Describing the spine surgery learning curve during the first two years of independent practice.

ABSTRACT: Retrospective cohort studyTo characterize the learning curve of a spine surgeon during the first 2 years of independent practice by comparing to an experienced colleague. To stratify learning curves based on procedure to evaluate the effect of experience on surgical complexity.The learning curve for spine surgery is difficult to quantify, but is useful information for hospital administrators/surgical programs/new graduates, so appropriate expectations and accommodations are considered.Data from a retrospective cohort (2014-2016) were analyzed at a quaternary academic institution servicing a geographically-isolated, mostly rural area. Procedures included anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, posterior cervical decompression and stabilization, single and 2-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion, lumbar discectomy, and laminectomy. Data related to patient demographics, after-hours surgery, and revision surgery were collected. Operative time was the primary outcome measure, with secondary measures including cerebrospinal fluid leak and early re-operation. Time periods were stratified into 6 month quarters (quarter [Q] 1-Q4), with STATA software used for statistical analysis.There were 626 patients meeting inclusion criteria. The senior surgeon had similar operative times throughout the study. The new surgeon demonstrated a decrease in operative time from Q1 to Q4 (158 minutes-119 minutes, P < .05); however, the mean operative time was shorter for the senior surgeon at 2 years (91 minutes, P < .05). The senior surgeon performed more revision surgeries (odds ratio [OR] 2.5 [95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7-3.6]; P < .001). Posterior interbody fusion times remained longer for the new surgeon, while laminectomy surgery was similar to the senior surgeon by 2 years. There were no differences in rates of cerebrospinal fluid leak (OR 1.2 [95% CI 0.6-2.5]; P > .05), nor reoperation (OR 1.16 [95% CI 0.7-1.9]; P > .05) between surgeons.A significant learning curve exists starting spine practice and likely extends beyond the first 2 years for elective operations.

Increased access to nurse practitioner care in rural Nebraska after removal of required integrated practice agreement.

Nebraska is a largely rural state with many communities defined as medically underserved by primary care providers. In 2014, the state legislature voted to eliminate the requirement for an integrated practice agreement (IPA) between nurse practitioners (NPs) and physicians. This report describes changes in access to primary health care in rural and underserved areas of Nebraska after removal of the IPA barrier to practice. The report compares the number of primary care NPs working in medically underserved areas before and after the legislation that ended the required IPA. In addition, anecdotes will be provided of NP and patient experiences in rural, NP-owned practices in Nebraska after IPA requirements were eliminated.

Independent practice associations: Advantages and disadvantages of an alternative form of physician practice organization.

BACKGROUND: Value-based purchasing (VBP) favors provider organizations large enough to accept financial risk and develop care management infrastructure. Independent Practice Associations (IPAs) are a potential alternative for physicians to becoming employed by a hospital or large medical group. But little is known about IPAs. METHODS: We selected four IPAs that vary in location, structure, and strategy, and conducted interviews with their president and medical director, as well as with a hospital executive and health plan executive familiar with that IPA. RESULTS: The IPAs studied vary in size and sophistication, but overall are performing well and are highly regarded by hospital and health plan executives. IPAs can grow rapidly without the cost of purchasing and operating physician practices and make it possible for physicians to remain independent in their own practices while providing the scale and care management infrastructure to make it possible to succeed in VBP. However, it can be difficult for IPAs to gain cooperation from hundreds to thousands of independent physicians, and the need for capital for growth and care management infrastructure is increasing as VBP becomes more prevalent and more demanding. CONCLUSIONS: Some IPAs are succeeding at VBP. As VBP raises the performance bar, IPAs will have to demonstrate that they can achieve results equal to more highly capitalized and tightly structured large medical groups and hospital-owned practices. IMPLICATIONS: Physicians should be aware of IPAs as a potential option for participating in VBP. Payers are aware of IPAs; the Medicare ACO program and health insurer ACO programs include many IPAs.

Formation of combined urology and radiation oncology practices: objective data from radiation oncologists for rationale.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine motivating factors for radiation oncologists to form joint ventures with urologists to provide intensity modulated radiation treatment (IMRT) to prostate cancer patients that the urologists diagnose. METHODS: The American College of Radiation Oncology developed a survey and requested responses from radiation oncologists who had professional relationships with urologists to deliver prostate cancer intensity modulated radiation treatment in a combined practice. Daily patient treatment totals and practice characteristics were queried. To date, there is no actual data to elucidate the motivation of radiation oncologists to form such an association. RESULTS: All 75 respondents indicated that their practice model was a multispecialty group, in which the radiation oncologist has an employment agreement to receive the professional component for radiation treatment services, and was also a financial partner in the technical component. All respondents were economically displaced in a geographic region by existing radiation oncology groups, hospital-based radiation oncology practice, or both. All radiation oncologist respondents stated that they were unable to achieve professional partnership status within a radiation oncology group, and 98.6% were unable to obtain a share of the technical component for radiation treatment. Eighty-six percent of respondents treated patients with nonprostate malignancies in their facility, at a rate of 1.9 times more nonprostate patients than prostate patients. CONCLUSION: This data may indicate that radiation oncologists combine with urologists in a geographic area where the radiation oncologist has been economically displaced, has existing referral patterns, and continues to treat other patients with nonprostate malignancies.

What are we without risk? The physician organization at a crossroads.

The managed care market in Chicago is experiencing rapid change. As health maintenance organization (HMO) enrollment flattens or even declines, and capitation becomes less sustainable for many, physician organizations are reevaluating their continued participation in risk-based contracts and are struggling to define their future roles. Physician organizations are looking for new ways to provide value to their physician members. Physician hospital organizations (PHOs) in particular are reassessing how the organization can continue to serve the interests of both the physicians and their hospital partners. To better understand the concerns of physician organizations, The Lowell Group surveyed Chicago area provider executives on their top issues. Three major concerns emerged: (1) protecting the financial health of the organization; (2) predicting the future of the managed care industry; and (3) evolving the physician organization to meet changing market conditions. Ultimately, physician organizations must make business decisions that support their true goals-serving patients and purchasers of care, physician members, and the organization's owners.

Reevaluation of capitation contracting in New York and California.

We obtained detailed quantitative and interview data from Aetna U.S. Healthcare and six physician organizations to examine changes between 1998 and 2000 in the scope of capitation contracting and delegation of responsibility for claims payment and medical management in New York and California. The physician organizations in New York included Benchmark (Continuum), Montefiore IPA, and Lenox Hill Healthcare Network. In California they included Brown and Toland Medical Group, Monarch Healthcare, and Santa Clara County IPA. In both California, where global and shared risk capitation have been common, and New York, where they have not, we find movement to reduce the scope of prepayment and a rethinking of the delegated contractual relationship by physician organizations and health plans. This represents a departure from the 1990s, when many industry participants and analysts expected capitated and delegated relationships to spread across the nation.