Knee Osteoarthritis Treatment Costs in the Medicare Patient Population.

BACKGROUND: Several nonoperative options have been recommended for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA), with varying degrees of evidence. Adhering to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guidelines has been suggested to decrease direct treatment costs by 45% in the year before knee arthroplasty, but this does not consider the cost of the entire episode of care, including the cost of surgery and postsurgery care. OBJECTIVES: To analyze the total treatment costs after a diagnosis of knee OA, as well as the proportion of arthroplasty interventions as part of the total knee OA-related costs, and whether the total costs differed for patients who received intra-articular hyaluronic acid and/or had knee arthroplasty. METHODS: We identified patients newly diagnosed with knee OA using the 5% Medicare data sample from January 2010 to December 2015. Patients were excluded if they were aged <65 years, had incomplete claim history, did not reside in any of the 50 states, had claim history <12 months before knee OA diagnosis, or did not enroll in Medicare Part A and Part B. The study analyzed knee OA-related costs from a payer perspective in terms of reimbursements provided by Medicare, as well as the time from the diagnosis of knee OA to knee arthroplasty for patients who had knee arthroplasty, and the time from the first hyaluronic acid injection to knee arthroplasty for those who received the injection. We compared patients who received hyaluronic acid and those who did not receive hyaluronic acid injections. Patients who received hyaluronic acid injection who subsequently had knee arthroplasty were also compared with those who did not have subsequent knee arthroplasty. RESULTS: Of the 275,256 patients with knee OA, 45,801 (16.6%) received a hyaluronic acid injection and 35,465 (12.9%) had knee arthroplasty during the study period. The median time to knee arthroplasty was 16.4 months for patients who received hyaluronic acid versus 5.7 months for those who did not receive hyaluronic acid. Non-arthroplasty-related therapies and knee arthroplasty accounted for similar proportions of knee OA-related costs, with hyaluronic acid injection comprising 5.6% of the total knee OA-related costs. For patients who received hyaluronic acid injections and subsequently had knee arthroplasty, hyaluronic acid injection contributed 1.8% of the knee OA-related costs versus 76.6% of the cost from knee arthroplasty. Patients who received hyaluronic acid injections and did not have knee arthroplasty incurred less than 10% of the knee OA-related costs that patients who had surgery incurred. CONCLUSION: Although limiting hyaluronic acid use may reduce the knee OA-related costs, in this study hyaluronic acid injection only comprised a small fraction of the overall costs related to knee OA. Among patients who had knee arthroplasty, those who received treatment with hyaluronic acid had surgery delayed by a median of 10.7 months and associated costs for a significant period. The ability to delay or avoid knee arthroplasty altogether can have a substantial impact on healthcare costs.

Knee OA cost comparison for hyaluronic acid and knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Limiting treatment to those recommended by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeon Clinical Practice Guidelines has been suggested to decrease costs by 45% in the year prior to total knee arthroplasty, but this only focuses on expenditures leading up to, but not including, the surgery and not the entire episode of care. We evaluated the treatment costs following knee osteoarthritis (OA) diagnosis and determined whether these are different for patients who use intra-articular hyaluronic acid (HA) and/or knee arthroplasty. METHODS: Claims data from a large commercial database containing de-identified data of more than 100 million patients with continuous coverage from 2012 to 2016 was used to evaluate the cumulative cost of care for over 2 million de-identified members with knee OA over a 4.5-year period between 2011 and 2015. Median cumulative costs were then stratified for patients with or without HA and/or knee arthroplasty. RESULTS: Knee OA treatment costs for 1,567,024 patients over the 4.5-year period was $6.60 billion (mean $4210/patient) as calculated by the authors. HA and knee arthroplasty accounted for 3.0 and 61.5% of the overall costs, respectively. For patients who underwent knee arthroplasty, a spike in median costs occurred sooner for patients without HA use (around the 5- to 6-month time point) compared to patients treated with HA (around the 16- to 17-month time point). CONCLUSIONS: Non-arthroplasty therapies, as calculated by the authors, accounted for about one third of the costs in treating knee OA in our cohort. Although some have theorized that limiting the use of HA may reduce the costs of OA treatment, HA only comprised a small fraction (3%) of the overall costs. Among patients who underwent knee arthroplasty, those treated with HA experienced elevated costs from the surgery later than those without HA, which reflects their longer time to undergoing knee arthroplasty. The ability to delay or avoid knee arthroplasty altogether can have a substantial impact on the cost to the healthcare system.

Validation of American College of Rheumatology classification criteria for knee osteoarthritis using arthroscopically defined cartilage damage scores.

OBJECTIVE: To validate the ability of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) clinical classification criteria and the ACR clinical plus radiographic classification criteria for osteoarthritis of the knee to predict articular cartilage damage. METHODS: Ninety subjects with knee osteoarthritis (OA) who were enrolled in a prospective study determining the therapeutic efficacy of arthroscopic irrigation were characterized as to whether they fulfilled the ACR clinical classification criteria or the ACR clinical plus radiographic classification criteria. Ten rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients were included as controls. Cartilage damage was defined using the ACR/Knee Arthroscopy Osteoarthritis Scale (ACR/KAOS) system, which is a validated outcome instrument for knee OA based on arthroscopic visualization. Mean values of the damage scores in each group were calculated and compared by t-test to determine statistical significance between the 3 groups. RESULTS: The mean ACR/KAOS score for the 10 RA patients was 1.8 [SD 1.22; range 0 to 4]. Of the 90 OA patients who underwent arthroscopy, only 73 patients had sufficient videotape to make an accurate assessment by the blinded assessor. The mean ACR/KAOS score for the 6 OA patients who fulfilled only the ACR clinical classification was 17.4 [SD 11.3; range 5 to 34.3] and the mean ACR/KAOS score for the 67 patients who fulfilled the ACR clinical plus radiographic classification criteria was 42.0 [SD 29.1; range 5.1 to 118.4]. These differences were statistically significant (RA versus OA clinical P=0.02; RA versus OA clinical+radiographic P