedure, and operative time. RESULTS: A total of 359 cases (282 primary TEA, 77 revision TEA) were included in this study. Mean RVUs for primary TEA was 21.4 (2.0 standard deviation [SD]) vs. 24.4 (1.7 SD) for revision arthroplasty (P < .001). Mean operative time for primary TEA was 137.9 minutes (24.4 SD) vs. 185.5 minutes (99.7 SD) for revision TEA (P < .001). The RVU per minute for primary TEA was 0.16 and revision TEA was 0.13 (P < .001). This amounts to a yearly reimbursement difference of $71,024 in favor of primary TEA over revision TEA. CONCLUSION: The current reimbursement model does not adequately account for increased operative time, technical demand, and pre- and postoperative care associated with revision elbow arthroplasty compared with primary TEA. This leads to a financial advantage on performing primary TEA.

Current diagnosis-related group-based bundling for upper-extremity arthroplasty: a case of insufficient risk adjustment and misaligned incentives.

BACKGROUND: The current Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services diagnosis-related group (DRG) bundled-payment model for upper-extremity arthroplasty does not differentiate between the type of arthroplasty (anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty [ATSA] vs. reverse total shoulder arthroplasty vs. total elbow arthroplasty [TEA] vs. total wrist arthroplasty) or the diagnosis and indication for surgery (fracture vs. degenerative osteoarthritis vs. inflammatory arthritis). METHODS: The 2011-2014 Medicare 5% Standard Analytical Files (SAF5) database was queried to identify patients undergoing upper-extremity arthroplasty under DRG-483 and -484. Multivariate linear regression modeling was used to assess the marginal cost impact of patient-, procedure-, diagnosis-, and state-level factors on 90-day reimbursements. RESULTS: Of 6101 patients undergoing upper-extremity arthroplasty, 3851 (63.1%) fell under DRG-484 and 2250 (36.9%) were classified under DRG-483. The 90-day risk-adjusted cost of an ATSA for degenerative osteoarthritis was $14,704 ± $655. Patient-level factors associated with higher 90-day reimbursements were male sex (+$777), age 75-79 years (+$740), age 80-84 years (+$1140), and age 85 years or older (+$984). Undergoing a TEA (+$2175) was associated with higher reimbursements, whereas undergoing a shoulder hemiarthroplasty (-$1000) was associated with lower reimbursements. Surgery for a fracture (+$2354) had higher 90-day reimbursements. Malnutrition (+$10,673), alcohol use or dependence (+$6273), Parkinson disease (+$4892), cerebrovascular accident or stroke (+$4637), and hyper-coagulopathy (+$4463) had the highest reimbursements. In general, states in the South and Midwest had lower 90-day reimbursements associated with upper-extremity arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Under the DRG-based model piloted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers and hospitals would be reimbursed the same amount regardless of the type of surgery (ATSA vs. hemiarthroplasty vs. TEA), patient comorbidity burden, and diagnosis and indication for surgery (fracture vs. degenerative pathology), despite each of these factors having different resource utilization and associated reimbursements. Lack of risk adjustment for fracture indications leads to strong financial disincentives within this model.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of total elbow arthroplasty versus open reduction-internal fixation for distal humeral fractures.

BACKGROUND: Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) and open reduction-internal fixation (ORIF) are 2 viable surgical treatment options for acute, intra-articular distal humeral fractures in elderly patients. Whereas recent systematic reviews and randomized trials have suggested that TEA and ORIF result in similar functional outcome scores, no previous study has assessed the comparative cost-effectiveness between TEA and distal humeral ORIF in this specific demographic. METHODS: A Markov model was created with the highest-level data available from the literature depicting transitioning health states based on treatment strategies. To populate the quality-of-life data points in the model lacking in the literature, a survey was conducted of patients at 2 referral institutions who underwent TEA or ORIF for acute, intra-articular distal humeral fractures via the European Quality of Life, 5 Domains (EQ-5D) questionnaire at least 2 years postoperatively. Cost data from 2016 for each strategy were used to calculate the comparative cost-effectiveness of TEA versus ORIF. RESULTS: For patients aged 65 years, the total cost of TEA was $19,407 compared with $20,669 for ORIF. The effectiveness of TEA and ORIF was 8.17 and 7.72, respectively. Overall, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of TEA ($2375.76/quality-adjusted life-year) was favored more than ORIF ($2677.26/quality-adjusted life-year). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest TEA is a slightly more cost-effective procedure than ORIF for most elderly patients who sustain acute, intra-articular distal humeral fractures. Still, the unique limitations, complications, and revision rates for each strategy must be carefully weighed for each patient when making a decision.