Effect of a Biopsychosocial Intervention or Postural Therapy on Disability and Health Care Spending Among Patients With Acute and Subacute Spine Pain: The SPINE CARE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Low back and neck pain are often self-limited, but health care spending remains high. Objective: To evaluate the effects of 2 interventions that emphasize noninvasive care for spine pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, cluster, randomized clinical trial conducted at 33 centers in the US that enrolled 2971 participants with neck or back pain of 3 months' duration or less (enrollment, June 2017 to March 2020; final follow-up, March 2021). Interventions: Participants were randomized at the clinic-level to (1) usual care (n = 992); (2) a risk-stratified, multidisciplinary intervention (the identify, coordinate, and enhance [ICE] care model that combines physical therapy, health coach counseling, and consultation from a specialist in pain medicine or rehabilitation) (n = 829); or (3) individualized postural therapy (IPT), a postural therapy approach that combines physical therapy with building self-efficacy and self-management (n = 1150). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were change in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score at 3 months (range, 0 [best] to 100 [worst]; minimal clinically important difference, 6) and spine-related health care spending at 1 year. A 2-sided significance threshold of .025 was used to define statistical significance. Results: Among 2971 participants randomized (mean age, 51.7 years; 1792 women [60.3%]), 2733 (92%) finished the trial. Between baseline and 3-month follow-up, mean ODI scores changed from 31.2 to 15.4 for ICE, from 29.3 to 15.4 for IPT, and from 28.9 to 19.5 for usual care. At 3-month follow-up, absolute differences compared with usual care were -5.8 (95% CI, -7.7 to -3.9; P < .001) for ICE and -4.3 (95% CI, -5.9 to -2.6; P < .001) for IPT. Mean 12-month spending was $1448, $2528, and $1587 in the ICE, IPT, and usual care groups, respectively. Differences in spending compared with usual care were -$139 (risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87 to 0.997]; P = .04) for ICE and $941 (risk ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.45]; P < .001) for IPT. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute or subacute spine pain, a multidisciplinary biopsychosocial intervention or an individualized postural therapy intervention, each compared with usual care, resulted in small but statistically significant reductions in pain-related disability at 3 months. However, compared with usual care, the biopsychosocial intervention resulted in no significant difference in spine-related health care spending and the postural therapy intervention resulted in significantly greater spine-related health care spending at 1 year. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03083886.

Does Operative Management of Epidural Abscesses Increase Healthcare Expenditures up to 1 Year After Treatment?

BACKGROUND: The incidence of spinal epidural abscesses is increasing. What is more, they are associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Advances in diagnostic imaging and antibiotic therapies have made earlier diagnosis and nonoperative management feasible in appropriately selected patients. Nonoperative treatment also has the advantage of lower immediate healthcare charges; however, it is unknown whether initial nonoperative care leads to higher healthcare charges long term. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Does operative intervention generate higher charges than nonoperative treatment over the course of 1 year after the initial treatment of spinal epidural abscesses? (2) Does the treatment of spinal epidural abscesses in people who actively use intravenous drugs generate higher charges than management in people who do not? METHODS: This retrospective comparative study at two tertiary academic centers compared adult patients with spinal epidural abscesses treated operatively and nonoperatively from January 2016 through December 2017. Ninety-five patients were identified, with four excluded for lack of billing data and one excluded for concomitant intracranial abscess. Indications for operative management included new or progressive motor deficit, lack of response to nonoperative treatment including persistent or progressive systemic illness, or initial sepsis requiring urgent source control. Of the included patients, 52% (47 of 90) received operative treatment with no differences in age, gender, BMI, and Charlson comorbidity index between groups, nor any difference in 30-day all-cause readmission rate, 1-year reoperation rate, or 2-year mortality. Furthermore, 29% (26 of 90) of patients actively used intravenous drugs and were younger, with a lower BMI and lower Charlson comorbidity index, with no differences in 30-day all-cause readmission rate, 1-year reoperation rate, or 2-year mortality. Cumulative charges at the index hospital discharge and 90 days and 1 year after discharge were compared based on operative or nonoperative management and secondarily by intravenous drug use status. Medical records, laboratory results, and hospital billing data were reviewed for data extraction. Demographic factors including age, gender, region of abscess, intravenous drug use, and comorbidities were extracted, along with clinical factors such as symptoms and ambulatory function at presentation, spinal instability, intensive care unit admission, and complications. The primary outcome was charges associated with care at the index hospital discharge and 90 days and 1 year after discharge. All covariates extracted were included in this analysis using negative binomial regression that accounted for confounders and the nonparametric nature of charge data. Results are presented as an incidence rate ratio with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: After adjusting for demographic and clinical variables such as age, gender, BMI, ambulatory status, presence of mechanical instability, and intensive care unit admission among others, we found higher charges for the group treated with surgery compared with those treated nonoperatively at the index admission (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.62 [95% CI 1.35 to 1.94]; p < 0.001) and at 1 year (IRR 1.36 [95% CI 1.10 to 1.68]; p = 0.004). Adjusted analysis also showed that active intravenous drug use was also associated with higher charges at the index admission (IRR 1.57 [95% CI 1.16 to 2.14]; p = 0.004) but no difference at 1 year (IRR 1.11 [95% CI 0.79 to 1.57]; p = 0.55). CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary teams caring for patients with spinal epidural abscesses should understand that the decreased charges associated with selecting nonoperative management during the index admission persist at 1 year with no difference in 30-day readmission rates, 1-year reoperation rates, or 2-year mortality. On the other hand, patients with active intravenous drug use have higher index admission charges that do not persist at 1 year, with no difference in 30-day readmission rates, 1-year reoperation rates, or 2-year mortality. These results suggest possible economic benefit to nonoperative management of epidural abscesses without increases in readmission or mortality rates, further tipping the scale in an evolving framework of clinical decision-making. Future studies should investigate if these economic implications are mirrored on the patient-facing side to determine whether any financial burden is shifted onto patients and their families in nonoperative management. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Relationship between hospital specialization and health outcomes in patients with nonsurgical spinal joint disease in South Korea: A nationwide evidence-based study using national health insurance data.

ABSTRACT: Previous studies on hospital specialization in spinal joint disease have been limited to patients requiring surgical treatment. The lack of similar research on the nonsurgical spinal joint disease in specialized hospitals provides limited information to hospital executives.To analyze the relationship between hospital specialization and health outcomes (length of stay and medical expenses) with a focus on nonsurgical spinal joint diseases.The data of 56,516 patients, which were obtained from the 2018 National Inpatient Sample, provided by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, were utilized. The study focused on inpatients with nonsurgical spinal joint disease and used a generalized linear mixed model with specialization status as the independent variable. Hospital specialization was measured using the Inner Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (IHI). The IHI (value ≤1) was calculated as the proportion of hospital discharges accounted for by each service category out of the hospital's total discharges. Patient and hospital characteristics were the control variables, and the mean length of hospital stay and medical expenses were the dependent variables.The majority of the patients with the nonsurgical spinal joint disease were female. More than half of all patients were middle-aged (40-64 years old). The majority did not undergo surgery and had mild disease, with Charlson Comorbidity Index score ≤1. The mean inpatient expense was 1265.22 USD per patient, and the mean length of stay was 9.2 days. The specialization status of a hospital had a negative correlation with the length of stay, as well as with medical expenses. An increase in specialization status, that is, IHI, was associated with a decrease in medical expenses and the length of stay, after adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics.Hospital specialization had a positive effect on hospital efficiency. The results of this study could inform decision-making by hospital executives and specialty hospital-related medical policymakers.

Current Procedural Terminology-based Procedure Categorization Enhances Cost Prediction of Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group in Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze how a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT)-based categorization method can predict cost variation in surgical spine procedures. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Neck and back disorders affect a majority of the adult population and account for tens of billions of dollars in health care spending each year. In the era of bundled payments and value-based reimbursement, it is imperative for surgeons to identify sources of cost variability across surgical spine procedures. Historically, this has been accomplished using Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) codes, but they utilize an overly simplistic categorization of surgical procedures. The specificity and familiarity of the CPT coding structure makes it a better option for categorizing differences in surgical decision making and technique. METHODS: Hospital billing data for patients undergoing a surgical spine procedure requiring an overnight, in-patient stay was retrospectively collected over 4 fiscal years (2012-2016) from a single health care system. Linear regression analysis was performed to assess the correlation between cost variation and: spine-specific MS-DRG codes; a novel CPT-based categorization method; and the combination of MS-DRG codes and CPT-based categorization. RESULTS: There were 5020 surgical procedures were analyzed with respect to 16 different MS-DRG codes and 30 distinct CPT-based surgical categories (CSCs). Linear regression results were: MS-DRG R2 = 0.6545 (P < 0.001); CSC R2 = 0.5709 (P < 0.001); and R2 = 0.744 for the combined MS-DRG and CSC methods (P < 0.05). Median difference between the actual and predicted cost for the combined model was -$261.00, compared with -$727.50 for the CSC model and -$478.70 for the MS-DRG model. CONCLUSION: Addition of the CPT-based categorization method to MS-DRG coding provides an enhanced method to evaluate the association between predicted and actual cost when using linear regression analysis to assess cost variation in spine surgery.Level of Evidence: 3.

Health Care Lobbying, Political Action Committees, and Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the political contributions and strategies of the Political Action Committee (PACs) lobbying for the political interests of spine surgeons. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: In 2016, a presidential election year, $514,224,628 was spent on health care lobbying. Only 16% ($85,061,148) was on behalf of health professionals providing care. Below we chronicle the overlapping contributions between the three different physician-based Political Action Committee (PAC) lobbying entities as it relates specifically to spine surgery. METHODS: Data were abstracted for the PACs of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS), American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), and the North American Spine Society (NASS). These data were obtained using OpenSecrets (opensecrets.org), and the Federal Election Commission (fec.gov) website. All data points were collected biannually from 2006 to 2018 and statistically analyzed as appropriate. RESULTS: In 2016, the AAOS PAC contributed $2,648,218, the AANS PAC $348,091, and the NASS PAC $183,612. After accounting for respective group size, the AAOS spent >2.34 times that of the AANS. Orthopedists were 3.84 times (95% confidence interval 3.42-4.3) more likely to donate to their PAC than neurosurgeons (P < 0.001) during the 2016 election. The majority of contributions among the three different lobbyist organizations were to federal candidates, followed by fundraising committees, and finally to the national party. Eighty-eight percent of AANS donations went to Republican candidates, whereas AAOS and NASS were 63% and 67%, respectively. From 2008 to 2016, the AAOS PAC had a highest political contributions spend per active member of parent organization ($126.39) as compared to AANS ($80.52) and NASS ($17.81). The AAOS had five surgeons for every donor to the AAOS PAC, whereas the AANS had 14 surgeons and NASS 38 members per each donor. The AANS had a higher percentage of Republican donations with 78.9% of donations going to Republicans as compared to 61.8% of AAOS contributions and 67.9% of NASS contributions. CONCLUSION: Spine surgery is unique in that three different physician-based lobbyist organizations seek to influence legislative priorities with the AAOS having the most substantial fiscal impact and greatest participation. Choreography of donation strategies is essential to maximize physician voice at the policy level. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5.

A cost utility analysis of treating different adult spinal deformity frailty states.

The aim of this study was to investigate the cost utility of treating non-frail versus frail or severely frail adult spinal deformity (ASD) patients. 79 surgical ASD patients >18 years with available frailty and ODI data at baseline and 2-years post-surgery (2Y) were included. Utility data was calculated using the ODI converted to the SF-6D. QALYs utilized a 3% discount rate to account for decline to life expectancy (LE). Costs were calculated using the PearlDiver database. ICER was compared between non-operative (non-op.) and operative (op.) NF and F/SF patients at 2Y and LE. When compared to non-operative ASD, the ICER was $447,943.96 vs. $313,211.01 for NF and F/SF at 2Y, and $68,311.35 vs. $47,764.61 for NF and F/SF at LE. Frail and severely frail patients had lower cost per QALY compared to not frail patients at 2Y and life expectancy, and had lower ICER values when compared to a non-operative cohort of ASD patients. While these results support operative correction of frail and severely frail patients, it is important to note that these patients are often at worse baseline disability, which is closely related to frailty scores, and have more opportunity to improve postoperatively. Furthermore, there may be a threshold of frailty that is not operable due to the risk of severe complications that is not captured by this analysis. While future research should investigate economic outcomes at extended follow up times, these findings support the cost effectiveness of ASD surgery at all frailty states.

Undisclosed Conflict of Interest Is Prevalent in Spine Literature.

STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the rate of accurate conflict of interest (COI) disclosure within three prominent subspecialty Spine journals during a 4-year period. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Industry-physician relationships are crucial for technological advancement in spine surgery but serve as a source of bias in biomedical research. The Open Payments Database (OPD) was established after 2010 to increase financial transparency. METHODS: All research articles published from 2014 to 2017 in Spine, The Spine Journal (TSJ), and the Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine (JNS) were reviewed in this study. In these articles, all author's COI statements were recorded. The OPD was queried for all author entries within the disclose period of the journal. Discrepancies between the author's self-reported COIs and the documented COIs from OPD were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 6816 articles meeting inclusion criteria between 2014 and 2017 in Spine, TSJ, and JNS with 39,869 contributing authors. Overall, 15.8% of all authors were found to have an OPD financial relationship. Of 2633 authors in Spine with financial disclosures, 77.1% had accurate financial disclosures; 42.5% and 41.0% of authors with financial relationships in the OPD had accurate financial disclosures in TSJ and JNS, respectively. The total value of undisclosed conflicts of interest between 2014 and 2017 was $421 million with $1.48 billion in accurate disclosures. Of undisclosed payments, 68.7% were <$1000 and only 7.2% were >$10,000. Undisclosed payments included $180 million in research funding and $188 million in royalties. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that undisclosed COI is highly prevalent for authors in major Spine journals. This study indicates that there remains a need to standardize definitions and financial thresholds for significant COI as well as to shift the reporting burden for COI to journals who actively review potential COIs instead of relying on self-reporting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in U.S. Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Increasing costs put the value of spine surgery under scrutiny. In health economics, cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) are used to compare the value of competing procedures. However, inconsistent methodology prevents standardization and implementation of recommendations. The goal of this study is to perform a systematic review of all U.S. CEAs in spine surgery reported to date, highlight their strengths and weaknesses, and define metrics essential for high-quality CEAs. METHODS: We followed AMSTAR systematic review methods, identifying all U.S. spine surgery CEAs reported to March 2019 with a structured, reproducible search of PubMed, Embase, and the Tufts CEA Registry. RESULTS: We identified 40 CEA studies. Twelve (30%) used outcome data from a randomized controlled trial. To calculate costs, 22 (55%) used allowed charges but costing methods were often unclear or imprecise. Studies applying discounting had mean follow-up of 5.92 years compared with 3.00 years for studies without. Eleven of 15 (73%) cervical studies compared cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, finding cervical disc arthroplasty to be cost-effective (<$100,000/quality-adjusted life year) for 1-level and 2-level procedures. Eleven of 25 lumbar studies (44%) compared operative with nonoperative interventions for intervertebral disc herniation, lumbar stenosis, and lumbar spondylolisthesis. Lumbar studies comparing surgical with nonoperative intervention found surgery at least cost-effective for intervertebral disc herniation and lumbar stenosis, but cost-effective only for lumbar spondylolisthesis at 4 years follow-up. Most studies (70%) lacked appropriate sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Costing methodology remains obscure and inconsistent and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio results incomparable. The language of costing methodology must be standardized and sensitivity analyses of outcome and cost inputs mandatory for publication.

Persistent postoperative pain and healthcare costs associated with instrumented and non-instrumented spinal surgery: a case-control study.

PURPOSE: To compare rates of persistent postoperative pain (PPP) after lumbar spine surgery-commonly known as Failed Back Surgery Syndrome-and healthcare costs for instrumented lumbar spinal fusion versus decompression/discectomy. METHODS: The UK population-based healthcare data from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database from NHS Digital and the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) were queried to identify patients with PPP following lumbar spinal surgery. Rates of PPP were calculated by type of surgery (instrumented and non-instrumented). Total healthcare costs associated with the surgery and covering the 24-month period after index hospital discharge were estimated using standard methods for classifying health care encounters into major categories of health care resource utilization (i.e., inpatient hospital stays, outpatient clinic visits, accident and emergency attendances, primary care encounters, and medications prescribed in primary care) and applying the appropriate unit costs (expressed in 2013 GBP). RESULTS: Increasing the complexity of surgery with instrumentation was not associated with an increased rate of PPP. However, 2-year healthcare costs following discharge after surgery are significantly higher among patients who underwent instrumented surgery compared with decompression/discectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a not insubstantial risk of ongoing pain following spine surgery, with 1-in-5 patients experiencing PPP within 2 years of surgery, the underlying indications for surgical modality and related choice of surgical procedure do not, by itself, appear to be a driving factor.

Preoperative and Postoperative Spending Among Working-Age Adults Undergoing Posterior Spinal Fusion Surgery for Degenerative Disease.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the health care resource utilization and the associated 6 months preoperative and 6 months postoperative spending among patients undergoing posterior lumbar fusion. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a private insurance claims database for patients who underwent single-level posterior spinal fusion from January 2011 to December 2015. Outpatient health services, prescription pain medications, and inpatient admissions were assessed. RESULTS: Among 25,401 patients (mean age, 52 years; 58% female) in the final cohort, median spending during the period from 6 months before surgery to 6 months after surgery was $60,714 (interquartile range [IQR], $46,961-$79,892)/patient. Preoperative spending accounted for 7% ($121 million) of the total costs, and postoperative spending accounted for 8% ($135 million). Median preoperative spending was $3566 (IQR, $2144-$5857) per patient, with imaging accounting for the highest proportion (33%) of preoperative spending. In the 6 months period preceding surgery, 46% patients received injections and 47% received physical therapy. The median postoperative spending was $1954/patient (IQR, $735-$4416). Total postoperative spending was significantly higher among those not discharged home (median, $7525; IQR, $6779-$19,602) compared with those discharged home (median, $1617/patient; IQR, $648-$4033) and home with home care services (median, $2921; IQR, $1406-$5662) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Unplanned readmission after posterior spinal fusion was the highest contributor to postoperative spending and the second highest contributor to overall costs. Understanding factors that contribute to the costs in the preoperative and postoperative period in patients undergoing single-level posterior lumbar fusion for degenerative pathology is essential to identify targets for cost containment.

Cost-effectiveness Applications of Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Spine Surgery.

Because of the rising health care costs in the United States, there has been a focus on value-based care and improving the cost-effectiveness of surgical procedures. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can not only give physicians and health care providers immediate feedback on the well-being of the patients but also be used to assess health and determine outcomes for surgical research purposes. Recently, PROMs have become a prominent tool to assess the cost-effectiveness of spine surgery by calculating the improvement in quality-adjusted life years (QALY). The cost of a procedure per QALY gained is an essential metric to determine cost-effectiveness in universal health care systems. Common patient-reported outcome questionnaires to calculate QALY include the EuroQol-5 dimensions, the SF-36, and the SF-12. On the basis of the health-related quality of life outcomes, the cost-effectiveness of various spine surgeries can be determined, such as cervical fusions, lumbar fusions, microdiscectomies. As the United States attempts to reduce costs and emphasize value-based care, PROMs may serve a critical role in spine surgery moving forward. In addition, PROM-driven QALYs may be used to analyze novel spine surgical techniques for value-based improvements.

Variability in Hospital Costs of Adult Spinal Deformity Care.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, single-center analysis. OBJECTIVE: To calculate the total clinical hospital cost of the Adult Spinal Deformity (ASD) care trajectory, to explain cost variability by patient and surgery characteristics, and to identify areas of process improvement opportunities. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: ASD is associated with a high financial and clinical burden on society. ASD care thus requires improved insights in costs and its drivers as a critical step toward the improvement of value, i.e., the ratio between delivered health outcome and associated costs. METHODS: Patient characteristics and surgical variables were collected following ethical approval in a cohort of 139 ASD patients, treated between December, 2014 and January, 2018. Clinical hospital costs were calculated, including all care activities, from initial consultation to 1 year after initial surgery (excl. overhead) in a university hospital setting. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to analyze the impact of patient and surgical characteristics on clinical costs. RESULTS: 75.5% of the total clinical hospital cost (&OV0556;27,865) was incurred during initial surgery with costs related to the operating theatre (80.3%), nursing units (11.9%), and intensive care (2.9%) being the largest contributors. 57.5% of the variation in total cost could be explained in order of importance by surgical invasiveness, age, coronary disease, single or multiple-staged surgery, and mobility status. Revision surgery, unplanned surgery due to complications, was found to increase average costs by 87.6% compared with elective surgeries (&OV0556; 44,907 (± &OV0556; 23,429) vs. &OV0556; 23,944 (± &OV0556; 7302)). CONCLUSION: This study identified opportunities for process improvement by calculating the total clinical hospital costs. In addition, it identified patient and treatment characteristics that predict 57.5% of cost variation, which could be taken into account when developing a payment system. Future research should include outcome data to assess variation in value. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery in Patients With Movement Disorders: A Propensity-matched Analysis of Outcomes and Cost.

STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study using national administrative data from the MarketScan database. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the complication rates, quality outcomes, and costs in a nationwide cohort of patients with movement disorders (MD) who undergo spinal deformity surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patients with MD often present with spinal deformities, but their tolerance for surgical intervention is unknown. METHODS: The MarketScan administrative claims database was queried to identify adult patients with MD who underwent spinal deformity surgery. A propensity-score match was conducted to create two uniform cohorts and mitigate interpopulation confounders. Perioperative complication rates, 90-day postoperative outcomes, and total costs were compared between patients with MD and controls. RESULTS: A total of 316 patients with MD (1.7%) were identified from the 18,970 undergoing spinal deformity surgery. The complication rate for MD patients was 44.6% and for the controls 35.6% (P = 0.009). The two most common perioperative complications were more likely to occur in MD patients, acute-posthemorrhagic anemia (26.9% vs. 20.8%, P < 0.05) and deficiency anemia (15.5% vs. 8.5%, P < 0.05). At 90 days, MD patients were more likely to be readmitted (17.4% vs. 13.2%, P < 0.05) and have a higher total cost ($94,672 vs. $85,190, P < 0.05). After propensity-score match, the overall complication rate remained higher in the MD group (44.6% vs. 37.6%, P < 0.05). 90-day readmissions and costs also remained significantly higher in the MD cohort. Multivariate modeling revealed MD was an independent predictor of postoperative complication and inpatient readmission. Subgroup analysis revealed that Parkinson disease was an independent predictor of inpatient readmission, reoperation, and increased length of stay. CONCLUSION: Patients with MD who undergo spinal deformity surgery may be at risk of higher rate of perioperative complications and 90-day readmissions compared with patients without these disorders. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

American Society of Anesthesiologists' Status Association With Cost and Length of Stay in Lumbar Laminectomy and Fusion: Results From an Institutional Database.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to characterize the costs associated with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, and to determine the extent to which ASA status is a predictor of increased cost and LOS following lumbar laminectomy and fusion (LLF). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal fusion accounts for the highest hospital costs of any surgical procedure performed in the United States, and ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) status is a known risk factor for cost and length of stay (LOS) in the orthopedic literature. There is a paucity of literature that directly addresses the influence of ASA status on cost and LOS following LLF. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of an institutional database of patients undergoing single-level LLF at an academic tertiary care facility from 2006 to 2016. Univariate comparisons were made using χ tests for categorical variables and t tests for continuous variables. Multivariate linear regression was utilized to estimate regression coefficients, and to determine whether ASA status is an independent risk factor for cost and LOS. RESULTS: A total of 1849 patients met inclusion criteria. For every one-point increase in ASA score, intensive care unit (ICU) LOS increased by 0.518 days (P < 0.001), and hospital length of stay increased by 1.93 days (P < 0.001). For every one-point increase in ASA score, direct cost increased by $7474.62 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ASA status is a predictor of hospital LOS, ICU LOS, and direct cost. Consideration of the ways in which ASA status contributes to increased cost and prolonged LOS can allow for more accurate reimbursement adjustment and more precise targeting of efficiency and cost effectiveness initiatives. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Can We Justify It? Trends in the Utilization of Spinal Fusions and Associated Reimbursement.

BACKGROUND: Previous reports have suggested an increasing rate of utilization of spinal fusions, but contemporary data have not been analyzed, and there has been little investigation of putative drivers of increased utilization. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether there is an ongoing trend of increased utilization of spinal fusions in recent data, and if there may be associations with an increasing proportion of elderly in the population, changing patterns of payer-types, and changing reimbursement rates. METHODS: We analyze 7.1 million cases from the National Inpatient Sample between 1998 and 2014. We measure annual utilization per 100 000 persons and conduct trend analyses with subgroup analysis of the senior (65 + ) population. Spine surgery utilization is compared with nonspine surgical procedures (coronary artery bypass grafting, hernia repair, hip, and knee replacement). We assess trends in charges, payer type, Medicare reimbursement rates, and hospital type. RESULTS: There was an 88% increase in the utilization rate of spinal fusion procedures from 1998 to 2014 (from 74 to 139 cases per 100 000 persons) with a significant upward trend (P < .001) that persisted in the 65 + subgroup (P < .001). An increasing proportion of spinal fusions is paid for by public payers, but per-procedure reimbursement for spinal fusions by Medicare has decreased recently (5% reduction from 2014 to 2016). CONCLUSION: Utilization of spinal fusions continues to increase and is not explained by increased proportion of elderly in the population, increased utilization of surgeries across specialties, or increased Medicare reimbursement. In fact, increased utilization of spinal fusions temporally correlated with decreasing per-procedure Medicare reimbursement.

Utilization of Predictive Modeling to Determine Episode of Care Costs and to Accurately Identify Catastrophic Cost Nonwarranty Outlier Patients in Adult Spinal Deformity Surgery: A Step Toward Bundled Payments and Risk Sharing.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively-collected, multicenter adult spinal deformity (ASD) database. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the rate of patients who accrue catastrophic cost (CC) with ASD surgery utilizing direct, actual costs, and determine the feasibility of predicting these outliers. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cost outliers or surgeries resulting in CC are a major concern for ASD surgery as some question the sustainability of these surgical treatments. METHODS: Generalized linear regression models were used to explain the determinants of direct costs. Regression tree and random forest models were used to predict which patients would have CC (>$100,000). RESULTS: A total of 210 ASD patients were included (mean age of 59.3 years, 83% women). The mean index episode of care direct cost was $70,766 (SD = $24,422). By 90 days and 2 years following surgery, mean direct costs increased to $74,073 and $77,765, respectively. Within 90 days of the index surgery, 11 (5.2%) patients underwent 13 revisions procedures, and by 2 years, 26 (12.4%) patients had undergone 36 revision procedures. The CC threshold at the index surgery and 90-day and 2-year follow-up time points was exceeded by 11.9%, 14.8%, and 19.1% of patients, respectively. Top predictors of cost included number of levels fused, surgeon, surgical approach, interbody fusion (IBF), and length of hospital stay (LOS). At 90 days and 2 years, a total of 80.6% and 64.0% of variance in direct cost, respectively, was explained in the generalized linear regression models. Predictors of CC were number of fused levels, surgical approach, surgeon, IBF, and LOS. CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates that direct cost in ASD surgery can be accurately predicted. Collectively, these findings may not only prove useful for bundled care initiatives, but also may provide insight into means to reduce and better predict cost of ASD surgery outside of bundled payment plans. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Access to chiropractic care and the cost of spine conditions among older adults.

OBJECTIVES: Chiropractic care is a service that operates outside of the conventional medical system and is reimbursed by Medicare. Our objective was to examine the extent to which accessibility of chiropractic care affects spending on medical spine care among Medicare beneficiaries. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study that used beneficiary relocation as a quasi-experiment. METHODS: We used a combination of national data on provider location and Medicare claims to perform a quasi-experimental study to examine the effect of chiropractic care accessibility on healthcare spending. We identified 84,679 older adults enrolled in Medicare with a spine condition who relocated once between 2010 and 2014. For each year, we measured accessibility using the variable-distance enhanced 2-step floating catchment area method. Using data for the years before and after relocation, we estimated the effect of moving to an area of lower or higher chiropractic accessibility on spine-related spending adjusted for access to medical physicians. RESULTS: There are approximately 45,000 active chiropractors in the United States, and local accessibility varies considerably. A negative dose-response relationship was observed for spine-related spending on medical evaluation and management as well as diagnostic imaging and testing (mean differences, $20 and $40, respectively, among those exposed to increasingly higher chiropractic accessibility; P <.05 for both). Associations with other types of spine-related spending were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Among older adults, access to chiropractic care may reduce medical spending on services for spine conditions.

Refining risk adjustment for bundled payment models in cervical fusions-an analysis of Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The current Bundled Payment for Care Improvement model relies on the use of "Diagnosis Related Groups" (DRGs) to risk-adjust reimbursements associated with a 90-day episode of care. Three distinct DRG groups exist for defining payments associated with cervical fusions: (1) DRG-471 (cervical fusions with major comorbidity/complications), (2) DRG-472 (with comorbidity/complications), and (3) DRG-473 (without major comorbidity/complications). However, this DRG system may not be entirely suitable in controlling the large amounts of cost variation seen among cervical fusions. For instance, these DRGs do not account for area/location of surgery (upper cervical vs. lower cervical), type of surgery (primary vs. revision), surgical approach (anterior vs. posterior), extent of fusion (1-3 level vs. >3 level), and cause/indication of surgery (fracture vs. degenerative pathology). PURPOSE: To understand factors responsible for cost variation in a 90-day episode of care following cervical fusions. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study of a 5% national sample of Medicare claims from 2008 to 2014 5% Standard Analytical Files (SAF5). OUTCOME MEASURES: To calculate the independent marginal cost impact of various patient-level, geographic-level, and procedure-level characteristics on 90-day reimbursements for patients undergoing cervical fusions under DRG-471, DRG-472, and DRG-473. METHODS: The 2008 to 2014 Medicare SAF5 was queried using DRG codes 471, 472, and 473 to identify patients receiving a cervical fusion. Patients undergoing noncervical fusions (thoracolumbar), surgery for deformity/malignancy, and/or combined anterior-posterior fusions were excluded. Patients with missing data and/or those who died within 90 days of the postoperative follow-up period were excluded. Multivariate linear regression modeling was performed to assess the independent marginal cost impact of DRG, gender, age, state, procedure-level factors (including cause/indication of surgery), and comorbidities on total 90-day reimbursement. RESULTS: Following application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, a total of 12,419 cervical fusions were included. The average 90-day reimbursement for each DRG group was as follows: (1) DRG-471=$54,314±$32,643, (2) DRG-472=$28,535±$17,271, and (3) DRG-473=$18,492±$10,706. The risk-adjusted 90-day reimbursement of a nongeriatric (age <65) female, with no major comorbidities, undergoing a primary 1- to 3-level anterior cervical fusion for degenerative cervical spine disease was $14,924±$753. Male gender (+$922) and age 70 to 84 (+$1,007 to +$2,431) was associated with significant marginal increases in 90-day reimbursements. Undergoing upper cervical surgery (-$1,678) had a negative marginal cost impact. Among other procedure-level factors, posterior approach (+$3,164), >3 level fusion (+$2,561), interbody (+$667), use of intra-operative neuromonitoring (+$1,018), concurrent decompression/laminectomy (+$1,657), and undergoing fusion for cervical fracture (+$3,530) were associated higher 90-day reimbursements. Severe individual comorbidities were associated with higher 90-day reimbursements, with malnutrition (+$15,536), CVA/stroke (+$6,982), drug abuse/dependence (+$5,059), hypercoagulopathy (+$5,436), and chronic kidney disease (+$4,925) having the highest marginal cost impacts. Significant state-level variation was noted, with Maryland (+$8,790), Alaska (+$6,410), Massachusetts (+$6,389), California (+$5,603), and New Mexico (+$5,530) having the highest reimbursements and Puerto Rico (-$7,492) and Iowa (-$3,393) having the lowest reimbursements, as compared with Michigan. CONCLUSIONS: The current cervical fusion bundled payment model fails to employ a robust risk adjustment of prices resulting in the large amount of cost variation seen within 90-day reimbursements. Under the proposed DRG-based risk adjustment model, providers would be reimbursed the same amount for cervical fusions regardless of the surgical approach (posterior vs. anterior), the extent of fusion, use of adjunct procedures (decompressions), and cause/indication of surgery (fracture vs. degenerative pathology), despite each of these factors having different resource utilization and associated reimbursements. Our findings suggest that defining payments based on DRG codes only is an imperfect way of employing bundled payments for spinal fusions and will only end up creating major financial disincentives and barriers to access of care in the healthcare system.

Health Care Utilization and Payments of Postoperative and Drug Abuse-Related Spinal Infections.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of data extracted from the MarketScan database (2000-2016) using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9, ICD-10, and Current Procedural Terminology-4 codes. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the economic costs and health care utilization associated with spine infections. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Spinal infections (SI) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. A recent spike in SI is attributed to the drug abuse epidemic. Management of SI represents a large burden on the health care system. METHODS: We assessed payments and outcomes at the index hospitalization, 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow up. Outcomes assessed included length of stay, complications, operation rates, and health care utilization. Outcomes were compared between cohorts with spinal infections: (1) with prior surgery, (2) drug abuse, and (3) without previous exposure to surgery or drug abuse, denoted as control. RESULTS: We identified 43,972 patients; 15.6% (N = 6847) of patients underwent prior surgery, 3.8% (N = 1,668) were previously expose to drug abuse while 80.6% fell into the control group. Both the postsurgical and drug abuse groups longer hospital stay compared with the control cohort (5 d vs. 4 d, P < 0.0001). Exposure to IV drug abuse was associated with increased risk of complications compared with the control group (43% vs. 38%, P < 0.0001). Payments at 1-month follow-up were significantly (P < 0.0001) higher among the postsurgical group compared with both groups. However, at 12-months follow-up, payments were significantly (P < 0.0001) higher in the drug abuse group compared with both groups. Only postsurgical infections were associated with higher number of surgical interventions both at presentation and 1 year follow up. CONCLUSION: SI following surgery or IV drug abuse are associated with higher payments, complication rates, and longer hospital stays. Drug abuse related SI are associated with the highest complication rates, readmissions, and overall payments at 1 year of follow up despite the lower rate of surgical interventions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.