Appointment wait times for surgical care in the Veterans Health Administration and Community Care Program.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration has been criticized for long wait times; however, studies indicate that Veterans Health Administration wait times are shorter than those for the Veterans Health Administration's Community Care Program. Previous studies have analyzed primary care wait times, but few have compared surgical specialties. METHODS: Using a publicly available data set of veteran appointments compiled from the Veterans Health Administration's Corporate Data Warehouse, a nationally representative database containing 623,868 surgical consults from January 1 to June 30, 2021, mean differences in wait times between the Veterans Health Administration and the Community Care Program were calculated across surgical specialties. RESULTS: In total, 49.6% of the surgical consults placed during the study period were for the Community Care Program. Across all surgical specialties, wait times were shorter in the Veterans Health Administration. Cardiothoracic surgery had the shortest mean wait times (23.1 days Veterans Health Administration; 30.0 days Community Care Program). The greatest difference in wait times was observed in plastic surgery, with Community Care Program appointments occurring 15.8 days later than Veterans Health Administration appointments on average. CONCLUSION: Across all surgical specialties, the Veterans Health Administration had shorter wait times than the Community Care Program during the study period.

Rural Communities in the United States Face Persistent Disparities in Access to Orthopaedic Surgical Care.

Background: Access to orthopaedic care across the United States (U.S.) remains an important issue, however, no recent study has examined disparities in rural access to orthopaedic care. The goals of the present study were to (1) investigate trends in the proportion of rural orthopaedic surgeons from 2013 to 2018 as well as the proportion of rural U.S. counties with access to such surgeons and (2) analyze characteristics associated with choice of a rural practice setting. Methods: The study analyzed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Compare National Downloadable File (PC-NDF) for all active orthopaedic surgeons from 2013 to 2018. Rural practice settings were defined using Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes. Linear regression analysis investigated trends in rural orthopaedic surgeon volume. Multivariable logistic regression evaluated the association of surgeon characteristics with rural practice setting. Results: The total number of orthopaedic surgeons increased 1.9%, from 21,045 (2013) to 21,456 (2018). Meanwhile, the proportion of rural orthopaedic surgeons decreased by roughly 0.9%, from 578 (2013) to 559 (2018). From a per capita perspective, the number of orthopaedic surgeons practicing in a rural setting per 100,000 population ranged from 4.55 orthopaedic surgeons per 100,000 in 2013 and 4.47 per 100,000 in 2018. Meanwhile, the number of orthopaedic surgeons practicing in an urban setting ranged from 6.63 per 100,000 in 2013 and 6.35 per 100,000 in 2018. The surgeon characteristics most associated with decreased odds of practicing orthopaedic surgery in a rural setting included earlier career-stage (OR: 0.80, 95% CI: [0.70-0.91]; p < 0.001) and sub-specialization status (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: [0.36-0.45]; p < 0.001). Conclusion: Existing rural-urban disparities in musculoskeletal healthcare access have persisted over the past decade and could worsen. Future research should investigate the effects of orthopaedic workforce shortages on travel times, patient cost burden, and disease specific outcomes. Level of Evidence: IV.

Characterization and Reach of Orthopaedic Research Posted to Preprint Servers: Are We "Undercooking" Our Science?

BACKGROUND: Although biomedical preprint servers have grown rapidly over the past several years, the harm to patient health and safety remains a major concern among several scientific communities. Despite previous studies examining the role of preprints during the Coronavirus-19 pandemic, there is limited information characterizing their impact on scientific communication in orthopaedic surgery. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What are the characteristics (subspecialty, study design, geographic origin, and proportion of publications) of orthopaedic articles on three preprint servers? (2) What are the citation counts, abstract views, tweets, and Altmetric score per preprinted article and per corresponding publication? METHODS: Three of the largest preprint servers (medRxiv, bioRxiv, and Research Square) with a focus on biomedical topics were queried for all preprinted articles published between July 26, 2014, and September 1, 2021, using the following search terms: "orthopaedic," "orthopedic," "bone," "cartilage," "ligament," "tendon," "fracture," "dislocation," "hand," "wrist," "elbow," "shoulder," "spine," "spinal," "hip," "knee," "ankle," and "foot." Full-text articles in English related to orthopaedic surgery were included, while nonclinical studies, animal studies, duplicate studies, editorials, abstracts from conferences, and commentaries were excluded. A total of 1471 unique preprints were included and further characterized in terms of the orthopaedic subspecialty, study design, date posted, and geographic factors. Citation counts, abstract views, tweets, and Altmetric scores were collected for each preprinted article and the corresponding publication of that preprint in an accepting journal. We ascertained whether a preprinted article was published by searching title keywords and the corresponding author in three peer-reviewed article databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, and Dimensions) and confirming that the study design and research question matched. RESULTS: The number of orthopaedic preprints increased from four in 2017 to 838 in 2020. The most common orthopaedic subspecialties represented were spine, knee, and hip. From 2017 to 2020, the cumulative counts of preprinted article citations, abstract views, and Altmetric scores increased. A corresponding publication was identified in 52% (762 of 1471) of preprints. As would be expected, because preprinting is a form of redundant publication, published articles that are also preprinted saw greater abstract views, citations, and Altmetric scores on a per-article basis. CONCLUSION: Although preprints remain an extremely small proportion of all orthopaedic research, our findings suggest that nonpeer-reviewed, preprinted orthopaedic articles are being increasingly disseminated. These preprinted articles have a smaller academic and public footprint than their published counterparts, but they still reach a substantial audience through infrequent and superficial online interactions, which are far from equivalent to the engagement facilitated by peer review. Furthermore, the sequence of preprint posting and journal submission, acceptance, and publication is unclear based on the information available on these preprint servers. Thus, it is difficult to determine whether the metrics of preprinted articles are attributable to preprinting, and studies such as the present analysis will tend to overestimate the apparent impact of preprinting. Despite the potential for preprint servers to function as a venue for thoughtful feedback on research ideas, the available metrics data for these preprinted articles do not demonstrate the meaningful engagement that is achieved by peer review in terms of the frequency or depth of audience feedback. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our findings highlight the need for safeguards to regulate research dissemination through preprint media, which has never been shown to benefit patients and should not be considered as evidence by clinicians. Clinician-scientists and researchers have the most important responsibility of protecting patients from the harm of potentially inaccurate biomedical science and therefore must prioritize patient needs first by uncovering scientific truths through the evidence-based processes of peer review, not preprinting. We recommend all journals publishing clinical research adopt the same policy as Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® , The Bone & Joint Journal, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, and the Journal of Orthopaedic Research , removing any papers posted to preprint servers from consideration.

Do Patients Reporting Fractures Experience Food Insecurity More Frequently Than the General Population?

BACKGROUND: The economic burden of traumatic injuries forces families into difficult tradeoffs between healthcare and nutrition, particularly among those with a low income. However, the epidemiology of food insecurity among individuals reporting having experienced fractures is not well understood. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do individuals in the National Health Interview Survey reporting having experienced fractures also report food insecurity more frequently than individuals in the general population? (2) Are specific factors associated with a higher risk of food insecurity in patients with fractures? METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of the National Health Interview Survey was conducted to identify patients who reported a fracture within 3 months before survey completion. The National Health Interview Survey is an annual serial, cross-sectional survey administered by the United States Centers for Disease Control, involving approximately 90,000 individuals across 35,000 American households. The survey is designed to be generalizable to the civilian, noninstitutionalized United States population and is therefore well suited to evaluate longitudinal trends in physical, economic, and psychosocial health factors nationwide. We analyzed data from 2011 to 2017 and identified 1399 individuals who reported sustaining a fracture during the 3 months preceding their survey response. Among these patients, 27% (384 of 1399) were older than 65 years, 77% (1074) were White, 57% (796) were women, and 14% (191) were uninsured. A raw score compiled from 10 food security questions developed by the United States Department of Agriculture was used to determine the odds of 30-day food insecurity for each patient. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine factors associated with food insecurity among patients reporting fractures . In the overall sample of National Health Interview Survey respondents, approximately 0.6% (1399 of 239,168) reported a fracture. RESULTS: Overall, 17% (241 of 1399) of individuals reporting broken bones or fractures in the National Health Interview Survey also reported food insecurity. Individuals reporting fractures were more likely to report food insecurity if they also were aged between 45 and 64 years (adjusted odds ratio 4.0 [95% confidence interval 2.1 to 7.6]; p < 0.001), had a household income below USD 49,716 (200% of the federal poverty level) per year (adjusted OR 3.1 [95% CI 1.9 to 5.1]; p < 0.001), were current tobacco smokers (adjusted OR 2.8 [95% CI 1.6 to 5.1]; p < 0.001), and were of Black race (adjusted OR 1.9 [95% CI 1.1 to 3.4]; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Among patients with fractures, food insecurity screening and routine nutritional assessments may help to direct financially vulnerable patients toward available community resources. Such screening programs may improve adherence to nutritional recommendations in the trauma recovery period and improve the physiologic environment for adequate soft tissue and bone healing. Future research may benefit from the inclusion of clinical nutritional data, a broader representation of high-energy injuries, and a prospective study design to evaluate cost-efficient avenues for food insecurity interventions in the context of locally available social services networks. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

Perception of culturally competent care among a national sample of skin cancer patients.

Given limited information about patient experiences with cultural competency within dermatology, we sought to characterize the perception of culturally competent care among skin cancer patients in the United States. We used the 2017 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to identify a sample of patients with skin cancer and analyzed responses to the following questions: "How important is it for providers to understand or share your culture?" and "How often are you able to see health care providers that understand or share your culture?" For each question, we calculated the overall prevalence along with adjusted odds ratios for each sociodemographic group. Overall, 31% (95% CI 27-35%) of skin cancer patients responded that it was very or somewhat important for providers to share/understand culture. Patients with income below 200% of the federal poverty level (aOR 1.52; 95% CI 1.02-2.25), foreign-born patients (aOR 3.33; 95% CI 1.25-8.88), and patients with the highest educational attainment of a high school diploma (aOR 1.50; 95% CI 1.08-2.09) all had increased odds of placing importance on sharing/understanding culture. Furthermore, 80% (95% CI 75-85%) of skin cancer patients responded that they were able to see providers that shared/understood their culture all or most of the time, and therefore 20% of patients had access to culturally competent care only some or none of the time. Our study revealed that many (31%) skin cancer patients highly value culturally competent care, with lower-income, foreign-born patients, and patients with the highest educational attainment of a high school diploma, placing greater importance on culturally competent care. However, as many (20%) skin cancer patients have limited access to culturally competent care, future research should focus on analyzing and improving care for patient groups affected by cultural barriers.

Financial stress among skin cancer patients: a cross-sectional review of the 2013-2018 National Health Interview Survey.

Financial stress among skin cancer patients may limit treatment efficacy by forcing the postponement of care or decreasing adherence to dermatologist recommendations. Limited information is available quantifying the anxiety experienced by skin cancer patients from both healthcare and non-healthcare factors. Therefore, the present study sought to perform a retrospective cross-sectional review of the 2013-2018 cycles of the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) to determine the prevalence, at-risk groups, and predictive factors of skin cancer patient financial stress. Survey responses estimated that 11.45% (95% Cl 10.02-12.88%) of skin cancer patients experience problems paying medical bills, 20.34% (95% Cl 18.97-21.71%) of patients worry about the medical costs, 13.73% (95% Cl 12.55-14.91%) of patients worry about housing costs, and 37.48% (95% Cl 35.83-39.14%) of patients worry about money for retirement. Focusing on at-risk groups, black patients, uninsured patients, and patients with low incomes (< 200% poverty level) consistently experienced high rates of financial stress for each of the four measures. Multivariable logistic regression revealed low education, lack of insurance, and low income to be predictive of financial stress. These findings suggest that a considerable proportion of skin cancer patients experience financial stress related to both healthcare and non-healthcare factors. Where possible, the additional intricacy of treating patients at risk of high financial stress may be considered to optimize patient experience and outcomes.

Do Americans Lacking a Local Orthopaedic Surgeon Have Adequate Broadband for Telehealth?

BACKGROUND: Although telehealth holds promise in expanding access to orthopaedic surgical care, high-speed internet connectivity remains a major limiting factor for many communities. Despite persistent federal efforts to study and address the health information technology needs of patients, there is limited information regarding the current high-speed internet landscape as it relates to access to orthopaedic surgical care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What is the distribution of practicing orthopaedic surgeons in the United States relative to the presence of broadband internet access? (2) What geographic, demographic, and socioeconomic factors are associated with the absence of high-speed internet and access to a local orthopaedic surgeon? METHODS: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Mapping Broadband in America interactive tool was used to determine the proportion of county residents with access to broadband-speed internet for all 3141 US counties. Data regarding the geographic distribution of orthopaedic surgeons and county-level characteristics were obtained from the 2015 Physician Compare National Downloadable File and the Area Health Resource File, respectively. The FCC mapping broadband public use files are considered the most comprehensive datasets describing high-speed internet infrastructure within the United States. The year 2015 represents the most recently available FCC data for which county-level broadband penetration estimates are available. Third-party audits of the FCC data have shown that broadband expansion has been slow over the past decade and that many large improvements have been driven by changes in the reporting methodology. Therefore, we believe the 2015 FCC data still hold relevance. The primary outcome measure was the simultaneous absence of at least 50% broadband penetration and at least one orthopaedic surgeon practicing in county limits. Statistical analyses using Kruskal-Wallis tests and multivariable logistic regression were conducted to assess for factors associated with inaccessibility to orthopaedic telehealth. All statistical tests were two-sided with a significance threshold of p < 0.05. RESULTS: In 2015, 14% (448 of 3141) of counties were considered "low access" in that they both had no orthopaedic surgeons and possessed less than 50% broadband access. A total of 4,660,559 people lived within these low-access counties, representing approximately 1.4% (4.6 million of 320.7 million) of the US population. After controlling for potential confounding variables, such as the age, sex, income level, and educational attainment, lower population density per square mile (OR 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 0.94]; p < 0.01), a lower number of primary care physicians per 100,000 (OR 0.88 [95% CI 0.81 to 0.97]; p < 0.01), a higher unemployment level (OR 1.3 [95% CI 1.2 to 1.4]; p < 0.01), and greater number preventable hospital stays per 100,000 (OR 1.01 [95% CI 1.01 to 1.02]; p < 0.01) were associated with increased odds of being a low-access county (though the effect size of the finding was small for population density and number of primary care physicians). Stated another way, each additional person per square mile was associated with an 8% (95% CI 6% to 10%; p < 0.01) decrease in the odds of being a low-access county, and each additional percentage point of unemployment was associated with a 30% (95% CI 20% to 40%) increase in the odds of being a low-access county. CONCLUSION: Despite the potential for telehealth programs to improve the delivery of high-quality orthopaedic surgical care, broadband internet access remains a major barrier to implementation. Until targeted investments are made to expand broadband infrastructure across the country, health systems, policymakers, and surgeon leaders must capitalize on existing federal subsidy programs, such as the lifeline or affordability connectivity initiatives, to reach unemployed patients living in economically depressed regions. The incorporation of internet access questions into clinic-based social determinants screening may facilitate the development of alternative follow-up protocols for patients unable to participate in synchronous videoconferencing. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Some orthopaedic patients lack the broadband capacity necessary for telehealth visits, in which case surgeons may pursue alternative methods of follow-up such as mobile phone-based surveillance of postoperative wounds, surgical sites, and clinical symptoms.

Clinical Utility of Routine Postoperative Imaging in Spinal Fusion Surgery: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Following spinal fusion surgery, routine imaging is often obtained in all patients regardless of clinical presentation. Such routine imaging may include x-ray, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging studies in both the immediate postoperative period and after discharge. The clinical utility of this practice is questionable. Our goal is to assess the existing literature for evidence of impact on clinical care from routine radiographic surveillance following spinal fusion. METHODS: A systematic search of Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Cochrane, and Ovid databases was performed for studies investigating postoperative imaging following spinal fusion surgery. Studies were analyzed for imaging findings and rates of change in management due to imaging. RESULTS: In total, the review identified 9 studies that separated data by unique patient or by unique clinic visits. The 4 studies reporting per-patient data totaled 475 patients with 328 (69%) receiving routine imaging. Among these, 28 (8.5%) patients had abnormal routine findings with no patients having a change to their clinical course. Of the 5 studies that reported clinic visit data, 3119 patient visits were included with 2365 (76%) clinic visits accompanied by imaging. Across these 5 studies, 146 (6.2%) visits noted abnormal imaging with only 12 (0.5%) subsequent management changes. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis found that routine imaging after spinal fusion surgery had no direct benefit on clinical management. The utility of baseline imaging for long-term comparison and medicolegal concerns were not studied and remain up to the provider's judgment. Further research is necessary to identify optimal imaging criteria following spinal fusion surgery.

Sociodemographic disparities in the use of health information technology by a national sample of head and neck cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Quantifying disparities in health information technology (HIT) use among head and neck cancer (HNC) patients may help clinicians reduce care gaps and improve outcomes. METHODS: Relationships between HIT usage and sociodemographic characteristics were studied for adults with HNC between 2011 and 2018 through a retrospective analysis of the US National Health Interview Survey. RESULTS: Multivariate logistic regression indicated HIT usage disparities based on race, age, educational attainment, and insurance status. Black (aOR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.52, P = 0.010), uninsured (aOR 0.21, 95% CI 0.06-0.79, P = 0.022), and senior patients (aOR 2.72, 95% CI 1.55-4.80, P < 0.001) emailed providers less than non-Hispanic White, privately insured, and middle-aged (45-64) patients, respectively. Similar disparities were found among patients searching for health information, scheduling appointments, and filling prescriptions online. CONCLUSION: Black, older, less educated, and un/underinsured HNC patients use HIT less than their counterparts. Reducing these inequities may help improve their outcomes.

Industry Payments Among Appropriate Use Criteria Voting Panels: An Open Payments Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although multiple studies have consistently demonstrated that orthopaedic surgeons receive greater transfers of value than other specialties, the industry payments of providers who are involved in the formation of practice guidelines have not been thoroughly explored. Therefore, the purpose of our analysis was to evaluate the industry payments of the authors of the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS). METHODS: The publicly available AAOS web portal (OrthoGuidelines.org) was queried for all AUCs that had been released between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2019, regarding the management of musculoskeletal pathologies. A cross-sectional analysis of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments database was conducted to determine the number and total value of industry payments to AUC voting committee members during the year of voting for the AUC. Industry payments for each orthopaedic surgeon voting member were compared with payments received by orthopaedic surgeons nationwide who received any payment within the same year. The proportion of orthopaedic surgeon voting members who received any industry payment was compared with the proportion of orthopaedic surgeons nationwide who received payments. RESULTS: Our analysis included a total of 18 different AUCs with 216 voting members, 157 of whom were orthopaedic surgeons. Of the orthopaedic surgeon voting members, 105 (67%) received industry payments, a rate roughly comparable with the national average among orthopaedic surgeons (74%). For 7 of 18 AUCs (39%), the median payment per orthopaedic surgeon voting member was above the median among orthopaedic surgeons receiving payments nationwide that year. Qualitatively, orthopaedic surgeon voting members were more likely to receive payments in the form of royalties, licenses, or speaking fees than orthopaedic surgeons nationwide. CONCLUSIONS: AUC voting members receive payments at frequencies and magnitudes that are roughly comparable with orthopaedic surgeons nationwide. Whether voting panel members receiving payments at these rates is ideal or is in the best interest of patients is a policy decision for the AAOS and society at large. Our study confirms that payments are common and, thus, continued vigilance is justified.

Demographic Analysis of Financial Hardships Faced by Brain Tumor Survivors.

OBJECTIVE: Quantitative analysis of the financial hardship faced by patients with brain tumors is lacking. The present study sought to conduct a longitudinal analysis of responses to the National Health Interview Survey by patients diagnosed with brain tumors and characterize the impact of demographic factors on financial hardship indices. METHODS: National Health Interview Survey respondents between 1997 and 2018 who reported previous diagnosis with cancer of the brain and who responded to 4 survey questions that assessed financial stress were included. Sociodemographic exposures included age, ethnicity/race, marriage status, insurance status, and degree of highest educational attainment. RESULTS: Educational attainment, marital status, and insurance status were the most significant risk factors for temporary or indefinite delays to necessary medical care. Those with only a high-school diploma had 9.6 times higher odds (adjusted odds ratio, 9.68; 95% confidence interval, 2.96-31.70; P < 0.001) of reporting that, in the past 12 months, one of their family members had to limit their medical care in an effort to save money. Similarly, patients with brain tumors who were not married had 3.94 times greater odds (adjusted odds ratio, 3.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.49-10.44; P = 0.009) of avoiding necessary medical care because of an inability to afford it. CONCLUSIONS: Given this variation in self-reported financial burden, demographics clearly have an impact on a patient's holistic experience after a brain cancer diagnosis. Therefore, by using the comparisons in this study, we hope that medical institutions and neurosurgical societies can more accurately predict which patients are most susceptible to significant financial stress and distribute resources accordingly.

Venture Capital Investment in Orthopaedics: Has the Landscape Changed over the Past Two Decades (2000-2019)?

Background. Innovations in orthopaedic technologies often require significant funding. Although an increasing trend has been observed for third-party investments in other medical fields, no study has examined the influence of venture capital (VC) funding in orthopaedics. Therefore, this study analyzed trends in VC investments related to the field of orthopaedic surgery, as well as the characteristics of recipients of these investments. Methods. Venture capital investments into orthopaedic-related businesses were reviewed from 2000 to 2019 using Capital IQ, a proprietary intelligence platform documenting financial investments. Metrics categorized were investments by year, investment amount, and subspecialty domain as per the American Academy Orthopaedic Surgeons website. The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for both quantity and dollar amount of investments was calculated over the study period and the two decade-long periods (2000-2009 and 2010-2019). Results. Over two decades, 673 VC investments took place, involving a total of US$3.5 billion. Both the number and dollar value of investments were greater in the second decade (440, US$1.9 billion), compared to the first decade (233, US$1.6 billion). Both quantity and dollar amount of VC investments grew over the first decade, with a CAGR 9.53% and 4.97%, respectively. However, investment growth declined in the latter decade. The largest and most frequent investments took place within spine surgery and adult reconstruction. Conclusion. An initially rising trend in VC investment in orthopaedic-related businesses may have plateaued over the past decade. These findings may have important implications for continued investment into orthopaedic innovations and collaboration between the surgical community and private sector.

Is Our Science Representative? A Systematic Review of Racial and Ethnic Diversity in Orthopaedic Clinical Trials from 2000 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: A lack of racial and ethnic representation in clinical trials may limit the generalizability of the orthopaedic evidence base as it applies to patients in underrepresented minority populations and perpetuate existing disparities in use, complications, or functional outcomes. Although some commentators have implied the need for mandatory race or ethnicity reporting across all orthopaedic trials, the usefulness of race or ethnic reporting likely depends on the specific topic, prior evidence of disparities, and individualized study hypotheses. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In a systematic review, we asked: (1) What proportion of orthopaedic clinical trials report race or ethnicity data, and of studies that do, how many report data regarding social covariates or genomic testing? (2) What trends and associations exist for racial and ethnic reporting among these trials between 2000 and 2020? (3) What is the racial or ethnic representation of United States trial participants compared with that reported in the United States Census? METHODS: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with human participants published in three leading general-interest orthopaedic journals that focus on clinical research: The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume; Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research; and Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. We searched the PubMed and Embase databases using the following inclusion criteria: English-language studies, human studies, randomized controlled trials, publication date from 2000 to 2020, and published in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research; The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, American Volume; or Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. Primary outcome measures included whether studies reported participant race or ethnicity, other social covariates (insurance status, housing or homelessness, education and literacy, transportation, income and employment, and food security and nutrition), and genomic testing. The secondary outcome measure was the racial and ethnic categorical distribution of the trial participants included in the studies reporting race or ethnicity. From our search, 1043 randomized controlled trials with 184,643 enrolled patients met the inclusion criteria. Among these studies, 21% (223 of 1043) had a small (< 50) sample size, 56% (581 of 1043) had a medium (50 to 200) sample size, and 23% (239 of 1043) had a large (> 200) sample size. Fourteen percent (141 of 1043) were based in the Northeast United States, 9.2% (96 of 1043) were in the Midwest, 4.7% (49 of 1043) were in the West, 7.2% (75 of 1043) were in the South, and 65% (682 of 1043) were outside the United States. We calculated the overall proportion of studies meeting the inclusion criteria that reported race or ethnicity. Then among the subset of studies reporting race or ethnicity, we determined the overall rate and distribution of social covariates and genomic testing reporting. We calculated the proportion of studies reporting race or ethnicity that also reported a difference in outcome by race or ethnicity. We calculated the proportion of studies reporting race or ethnicity by each year in the study period. We also calculated the proportions and 95% CIs of individual patients in each racial or ethnic category of the studies meeting the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: During the study period (2000 to 2020), 8.5% (89 of 1043) of studies reported race or ethnicity. Of the trials reporting this factor, 4.5% (four of 89) reported insurance status, 15% (13 of 89) reported income, 4.5% (four of 89) reported housing or homelessness, 18% (16 of 89) reported education and literacy, 0% (0 of 89) reported transportation, and 2.2% (two of 89) reported food security or nutrition of trial participants. Seventy-eight percent (69 of 89) of trials reported no social covariates, while 22% (20 of 89) reported at least one. However, 0% (0 of 89) of trials reported genomic testing. Additionally, 5.6% (five of 89) of these trials reported a difference in outcomes by race or ethnicity. The proportion of studies reporting race or ethnicity increased, on average, by 0.6% annually (95% CI 0.2% to 1.0%; p = 0.02). After controlling for potentially confounding variables such as funding source, we found that studies with an increased sample size were more likely to report data by race or ethnicity; location in North America overall, Europe, Asia, and Australia or New Zealand (compared with the Northeast United States) were less likely to; and specialty-topic studies (compared with general orthopaedics research) were less likely to. Our sample of United States trials contained 18.9% more white participants than that reported in the United States Census (95% CI 18.4% to 19.4%; p < 0.001), 5.0% fewer Black participants (95% CI 4.6% to 5.3%; p < 0.001), 17.0% fewer Hispanic participants (95% CI 16.8% to 17.1%; p < 0.001), 5.3% fewer Asian participants (95% CI 5.2% to 5.4%; p < 0.001), and 7.5% more participants from other groups (95% CI 7.2% to 7.9%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Reporting of race or ethnicity data in orthopaedic clinical trials is low compared with other medical fields, although the proportion of diseases warranting this reporting might be lower in orthopaedics. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Investigators should initiate discussions about race and ethnicity reporting in the early stages of clinical trial development by surveying available published evidence for relevant health disparities, social determinants, and, when warranted, genomic risk factors. The decision to include or exclude race and ethnicity data in study protocols should be based on specific hypotheses, necessary statistical power, and an appreciation for unmeasured confounding. Future studies should evaluate cost-efficient mechanisms for obtaining baseline social covariate data and investigate researcher perspectives on current administrative workflows and decision-making algorithms for race and ethnicity reporting.

How Did Orthopaedic Surgeons Perform in the 2018 Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System?

BACKGROUND: The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the latest value-based payment program implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. As performance-based bonuses and penalties continue to rise in magnitude, it is essential to evaluate this program's ability to achieve its core objectives of quality improvement, cost reduction, and competition around clinically meaningful outcomes. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked the following: (1) How do orthopaedic surgeons differ on the MIPS compared with surgeons in other specialties, both in terms of the MIPS scores and bonuses that derive from them? (2) What features of surgeons and practices are associated with receiving penalties based on the MIPS? (3) What features of surgeons and practices are associated with receiving a perfect score of 100 based on the MIPS? METHODS: Scores from the 2018 MIPS reporting period were linked to physician demographic and practice-based information using the Medicare Part B Provider Utilization and Payment File, the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System Data (NPPES), and National Physician Compare Database. For all orthopaedic surgeons identified within the Physician Compare Database, there were 15,210 MIPS scores identified, representing a 72% (15,210 of 21,124) participation rate in the 2018 MIPS. Those participating in the MIPS receive a final score (0 to 100, with 100 being a perfect score) based on a weighted calculation of performance metrics across four domains: quality, promoting interoperability, improvement activities, and costs. In 2018, orthopaedic surgeons had an overall mean ± SD score of 87 ± 21. From these scores, payment adjustments are determined in the following manner: scores less than 15 received a maximum penalty adjustment of -5% ("penalty"), scores equal to 15 did not receive an adjustment ("neutral"), scores between 15 and 70 received a positive adjustment ("positive"), and scores above 70 (maximum 100) received both a positive adjustment and an additional exceptional performance adjustment with a maximum adjustment of +5% ("bonus"). Adjustments among orthopaedic surgeons were compared across various demographic and practice characteristics. Both the mean MIPS score and the resulting payment adjustments were compared with a group of surgeons in other subspecialties. Finally, multivariable logistic regression models were generated to identify which variables were associated with increased odds of receiving a penalty as well as a perfect score of 100. RESULTS: Compared with surgeons in other specialties, orthopaedic surgeons' mean MIPS score was 4.8 (95% CI 4.3 to 5.2; p < 0.001) points lower. From this difference, a lower proportion of orthopaedic surgeons received bonuses (-5.0% [95% CI -5.6 to -4.3]; p < 0.001), and a greater proportion received penalties (+0.5% [95% CI 0.2 to 0.8]; p < 0.001) and positive adjustments (+4.6% [95% CI 6.1 to 10.7]; p < 0.001) compared with surgeons in other specialties. After controlling for potentially confounding variables such as gender, years in practice, and practice setting, small (1 to 49 members) group size (adjusted odds ratio 22.2 [95% CI 8.17 to 60.3]; p < 0.001) and higher Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) scores (aOR 2.32 [95% CI 1.35 to 4.01]; p = 0.002) were associated with increased odds of a penalty. Also, after controlling for potential confounding, we found that reporting through an alternative payment model (aOR 28.7 [95% CI 24.0 to 34.3]; p < 0.001) was associated with increased odds of a perfect score, whereas small practice size (1 to 49 members) (aOR 0.35 [95% CI 0.31 to 0.39]; p < 0.001), a high patient volume (greater than 500 Medicare patients) (aOR 0.82 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.95]; p = 0.01), and higher HCC score (aOR 0.79 [95% Cl 0.66 to 0.93]; p = 0.006) were associated with decreased odds of a perfect MIPS score. CONCLUSION: Collectively, orthopaedic surgeons performed well in the second year of the MIPS, with 87% earning bonus payments. Among participating orthopaedic surgeons, individual reporting affiliation, small practice size, and more medically complex patient populations were associated with higher odds of receiving penalties and lower odds of earning a perfect score. Based on these findings, we recommend that individuals and orthopaedic surgeons in small group practices strive to forge partnerships with larger hospital practices with adequate ancillary staff to support quality reporting initiatives. Such partnerships may help relieve surgeons of growing administrative obligations and allow for maintained focus on direct patient care activities. Policymakers should aim to produce a shortened panel of performance measures to ensure more standardized comparison and less time and energy diverted from established clinical workflows. The current MIPS scoring methodology should also be amended with a complexity modifier to ensure fair evaluation of surgeons practicing in the safety net setting, or those treating patients with a high comorbidity burden. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Prevalence, trends, and demographic characteristics associated with self-reported financial stress among head and neck cancer patients in the United States of America.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the economic burden imposed by head and neck cancer diagnoses essential to contextualize healthcare decision-making for these patients. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of the US National Health Interview Survey was performed between 2013 and 2018. Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of adult head and neck cancer patients were analyzed in relation to survey responses related to financial stress factors. RESULTS: Among 710 head and neck cancer patients, 21.39% (95% Cl, 17.69%-25.09%) reported difficulty paying medical bills within the previous 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression revealed insurance status [aOR 2.17 (95% CI, 1.15-4.07), p < 0.001] and poverty status [aOR 2.55 (95% CI, 1.48-4.37), p = 0.017] to be significantly associated with difficulty paying medical bills. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of HNC patients may experience financial stress related not only to out-of-pocket health care costs, but also exogenous financial challenges. These findings suggest that a significant proportion of HNC patients may experience financial stress related not only to out-of-pocket health care costs, but also exogenous financial challenges. Such barriers may impede patients' ability to access and adhere to treatment or force detrimental tradeoffs between health care and other essential needs.