RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Educational debt is commonly observed among applicants to orthopaedic surgery residency programs; however, an understanding of the debt burden among minority and nonminority applicants is not well established. Thus, this study aimed to fill these knowledge gaps by examining the extent of and factors shaping educational debt among orthopaedic surgery applicants. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the educational debt burden among orthopaedic surgery residency applicants? (2) After controlling for relevant confounding variables, what factors are independently associated with increasing levels of educational debt? (3) After controlling for relevant confounding variables, are individuals classified as an underrepresented minority or those with educational debt and socioeconomic disadvantage less likely to match in orthopaedic surgery? METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of orthopaedic surgery residency application data from the American Association of Medical Colleges was analyzed from 2011 to 2021. The American Association of Medical Colleges database was selected because every residency applicant must register and apply through the American Association of Medical Colleges. Therefore, these data exist for every residency applicant, and the sample was comprehensive. Self-reported data including premedical, medical, and total educational debt burden as well as classification as socioeconomically disadvantaged and application fee waiver use were collected. Applicants were dichotomously categorized as an underrepresented minority or a not underrepresented minority based upon self-identified race and ethnicity. Monetary values were reported in USD and inflation-adjusted to 2021 using the Consumer Price Index. We performed t-tests and chi-square tests for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Significance was considered at p < 0.05. In all, 12,112 applicants were available in the initial cohort, and 67% (8170 of 12,112) of applicants with complete data were included from 2011 to 2021 in the final study cohort. Of these, 18% (1510 of 8170) were women, 14% (1114 of 8170) were classified as underrepresented minorities, and 8% (643 of 8170) were classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged. Sixty-one percent (4969 of 8170) of applicants reported receiving at least one scholarship, 34% (2746 of 8170) had premedical school debt, and 72% (5909 of 8170) had any educational debt including medical school. Among all applicants, the median (IQR) educational debt was USD 197,000 (25,000 to 288,000). Among those with scholarships, the median amount was USD 25,000 (9000 to 86,000). RESULTS: After controlling for the potentially confounding variables of gender and socioeconomic disadvantage, classification as an underrepresented minority applicant was independently associated with higher scholarship amounts than applicants characterized as not underrepresented minorities (ß = USD 20,908 [95% confidence interval (CI) 15,395 to 26,422]; p < 0.001), whereas underrepresented minority classification was not independently associated with a difference in total educational debt (ß = USD 3719 [95% CI -6458 to 13,895]; p = 0.47). After controlling for the potentially confounding variables of gender and classification as an underrepresented minority, socioeconomic disadvantage was independently associated with higher scholarship amounts (ß = USD 20,341 [95% CI 13,300 to 27,382]; p < 0.001) and higher total educational debt (ß = USD 66,162 [95% CI 53,318 to 79,006]; p < 0.001) than applicants not classified as socioeconomically disadvantaged. After controlling for the potentially confounding variables of gender and classification as an underrepresented minority, socioeconomic disadvantage was independently associated with decreased match rates (OR 0.62 [95% CI 0.52 to 0.74]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: These findings underscore the need for comprehensive scholarship initiatives to ensure equitable financial accessibility for applicants from all backgrounds. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In the future, orthopaedic surgery may benefit from research comparing the effectiveness of various initiatives aiming to improve fairness in the burden of debt among applicants to orthopaedic surgery residency programs.
Asunto(s)
Internado y Residencia , Factores Socioeconómicos , Humanos , Internado y Residencia/economía , Internado y Residencia/estadística & datos numéricos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Femenino , Masculino , Estados Unidos , Ortopedia/educación , Ortopedia/economía , Adulto , Grupos Minoritarios/estadística & datos numéricos , Educación de Postgrado en Medicina/economía , Educación de Postgrado en Medicina/estadística & datos numéricos , Apoyo a la Formación Profesional/economía , Selección de Personal/economía , Selección de Personal/estadística & datos numéricosAsunto(s)
Internado y Residencia , Humanos , Internado y Residencia/economía , Internado y Residencia/estadística & datos numéricos , Ortopedia/educación , Ortopedia/economía , Educación de Postgrado en Medicina/economía , Factores Socioeconómicos , Apoyo a la Formación Profesional/economía , Femenino , Masculino , Cirujanos Ortopédicos/economía , Procedimientos Ortopédicos/economía , Procedimientos Ortopédicos/educación , Estados Unidos , Selección de ProfesiónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: High reliability in health care requires a balance between intentionally designed systems and individual professional accountability. One element of accountability includes a process for addressing clinicians whose practices are associated with a disproportionate share of patient complaints. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the Patient Advocacy Reporting System (PARS), a tiered intervention model to reduce patient complaints about clinicians. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted involving a southeastern U.S. orthopaedic group practice. The study assessed the implementation of the PARS program and subsequent malpractice claims from 2004 to 2020. RESULTS: The implementation of PARS was associated with an 83% reduction in malpractice claims cost per high-risk clinician after intervention (p = 0.05; Wilcoxon rank sum test). The overall practice group experienced an 87% reduction in mean annual claims cost per clinician (p = 0.007; segmented regression). The successful adoption required essential elements such as PARS champions, peer messengers, an Office of Patient Affairs, and a clear statement of practice values and professionalism expectations at the time of onboarding. CONCLUSIONS: The PARS program was successfully adopted within a surgical specialty group as a part of ongoing risk prevention and management efforts. The period following PARS was associated with a retrospectively measured reduction in malpractice claim costs. The PARS program can be effectively implemented in a large, single-specialty orthopaedic practice setting and, although not necessarily causal, was, in our case, associated with a period of reduced malpractice claim costs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: We have learned in previous research that there are clear links between professionalism and patient outcomes (e.g., surgical complications), but agree that the focus here on medical malpractice is not directly clinical.
Asunto(s)
Mala Praxis , Ortopedia , Mala Praxis/economía , Mala Praxis/legislación & jurisprudencia , Humanos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Ortopedia/economíaRESUMEN
Medicare is the largest single purchaser of health care in the United States and currently helps to pay medical expenses for approximately one-fifth of the US population. The impetus for Medicare to move away from fee-for-service and toward value-based care payments reflects the need to incentivize and improve healthcare quality while containing increasing costs. This primer provides a detailed overview of several interrelated topics for an improved understanding of the Medicare program for orthopaedic surgeons, other clinicians, healthcare administrators, policymakers, and business leaders. An improved understanding may stimulate additional ideas for successful program advancements.
Asunto(s)
Medicare , Estados Unidos , Medicare/economía , Humanos , Ortopedia/economía , Mejoramiento de la Calidad , Calidad de la Atención de Salud , Planes de Aranceles por Servicios/economíaRESUMEN
In 2017, the British Society for Children's Orthopaedic Surgery engaged the profession and all relevant stakeholders in two formal research prioritization processes. In this editorial, we describe the impact of this prioritization on funding, and how research in children's orthopaedics, which was until very recently a largely unfunded and under-investigated area, is now flourishing. Establishing research priorities was a crucial step in this process.
Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica , Ortopedia , Pediatría , Apoyo a la Investigación como Asunto , Humanos , Ortopedia/economía , Investigación Biomédica/economía , Niño , Reino Unido , Pediatría/economía , Prioridades en SaludRESUMEN
"Top 20" status on Doximity, an online networking service for medical professionals, is an indicator of the reputation of a residency program. The study assesses how training at a Top 20 (T20) orthopaedic residency program impacts career productivity and funding. Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database was used in 2022 to identify active orthopaedic residency programs. Demographic and training data was collected for each orthopaedic surgeon using institutional websites and Doximity. The Residency Navigator feature on Doximity was used to rank residency programs by "reputation." Programs were categorized as either T20 or non-T20. The relative citation ratio (RCR) was calculated using the NIH iCite tool and Hirsch index (h-index) was calculated using Scopus. Industry funding was collected from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Program (CMS) for all available years (2014-2020). A total of 2812 academic orthopaedic surgeons were included in the study. Among academic orthopaedic surgeons in the United States, T20 trained orthopedists had more publications and citations (p < 0.001), along with higher h-indices (p < 0.001), RCR (p < 0.001), and industry funding (p = 0.043). Additionally, T20 trained orthopedists were 1.375 times more likely to obtain professor status (95% confidence interval: 1.150-1.645, p < 0.001). Even after propensity-matched analysis, T20 trained orthopedists maintained these differences. Training at a T20 residency program is associated with promotion, productivity, and funding. These findings are especially of concern to medical students who must consider the importance of a residency program's reputation when deciding where to apply for residency.
Asunto(s)
Internado y Residencia , Internado y Residencia/economía , Humanos , Cirujanos Ortopédicos/educación , Cirujanos Ortopédicos/economía , Estados Unidos , Eficiencia , Ortopedia/educación , Ortopedia/economía , Femenino , MasculinoRESUMEN
Current procedural terminology codes and assigned relative value units associated with arthroscopic hip surgery lag behind other joints in accurately describing, and often undervaluing, what surgery entails. Hip arthroscopy is expensive, and, to address inequity, procedural cost drivers require review. Consumable implants and operating room (OR) time drive the costs associated with the procedure. Hospitals, healthcare payors, patients, and surgeons all benefit from increasing OR efficiency and reducing equipment cost. However, the patient loses if financial strategy supersedes care delivery, and it is wrong to cut necessary use of consumables to save money. Fewer anchors is not the answer (yet we should use reusable, nonimplantable supplies when feasible). The greater opportunity to lower costs is improved OR efficiency, requiring a team approach with buy-in from perioperative, anesthesia, surgical staff, and administrators. OR time is a consistent driver of cost across every type of orthopaedic surgery. Studies evaluating strategies for OR efficiency in hip arthroscopy will benefit the field. By leading this effort, surgeons could be best positioned to address inadequate relative value units.
Asunto(s)
Artroscopía , Quirófanos , Quirófanos/economía , Quirófanos/organización & administración , Humanos , Artroscopía/economía , Eficiencia Organizacional , Control de Costos , Ortopedia/economía , Articulación de la Cadera/cirugíaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: This study sought to understand trends in industry payments for research awarded to orthopedic surgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database was queried for the years 2016 to 2021 for industry payments for research. Financial analyses were performed to understand temporal trends and differences by orthopedic subspecialty and principal investigator characteristics such as sex. The threshold for statistical significance was set at .05. RESULTS: A total of 2014 orthopedic surgeons were identified, among whom 542 adult reconstruction (27%) and 460 sports medicine (23%) surgeons were major beneficiaries. Seventy-one female orthopedic surgeons comprised the minority (4%). Total research payments awarded during the study period aggregated to $266,633,592, with adult reconstruction ($88,819,047; 33%) and sports medicine ($57,949,822; 22%) receiving the highest amounts. Total research payments awarded trended upward yearly except for a decline in 2020 that subsequently rebounded (P<.001). Median annual research payment per orthopedic surgeon was $13,375. Median total industry payments per orthopedic surgeon differed between specialties (P <.001), with the highest amounts for adult reconstruction ($44,063) and sports medicine ($34,567) and the lowest amounts for hand ($12,052) and foot and ankle ($19,233). Median total payments did not differ significantly when stratified by sex (P=.276) and region (P=.906). Specialties in which the respective top three companies offered the majority of the research funding were musculoskeletal oncology (90%), pediatric orthopedics (66%), and shoulder and elbow (64%). CONCLUSION: These results can be used as a primer for orthopedic surgeons seeking to leverage industry relationships to fund translational research. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(3):172-178.].
Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica , Cirujanos Ortopédicos , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Cirujanos Ortopédicos/economía , Cirujanos Ortopédicos/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Masculino , Investigación Biomédica/economía , Conflicto de Intereses/economía , Ortopedia/economía , Industrias/economía , Industrias/estadística & datos numéricosRESUMEN
ABSTRACT: The COVID-19 pandemic and the mandated cessation of surgical procedures for a substantial portion of the 2020 year placed tremendous strain, both clinically and financially, on the health-care system in the United States. As a surgical specialty that accounts for nearly a quarter of all hospital net income, the revenue recovery of orthopaedic service lines (OSLs) is of particular importance to the financial recovery of their broader health-care institutions. In this American Orthopaedic Association (AOA) symposium report, the OSL leaders from 4 major academic medical institutions explain and reflect on their approaches to address their revenue deficits. Cost-reduction strategies, such as tightening budgets, adopting remote-work models, and limiting costs of human capital, were vital to stabilizing departmental finances at the onset of the pandemic, while strategies that focused on expanding surgical volume, such as those that improve efficiency in clinical and surgical settings, were important in growing revenue once elective procedures resumed. Institutional policy, payer administrative procedures, and the overall context of an ongoing public health crisis all placed limitations on recovery efforts, but engaging relevant stakeholders and working with available resources helped OSLs overcome these limitations. Due to clear strategic actions that were taken to address their deficits, each OSL represented in this AOA symposium saw substantial improvement in its year-end financial performance compared with its financial status at the end of the period of mandatory cessation of elective surgical cases.
Asunto(s)
Ortopedia , Humanos , COVID-19/prevención & control , Ortopedia/economía , Pandemias/prevención & control , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: A survey was conducted at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) to evaluate current practice management strategies among AAHKS members. METHODS: An application was used by AAHKS members to answer both multiple-choice and yes or no questions. Specific questions were asked regarding the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on practice patterns. RESULTS: There was a dramatic acceleration in same day total joint arthroplasty with 85% of AAHKS members performing same day total joint arthroplasty. More AAHKS members remain in private practice (46%) than other practice types, whereas fee for service (34%) and relative value units (26%) are the major form of compensation. At the present time, 93% of practices are experiencing staffing shortages, and these shortages are having an impact on surgical volume. CONCLUSION: This survey elucidates the current practice patterns of AAHKS members. The pandemic has had a significant impact on some aspects of practice activity. Future surveys need to monitor changes in practice patterns over time.
Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ambulatorios , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla , COVID-19 , Fuerza Laboral en Salud , Ortopedia , Gestión de la Práctica Profesional , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Ambulatorios/estadística & datos numéricos , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera/economía , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera/métodos , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Cadera/estadística & datos numéricos , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla/economía , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla/métodos , Artroplastia de Reemplazo de Rodilla/estadística & datos numéricos , COVID-19/epidemiología , Atención a la Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Encuestas de Atención de la Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Fuerza Laboral en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Ortopedia/economía , Ortopedia/organización & administración , Ortopedia/estadística & datos numéricos , Pandemias , Gestión de la Práctica Profesional/economía , Gestión de la Práctica Profesional/organización & administración , Gestión de la Práctica Profesional/estadística & datos numéricos , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/economía , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/organización & administración , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/estadística & datos numéricos , Práctica Profesional/economía , Práctica Profesional/organización & administración , Práctica Profesional/estadística & datos numéricos , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Although multiple studies have consistently demonstrated that orthopaedic surgeons receive greater transfers of value than other specialties, the industry payments of providers who are involved in the formation of practice guidelines have not been thoroughly explored. Therefore, the purpose of our analysis was to evaluate the industry payments of the authors of the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS). METHODS: The publicly available AAOS web portal (OrthoGuidelines.org) was queried for all AUCs that had been released between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2019, regarding the management of musculoskeletal pathologies. A cross-sectional analysis of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments database was conducted to determine the number and total value of industry payments to AUC voting committee members during the year of voting for the AUC. Industry payments for each orthopaedic surgeon voting member were compared with payments received by orthopaedic surgeons nationwide who received any payment within the same year. The proportion of orthopaedic surgeon voting members who received any industry payment was compared with the proportion of orthopaedic surgeons nationwide who received payments. RESULTS: Our analysis included a total of 18 different AUCs with 216 voting members, 157 of whom were orthopaedic surgeons. Of the orthopaedic surgeon voting members, 105 (67%) received industry payments, a rate roughly comparable with the national average among orthopaedic surgeons (74%). For 7 of 18 AUCs (39%), the median payment per orthopaedic surgeon voting member was above the median among orthopaedic surgeons receiving payments nationwide that year. Qualitatively, orthopaedic surgeon voting members were more likely to receive payments in the form of royalties, licenses, or speaking fees than orthopaedic surgeons nationwide. CONCLUSIONS: AUC voting members receive payments at frequencies and magnitudes that are roughly comparable with orthopaedic surgeons nationwide. Whether voting panel members receiving payments at these rates is ideal or is in the best interest of patients is a policy decision for the AAOS and society at large. Our study confirms that payments are common and, thus, continued vigilance is justified.
Asunto(s)
Industrias/economía , Cirujanos Ortopédicos/economía , Ortopedia/economía , Conflicto de Intereses , Bases de Datos Factuales , Humanos , Medicare , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Maintenance of Certification (MOC) is a controversial topic in medicine for many different reasons. Studies have suggested that there may be associations between fewer negative outcomes and participation in MOC. However, MOC still remains controversial because of its cost. We sought to determine the estimated cost of MOC to the average orthopaedic surgeon, including fees and time cost, defined as the market value of the physician's time. METHODS: We calculated the total cost of MOC to be the sum of the fees required for applications, examinations, and other miscellaneous fees as well as the time cost to the physician and staff. Costs were calculated for the oral, written, and American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Web-based Longitudinal Assessment (ABOS WLA) MOC pathways based on the responses of 33 orthopaedic surgeons to a survey sent to a state orthopaedic society. RESULTS: We calculated the average orthopaedic surgeon's total cost in time and fees over the decade-long period to be $71,440.61 ($7,144.06 per year) for the oral examination MOC pathway and $80,391.55 ($8,039.16 per year) for the written examination pathway. We calculated the cost of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery web-based examination pathway to be $69,721.04 ($6,972.10 per year). CONCLUSIONS: The actual cost of MOC is much higher than just the fees paid to organizations providing services. The majority of the cost comes in the form of time cost to the physician. The ABOS WLA was implemented to alleviate the anxiety of a high-stakes examination and to encourage efficient longitudinal learning. We found that the ABOS WLA pathway does save time and money when compared with the written examination pathway when review courses and study periods are taken. We believe that future policy changes should focus on decreasing physician time spent completing MOC requirements, and decreasing the cost of these requirements, while preserving the model of continued evidence-based medical education.
Asunto(s)
Certificación/economía , Educación Médica Continua/economía , Cirujanos Ortopédicos/economía , Ortopedia/normas , Sociedades Médicas/normas , Certificación/normas , Costos y Análisis de Costo/estadística & datos numéricos , Educación Médica Continua/normas , Humanos , Cirujanos Ortopédicos/normas , Ortopedia/economía , Sociedades Médicas/economía , Factores de Tiempo , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: As the urgent care landscape evolves, specialized musculoskeletal urgent care centers (MUCCs) are becoming more prevalent. MUCCs have been offered as a convenient, cost-effective option for timely acute orthopaedic care. However, a recent "secret-shopper" study on patient access to MUCCs in Connecticut demonstrated that patients with Medicaid had limited access to these orthopaedic-specific urgent care centers. To investigate how generalizable these regional findings are to the United States, we conducted a nationwide secret-shopper study of MUCCs to identify determinants of patient access. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of MUCCs in the United States provide access for patients with Medicaid insurance? (2) What factors are associated with MUCCs providing access for patients with Medicaid insurance? (3) What barriers exist for patients seeking care at MUCCs? METHODS: An online search of all MUCCs across the United States was conducted in this cross-sectional study. Three separate search modalities were used to gather a complete list. Of the 565 identified, 558 were contacted by phone with investigators posing over the telephone as simulated patients seeking treatment for a sprained ankle. Thirty-nine percent (216 of 558) of centers were located in the South, 13% (71 of 558) in the West, 25% (138 of 558) in the Midwest, and 24% (133 of 558) in New England. This study was given an exemption waiver by our institution's IRB. MUCCs were contacted using a standardized script to assess acceptance of Medicaid insurance and identify barriers to care. Question 1 was answered through determining the percentage of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid insurance. Question 2 considered whether there was an association between Medicaid acceptance and factors such as Medicaid physician reimbursements or MUCC center type. Question 3 sought to characterize the prevalence of any other means of limiting access for Medicaid patients, including requiring a referral for a visit and disallowing continuity of care at that MUCC. RESULTS: Of the MUCCs contacted, 58% (323 of 558) accepted Medicaid insurance. In 16 states, the proportion of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid was equal to or less than 50%. In 22 states, all MUCCs surveyed accepted Medicaid insurance. Academic-affiliated MUCCs accepted Medicaid patients at a higher proportion than centers owned by private practices (odds ratio 14 [95% CI 4.2 to 44]; p < 0.001). States with higher Medicaid physician reimbursements saw proportional increases in the percentage of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid insurance under multivariable analysis (OR 36 [95% CI 14 to 99]; p < 0.001). Barriers to care for Medicaid patients characterized included location restriction and primary care physician referral requirements. CONCLUSION: It is clear that musculoskeletal urgent care at these centers is inaccessible to a large segment of the Medicaid-insured population. This inaccessibility seems to be related to state Medicaid physician fee schedules and a center's affiliation with a private orthopaedic practice, indicating how underlying financial pressures influence private practice policies. Ultimately, the refusal of Medicaid by MUCCs may lead to disparities in which patients with private insurance are cared for at MUCCs, while those with Medicaid may experience delays in care. Going forward, there are three main options to tackle this issue: increasing Medicaid physician reimbursement to provide a financial incentive, establishing stricter standards for MUCCs to operate at the state level, or streamlining administration to reduce costs overall. Further research will be necessary to evaluate which policy intervention will be most effective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.
Asunto(s)
Instituciones de Atención Ambulatoria/economía , Atención Ambulatoria/economía , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/economía , Medicaid/estadística & datos numéricos , Ortopedia/economía , Atención Ambulatoria/organización & administración , Instituciones de Atención Ambulatoria/organización & administración , Estudios Transversales , Geografía , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/organización & administración , Humanos , Enfermedades Musculoesqueléticas/economía , Enfermedades Musculoesqueléticas/terapia , Ortopedia/métodos , Políticas , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
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.
Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Ortopédicos/economía , Ortopedia/economía , Paquetes de Atención al Paciente/economía , Mecanismo de Reembolso/economía , Humanos , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
ABSTRACT: The shift to value-based care is changing the practice of medicine. In order to prepare our orthopaedic trainees to survive in a value-based health-care environment, we must expose them to and educate them about value-based programs. This creates both challenges and opportunities for training programs. Academic medical centers (AMCs) will need to carefully consider how to adopt value-based programs and agreements, and assess whether they need alternative facilities, partnerships, or processes in order to be successful. Process improvement principles to adapt physician behavior, the introduction of outcome metrics into the surgical decision-making process, and the development of team-based care can greatly enhance the likelihood of success. AMCs should embrace these challenges to ensure that their residents are well-prepared for the future.
Asunto(s)
Centros Médicos Académicos/organización & administración , Internado y Residencia/métodos , Ortopedia/educación , Compra Basada en Calidad/organización & administración , Centros Médicos Académicos/economía , Humanos , Internado y Residencia/economía , Ortopedia/economíaAsunto(s)
Costos de la Atención en Salud/legislación & jurisprudencia , Política de Salud/legislación & jurisprudencia , Ortopedia/legislación & jurisprudencia , Política , Seguro de Salud Basado en Valor , Compra Basada en Calidad/legislación & jurisprudencia , Ahorro de Costo , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Regulación Gubernamental , Política de Salud/economía , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/economía , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/legislación & jurisprudencia , Humanos , Procedimientos Ortopédicos/economía , Procedimientos Ortopédicos/legislación & jurisprudencia , Ortopedia/economía , Formulación de Políticas , Seguro de Salud Basado en Valor/economía , Compra Basada en Calidad/economíaRESUMEN
Upper extremity surgeons perform diverse operations, including hand surgery, microsurgery, and shoulder/elbow arthroscopy and arthroplasty. Declining orthopedic reimbursement rates may encourage surgeons to adjust their case mix, favoring a shift toward procedures with higher compensation. To determine whether upper extremity surgeons and hand-fellowship trainees may be financially incentivized to perform more shoulder/elbow procedures than hand procedures in a hospital-based setting, relative value unit (RVU) compensation rates were compared for these 2 fields. Using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-assigned work RVUs (wRVU) and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program operative time data, wRVU compensation rates per minute of operative time were determined for common shoulder/elbow surgeries. Overall nonweighted and weighted wRVU/min averages were calculated for hospital-based shoulder/elbow and hand surgery. A total of 27 shoulder/elbow procedures and 53 hand surgery procedures were analyzed. Nonweighted comparison showed shoulder/elbow surgery had a higher wRVU/min (0.19±0.03 vs 0.14±0.05, P<.0001) vs hand surgery. When weighted by procedure frequency, shoulder/elbow surgery also had higher wRVU/min (0.19±0.02 vs 0.15±0.05, P<.0001). Fourteen of the 27 shoulder/elbow procedures were compensated either the same wRVU/min or more than all hand procedures except for epicondyle debridement and flexor tendon bursectomy. Almost half of commonly performed shoulder/elbow procedures were compensated at greater rates than most hand procedures in a hospital-based setting. This disproportionate compensation may affect upper extremity surgeons' case mix and motivate providers and hand-fellowship trainees to seek additional training in shoulder arthroplasty and arthroscopy to supplement their practice. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(3):e373-e377.].
Asunto(s)
Reembolso de Seguro de Salud/economía , Tempo Operativo , Procedimientos Ortopédicos/economía , Ortopedia/economía , Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. , Codo/cirugía , Mano/cirugía , Hospitales , Humanos , Reembolso de Seguro de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Procedimientos Ortopédicos/estadística & datos numéricos , Ortopedia/educación , Escalas de Valor Relativo , Hombro/cirugía , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
AIMS: Gender bias and sexual discrimination (GBSD) have been widely recognized across a range of fields and are now part of the wider social consciousness. Such conduct can occur in the medical workplace, with detrimental effects on recipients. The aim of this review was to identify the prevalence and impact of GBSD in orthopaedic surgery, and to investigate interventions countering such behaviours. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by searching Medline, EMCARE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library Database in April 2020, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to which we adhered. Original research papers pertaining to the prevalence and impact of GBSD, or mitigating strategies, within orthopaedics were included for review. RESULTS: Of 570 papers, 27 were eligible for inclusion. These were published between 1998 and 2020. A narrative review was performed in light of the significant heterogeneity displayed by the eligible studies. A total of 13 papers discussed the prevalence of GBSD, while 13 related to the impact of these behaviours, and six discussed mitigating strategies. GBSD was found to be common in the orthopaedic workplace, with all sources showing women to be the subjects. The impact of this includes poor workforce representation, lower salaries, and less career success, including in academia, for women in orthopaedics. Mitigating strategies in the literature are focused on providing female role models, mentors, and educational interventions. CONCLUSION: GBSD is common in orthopaedic surgery, with a substantial impact on sufferers. A small number of mitigating strategies have been tested but these are limited in their scope. As such, the orthopaedic community is obliged to participate in more thoughtful and proactive strategies that mitigate against GBSD, by improving female recruitment and retention within the specialty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1446-1456.
Asunto(s)
Ortopedia/estadística & datos numéricos , Sexismo/prevención & control , Sexismo/estadística & datos numéricos , Éxito Académico , Empleo/economía , Empleo/normas , Empleo/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Fuerza Laboral en Salud/economía , Fuerza Laboral en Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Humanos , Masculino , Mentores , Ortopedia/economía , Ortopedia/educación , Ortopedia/normas , Rol del Médico , Prevalencia , Sexismo/economía , Cambio Social , Factores SocioeconómicosRESUMEN
AIMS: Approximately 75% of fractures are simple, stable injuries which are often unnecessarily immobilised with subsequent repeated radiographs at numerous fracture clinic visits. In 2014, the Glasgow Fracture Pathway offered an alternative virtual fracture clinic (VFC) pathway with the potential to reduce traditional fracture clinic visits, waiting times and overall costs. Many units have implemented this style of pathway in the non-operative management of simple, undisplaced fractures. This study aims to systematically review the clinical outcomes, patient reported outcomes and cost analyses for VFCs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed the literature search based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing the MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE Library databases. Studies reporting outcomes following the use of VFC were included. Outcomes analysed were: 1) clinical outcomes, 2) patient reported outcomes, and 3) cost analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 15 studies involving 11,921 patients with a mean age of 41.1 years and mean follow-up of 12.6 months were included. In total, 65.7% of patients were directly virtually discharged with protocol derived conservative management, with 9.1% using the Helpline and 15.6% contacting their general practitioner for advice or reassurance. A total of 1.2% of patients experienced fracture non-unions and 0.4% required surgical intervention. The overall patient satisfaction rate was 81.0%, with only 1.3% experiencing residual pain at the fracture site. Additionally, the mean cost per patient for VFC was £71, with a mean saving of £53 when compared to traditional clinic models. Subgroup analysis found that for undisplaced fifth metatarsal or radial head/neck fractures, the rates of discharge from VFC to physiotherapy or general practitioners were 81.2% and 93.7% respectively. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This study established that there is excellent evidence to support virtual fracture clinic for non-operative management of fifth metatarsal fractures, with moderate evidence for radial head and neck fractures. However, the routine use of virtual fracture clinics is presently not validated for all stable, undisplaced fracture patterns. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; Systematic Review of all Levels of Evidence.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/prevención & control , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia/métodos , Fracturas Óseas/diagnóstico , Ortopedia/métodos , Consulta Remota/métodos , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/transmisión , Control de Enfermedades Transmisibles/normas , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia/economía , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia/normas , Fracturas Óseas/terapia , Humanos , Ortopedia/economía , Ortopedia/organización & administración , Ortopedia/normas , Satisfacción del Paciente , Consulta Remota/economía , Consulta Remota/organización & administración , Consulta Remota/normas , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: In addition to the advantages for patients and physicians, the progression of digitalization will also have economic implications for healthcare systems in toto worldwide. The integration of digital innovations enables healthcare institutions to transform their current activities and processes and to create a new form of patient care. IMPORTANT ECONOMIC TOPICS OF DIGITALIZATION: Using digital applications process optimization can be achieved by increased efficiency and therefore a reduction in costs in the healthcare system. Improved processes can in turn achieve an increase in quality in the treatment of patients. Simultaneously, a duplication of investigations can be avoided through digital interfaces and the communication among the healthcare professions involved can be improved, which would result in a conservation of resources. Finally, these influences can lead to more precision in medicine, acceleration of healing processes and represent an advantage for all parties involved. PERSPECTIVES: Economic redistribution due to digitalization of medicine will become increasingly apparent in the future. Ethical considerations as well as data protection will be important topics. At the same time investments and digital innovations must be sponsored by the government and industry. Scientific studies are necessary to secure the evidence of new methods for practice in orthopedics and trauma surgery.