The potential risk of using historic claims to set bundled payment prices: the case of physical therapy after lower extremity joint replacement.

BACKGROUND: One of the most significant challenges of implementing a multi-provider bundled payment contract is to determine an appropriate, casemix-adjusted total bundle price. The most frequently used approach is to leverage historic care utilization based on claims data. However, those claims data may not accurately reflect appropriate care (e.g. due to supplier induced demand and moral hazard effects). This study aims to examine variation in claims-based costs of post-discharge primary care physical therapy (PT) utilization after total knee and hip arthroplasties (TKA/THA) for osteoarthritis patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used multilevel linear regression analyses to predict the factors that explain the variation in the utilization of post-discharge PT after TKA or THA for osteoarthritis patients, based on the historic (2015-2018) claims data of a large Dutch health insurer. The factors were structured as predisposing, enabling or need factors according to the behavioral model of Andersen. RESULTS: The 15,309 TKA and 14,325 THA patients included in this study received an average of 20.7 (SD 11.3) and 16.7 (SD 10.1) post-discharge PT sessions, respectively. Results showed that the enabling factor 'presence of supplementary insurance' was the strongest predictor for post-discharge PT utilization in both groups (TKA: ß = 7.46, SE = 0.498, p-value< 0.001; THA: ß = 5.72, SE = 0.515, p-value< 0.001). There were also some statistically significant predisposing and need factors, but their effects were smaller. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that if enabling factors (such as supplementary insurance coverage or co-payments) are not taken into account in risk-adjustment of the bundle price, they may cause historic claims-based pricing methods to over- or underestimate appropriate post-discharge primary care PT use, which would result in a bundle price that is either too high or too low. Not adjusting bundle prices for all relevant casemix factors is a risk because it can hamper the successful implementation of bundled payment contracts and the desired changes in care delivery it aims to support.

Patient Out-of-Pocket Cost Burden With Elective Orthopaedic Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for medical and surgical care can result in substantial financial burden for patients and families. Relatively little is known regarding OOP costs for commercially insured patients receiving orthopaedic surgery. The aim of this study is to analyze the trends in OOP costs for common, elective orthopaedic surgeries performed in the hospital inpatient setting. METHODS: This study used an employer-sponsored insurance claims database to analyze billing data of commercially insured patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery between 2014 and 2019. Patients who received single-level anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF), single-level posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and total hip arthroplasty (THA) were identified. OOP costs associated with the surgical episode were calculated as the sum of deductible payments, copayments, and coinsurance. Monetary data were adjusted to 2019 dollars. General linear regression, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for analysis, as appropriate. RESULTS: In total, 10,225 ACDF, 28,841 PLF, 70,815 THA, and 108,940 TKA patients were analyzed. Most patients in our study sample had preferred provider organization insurance plans (ACDF 70.3%, PLF 66.9%, THA 66.2%, and TKA 67.0%). The mean OOP costs for patients, by procedure, were as follows: ACDF $3,180 (SD = 2,495), PLF $3,166 (SD = 2,529), THA $2,884 (SD = 2,100), and TKA $2,733 (SD = 1,994). Total OOP costs increased significantly from 2014 to 2019 for all procedures (P < 0.0001). Among the insurance plans examined, patients with high-deductible health plans had the highest episodic OOP costs. The ratio of patient contribution (OOP costs) to total insurer contribution (payments from insurers to providers) was 0.07 for ACDF, 0.04 for PLF, 0.07 for THA, and 0.07 for TKA. CONCLUSION: Among commercially insured patients who underwent elective spinal fusion and major lower extremity joint arthroplasty surgery, OOP costs increased from 2014 to 2019. The OOP costs for elective orthopaedic surgery represent a substantial and increasing financial burden for patients.

Price Transparency for Primary Hip & Knee Arthroplasty: An Overview of the Top 50 US News and World Report Orthopedic Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has mandated all hospitals to publish the charges of 300 common procedures to provide price transparency. The aims of our study are to evaluate 50 top orthopedic hospitals to determine compliance with this mandate and to assess the ease of finding cost information for arthroplasty procedures. METHODS: The websites of the top 50 US News and World Report (USNWR) orthopedic hospitals were searched to find publicly accessible procedural charges. Data included the number of clicks to locate pricing documents, number of files provided, and number of data rows pertaining to arthroplasty. Charge data was queried based on Diagnosis related group (DRG) codes (469, 470), Current Procedural Technology (CPT) codes (27130, 27477), and keyword searches ("arthroplasty", "total hip", and "total knee"). RESULTS: Forty-four (88%) of the top 50 USNWR Orthopedic institutions had publicly accessible files containing cost information. Thirty three of the 44 institutions provided results with DRG search while less than 10 institutions used CPT and keyword searches. There was an average of 226,190 (range 304-1,121,876) rows of data per file. Average charges varied depending on the use of DRG, CPT or keyword searches ($6,663-$117,072). CONCLUSION: The majority of compliant hospitals published large data files requiring the use of DRG codes to find cost information with extreme variation in resultant charges provided. These findings underscore the lack of direct patient benefit afforded by the current mandate, as pricing determinations require expert knowledge in medical coding and have a high variability in the reported charges.

Practice Management Strategies Among Current Members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

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.

National Trends in Post-Acute Care Costs Following Total Hip Arthroplasty from 2010 through 2018.

BACKGROUND: Post-acute care remains a target for episode-of-care cost reduction following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The introduction of bundled payment models in the United States in 2013 aligned incentives among providers to reduce post-acute care resource utilization. Institution-level studies have shown increased rates of home discharge with substantial cost savings after adoption of bundled payment models; however, national data have yet to be reported. The purpose of this study was to evaluate national trends in post-acute care utilization and costs following primary THA over the last decade. METHODS: We reviewed the cases of 189,847 patients undergoing primary THA during 2010 through 2018 from the PearlDiver database. Annual trends in patient demographics, discharge disposition, and post-acute care resource utilization were evaluated. Post-acute care reimbursements were standardized to 2020 dollars and included outpatient visits, prescriptions, physical therapy, home health, inpatient rehabilitation, skilled nursing facilities, and any rehospitalizations or emergency department (ED) visits within 90 days of surgery. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2018, the mean episode-of-care costs ($31,562 versus $24,188; p < 0.001) and overall post-acute care costs ($5,903 versus $3,485; p < 0.001) both declined. Post-acute care savings were primarily driven by reduced costs of skilled nursing facilities ($1,533 versus $627; p < 0.001), home health ($1,041 versus $763; p = 0.002), inpatient rehabilitation ($949 versus $552; p < 0.001), ED visits ($508 versus $102; p < 0.001), and rehospitalizations ($367 versus $179; p < 0.001). Post-acute care costs declined by $578 (p = 0.025) during 2010 to 2012, $768 (p = 0.038) during 2013 to 2015, and $884 (p = 0.020) during 2016 to 2018. CONCLUSIONS: Over the last decade, the rate of home discharge after THA increased while rehospitalization and ED visit rates declined, resulting in a substantial decrease in total and post-acute care costs. Post-acute care costs declined most rapidly after the introduction of the new Medicare bundled payment programs in 2013 and 2016.

Patient selection in the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement model.

OBJECTIVE: To understand whether the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program induces participating hospitals to (1) preferentially select lower risk patients, (2) reduce 90-day episode-of-care costs, (3) improve quality of care, and (4) achieve greater cost reduction during its second year, when downside financial risk was applied. DATA SOURCES: We identified beneficiaries of age 65 years or older undergoing hip or knee joint replacement in the 100% sample of Medicare fee-for-service inpatient (Part A) claims from January 1, 2013 to August 31, 2017. Cases were linked to subsequent outpatient, Part B, home health agency, and skilled nursing facility claims, as well as publicly available participation status for CJR. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated the effect of CJR for hospitals in the 67 metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) selected to participate in CJR (785 hospitals), compared to those in 104 non-CJR MSAs (962 hospitals; maintaining fee-for-service). A difference-in-differences approach was used to detect patient selection, as well as to compare 90-day episode-of-care costs and quality of care between CJR and non-CJR hospitals over the first two performance years. DATA COLLECTION: We excluded 172 hospitals from our analysis due to their preexisting BPCI participation. We focused on elective admissions in the main analysis. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: While reductions in 90-day episode-of-care costs were greater among CJR hospitals (-$902, 95% CI: -$1305, -$499), largely driven by a 16.8% (p < 0.01) decline in 90-day spending in skilled nursing facilities, CJR hospitals significantly reduced the 90-day readmission rate (-3.9%; p < 0.05) and preferentially avoided patients aged 85 years or older (-5.9%; p < 0.01) and Black (-7.0%; p < 0.01). Cost reduction was greater in 2017 than in 2016, corresponding to the start of downside risk. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in CJR was associated with a modest cost reduction and a reduction in 90-day readmission rates; however, we also observed evidence of preferential avoidance of older patients perceived as being higher risk among CJR hospitals.

Costs of Joint Replacement in Osteoarthritis: A Study Using the National Joint Registry and Clinical Practice Research Datalink Data Sets.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the costs of primary hip and knee replacement in individuals with osteoarthritis up to 2 years postsurgery, compare costs before and after the surgery, and identify predictors of hospital costs. METHODS: Patients age ≥18 years with primary planned hip or knee replacements and osteoarthritis in England between 2008 and 2016 were identified from the National Joint Registry and linked with Hospital Episode Statistics data containing inpatient episodes. Primary care data linked with hospital outpatient records were also used to identify patients age ≥18 years with primary hip or knee replacements between 2008 and 2016. All health care resource use was valued using 2016/2017 costs, and nonparametric censoring methods were used to estimate total 1-year and 2-year costs. RESULTS: We identified 854,866 individuals undergoing hip or knee replacement. The mean censor-adjusted 1-year hospitalization costs for hip and knee replacement were £7,827 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 7,813, 7,842) and £7,805 (95% CI 7,790, 7,818), respectively. Complications and revisions were associated with up to a 3-fold increase in 1-year hospitalization costs. The censor-adjusted 2-year costs were £9,258 (95% CI 9,233, 9,280) and £9,452 (95% CI 9,430, 9,475) for hip and knee replacement, respectively. Adding primary and outpatient care, the mean total hip and knee replacement 2-year costs were £11,987 and £12,578, respectively. CONCLUSION: There are significant costs following joint replacement. Revisions and complications accounted for considerable costs and there is a significant incentive to identify best approaches to reduce these.

Cost-effectiveness of dual-mobility components in patients with displaced femoral neck fractures.

AIMS: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) with dual-mobility components (DM-THA) has been shown to decrease the risk of dislocation in the setting of a displaced neck of femur fracture compared to conventional single-bearing THA (SB-THA). This study assesses if the clinical benefit of a reduced dislocation rate can justify the incremental cost increase of DM-THA compared to SB-THA. METHODS: Costs and benefits were established for patients aged 75 to 79 years over a five-year time period in the base case from the Canadian Health Payer's perspective. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis assessed the robustness of the base case model conclusions. RESULTS: DM-THA was found to be cost-effective, with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of CAD $46,556 (£27,074) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Sensitivity analysis revealed DM-THA was not cost-effective across all age groups in the first two years. DM-THA becomes cost-effective for those aged under 80 years at time periods from five to 15 years, but was not cost-effective for those aged 80 years and over at any timepoint. To be cost-effective at ten years in the base case, DM-THA must reduce the risk of dislocation compared to SB-THA by at least 62%. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed DM-THA was 58% likely to be cost-effective in the base case. CONCLUSION: Treating patients with a displaced femoral neck fracture using DM-THA components may be cost-effective compared to SB-THA in patients aged under 80 years. However, future research will help determine if the modelled rates of adverse events hold true. Surgeons should continue to use clinical judgement and consider individual patients' physiological age and risk factors for dislocation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1783-1790.

Lifetime incremental cost-utility ratios for minimally invasive surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis relative to failed medical management compared with total hip and knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis.

Background: The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS) relative to failed medical management with the cost-effectiveness of hip and knee arthroplasty for matched cohorts of patients with osteoarthritis. Methods: A cohort of patients with DLS undergoing MIS procedures with decompression alone or decompression and instrumented fusion between 2008 and 2014 was matched to cohorts of patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) and knee OA undergoing total joint replacement. Incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs) were calculated from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health, using prospectively collected Short Form-6 Dimension utility data. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were discounted at 3% and sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Sixty-six patients met the inclusion criteria for the DLS cohort (n = 35 for decompression alone), with a minimum follow-up time of 1 year (mean 1.7 yr). The mean age of patients in the DLS cohort was 64.76 years, and 45 patients (68.2%) were female. For each cohort, utility scores improved from baseline to follow-up and the magnitude of the gain did not differ by group. Lifetime ICURs comparing surgical with nonsurgical care were Can$7946/QALY, Can$7104/QALY and Can$5098/QALY for the DLS, knee OA and hip OA cohorts, respectively. Subgroup analysis yielded an increased ICUR for the patients with DLS who underwent decompression and fusion (Can$9870/QALY) compared with that for the patients with DLS who underwent decompression alone (Can$5045/QALY). The rank order of the ICURs by group did not change with deterministic or probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: Lifetime ICURs for MIS procedures for DLS are similar to those for total joint replacement. Future research should adopt a societal perspective and potentially capture further economic benefits of MIS procedures.

Contexte: L'objectif de cette étude était de comparer le rapport coût­efficacité de la chirurgie minimalement effractive (CME) chez les patients atteints de spondylolisthésis lombaire dégénératif (SLD) en lien avec un échec de la prise en charge médicale à celui de l'arthroplastie de la hanche et du genou pour des cohortes assorties de patients atteints d'arthrose. Méthodes: Une cohorte de patients atteints de SLD soumis à une CME avec décompression seule ou décompression avec arthrodèse entre 2008 et 2014 a été assortie à des cohortes de patients soumis à une arthroplastie totale pour arthrose de la hanche et du genou. Les rapports coût­utilité différentiels (RCUD) ont été calculés du point de vue du ministère de la Santé de l'Ontario à l'aide des données d'utilité du questionnaire Short Form­6 Dimension recueillies de manière prospective. Les coûts et les années de vie ajustées en fonction de la qualité (AVAQ) ont été actualisés à un taux de 3 % et des analyses de sensibilité ont été effectuées. Résultats: Soixante-six patients répondaient aux critères d'inclusion pour la cohorte SLD (n = 35, décompression seule), avec un suivi d'une durée minimale de 1 an (moyenne 1,7 an). L'âge moyen des gens de la cohorte SLD était de 64,76 ans, et 45 patients (68,2 %) étaient de sexe féminin. Pour chaque cohorte, les scores d'utilité se sont améliorés entre les valeurs de départ et les valeurs de suivi et l'ampleur du gain n'a pas différé entre les groupes. Les RCUD pour la vie entière entre les soins chirurgicaux et non chirurgicaux ont été 7946 $CA/QALY, 7104 $CA/QALY et 5098 $CA/QALY pour les cohortes SLD, arthrose du genou et de la hanche, respectivement. L'analyse de sous-groupes a généré un RCUD accru pour les patients atteints de SLD qui ont subi la décompression avec arthrodèse (9870 $CA/QALY) comparativement à la décompression seule (5045 $CA/QALY). Le classement des RCUD par groupe n'a pas changé en fonction des analyses de sensibilité déterministes ou probabilistes. Conclusion: Les RCUD pour la vie entière associés à la CME dans les cas de SLD sont similaires à ceux de l'arthroplastie totale. Les recherches futures devraient adopter une perspective sociétale et refléter davantage les bienfaits économiques de la CME.

Direct anterior approach has short-term functional benefit and higher resource requirements compared with the posterior approach in primary total hip arthroplasty : a meta-analysis of functional outcomes and cost.

AIMS: It has been suggested that the direct anterior approach (DAA) should be used for total hip arthroplasty (THA) instead of the posterior approach (PA) for better early functional outcomes. We conducted a value-based analysis of the functional outcome and associated perioperative costs, to determine which surgical approach gives the better short-term outcomes and lower costs. METHODS: This meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol and the Cochrane Handbook. Several online databases were searched. Non-stratified and stratified meta-analyses were conducted to test the confounding biases in the studies which were included. The mean cost and probability were used to determine the added costs of perioperative services. RESULTS: The DAA group had significantly longer operating times (p < 0.001), reduced length of hospital stay by a mean of 13.4 hours (95% confidence interval (CI) 9.12 to 18; p < 0.001), and greater blood loss (p = 0.030). The DAA group had significantly better functional outcome at three (p < 0.001) and six weeks (p = 0.006) postoperatively according to the Harris Hip Score (HHS). However, there was no significant difference between the groups for the HHS at six to eight weeks (p = 0.230), 12 weeks (p = 0.470), six months (p = 0.740), and one year (p = 0.610), the 12-Item Short Form Survey (SF-12) physical score at six weeks (p = 0.580) and one year (p = 0.360), SF-12 mental score at six weeks (p = 0.170) and one year (p = 0.960), and University of California and Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scale at 12 weeks (p = 0.250). The mean non-stratified and stratified difference in costs for the operating theatre time and blood transfusion were $587.57 (95% CI 263.83 to 1,010.29) to $887.04 (95% CI 574.20 to 1,298.88) and $248.38 (95% CI 1,003.40 to 1,539.90) to $1,162.41 (95% CI 645.78 to 7,441.30), respectively, more for the DAA group. However, the mean differences in costs for the time in hospital were $218.23 and $192.05, respectively, less for the DAA group. CONCLUSION: The use of the DAA, rather than the PA, in THA has earlier benefits for function and pain. However, these are short-lasting, with no significant differences seen at later intervals. In addition the limited benefits were obtained with higher cumulative costs for DAA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1078-1087.

Correlation Between Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Health Insurance Provider Types in Patients with Hip Osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are frequently utilized to assess patient perceptions of health and function. Numerous factors influence self-reported physical and mental health outcome scores. The purpose of this study was to examine if an association exists between insurance payer type and baseline PROM scores in patients diagnosed with hip osteoarthritis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the baseline PROM scores of 5,974 patients diagnosed with hip osteoarthritis according to the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code within our institutional database from 2015 to 2020. We examined Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-form (HOOS-PS), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Short Form 10a (PF10a), PROMIS Global-Mental, and PROMIS Global-Physical scores. Descriptive analyses, analysis of variance (ANOVA), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and post hoc analyses were utilized to assess variations in PROM scores across insurance type. RESULTS: The mean age (and standard deviation) of the study population was 63.5 ± 12.2 years, and 55.7% of patients were female. The Medicaid cohort had a comparatively higher percentage of Black, Hispanic, and non-English-speaking patients and a lower median household income. The Charlson Comorbidity Index was highest in the Medicare and Medicaid insurance cohorts. Patients utilizing commercial insurance consistently demonstrated the highest baseline PROMs, and patients utilizing Medicaid consistently demonstrated the lowest baseline PROMs. Subsequent analyses found significantly poorer mean scores for the Medicaid cohort for all 4 PROMs when compared with the commercial insurance and Medicare cohorts. These score differences exceeded the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). For the PROMIS Global-Mental subscore, a significantly lower mean score was observed for the Workers' Compensation and motor vehicle insurance cohort when compared with the commercial insurance and Medicare cohort. This difference also exceeded the MCID. CONCLUSIONS: PROM scores in patients with hip osteoarthritis varied among those with different insurance types. Variations in certain demographic and health indices are potential drivers of these observed baseline PROM differences. For patients with hip osteoarthritis, the use of PROMs for research, clinical, or quality-linked payment metrics should acknowledge baseline variation between patients with different insurance types. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Anterior Supine Intermuscular Total Hip Arthroplasty at an Ambulatory Surgery Center Versus Hospitalization: Cost and Adverse Events.

This study compares anterior supine intermuscular total hip arthroplasty performed at an ambulatory surgery center with the same procedure performed in a hospital setting in regard to complications and costs. The ambulatory surgery center had significantly shorter postoperative stays and superior visual analog pain scores at 3 months. No differences were noted in operative time, blood loss, or complications. Costs were significantly different between groups, with significant cost savings noted in the ambulatory surgery center group.

Medicare bundles for arthroplasty : a journey back to fee for service?

AIMS: There is concern that aggressive target pricing in the new Bundled Payment for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-A) penalizes high-performing groups that had achieved low costs through prior experience in bundled payments. We hypothesize that this methodology incorporates unsustainable downward trends on Target Prices and will lead to groups opting out of BPCI Advanced in favour of a traditional fee for service. METHODS: Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data, we compared the Target Price factors for hospitals and physician groups that participated in both BPCI Classic and BPCI Advanced (legacy groups), with groups that only participated in BPCI Advanced (non-legacy). With rebasing of Target Prices in 2020 and opportunity for participants to drop out, we compared retention rates of hospitals and physician groups enrolled at the onset of BPCI Advanced with current enrolment in 2020. RESULTS: At its peak in July 2015, 342 acute care hospitals and physician groups participated in Lower Extremity Joint Replacement (LEJR) in BPCI Classic. At its peak in March 2019, 534 acute care hospitals and physician groups participated in LEJR in BPCI Advanced. In January 2020, only 14.5% of legacy hospitals and physician groups opted to stay in BPCI Advanced for LEJR. Analysis of Target Price factors by legacy hospitals during both programmes demonstrates that participants in BPCI Classic received larger negative adjustments on the Target Price than non-legacy hospitals. CONCLUSION: BPCI Advanced provides little opportunity for a reduction in cost to offset a reduced Target Price for efficient providers, as made evident by the 85.5% withdrawal rate for BPCI Advanced. Efficient providers in BPCI Advanced are challenged by the programme's application of trend and efficiency factors that presumes their cost reduction can continue to decline at the same rate as non-efficient providers. It remains to be seen if reverting back to Medicare fee for service will support the same level of care and quality achieved in historical bundled payment programmes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):119-125.

Association of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model With Disparities in the Use of Total Hip and Total Knee Replacement.

Importance: The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model is Medicare's mandatory bundled payment reform to improve quality and spending for beneficiaries who need total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR), yet it does not account for sociodemographic risk factors such as race/ethnicity and income. Results of this study could be the basis for a Medicare payment reform that addresses inequities in joint replacement care. Objective: To examine the association of the CJR model with racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in the use of elective THR and TKR among older Medicare beneficiaries after accounting for the population of patients who were at risk or eligible for these surgical procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used the 2013 to 2017 national Medicare data and multivariable logistic regressions with triple-differences estimation. Medicare beneficiaries who were aged 65 to 99 years, entitled to Medicare, alive at the end of the calendar year, and residing either in the 67 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) mandated to participate in the CJR model or in the 104 control MSAs were identified. A subset of Medicare beneficiaries with a diagnosis of arthritis underwent THR or TKR. Data were analyzed from March to December 2020. Exposures: Implementation of the CJR model in 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were separate binary indicators for whether a beneficiary underwent THR or TKR. Key independent variables were MSA treatment status, pre- or post-CJR model implementation phase, combination of race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic beneficiaries) and dual eligibility, and their interactions. Logistic regression models were used to control for patient characteristics, MSA fixed effects, and time trends. Results: The 2013 cohort included 4 447 205 Medicare beneficiaries, of which 2 025 357 (45.5%) resided in MSAs with the CJR model. The cohort's mean (SD) age was 77.18 (7.95) years, and it was composed of 2 951 140 female (66.4%), 3 928 432 non-Hispanic White (88.3%), and 657 073 dually eligible (14.8%) beneficiaries. Before the CJR model implementation, rates were highest among non-Hispanic White non-dual-eligible beneficiaries at 1.25% (95% CI, 1.24%-1.26%) for THR use and 2.28% (95% CI, 2.26%-2.29%) for TKR use in MSAs with CJR model. Compared with MSAs without the CJR model and the analogous race/ethnicity and dual-eligibility group, the CJR model was associated with a 0.10 (95% CI, 0.05-0.15; P < .001) percentage-point increase in TKR use for non-Hispanic White non-dual-eligible beneficiaries, a 0.11 (95% CI, 0.004-0.21; P = .04) percentage-point increase for non-Hispanic White dual-eligible beneficiaries, a 0.15 (95% CI, -0.29 to -0.01; P = .04) percentage-point decrease for non-Hispanic Black non-dual-eligible beneficiaries, and a 0.18 (95% CI, -0.34 to -0.01; P = .03) percentage-point decrease for non-Hispanic Black dual-eligible beneficiaries. These CJR model-associated changes in TKR use were 0.25 (95% CI, -0.40 to -0.10; P = .001) percentage points lower for non-Hispanic Black non-dual-eligible beneficiaries and 0.27 (95% CI, -0.45 to -0.10; P = .002) percentage points lower for non-Hispanic Black dual-eligible beneficiaries compared with the model-associated changes for non-Hispanic White non-dual-eligible beneficiaries. No association was found between the CJR model and a widening of the THR use gap among race/ethnicity and dual eligibility groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study indicate that the CJR model was associated with a modest increase in the already substantial difference in TKR use among non-Hispanic Black vs non-Hispanic White beneficiaries; no difference was found for THR. These findings support the widespread concern that payment reform has the potential to exacerbate disparities in access to joint replacement care.

Costing total hip arthroplasty in a South African state tertiary hospital.

BACKGROUND: Most South Africans depend on the public sector for health services. There is an increasing demand for arthroplasty in the public sector, but a paucity of academic data regarding its cost. OBJECTIVES: To: (i) identify the factors that determine the cost of an uncomplicated primary hip arthroplasty; and (ii) make recommendations on cost optimisation. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. Patients who met the inclusion criteria had their hospital financial records reviewed from October 2015 to March 2017. Six cost centres were utilised: inpatient admission, theatre and anaesthesia, ambulatory, prosthesis, physiotherapy and blood bank. The data were statistically analysed. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients met the study inclusion criteria. Data were stratified into categories. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test the data, and significant differences were found in the prosthesis, inpatient admission and ambulatory cost centres at a 95% significance level. The least significant difference was used to test the ANOVA results that paired significant categories. No cost centre showed significance over the other categories. Data for the six cost centres were compared with the current literature and industry best practice. Eight recommendations are made. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that clinicians need to be aware of procedural costing in the current financial climate. There are still opportunities to optimise cost containment in the state sector.

Association of Medicare Mandatory Bundled Payment Program With the Receipt of Elective Hip and Knee Replacement in White, Black, and Hispanic Beneficiaries.

Importance: The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model was designed to reduce the cost and improve the quality of hip or knee replacement among Medicare beneficiaries. Yet whether this model may exacerbate existing racial/ethnic disparities in access to the surgery is unclear. Objective: To examine the association of the CJR model with the receipt of elective hip or knee replacement across White, Black, and Hispanic Medicare beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare claims from 2013 through 2017 among White, Black, and Hispanic Medicare beneficiaries undergoing elective joint replacement in 65 treatment (selected for CJR participation) and 101 control metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). Exposures: Starting in April 2016, hospitals in the treatment MSAs were required to participate in the CJR model and were accountable for expenditures occurring during patients' hospitalization for hip or knee replacement and 90 days after the hospital discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: Beneficiary-level elective hip or knee replacement receipt in a given year. Results: Among 17 243 304 patients, 9 839 996 (57%) were women; 2 107 425 (12%) were age 85 years or older. Of the final sample, 14 632 434 (85%) were White beneficiaries, 1 518 629 (9%) were Black beneficiaries, and 1 092 241 (6%) were Hispanic beneficiaries. The CJR model was associated with an increase of 1.6 elective hip or knee replacements per 1000 beneficiary-years for Hispanic beneficiaries (95% CI, 0.06-2.05) and a decrease of 0.64 replacements for Black beneficiaries (95% CI, -1.25 to -0.02). No evidence was found for any changes for White beneficiaries per 1000 beneficiary-years (0.04 replacements, 95% CI, -0.35 to 0.42 replacements). The Black-White difference in the rate of elective hip or knee replacement per 1000 beneficiary-years further widened by 0.68 replacements (-0.68, 95% CI, -1.20 to -0.15). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the CJR model was associated with increased receipt of elective hip or knee replacement among Hispanic beneficiaries, decreased receipt among Black beneficiaries, and no change in receipt among White beneficiaries. The decreased receipt of elective hip or knee replacement among Black beneficiaries may suggest that value-based payment models, including the CJR model, could be monitored for unintended consequences. However, the lack of similar findings among Hispanic beneficiaries suggests that payment models may have differential impacts across racial/ethnic groups.

Inflation-Adjusted Medicare Reimbursement for Revision Hip Arthroplasty: Study Showing Significant Decrease from 2002 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Investigations into reimbursement trends for primary and revision arthroplasty procedures have demonstrated a steady decline over the past several years. Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) due to infection (rTHA-I) has been associated with higher resource utilization and complexity, but long-term inflation-adjusted data have yet to be compared between rTHA-I and rTHA due to aseptic complications (rTHA-A). The present study was performed to analyze temporal reimbursement trends regarding rTHA-I procedures compared with those for rTHA-A procedures. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool was used to extract Medicare reimbursements associated with 1-stage and 2-stage rTHA-I as well as 1-stage rTHA-A procedures from 2002 to 2019. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for rTHA were grouped according to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons coding reference guide. Monetary values were adjusted for inflation using the consumer price index (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; reported as 2019 U.S. dollars) and used to calculate the cumulative and average annual percent changes in reimbursement. RESULTS: Following inflation adjustment, the physician fee reimbursement for rTHA-A decreased by a mean [and standard deviation] of 27.26% ± 3.57% (from $2,209.11 in 2002 to $1,603.20 in 2019) for femoral component revision, 27.41% ± 3.57% (from $2,130.55 to $1,542.91) for acetabular component revision, and 27.50% ± 2.56% (from $2,775.53 to $2,007.61) for both-component revision. Similarly, for a 2-stage rTHA-I, the mean reimbursement declined by 18.74% ± 3.87% (from $2,063.36 in 2002 to $1,673.36 in 2019) and 24.45% ± 3.69% (from $2,328.79 to $1,755.45) for the explantation and reimplantation stages, respectively. The total decline in physician fee reimbursement for rTHA-I ($1,020.64 ± $233.72) was significantly greater than that for rTHA-A ($580.72 ± $107.22; p < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated a consistent devaluation of both rTHA-I and rTHA-A procedures from 2002 to 2019, with a larger deficit seen for rTHA-I. A continuation of this trend could create substantial disincentives for physicians to perform such procedures and limit access to care at the population level. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Cost-effectiveness analyses comparing cemented, cementless, hybrid and reverse hybrid fixation in total hip arthroplasty: a systematic overview and critical appraisal of the current evidence.

Background: This study aims to present an overview and critical appraisal of all previous studies comparing costs and outcomes of the different modes of fixation in total hip arthroplasty (THA). A secondary aim is to provide conclusions regarding the most cost-effective mode of implant fixation per gender and age-specific population in THA, based on high quality studies.Methods: A systematic search was conducted to identify cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) comparing different modes of implant fixation in THA. Analysis of results was done with solely CEAs that had a high methodological quality.Results: A total of 12 relevant studies were identified and presented, of which 5 were considered to have the methodological rigor for inclusion in the analysis of results. These studies found that either cemented or hybrid fixation was the most cost-effective implant fixation mode for most age- and gender-specific subgroups.Conclusion: Currently available well performed CEAs generally support the use of cemented and hybrid fixation for all age-groups relevant for THA and both genders. However, these findings were mainly based on a single database and depended on assumptions made in the studies' methodology. Issues discussed in this paper have to be considered and future work is needed.

Assessing the Efficacy of Certificate of Need Laws Through Total Joint Arthroplasty.

ABSTRACT: Lawmakers suggest Certificate of Need (CON) laws' main goals are increasing access to healthcare, increasing quality of healthcare, and decreasing healthcare costs. This retrospective database study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of CON through analysis of total knee, hip, and shoulder arthroplasty (TKA, THA, and TSA, respectively). A review was performed using the Humana Insurance PearlDiver national database from 2007 to 2015. Access to care was approximated by the rates of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) in patients diagnosed with arthritis to the corresponding joint. The quality of care was assessed using complication rates after TJA. The total cost of TJA was approximated from average reimbursement to the healthcare facility per procedure. Patients in states without CON programs received TKA, THA, and TSA more frequently (p < .0001, p = .250, p = .019). No significant difference was found in studied complication rates between CON and non-CON states. Similarly, there was no trend found when comparing the cost of each procedure in CON versus non-CON states. These findings are consistent with other recent studies detailing the impact of CON regulation on THA and TKA. The apparent nonsuperiority of CON states in achieving their purported goals may call into question the effectiveness of additional bureaucracy and regulation, suggesting a need for further examination.