Early Experiences With Bundled Payments for Care Improvement for Major Bowel Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Bundled Payment (BP) models are becoming more common in surgery. We share our early experiences with Bundled Payments for Care Improvement for major bowel surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing major bowel surgery between January and October 2021 were identified using Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) codes. Major drivers of cost in a BP model are reported and compared to the Fee-For-Service (FFS) payment model. RESULTS: A total of 202 cases (173 FFS vs 29 BP) were analyzed. The mean BP cost per Clinical Episode was $28,340. Eleven patients (38%) in the BP model had costs greater than the Target Price. The drivers of cost in the BP model were 59% acute care facility, 17% physician services, 9% post-acute care facilities, 8% other, and 7% readmissions. Clinical Episode of care costs varied considerably by MS-DRG case complexity. Robotic surgery increased costs by 35% (mean increase $3724, P < .01). The 90-day readmission rate was 17% for a mean cost of $11,332 per readmission. Three patients (10%) were discharged to a skilled nursing facility at an average cost of $11,009, while fifteen patients (52%) received home health services at a mean cost of $2947. Acute care facility costs were similar in the BP vs FFS groups (mean difference $1333, P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing major bowel surgery are a heterogeneous population. Physicians are ideally positioned to deliver high-value, patient-centered care and are crucial to the success of a BP model. The post-acute care setting is a key component of improving efficiency and quality of care.

The effect of a bundle intervention for ambulatory otorhinolaryngology procedures on same-day case cancellation rate and associated costs.

Cancellations within 24 h of planned elective surgical procedures reduce operating theatre efficiency, add unnecessary costs and negatively affect patient experience. We implemented a bundle intervention that aimed to reduce same-day case cancellations. This consisted of communication tools to improve patient engagement and new screening instruments (automated estimation of ASA physical status and case cancellation risk score plus four screening questions) to identify patients in advance (ideally before case booking) who needed comprehensive pre-operative risk stratification. We studied patients scheduled for ambulatory surgery with the otorhinolaryngology service at a single centre from April 2021 to December 2022. Multivariable logistic regression and interrupted time-series analyses were used to analyse the effects of this intervention on case cancellations within 24 h and costs. We analysed 1548 consecutive scheduled cases. Cancellation within 24 h occurred in 114 of 929 (12.3%) cases pre-intervention and 52 of 619 (8.4%) cases post-intervention. The cancellation rate decreased by 2.7% (95%CI 1.6-3.7%, p < 0.01) during the first month, followed by a monthly decrease of 0.2% (95%CI 0.1-0.4%, p < 0.01). This resulted in an estimated $150,200 (£118,755; €138,370) or 35.3% cost saving (p < 0.01). Median (IQR [range]) number of days between case scheduling and day of surgery decreased from 34 (21-61 [0-288]) pre-intervention to 31 (20-51 [1-250]) post-intervention (p < 0.01). Patient engagement via the electronic health record patient portal or text messaging increased from 75.9% at baseline to 90.8% (p < 0.01) post-intervention. The primary reason for case cancellation was patients' missed appointment on the day of surgery, which decreased from 7.2% pre-intervention to 4.5% post-intervention (p = 0.03). An anaesthetist-driven, clinical informatics-based bundle intervention decreases same-day case cancellation rate and associated costs in patients scheduled for ambulatory otorhinolaryngology surgery.

Dissecting the Perioperative Care Bundle.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are comprehensive perioperative care pathways designed to mitigate the physiologic stressors associated with surgery and, in turn, improve clinical outcomes and lead to health care cost savings. Although individual components may differ, ERAS protocols are typically organized as multimodal care "bundles" that, when followed closely and in their entirety, are meant to generate amplified cumulative benefits. This manuscript examines some of the critical components, describes some areas where the science is weak (but dogma may be strong), and provides some of the evidence or lack thereof behind components of a standard ERAS protocol.

Is There An Association Between Bundled Payments and "Cherry Picking" and "Lemon Dropping" in Orthopaedic Surgery? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The goal of bundled payments-lump monetary sums designed to cover the full set of services needed to provide care for a condition or medical event-is to provide a reimbursement structure that incentivizes improved value for patients. There is concern that such a payment mechanism may lead to patient screening and denying or providing orthopaedic care to patients based on the number and severity of comorbid conditions present associated with complications after surgery. Currently, however, there is no clear consensus about whether such an association exists. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this systematic review, we asked: (1) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the sociodemographic characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (2) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the comorbidities and/or case-complexity characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (3) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the recent use of healthcare resources characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? METHODS: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO before data collection (CRD42020189416). Our systematic review included scientific manuscripts published in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Econlit, Policyfile, and Google Scholar through March 2020. Of the 30 studies undergoing full-text review, 20 were excluded because they did not evaluate the outcome of interest (patient selection) (n = 8); were editorial, commentary, or review articles (n = 5); did not evaluate the appropriate intervention (introduction of a bundled payment program) (n = 4); or assessed the wrong patient population (not orthopaedic surgery patients) (n = 3). This led to 10 studies included in this systematic review. For each study, patient factors analyzed in the included studies were grouped into the following three categories: sociodemographics, comorbidities and/or case complexity, or recent use of healthcare resources characteristics. Next, each patient factor falling into one of these three categories was examined to evaluate for changes from before to after implementation of a bundled payment initiative. In most cases, studies utilized a difference-in-difference (DID) statistical technique to assess for changes. Determination of whether the bundled payment initiative required mandatory participation or not was also noted. Scientific quality using the Adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale had a median (range) score of 8 (7 to 8; highest possible score: 9), and the quality of the total body of evidence for each patient characteristic group was found to be low using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool. We could not assess the likelihood of publication using funnel plots because of the variation of patient factors analyzed in each study and the heterogeneity of data precluded a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the nine included studies that reported on the sociodemographic characteristics of patients selected for care, seven showed no change with the implementation of bundled payments, and two demonstrated a difference. Most notably, the studies identified a decrease in the percentage of patients undergoing an orthopaedic operative intervention who were dual-eligible (range DID estimate -0.4% [95% CI -0.75% to -0.1%]; p < 0.05 to DID estimate -1.0% [95% CI -1.7% to -0.2%]; p = 0.01), which means they qualified for both Medicare and Medicaid insurance coverage. Of the 10 included studies that reported on comorbidities and case-complexity characteristics, six reported no change in such characteristics with the implementation of bundled payments, and four studies noted differences. Most notably, one study showed a decrease in the number of treated patients with disabilities (DID estimate -0.6% [95% CI -0.97% to -0.18%]; p < 0.05) compared with before bundled payment implementation, while another demonstrated a lower number of Elixhauser comorbidities for those treated as part of a bundled payment program (before: score of 0-1 in 63.6%, 2-3 in 27.9%, > 3 in 8.5% versus after: score of 0-1 in 50.1%, 2-3 in 38.7%, > 3 in 11.2%; p = 0.033). Of the three included studies that reported on the recent use of healthcare resources of patients, one study found no difference in the use of healthcare resources with the implementation of bundled payments, and two studies did find differences. Both studies found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at a skilled nursing facility (range DID estimate -0.50% [95% CI -1.0% to 0.0%]; p = 0.04 to DID estimate: -0.53% [95% CI -0.96% to -0.10%]; p = 0.01), while one of the studies also found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at an acute care hospital (DID estimate -0.8% [95% CI -1.6% to -0.1%]; p = 0.03) or as part of home healthcare (DID estimate -1.3% [95% CI -2.0% to -0.6%]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In six of 10 studies in which differences in patient characteristics were detected among those undergoing operative orthopaedic intervention once a bundled payment program was initiated, the effect was found to be minimal (approximately 1% or less). However, our findings still suggest some level of adverse patient selection, potentially worsening health inequities when considered on a large scale. It is also possible that our findings reflect better care, whereby the financial incentives lead to fewer patients with a high risk of complications undergoing surgical intervention and vice versa for patients with a low risk of complications postoperatively. However, this is a fine line, and it may also be that patients with a high risk of complications postoperatively are not being offered surgery enough, while patients at low risk of complications postoperatively are being offered surgery too frequently. Evaluation of the longer-term effect of these preliminary bundled payment programs on patient selection is warranted to determine whether adverse patient selection changes over time as health systems and orthopaedic surgeons become accustomed to such reimbursement models.

Robotic total knee arthroplasty: A missed opportunity for cost savings in Bundled Payment for Care Improvement initiatives?

BACKGROUND: The use of robotic total knee arthroplasty has become increasingly prevalent. Proponents of robotic total knee arthroplasty tout its potential to not only improve outcomes, but also to reduce costs compared with traditional total knee arthroplasty. Despite its potential to deliver on the value proposition, whether robotic total knee arthroplasty has led to improved outcomes and cost savings within Medicare's Bundled Payment for Care Improvement initiative remains unexplored. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries who underwent total knee arthroplasty designated under Medicare severity diagnosis related group 469 or 470 in the year 2017 were identified using the 100% Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic Files. Hospitals participating in the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement were identified using the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement analytic file. We calculated risk-adjusted, price-standardized payments for the surgical episode from admission through 90-days postdischarge. Outcomes, utilization, and spending were assessed relative to variation between robotic and traditional total knee arthroplasty. RESULTS: Overall, 198,371 patients underwent total knee arthroplasty (traditional total knee arthroplasty: n= 194,020, 97.8% versus robotic total knee arthroplasty: n = 4,351, 2.2%). Among the 3,272 hospitals that performed total knee arthroplasty, only 300 (9.3%) performed robotic total knee arthroplasty. Among the 183 participating in the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement, only 40 (19%) hospitals performed robotic total knee arthroplasty. Risk-adjusted 90-day episode spending was $14,263 (95% confidence interval $14,231-$14,294) among patients who underwent traditional total knee arthroplasty versus $13,676 (95% confidence interval $13,467-$13,885) among patients who had robotic total knee arthroplasty. Patients who underwent robotic total knee arthroplasty had a shorter length of stay (traditional total knee arthroplasty: 2.3 days, 95% confidence interval: 2.3-2.3 versus robotic total knee arthroplasty: 1.9 days, 95% confidence interval: 1.9-2.0), as well as a lower incidence of complications (traditional total knee arthroplasty: 3.3%, 95% confidence interval: 3.2-3.3 versus robotic total knee arthroplasty: 2.7%, 95% confidence interval: 2.3-3.1). Of note, patients who underwent robotic total knee arthroplasty were less often discharged to a postacute care facility than patients who underwent traditional total knee arthroplasty (traditional total knee arthroplasty: 32.4%, 95% confidence interval: 32.3-32.5 versus robotic total knee arthroplasty: 16.8%, 95% confidence interval 16.1-17.6). Both Bundled Payment for Care Improvement and non-Bundled Payment for Care Improvement hospitals with greater than 50% robotic total knee arthroplasty utilization had lower spending per episode of care versus spending at hospitals with less than 50% robotic total knee arthroplasty utilization. CONCLUSION: Overall 90-day episode spending for robotic total knee arthroplasty was lower than traditional total knee arthroplasty (Δ $-587, 95% confidence interval: $-798 to $-375). The decrease in spending was attributable to shorter length of stay, fewer complications, as well as lower utilization of postacute care facility. The cost savings associated with robotic total knee arthroplasty was only realized when robotic total knee arthroplasty volume surpassed 50% of all total knee arthroplasty volume. Hospitals participating in the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement may experience cost-saving with increased utilization of robotic total knee arthroplasty.

Wide Variation in Surgical Spending Within Hospital Systems: A Missed Opportunity for Bundled Payment Success.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to measure the extent of variation in episode spending around total hip replacement within and across hospital systems. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Bundled payment programs are pressuring hospitals to reduce spending on surgery. Meanwhile, many hospitals are joining larger health systems with the stated goal of improved care at lower cost. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of fee-for-service Medicare patients undergoing total hip replacement in 2016 at hospital systems identified in the American Hospital Association Annual Survey. We calculated risk- and reliability-adjusted average 30-day episode payments at the hospital and system level. RESULTS: Average episode payments varied nearly as much within hospital systems ($2515 between the lowest- and highest-cost hospitals, 95% confidence interval $2272-$2,758) as they did between the lowest- and highest-cost quintiles of systems ($2712, 95% confidence interval $2545-$2879). Variation was driven by post-acute care utilization. Many systems have concentrated hip replacement volume at relatively high-cost hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Given the wide variation in surgical spending within health systems, we propose tailored strategies for systems to maximize savings in bundled payment programs.

Defining the 90-day cost structure of lower extremity revascularization for alternative payment model assessment.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. healthcare system is undergoing a broad transformation from the traditional fee-for-service model to value-based payments. The changes introduced by the Medicare Quality Payment Program, including the establishment of Alternative Payment Models, ensure that the practice of vascular surgery is likely to face significant reimbursement changes as payments transition to favor these models. The Society for Vascular Surgery Alternative Payment Model taskforce was formed to explore the opportunities to develop a physician-focused payment model that will allow vascular surgeons to continue to deliver the complex care required for peripheral arterial disease (PAD). METHODS: A financial analysis was performed based on Medicare beneficiaries who had undergone qualifying index procedures during fiscal year 2016 through the third quarter of 2017. Index procedures were defined using a list of Healthcare Common Procedural Coding (HCPC) procedure codes that represent open and endovascular PAD interventions. Inpatient procedures were mapped to three diagnosis-related group (DRG) families consistent with PAD conditions: other vascular procedures (codes, 252-254), aortic and heart assist procedures (codes, 268, 269), and other major vascular procedures (codes, 270-272). Patients undergoing outpatient or office-based procedures were included if the claims data were inclusive of the HCPC procedure codes. Emergent procedures, patients with end-stage renal disease, and patients undergoing interventions within the 30 days preceding the index procedure were excluded. The analysis included usage of postacute care services (PACS) and 90-day postdischarge events (PDEs). PACS are defined as rehabilitation, skilled nursing facility, and home health services. PDEs included emergency department visits, observation stays, inpatient readmissions, and reinterventions. RESULTS: A total of 123,180 cases were included. Of these 123,180 cases, 82% had been performed in the outpatient setting. The Medicare expenditures for all periprocedural services provided at the index procedure (ie, professional, technical, and facility fees) were higher in the inpatient setting, with an average reimbursement per index case of $18,755, $34,600, and $25,245 for DRG codes 252 to 254, DRG codes 268 and 269, and DRG codes 270 to 272, respectively. Outpatient facility interventions had an average reimbursement of $11,458, and office-based index procedures had costs of $11,533. PACS were more commonly used after inpatient index procedures. In the inpatient setting, PACS usage and reimbursement were 58.6% ($5338), 57.2% ($4192), and 55.9% ($5275) for DRG codes 252 to 254, DRG codes 268 and 269, and DRG codes 270 to 272, respectively. Outpatient facility cases required PACS for 13.7% of cases (average cost, $1352), and office-based procedures required PACS in 15% of cases (average cost, $1467). The 90-day PDEs were frequent across all sites of service (range, 38.9%-50.2%) and carried significant costs. Readmission was associated with the highest average PDE expenditure (range, $13,950-$18.934). The average readmission Medicare reimbursement exceeded that of the index procedures performed in the outpatient setting. CONCLUSIONS: The cost of PAD interventions extends beyond the index procedure and includes relevant spending during the long postoperative period. Despite the analysis challenges related to the breadth of vascular procedures and the site of service variability, the data identified potential cost-saving opportunities in the management of costly PDEs. Because of the vulnerability of the PAD patient population, alternative payment modeling using a bundled value-based approach will require reallocation of resources to provide longitudinal patient care extending beyond the initial intervention.

The Implications of Aging Population Demographics on the Delivery of Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty in a Bundled Payment System.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)'s Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program provides a set payment for the provision of primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) care regardless of age and risk factors. Published literature indicates that the cost of care per episode of TJA increases with age. We examined the implication of this relationship and the effect of projected changes of age demographics on our center's BPCI experience. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on 1,662 Medicare BPCI patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) from 2013 to 2016 at a single orthopaedic institution was performed. The relationship between age and cost of care was first determined in our analysis of our BPCI experience. We then performed a cost analysis by age group with respect to our institution's profit or loss per episode of care. A forecast for shifting age demographics in our region, modeled by the U.S. Census Bureau's Federal-State Cooperative for Population Estimates (FSCPE) and Projections (FSCPP), was used to evaluate the financial implications for our BPCI program. RESULTS: Our institution sustains a significant loss of $1,934 (p < 0.001) per case for patients 85 to 99 years of age, which is offset by profits associated with treating patients in younger age groups. This age group (85 to 99 years of age) will double by the year 2040 in our region, whereas the youngest age group (65 to 69 years of age) is projected to marginally increase by 12%. The average cost of care per primary TJA will rise because of the predicted shifting age demographics, compounded by an estimated 3% inflation rate. Utilizing the current BPCI reimbursement rate, we project an inflection point of declining profits after the year 2030 with the given projections for our regional population. CONCLUSIONS: The regional population served by our institution is aging. This shift will lead to an increased cost of care and diminishing profits for TJA after 2030. The CMS's BPCI initiative and novel alternative payment models (APMs) should consider age as a modifier for reimbursement to incentivize care for the vulnerable and older age groups. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The findings of the present study are clinically relevant for decision-making regarding the allocation of resources in the setting of an aging population.

Impact of Medicare's Bundled Payments Initiative on Patient Selection, Payments, and Outcomes for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

BACKGROUND: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation launched the Bundled Payments for Care Initiative (BPCI) in 2013. Its effect on payments and outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used Medicare inpatient files to identify index admissions for PCI and CABG from 2013 through 2016 at BPCI hospitals and matched control hospitals and difference in differences models to compare the 2 groups. Our primary outcome was the change in standardized Medicare-allowed payments per 90-day episode. Secondary outcomes included changes in patient selection, discharge to postacute care, length of stay, emergency department use, readmissions, and mortality. Forty-two hospitals joined BPCI for PCI and 46 for CABG. There were no differential changes in patient selection between BPCI and control hospitals. Baseline Medicare payments per episode for PCI were $20 164 at BPCI hospitals and $19 955 at control hospitals. For PCI, payments increased at both BPCI and control hospitals during the intervention period, such that there was no significant difference in differences (BPCI hospitals +$673, P=0.048; control hospitals +$551, P=0.022; difference in differences $122, P=0.768). For CABG, payments at both BPCI and control hospitals decreased during the intervention period (BPCI baseline, $36 925, change -$2918, P<0.001; control baseline, $36 877, change -$2618, P<0.001; difference in differences, $300; P=0.730). For both PCI and CABG, BPCI participation was not associated with changes in mortality, readmissions, or length of stay. Among BPCI hospitals, emergency department use differentially increased for patients undergoing PCI and decreased for patients undergoing CABG. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in episode-based payment for PCI and CABG was not associated with changes in patient selection, payments, length of stay, or clinical outcomes.

Economics of the Management of Craniospinal Chordoma and Chondrosarcoma and the feasibility of the bundled payment model.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) created a new reimbursement model "Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI)" which reimburses providers a predetermined payment in advance to cover all possible services rendered within a certain time window. Chordoma and Chondrosarcoma are locally aggressive malignant primary bony tumors. Treatment includes surgical resection and radiotherapy with substantial risk for recurrence which necessitates monitoring and further treatment. We assessed the feasibility of the BPCI model in these neurosurgical diseases. METHODS: We selected patients with chordoma/chondrosarcoma from inpatient admission table using the International Classification of Disease, 9th (ICD-9), and 10th (ICD-10) revision codes. We collected the patients' demographics and insurance type at the index hospitalization. We recorded the following outcomes length of stay, total payment, discharge disposition, and complications for the index hospitalization. For post-discharge, we collected the 30 days and 3/6/12 months inpatient admission, outpatient service, and medication refills. Continuous variables were summarized by means with standard deviations, median with interquartile and full ranges (minimum-maximum); Continuous outcomes were compared by nonparametric Wilcoxson rank-sum test. All tests were 2-sided with a significance level of 0.05. Statistical data analysis was performed in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC). RESULTS: The population size was 2041 patients which included 1412 patients with cranial (group1), 343 patients with a mobile spine (group 2), and 286 patients with sacrococcygeal (group 3) chordoma and chondrosarcoma. For index hospitalization, the median length of stay (days) was 4, 6, and 7 for groups 1, 2, and 3 respectively (P<.001). The mean payments were ($58,130), ($84,854), and ($82,440), for groups 1, 2, and 3 respectively (P=.02). The complication rates were 30%, 35%, and 43% for groups 1, 2, and 3 respectively (P<.001). Twelve months post-discharge, the hospital readmission rates were 44%, 53%, and 65% for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P<.001). The median payments for this period were ($72,294), ($76,827), and ($101,474), for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively (P <.001). CONCLUSION: The management of craniospinal chordoma and chondrosarcoma is costly and may extend over a prolonged period. The success of BPCI requires a joint effort between insurers and hospitals. Also, it should consider patients' comorbidities, the complexity of the disease. Finally, the adoptionof quality improvement programs by hospitals can help with cost reduction.

Bundled Medicare Payments: Trends in Utilization and Physician Payments for Dialysis Arteriovenous Fistula and Graft Maintenance Procedures From 2010 to 2018.

OBJECTIVE. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the volume of and payments for dialysis arteriovenous fistula and arteriovenous graft maintenance procedures among Medicare beneficiaries from 2010 to 2018 and analyze trends by physician specialty and practice setting after the introduction of bundled Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes in 2017. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Claims from the Medicare Part B Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary Master File for the years 2010 through 2018 were extracted by use of the CPT codes for arteriovenous fistula and arteriovenous graft maintenance procedures. Total volumes, payment amounts (professional component), and trends were analyzed by physician specialty and practice setting. RESULTS. From 2010 to 2018, the volume of dialysis circuit maintenance procedures increased 25%, from 308,140 to 385,440 procedures. This increase was driven by increased volumes among nephrologists (30.0%) and surgeons (30.5%) with only a modest increase for interventional radiologists (1.5%). Total physician payments increased 20%, from $333.8 million to $399.5 million. After the introduction of bundled CPT codes in 2017, per-procedure physician payment decreased from $1073 in 2016 to $1025 in 2017 (4.5%). The true decrease in per-procedure payment was underestimated owing to inclusion of higher-cost stenting and embolization procedures in the dialysis-specific codes beginning in 2017. CONCLUSION. The volume of dialysis access maintenance procedures and total physician payments increased from 2010 to 2018 in keeping with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Fistula First Breakthrough Initiative. Introduction of bundled CPT codes in 2017, designed to reduce redundant payments, correlated with a decrease in average per-procedure physician payment.

Financial Effect of Unbundling Moderate Sedation from Procedural Codes in Radiology.

PURPOSE: To assess and quantify the financial effect of unbundling newly unbundled moderate sedation codes across major payors at an academic radiology practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Billing and reimbursement data for 23 months of unbundled moderate sedation codes were analyzed for reimbursement rates and trends. This included 10,481 and 28,189 units billed and $443,257 and $226,444 total receipts for codes 99152 (initial 15 minutes of moderate sedation) and 99153 (each subsequent 15 minute increment of moderate sedation), respectively. Five index procedures-(i) central venous port placement, (ii) endovascular tumor embolization, (iii) tunneled central venous catheter placement, (iv) percutaneous gastrostomy placement, and (v) percutaneous nephrostomy placement-were identified, and moderate sedation reimbursements for Medicare and the dominant private payor were calculated and compared to pre-bundled reimbursements. Revenue variation models across different patient insurance mixes were then created using averages from 4 common practice settings among radiologists (independent practices, all hospitals, safety-net hospitals, and non-safety-net hospitals). RESULTS: Departmental reimbursement for unbundled moderate sedation in FY2018 and FY2019 totaled $669,701.34, with high per-unit variability across payors, especially for code 99153. Across the 5 index procedures, moderate sedation reimbursement decreased 1.3% after unbundling and accounted for 3.9% of procedural revenue from Medicare and increased 11.9% and accounted for 5.5% of procedural revenue from the dominant private payor. Between different patient insurance mix models, estimated reimbursement from moderate sedation varied by as much as 29.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Departmental reimbursement from billing the new unbundled moderate sedation codes was sizable and heterogeneous, highlighting the need for consistent and accurate reporting of moderate sedation. Total collections vary by case mix, patient insurance mix, and negotiated reimbursement rates.

The Impact of a Colorectal Care Bundle for Surgical Site Infections at an Academic Disproportionate Share Hospital With a Level I Trauma Center.

OBJECTIVES: Colorectal care bundles for surgical site infections (CRCB-SSIs) have been shown to reduce SSIs following elective colorectal surgery (CRS). There are limited data evaluating the effect of CRCB-SSI at Academic Disproportionate Share Hospitals (ADSH) with significant rates of urgent and emergent cases. METHODS: A CRCB-SSI was implemented in April 2016. We reviewed medical records of all patients undergoing colon resections between August 2015 and December 2017. Patients were divided into preimplementation and postimplementation groups. The primary endpoint was the SSI rate, and the secondary endpoint included types of SSI (superficial, deep, organ space). Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed. A subset analysis was performed in elective cases. RESULTS: We analyzed a total of 417 patients. Of these, 116 (28%) and 301 (72%) patients were in the preimplementation and postimplementation groups, respectively. The rate of SSI decreased from 30.1% to 15.9% in the postimplementation group (P = .0012); however, it was not statistically significant after adjusting for baseline differences (relative risk [RR] 0.65; 95% CI 0.41-1.02).The elective subset included 219 patients. The rate of SSI in this cohort decreased from 25% to 10.5% in the postimplementation group (P = .0012) and remained significant following multivariable analysis (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19- 0.88). There were no differences in the subtypes of SSI. DISCUSSION: While the CRCB-SSI was effective in decreasing the postoperative SSI rate for elective cases, its effect on the overall patient population was limited. CRCB-SSIs are not enough to bring SSI rates to accepted rates in high-risk patients such as those seen at ADSH.

Are current DRG-based bundled payment models for revision total joint arthroplasty risk-adjusting adequately?

AIMS: Currently, the US Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) has been testing bundled payments for revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA) through the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) programme. Under the BPCI, bundled payments for revision TJAs are defined on the basis of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). However, these DRG-based bundled payment models may not be adequate to account appropriately for the varying case-complexity seen in revision TJAs. METHODS: The 2008-2014 Medicare 5% Standard Analytical Files (SAF5) were used to identify patients undergoing revision TJA under DRG codes 466, 467, or 468. Generalized linear regression models were built to assess the independent marginal cost-impact of patient, procedural, and geographic characteristics on 90-day costs. RESULTS: A total of 9,263 patients (DRG-466 = 838, DRG-467 = 4,573, and DRG-468 = 3,842) undergoing revision TJA from 2008 to 2014 were included in the study. Undergoing revision for a dislocation (+$1,221), periprosthetic fracture (+$4,454), and prosthetic joint infection (+$5,268) were associated with higher 90-day costs. Among comorbidities, malnutrition (+$10,927), chronic liver disease (+$3,894), congestive heart failure (+$3,292), anaemia (+$3,149), and coagulopathy (+$2,997) had the highest marginal cost-increase. The five US states with the highest 90-day costs were Alaska (+$14,751), Maryland (+$13,343), New York (+$7,428), Nevada (+$6,775), and California (+$6,731). CONCLUSION: Under the proposed DRG-based bundled payment methodology, surgeons would be reimbursed the same amount of money for revision TJAs, regardless of the indication (periprosthetic fracture, prosthetic joint infection, mechanical loosening) and/or patient complexity. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):959-964.

Revaluation of Otolaryngologic Procedures With 10- and 90-Day Global Periods in the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.

A recent investigation by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) suggests that physicians provide fewer postoperative visits (POVs) than expected for procedures with 10- and 90-day global periods. CMS is now contemplating revaluation of these procedures, which could result in lower Medicare payments to otolaryngologists. To estimate the impact of such reform on otolaryngologic procedures, we conducted a secondary subgroup analysis of CMS-contracted research, which used claims-based estimates of POVs to revalue procedures with 10- and 90-day global periods. Among the top 10 highest volume procedures performed in 2018, the proportion of median physician-reported to CMS-expected POVs ranged between 0.0% (myringotomy ± ventilation tube insertion, mouth biopsy, and complex wound repair) and 40.0% (total thyroidectomy). The top 5 procedures accounted for nearly three-quarters ($6.2 million and $8.6 million; 72.6%) of the estimated Medicare payment reduction. Further study is necessary to guide the development of equitable and effective payment reform.

Current diagnosis-related group-based bundling for upper-extremity arthroplasty: a case of insufficient risk adjustment and misaligned incentives.

BACKGROUND: The current Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services diagnosis-related group (DRG) bundled-payment model for upper-extremity arthroplasty does not differentiate between the type of arthroplasty (anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty [ATSA] vs. reverse total shoulder arthroplasty vs. total elbow arthroplasty [TEA] vs. total wrist arthroplasty) or the diagnosis and indication for surgery (fracture vs. degenerative osteoarthritis vs. inflammatory arthritis). METHODS: The 2011-2014 Medicare 5% Standard Analytical Files (SAF5) database was queried to identify patients undergoing upper-extremity arthroplasty under DRG-483 and -484. Multivariate linear regression modeling was used to assess the marginal cost impact of patient-, procedure-, diagnosis-, and state-level factors on 90-day reimbursements. RESULTS: Of 6101 patients undergoing upper-extremity arthroplasty, 3851 (63.1%) fell under DRG-484 and 2250 (36.9%) were classified under DRG-483. The 90-day risk-adjusted cost of an ATSA for degenerative osteoarthritis was $14,704 ± $655. Patient-level factors associated with higher 90-day reimbursements were male sex (+$777), age 75-79 years (+$740), age 80-84 years (+$1140), and age 85 years or older (+$984). Undergoing a TEA (+$2175) was associated with higher reimbursements, whereas undergoing a shoulder hemiarthroplasty (-$1000) was associated with lower reimbursements. Surgery for a fracture (+$2354) had higher 90-day reimbursements. Malnutrition (+$10,673), alcohol use or dependence (+$6273), Parkinson disease (+$4892), cerebrovascular accident or stroke (+$4637), and hyper-coagulopathy (+$4463) had the highest reimbursements. In general, states in the South and Midwest had lower 90-day reimbursements associated with upper-extremity arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Under the DRG-based model piloted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, providers and hospitals would be reimbursed the same amount regardless of the type of surgery (ATSA vs. hemiarthroplasty vs. TEA), patient comorbidity burden, and diagnosis and indication for surgery (fracture vs. degenerative pathology), despite each of these factors having different resource utilization and associated reimbursements. Lack of risk adjustment for fracture indications leads to strong financial disincentives within this model.

Where Will Pathologic Hip Fractures Go in a Value-based Hip Fracture Bundle?

INTRODUCTION: There has been a burgeoning interest for implementing bundled payments for hip fractures being treated with hemiarthroplasty, percutaneous pinning, and/or open reduction and internal fixation. Concerns exist about how hip fracture bundles may impede access to care for patients who require more resources, such as those with pathologic/neoplastic fractures. METHODS: The 2011 to 2017 American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried to identify patients undergoing percutaneous pinning, hemiarthroplasty, plate/screw, and intramedullary nail for hip fractures. Multivariate regression analyses were used to identify notable differences in 30-day complications, readmissions, reoperations, mortality, length of stay, and nonhome discharges between native and pathologic/neoplastic hip fractures. RESULTS: A total of 67,548 patients were included-of which 378 (0.6%) had a pathologic/neoplastic hip fracture. Pathologic fractures (versus native hip fractures) had significantly higher odds of experiencing a prolonged length of stay >5 days (odds ratio [OR] 1.57), pulmonary embolism (OR 3.67), deep vein thrombosis (OR 2.03), 30-day readmissions (OR 1.43), and 30-day mortality (OR 2.66). DISCUSSION: Patients sustaining a pathologic/neoplastic hip fracture have a worse adverse event profile. Risk adjustment based on facture etiology will be necessary to ensure that providers taking care of pathologic/neoplastic fractures are appropriately reimbursed to minimize barriers to access of care for this vulnerable cohort.

Spending And Quality After Three Years Of Medicare's Voluntary Bundled Payment For Joint Replacement Surgery.

Medicare has reinforced its commitment to voluntary bundled payment by building upon the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative via an ongoing successor program, the BPCI Advanced Model. Although lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) is the highest-volume episode in both BPCI and BPCI Advanced, there is a paucity of independent evidence about its long-term impact on outcomes and about whether improvements vary by timing of participation or arise from patient selection rather than changes in clinical practice. We found that over three years, compared to no participation, participation in BPCI was associated with a 1.6 percent differential decrease in average LEJR episode spending with no differential changes in quality, driven by early participants. Patient selection accounted for 27 percent of episode savings. Our findings have important policy implications in view of BPCI Advanced and its two participation waves.

Assessing the Feasibility of an Alternative Payment Model for Mohs Micrographic Surgery at an Academic Center.

BACKGROUND: Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) is a cost-effective treatment for nonmelanoma skin cancer that bundles costs for surgical excision, tissue processing, and histopathological interpretation. A comprehensive MMS bundle would include all aspects of an episode of care (EOC), including costs of reconstruction, preoperative, and postoperative care. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of an alternative payment model for MMS and reconstruction. METHODS: Retrospective chart review and payment analysis for 848 consecutive patients with 1,056 tumors treated with MMS. Average Medicare payment of an EOC was compared with bundles based on specific repair types. RESULTS: The bundle for a flap/graft repair averaged $1,028.08 (confidence interval [CI] 95% $951.37-1,104.79), whereas the bundle for a linear closure (LC) averaged $585.07 (CI 95% $558.75-611.38). The average bundle including all repairs was $730.05 (CI 95% $692.31-767.79), which was statistically significant from both the flap/graft and LC bundles. CONCLUSION: Bundling surgical repairs with MMS based on an average payment does not represent the heterogeneity of the care provided and results in either underpayment or overpayment for a substantial portion of cases. Consequently, EOC payments bundling MMS and surgical repairs would inaccurately reimburse physicians for work completed. Current payment methodology allows for accurate payment for this already cost-effective therapy.

Bundled Payment Plans Are Associated With Notable Cost Savings for Ambulatory Outpatient Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Bundling of services, typically into a 90-day episode of care, is intended to facilitate cost reduction. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of a private insurance bundling program on the costs of outpatient total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) at a freestanding ambulatory surgery center. METHODS: A cost minimization analysis was done of patients who had anatomic TSA by a single surgeon at a single freestanding ambulatory surgery center, including line-by-line comparisons of demographic and comorbidity factors for all patients treated within the 90-day episode of care. RESULTS: Seventy-six primary anatomic TSAs were included, 39 in the bundled group and 37 outside of the program. The bundled group was on average older (58 years) than the unbundled group (54 years, P = 0.021), but the groups were otherwise similar in demographics. The average total implant charges were significantly less for the bundled group ($24,822.43 versus $28,405.51, P = 0.014). Average total surgery supply charges and anesthesia supply charges were similar (P > 0.05). Mean total outpatient surgical day charges (implants, surgical, and anesthesia equipment) were significantly less for the bundled group ($29,782.43 versus $33,238.68, P = 0.022), as were average operating room staffing costs ($135.37 versus $162.55, P = 0.015). During the 90-day postoperative period, charges were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Primary anatomic TSA using a bundled care program in an outpatient setting coincides with markedly lower charges. The primary driver of this reduction is implant pricing, which is negotiated as part of the bundle. Surgeons must carefully analyze their unique practices in the changing economic health care environment when creating an outpatient TSA and/or bundling program. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III economic analysis.