The Current Relationship Between Surgeon Reimbursement and Patient Complexity in Arthroplasty-A Risk-Payment Analysis of All Primary Joint Replacements Billed to Medicare in 2019.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess surgeon reimbursement among total joint arthroplasty (TJA) patients who had differing risk profiles within the Medicare population. METHODS: The "2019 Medicare Physician and Other Provider" file was utilized. In 2019, 441,584 primary total hip and knee arthroplasty procedures were billed to Medicare Part B. All episodes were included. Patient demographics and comorbidity profiles were collected for all patients. Additionally, mean patient hierarchal condition category (HCC) risk scores and physician reimbursements were collected. All procedure episodes were split into 2 cohorts; those with an HCC risk score of 1.5 or greater, and those with patient HCC risk scores less than 1.5. Variables were averaged for each cohort and compared. RESULTS: The mean reimbursement across all procedures was $1,068.03. For the sicker patient cohort with a mean HCC risk score of 1.5 or greater, there was a significantly higher rate of all comorbidities compared to the cohort with HCC risk score under 1.5. The mean payment across the sicker cohort was $1,059.21, while the mean payment among the cohort with HCC risk score under 1.5 was 1,073.32 (P = .032). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that for Medicare patients undergoing primary TJA in 2019, the mean surgeon reimbursement was lower for primary TJA among sick patients in comparison to their healthier counterparts, although it is difficult to ascertain the impact of this discrepancy. As alternative payment models continue to undergo evaluation and development, these data will be important for the potential advancement of more equitable reimbursement models in arthroplasty care, specifically regarding surgeon reimbursement and possible risk adjustment within such models.

Why Do Patients Stay Longer Than Three Nights Following Hip and Knee Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Prolonged length of stay (PLOS) is frequently cited by secondary data studies as an adverse outcome following hip and knee arthroplasty. Although perhaps indisputable that PLOS increases the cost of hospitalization, it is unknown whether it is an appropriate measure of the quality of an arthroplasty procedure. METHODS: We searched our institution's database for all hip and knee arthroplasty procedures over a 5-year period using MS-DRG (Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Group) 469 and 470. Cases with greater than 3 night stays were identified. Charts were manually reviewed by 2 independent reviewers to identify the primary reason for PLOS, and the need for 30-day readmission or reoperation. RESULTS: Of a total 4347 hip and knee arthroplasty cases, 218 (5.0%) were identified with LOS greater than 3 nights. The majority of prolonged stays were due to exclusively medical reasons (81 cases: 37.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 31.0-43.7). The second most common cause was inpatient days prior to the arthroplasty procedure (45 cases: 20.6%; 95% CI 15.8-26.5). Orthopedic reasons for PLOS were significantly less common than medical reasons (36 cases: 16.5%; 95% CI 12.2-22.0, P < .0001), most often due to failure to meet therapy goals. Neither readmission (31 cases: 14.2%) nor reoperation (10 cases: 4.6%) was associated with an underlying reason for PLOS. CONCLUSION: When evaluating LOS as a measure of quality of an arthroplasty procedure, readers of secondary "big data" studies should be aware that there are significant limitations to its utility. Even after controlling for potential confounders, we found that PLOS does not necessarily reflect an adverse outcome.