Association Between Individual Primary Care Physician Merit-based Incentive Payment System Score and Measures of Process and Patient Outcomes.

Importance: The Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) influences reimbursement for hundreds of thousands of US physicians, but little is known about whether program performance accurately captures the quality of care they provide. Objective: To examine whether primary care physicians' MIPS scores are associated with performance on process and outcome measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of 80 246 US primary care physicians participating in the MIPS program in 2019. Exposures: MIPS score. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association between physician MIPS scores and performance on 5 unadjusted process measures, 6 adjusted outcome measures, and a composite outcome measure. Results: The study population included 3.4 million patients attributed to 80 246 primary care physicians, including 4773 physicians with low MIPS scores (≤30), 6151 physicians with medium MIPS scores (>30-75), and 69 322 physicians with high MIPS scores (>75). Compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly worse mean performance on 3 of 5 process measures: diabetic eye examinations (56.1% vs 63.2%; difference, -7.1 percentage points [95% CI, -8.0 to -6.2]; P < .001), diabetic HbA1c screening (84.6% vs 89.4%; difference, -4.8 percentage points [95% CI, -5.4 to -4.2]; P < .001), and mammography screening (58.2% vs 70.4%; difference, -12.2 percentage points [95% CI, -13.1 to -11.4]; P < .001) but significantly better mean performance on rates of influenza vaccination (78.0% vs 76.8%; difference, 1.2 percentage points [95% CI, 0.0 to 2.5]; P = .045] and tobacco screening (95.0% vs 94.1%; difference, 0.9 percentage points [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5]; P = .001). MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with risk-adjusted patient outcomes: compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly better mean performance on 1 outcome (307.6 vs 316.4 emergency department visits per 1000 patients; difference, -8.9 [95% CI, -13.7 to -4.1]; P < .001), worse performance on 1 outcome (255.4 vs 225.2 all-cause hospitalizations per 1000 patients; difference, 30.2 [95% CI, 24.8 to 35.7]; P < .001), and did not have significantly different performance on 4 ambulatory care-sensitive admission outcomes. Nineteen percent of physicians with low MIPS scores had composite outcomes performance in the top quintile, while 21% of physicians with high MIPS scores had outcomes in the bottom quintile. Physicians with low MIPS scores but superior outcomes cared for more medically complex and socially vulnerable patients, compared with physicians with low MIPS scores and poor outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among US primary care physicians in 2019, MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with performance on process and outcome measures. These findings suggest that the MIPS program may be ineffective at measuring and incentivizing quality improvement among US physicians.

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.

Joint-Venture Ambulatory Surgery Centers: The Perfect Partnership.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory surgery growth has increased in the last few decades as ambulatory surgery centers have been shown to succeed in cost efficiencies through their smaller size and breadth, specialization of care, and ability to quickly participate in perioperative process improvement and education. METHODS: A 5-year retrospective fiscal review was performed for all Northwell Health-physician ambulatory surgery center joint ventures. The outcome measures studied included model of ownership, specialty types, and gross revenue. Additional facility characteristics were studied, including growth trajectory, facility size, and cost to build a de novo facility. RESULTS: Eleven free-standing ambulatory surgery centers were identified at Northwell Health during the 5-year study period. The total gross revenue for all Northwell clinical joint ventures for 2019 alone was $102,854,000. Northwell Health is a majority stakeholder in eight of their joint venture ambulatory surgery centers, with an average Northwell ownership of 53 percent and an average number of physician owners per facility of 11. The number of hospital-physician joint-venture ambulatory surgery centers grew from two to 11 facilities during the study period (450 percent). Surgical volume followed a similar trajectory, increasing 295 percent over the same time period. CONCLUSIONS: The ambulatory surgery center setting provides a vast number of possibilities for key stakeholders, including patients themselves, to benefit from financial and clinical efficiencies. Ambulatory surgery centers have been popular, as they meet patient expectations for convenience of elective surgery, reduce payer and clinical pressures to minimize length of stay in hospitals, and achieve similar or higher quality care with less intense resources.

Unplanned hospital visits after ambulatory surgical care.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess the rate of unplanned hospital visits among patients undergoing ambulatory surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The majority of surgeries performed in the United States now take place in outpatient settings. Post-discharge hospital visit rates have been shown to vary widely, suggesting variation in surgical or discharge care quality. Complicating efforts to address quality, most facilities and surgeons are unaware of their patients' hospital visits after surgery since patients may present to a different hospital. METHODS: We used state-level, administrative data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project from California to assess unplanned hospital visits after ambulatory surgery. To compare rates across centers, we determined the age, sex, and procedure-adjusted rates of hospital visits for each facility using 2-level, hierarchical, generalized linear models using methods similar to existing Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services measures. RESULTS: Among a total of 1,260,619 ambulatory same-day surgeries from 440 surgical facilities, the risk adjusted 30-day rate of unplanned hospital visits was 4.8%, with emergency department visits of 3.1% and hospital admissions of 1.7%. Several patient characteristics were associated with increased risk of unplanned hospitals visits, including increased age, increased number of comorbidities (using the Elixhauser score), and type of procedure (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The overall rate unplanned hospital visits within 30 days after same-day surgery is low but variable, suggesting a difference in the quality of care provided. Further, these rates are higher among specific patient populations and procedure types, suggesting areas for targeted improvement.

Implementation and Evaluation of a Novel High-Value Care Curriculum in a Single Academic Surgery Department.

BACKGROUND: High value care (HVC), maximizing quality while minimizing cost, has become a major focus of surgical practice. Effective education in healthcare value concepts is critical during residency to ensure graduates are able to deliver high value surgical care and participate in interprofessional teams to improve the system. STUDY DESIGN: An HVC curriculum was implemented at a single academic medical center. Sixty-six residents from general surgery, plastic surgery, otolaryngology, and urology completed the curriculum over 3 academic years (2016 to 2019). The 1-year curriculum taught residents the concepts of HVC before participating in a value improvement project the following year. Residents' knowledge of value was assessed pre- and post-participation using a validated assessment tool, the Quality Improvement Knowledge Application Tool Revised (QIKAT-R), and a curriculum-specific assessment tool. The overall success of the program was evaluated by assessing residents' skills in completing value improvement projects using a novel scoring rubric. RESULTS: After completing the program, residents expressed improved confidence in their ability to complete a value improvement project. Residents also demonstrated improved knowledge on the curriculum-specific assessment (4.7/13 to 10.9/13) and the scenario assessment using the QIKAT-R tool (8.5/27 to 16.4/27). As the program underwent iterative improvements each year, the quality of the residents' projects also improved, as assessed by the novel scoring rubric. CONCLUSIONS: Multimodal assessment demonstrated improvement in residents' objective knowledge of HVC principles, residents' ability to design and lead clinical value improvement projects, and residents' confidence they could use HVC principles in their current and future practice.

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer as a platform to build on: review of current evidence.

Laparoscopy in colorectal surgery reduces the rate of postoperative complications, shortens the length of stay in hospital, and improves the quality of patient care. Despite these established benefits, the technical challenges of rectal resection for cancer have resulted in most operations being performed through open surgery in the USA. Moreover, controversy in the current literature questions the oncologic safety of a laparoscopic approach for rectal cancer. How then can surgeons innovate to overcome the technical challenges while preserving the critical oncological outcomes of high-quality rectal cancer surgery? Robotics may be a platform that allows us to overcome the technical challenges in the pelvis while maintaining both oncological outcomes and the benefits of a minimally invasive technique. Current evidence suggests that the quality of total mesorectal excision, the rates of circumferential margin involvement, and postoperative outcomes are comparable between robotic and laparoscopic surgery. While a robotic approach demonstrates lower conversion rates and reduced surgeon workload, the operative time is longer and initial costs are higher; however, time and future science will determine its true benefits. We review the current state of robotic surgery and its impact on rectal cancer surgery.

Association of Mandatory Bundled Payments for Joint Replacement With Postacute Care Outcomes Among Medicare and Medicaid Dual Eligible Patients.

IMPORTANCE: The Medicare comprehensive care for joint replacement (CJR) model, a mandatory bundled payment program started in April 2016 for hospitals in randomly selected metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), may help reduce postacute care (PAC) use and episode costs, but its impact on disparities between Medicaid and non-Medicaid beneficiaries is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine effects of the CJR program on differences (or disparities) in PAC use and outcomes by Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility status. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study of 2013-2017, based on difference-in-differences (DID) analyses on Medicare data for 1,239,452 Medicare-only patients, 57,452 dual eligibles with full Medicaid benefits, and 50,189 dual eligibles with partial Medicaid benefits who underwent hip or knee surgery in hospitals of 75 CJR MSAs and 121 control MSAs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Risk-adjusted differences in rates of institutional PAC [skilled nursing facility (SNF), inpatient rehabilitation, or long-term hospital care] use and readmissions; and for the subgroup of patients discharged to SNF, risk-adjusted differences in SNF length of stay, payments, and quality measured by star ratings, rate of successful discharge to community, and rate of transition to long-stay nursing home resident. RESULTS: The CJR program was associated with reduced institutional PAC use and readmissions for patients in all 3 groups. For example, it was associated with reductions in 90-day readmission rate by 1.8 percentage point [DID estimate=-1.8; 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.6 to -0.9; P<0.001] for Medicare-only patients, by 1.6 percentage points (DID estimate=-1.6; 95% CI, -3.1 to -0.1; P=0.04) for full-benefit dual eligibles, and by 2.0 percentage points (DID estimate=-2.0; 95% CI, -3.6 to -0.4; P=0.01) for partial-benefit dual eligibles. These CJR-associated effects did not differ between dual eligibles (differences in above DID estimates=0.2; 95% CI, -1.4 to 1.7; P=0.81 for full-benefit patients; and -0.3; 95% CI, -1.9 to 1.3; P=0.74 for partial-benefit patients) and Medicare-only patients. Among patients discharged to SNF, the CJR program showed no effect on successful community discharge, transition to long-term care, or their persistent disparities. CONCLUSIONS: The CJR program did not help reduce persistent disparities in readmissions or SNF-specific outcomes related to Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility, likely due to its lack of financial incentives for reduced disparities and improved SNF outcomes.

Associations between informal care costs, care quality, carer rewards, burden and subsequent grief: the international, access, rights and empowerment mortality follow-back study of the last 3 months of life (IARE I study).

BACKGROUND: At the end of life, formal care costs are high. Informal care (IC) costs, and their effects on outcomes, are not known. This study aimed to determine the IC costs for older adults in the last 3 months of life, and their relationships with outcomes, adjusting for care quality. METHODS: Mortality follow-back postal survey. SETTING: Palliative care services in England (London), Ireland (Dublin) and the USA (New York, San Francisco). PARTICIPANTS: Informal carers (ICrs) of decedents who had received palliative care. DATA: ICrs reported hours and activities, care quality, positive aspects and burdens of caregiving, and completed the Texas Revised Inventory of Grief (TRIG). ANALYSIS: All costs (formal, informal) were calculated by multiplying reported hours of activities by country-specific costs for that activity. IC costs used country-specific shadow prices, e.g. average hourly wages and unit costs for nursing care. Multivariable logistic regression analysis explored the association of potential explanatory variables, including IC costs and care quality, on three outcomes: positive aspects and burdens of caregiving, and subsequent grief. RESULTS: We received 767 completed surveys, 245 from London, 282 Dublin, 131 New York and 109 San Francisco. Most respondents were women (70%); average age was 60 years. On average, patients received 66-76 h per week from ICrs for 'being on call', 52-55 h for ICrs being with them, 19-21 h for personal care, 17-21 h for household tasks, 15-18 h for medical procedures and 7-10 h for appointments. Mean (SD) IC costs were as follows: USA $32,468 (28,578), England $36,170 (31,104) and Ireland $43,760 (36,930). IC costs accounted for 58% of total (formal plus informal) costs. Higher IC costs were associated with less grief and more positive perspectives of caregiving. Poor home care was associated with greater caregiver burden. CONCLUSIONS: Costs to informal carers are larger than those to formal care services for people in the last three months of life. If well supported ICrs can play a role in providing care, and this can be done without detriment to them, providing that they are helped. Improving community palliative care and informal carer support should be a focus for future investment.

Value-based plastic surgery.

This editorial explores value in relation to plastic surgery and strategies that have been suggested to deliver value-based healthcare. We consider how value is measured, accounting for patient outcomes and experiences, costs and equity, and describe strategies that might improve value, such as outcome-based reimbursement, reporting transparency and high volume specialist centres.

Complications, Costs, and Quality Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Cervical Deformity Surgery With Intraoperative BMP Use.

STUDY DESIGN: An epidemiological study using national administrative data from the MarketScan database. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the impact of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) on postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing adult cervical deformity (ACD) surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: BMP has been shown to stimulate bone growth and improve fusion rates in spine surgery. However, the impact of BMP on reoperation rates and postoperative complication rate is controversial. METHODS: We queried the MarketScan database to identify patients who underwent ACD surgery from 2007 to 2015. Patients were stratified by BMP use in the index operation. Patients <18 years and those with any history of tumor or trauma were excluded. Baseline demographics and comorbidities, postoperative complication rates, and reoperation rates were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 13,549 patients underwent primary ACD surgery, of which 1155 (8.5%) had intraoperative BMP use. The overall 90-day complication rate was 27.6% in the non-BMP cohort and 31.1% in the BMP cohort (P < 0.05). Patients in the BMP cohort had longer average length of stay (4.0 days vs. 3.7 days, P < 0.05) but lower revision surgery rates at 90 days (14.5% vs. 28.3%, P < 0.05), 6 months (14.9% vs. 28.6%, P < 0.05), 1 year (15.7% vs. 29.2%, P < 0.05), and 2 years (16.5% vs. 29.9%, P < 0.05) postoperatively. BMP use was associated with higher payments throughout the 2-year follow-up period ($107,975 vs. $97,620, P < 0.05). When controlling for baseline group differences, BMP use independently increased the odds of postoperative complication (odds ratio [OR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.1-1.4) and reduced the odds of reoperation throughout 2 years of follow-up (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.4-0.6). CONCLUSION: Intraoperative BMP use has benefits for fusion integrity in ACD surgery but is associated with increased postoperative complication rate. Spine surgeons should weigh these benefits and drawbacks to identify optimal candidates for BMP use in ACD surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Choosing Wisely: The Korean Perspective and Launch of the 'Right Decision in Cancer Care' Initiative.

Government healthcare expenditure is rising in Korea, and the costs incurred by patients in Korea exceed those incurred by patients in other Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Despite the increasing health expenditure, patient demand for services is increasing as well, so it is now becoming recognized that cancer care needs to be balanced. The most important measure in cancer care optimization is to provide high-quality care while keeping costs sustainable. The Korean Cancer Association considers the current situation of cancer therapy in Korea the foremost issue, which has led to the implementation of the nationwide 'Right Decisions in Cancer Care' initiative. This initiative is based on the concepts of medical professionalism in that it should be led by physicians working in the field of oncology, that education should be offered to patients and clinicians, and that it should influence healthcare policy. In this article, we introduce the nationwide 'Right Decision in Cancer Care' initiative and highlight the five initial items on its agenda. The agenda is open to expansion and update as the medical environment evolves and additional clinical evidence becomes available.

The influence of Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional (JKN) on the cost of delivery services in Indonesia.

The maternal mortality rate in Indonesia is still high, at 305 per 100,000 live births. Several studies indicated maternal financial burden as one of the dimensions of access that influence a pregnant woman's ability to receive adequate, high-quality medical care. This study aims to identify the association between the use of Indonesia's national health insurance (JKN) and out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures in accessing delivery services, using data from the Indonesian Family Life Survey 5. In addition, this study also investigated the relationship of JKN and the potential reduction of catastrophic delivery expenditures (CDEs) for delivery services. The results show that JKN was associated with reduced OOP expenditures for delivery as well as reduced risk of incurring CDE. However, some OOP expenditure for cost of delivery services still exists among mothers who used JKN during delivery, potentially due to factors such as medicine stock availability and inpatient care shortages.

Cost-Effectiveness of Current Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests.

Cost-effectiveness analysis compares benefits and costs of different interventions to inform decision makers. Alternatives are compared based on an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio reported in terms of cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Multiple cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have been performed. Although regional epidemiology of CRC, relevant screening strategies, regional health system, and applicable medical costs in local currencies differ by country and region, several overarching points emerge from literature on cost-effectiveness of CRC screening. Cost-effectiveness analysis informs decisions in ongoing debates, including preferred age to begin average-risk CRC screening, and implementation of CRC screening tailored to predicted CRC risk.

Telehealth Is a Sustainable Population Health Strategy to Lower Costs and Increase Quality of Health Care in Rural Utah.

PURPOSE: A telehealth oncology practice was created to care for patients in rural communities to improve access to health care, decrease financial burdens, and save time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with cancer at Sevier Valley Hospital in Richfield, Utah, were treated with a real-time video-based telehealth program under the care of an oncologist at a tertiary medical center. Data on financial savings, travel hours, mileage avoided, carbon emissions reduced, and revenue retained by Sevier Valley Hospital were collected from 2015 to 2018. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2018, 119 patients with cancer in Richfield, Utah, were treated with telehealth for oncology visits, accounting for 1,025 patient encounters. On average, patients saved 4 hours and 40 minutes and 332 miles roundtrip per encounter. In total, patients' savings were estimated to be $333,074. Carbon emissions were reduced by approximately 150,000 kg. Of new patient referrals, 59% were for solid tumors (70 of 119 referrals; 42 metastatic and 28 nonmetastatic cancers), and 41% were hematology consultations (49 of 119 referrals; 28 classical and 21 malignant hematologic conditions). We estimate that Sevier Valley Hospital retained $3,605,500 in revenue over this 4-year period. CONCLUSION: Using a telehealth program in rural Utah, patients with cancer benefited from substantial time and monetary savings. The local medical center was able to retain revenue it would have otherwise lost to outsourcing cancer care. Recent regulatory changes to address the COVID-19 pandemic should increase the number of patients with cancer treated via telehealth nationwide.

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.

CAR-T therapy and historical trends in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of oncology treatments.

Aim: This study examines how chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy's incremental effectiveness and cost-effectiveness profile fits into the recent history of anticancer treatments. Materials & methods: We conducted graphical and multivariable analyses using data from the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry of the Tufts Medical Center and the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review's analysis of CAR-T therapies. We collected additional information including the US FDA approval years for pharmacologic innovations. Results: CAR-T provided 5.03 (95% CI: 3.88-6.18) more incremental quality-adjusted life-years than the average pharmaceutical intervention and 4.61 (95% CI: 1.67-7.56) more than the average nonpharmaceutical intervention, while retaining similar cost-effectiveness. There was evidence of worsening cost-effectiveness by approval year for pharmaceutical interventions. Limitations: Analysis is limited to anticancer treatments studied in cost-utility analyses, estimated to cover approximately 60% of FDA-approved antineoplastic agents. Conclusion: CAR-T therapy breaks a pattern of stagnant efficacy growth in pharmaceutical innovation and demonstrates significantly greater incremental effectiveness and similar cost-effectiveness to prior innovations.

Significant Improvement in the Value of Surgical Treatment of Tibial Plateau Fractures Through Surgeon Practice Standardization.

INTRODUCTION: It is unclear whether cost-based decisions to improve the value of surgical care (quality:cost ratio) affect patient outcomes. Our hypothesis was that surgeon-directed reductions in surgical costs for tibial plateau fracture fixation would result in similar patient outcomes, thus improving treatment value. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study with retrospective control data. Surgically treated tibial plateau fractures from 2013 to October 2014 served as a control (group 1). Material costs for each case were calculated. Practices were modified to remove allegedly unnecessary costs. Next, cost data were collected on similar patients from November 2014 through 2015 (group 2). Costs were compared between groups, analyzing partial articular and complete articular fractures separately. Minimum follow-up (f/u) was 1-year. Outcomes data collected include Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) and pain interference domains, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, visual analog pain scale, infection, nonunion, unplanned return to surgery, demographics, injury characteristics, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Group 1 included 57 partial articular fractures and 57 complete articular fractures. Group 2 included 37 partial articular fractures and 32 complete articular fractures. Median cost of partial articular fractures decreased from $1,706 to $1,447 (P = 0.025), and median cost of complete articular fractures decreased from $2,681 to $2,220 (P = 0.003). Group 1 had 55 patients who consented to clinical f/u, and group 2 had 39. Median PROMIS PF score was 40 for group 1 and was 43 for group 2 (P = 0.23). There were no significant differences between the groups for any clinical outcomes, demographics, injury characteristics, or comorbidities. Median f/u in group 1 was 31 months compared with 15 months in group 2 (P < 0.0001). DISCUSSION: We have demonstrated that surgeons can improve value of surgical care by reducing surgical costs while maintaining clinical outcomes.