Few insurance-based differences in upper extremity elective surgery rates after healthcare reform.

BACKGROUND: Before the US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, there were documented insurance-based disparities in access to orthopaedic surgeons and care of orthopaedic conditions. While Massachusetts passed healthcare reform in 2007 with many similar provisions, it is unknown whether the disparities were present during the period of the law's enactment. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether differences in rates of surgery between patients with novel government-subsidized healthcare plans and other forms of insurance, and between uninsured and insured patients, were similar after institution of the Massachusetts reform laws. METHODS: We identified 7577 patients diagnosed with upper extremity injuries between January 1, 2007 and October 1, 2010. From an institutional administrative database, we extracted demographics, insurance status, and plan of care. Insurance categories included government-subsidized healthcare plan (Commonwealth Care), private insurance, workers compensation, military-related (TriCare), Medicare, Medicaid (MassHealth), non-Commonwealth Care, and other insured and uninsured. After adjusting for age, gender, and diagnosis, we compared the proportions of patients who underwent elective surgery. RESULTS: Of 7577 patients, 1685 (22%) underwent elective upper extremity surgery. The adjusted rates of surgery were similar across most insurance categories, with higher rates in the workers compensation and TriCare categories compared with Commonwealth Care. Uninsured patients were as likely to undergo surgery as insured patients. CONCLUSION: In a population with near-universal health insurance, a government-run health insurance exchange, and novel, government-subsidized, managed care plans, we found few insurance-based differences in rates of elective upper extremity orthopaedic surgery in a cohort of patients after healthcare reform.

The safe zone for TransFix fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the anteromedial portal technique.

PURPOSE: The risk of neurovascular injury is inherent to cross-pin femoral fixation for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and has not been evaluated using the anteromedial portal technique; therefore, we determined a safe zone of cross-pin drill angles. METHODS: Five cadaveric midthigh to midknee specimens underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by use of the anteromedial portal to drill the femoral tunnel and a cross-pin femoral fixation system. Guide pins were passed through the femur at -40°, -20°, 0°, and +20°, with 0° being the coronal plane bisecting the femoral shaft, negative angles when the guide pin started posteriorly, and positive angles when the guide pin started anteriorly. Distances between the guide pin and saphenous nerve, femoral artery, and peroneal nerve were measured. The neurovascular structures were considered safe if the guide pin did not pass within 10 mm of the structures. RESULTS: The mean distance from pin to saphenous nerve was 74, 61, 21, and 24 mm at -40°, -20°, 0°, and +20°, respectively; pin to femoral artery was 100, 85, 59, and 51 mm, respectively; and pin to peroneal nerve was 40, 50, 65, and 76 mm, respectively. The safe zone for the saphenous nerve was violated at 0° and +20° in 2 of 5 knees, and the safe zone for the femoral artery was violated at +20° in 2 of 5 knees. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that a 20° safe zone of rotational angles about the axis of the femoral tunnel, from -40° to -20°, minimizes the risk of damage to the saphenous nerve, femoral artery, and peroneal nerve. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Intraoperative guide-pin angle measurement can be made in reference to the coronal plane of the femur to guide safe drilling of the TransFix guide pin (Arthrex, Naples, FL).

Effect of insurance status on the rate of surgery following a meniscal tear.

BACKGROUND: Uninsured and underinsured Americans face barriers to access to medical care. The objective of this study was to characterize the effect of insurance status on whether patients with a torn meniscus proceed to elective arthroscopic knee surgery. METHODS: The records from January 2003 through April 2006 at a single academic orthopaedic surgery institution in Massachusetts were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients diagnosed with a meniscal tear and to determine whether surgery had been performed within six months after the diagnosis. Six categories of insurance were identified: private insurance, Workers' Compensation, Medicare, Medicaid, Uncompensated Care Pool, and self pay. A comparison of the proportions of insured and uninsured patients who underwent surgery was the primary outcome measure. RESULTS: A total of 1127 patients were identified, and 446 (40%) of them underwent surgery within six months after an office visit. The patients with and without surgery had similar age and sex distributions. When patients were divided, according to their insurance status, into insured and uninsured groups, no significant difference was found in the rate of surgery (p = 0.23). However, subgroup analysis revealed significant differences among the six insurance categories. Logistic regression analysis showed that patients in the self-pay group had a lower rate of surgery than those with private insurance (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.14 to 0.75; p = 0.008), whereas patients receiving Workers' Compensation (odds ratio, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.05 to 3.55; p = 0.034) and those receiving Medicaid (odds ratio, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.09 to 2.42; p = 0.016) had higher surgical rates than those with private insurance. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of elective arthroscopic knee surgery for meniscal tears varied significantly for some insurance categories at this single academic institution in Massachusetts. Further work is necessary to clarify the patient and surgeon factors influencing these disparities in clinical decision-making.