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.

Incorporating Cost Measures Into the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System: Implications for Oncologists.

PURPOSE: The Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is currently the only federally mandated value-based payment model for oncologists. The weight of cost measures in MIPS has increased from 0% in 2017 to 30% in 2022. Given that cost measures are specialty-agnostic, specialties with greater costs of care such as oncology may be unfairly affected. We investigated the implications of incorporating cost measures into MIPS on physician reimbursements for oncologists and other physicians. METHODS: We evaluated physicians scored on cost and quality in the 2018 MIPS using the Doctors and Clinicians database. We used multivariable Tobit regression to identify physician-level factors associated with cost and quality scores. We simulated composite MIPS scores and payment adjustments by applying the 2022 cost-quality weights to the 2018 category scores and compared changes across specialties. RESULTS: Of 168,098 identified MIPS-participating physicians, 5,942 (3.5%) were oncologists. Oncologists had the lowest cost scores compared with other specialties (adjusted mean score, 58.4 for oncologists v 71.0 for nononcologists; difference, -12.66 [95% CI, -13.34 to -11.99]), while quality scores were similar (82.9 v 84.2; difference, -1.31 [95% CI, -2.65 to 0.03]). After the 2022 cost-quality reweighting, oncologists would receive a 4.3-point (95% CI, 4.58 to 4.04) reduction in composite MIPS scores, corresponding to a four-fold increase in magnitude of physician penalties ($4,233.41 US dollars [USD] in 2018 v $18,531.06 USD in 2022) and greater reduction in exceptional payment bonuses compared with physicians in other specialties (-42.8% [95% CI, -44.1 to -41.5] for oncologists v -23.6% [95% CI, -23.8 to -23.4] for others). CONCLUSION: Oncologists will likely be disproportionally penalized after the incorporation of cost measures into MIPS. Specialty-specific recalibration of cost measures is needed to ensure that policy efforts to promote value-based care do not compromise health care quality and outcomes.

What Factors Are Associated With Early Career Attrition Among Orthopaedic Surgeons in the United States?

BACKGROUND: The attrition of medical personnel in the United States healthcare system has been an ongoing concern among physicians and policymakers alike. Prior studies have shown that reasons for leaving clinical practice vary widely and may range from professional dissatisfaction or disability to the pursuit of alternative career opportunities. Whereas attrition among older personnel has often been understood as a natural phenomenon, attrition among early-career surgeons may pose a host of additional challenges from an individual and societal perspective. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What percentage of orthopaedic surgeons experience early-career attrition, defined as leaving active clinical practice within the first 10 years after completion of training? (2) What are the surgeon and practice characteristics associated with early-career attrition? METHODS: In this retrospective analysis drawn from a large database, we used the 2014 Physician Compare National Downloadable File (PC-NDF), a registry of all healthcare professionals in the United States participating in Medicare. A total of 18,107 orthopaedic surgeons were identified, 4853 of whom were within the first 10 years of training completion. The PC-NDF registry was chosen because it has a high degree of granularity, national representativeness, independent validation through the Medicare claims adjudication and enrollment process, and the ability to longitudinally monitor the entry and exit of surgeons from active clinical practice. The primary outcome of early-career attrition was defined by three conditions, all of which had to be simultaneously satisfied ("condition one" AND "condition two" AND "condition three"). The first condition was presence in the Q1 2014 PC-NDF dataset and absence from the same dataset the following year (Q1 2015 PC-NDF). The second condition was consistent absence from the PC-NDF dataset for the following 6 years (Q1 2016, Q1 2017, Q1 2018, Q1 2019, Q1 2020, and Q1 2021), and the third condition was absence from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Opt-Out registry, which tracks clinicians who have formally discontinued enrollment in the Medicare program. Of the 18,107 orthopaedic surgeons identified in the dataset, 5% (938) were women, 33% (6045) were subspecialty-trained, 77% (13,949) practiced in groups of 10 or more, 24% (4405) practiced in the Midwest, 87% (15,816) practiced in urban areas, and 22% (3887) practiced at academic centers. Surgeons not enrolled in the Medicare program are not represented in this study cohort. A multivariable logistic regression model with adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals was constructed to investigate characteristics associated with early-career attrition. RESULTS: Among the 4853 early-career orthopaedic surgeons identified in the dataset, 2% (78) were determined to experience attrition between the first quarter 2014 and the same point in 2015. After controlling for potential confounding variables such as years since training completion, practice size, and geographic region, we found that women were more likely than men to experience early-career attrition (adjusted OR 2.8 [95% CI 1.5 to 5.0]; p = 0.006]), as were academic orthopaedic surgeons compared with private practitioners (adjusted OR 1.7 [95% CI 1.02 to 3.0]; p = 0.04), while general orthopaedic surgeons were less likely to experience attrition than subspecialists (adjusted OR 0.5 [95% CI 0.3 to 0.8]; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: A small but important proportion of orthopaedic surgeons leave the specialty during the first 10 years of practice. Factors most-strongly associated with this attrition were academic affiliation, being a woman, and clinical subspecialization. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Based on these findings, academic orthopaedic practices might consider expanding the role of routine exit interviews to identify instances in which early-career surgeons face illness, disability, burnout, or any other forms of severe personal hardships. If attrition occurs because of such factors, these individuals could benefit from connection to well-vetted coaching or counseling services. Professional societies might be well positioned to conduct detailed surveys to assess the precise reasons for early attrition and characterize any inequities in workforce retention across a diverse range of demographic subgroups. Future studies should also determine whether orthopaedics is an outlier, or whether 2% attrition is similar to the proportion in the overall medical profession.

Epidemiology, management, and treatment outcomes of metastatic spinal melanoma.

Metastatic spinal melanoma is a rare and aggressive disease process with poor prognosis. We review the literature on metastatic spinal melanoma, focusing on its epidemiology, management, and treatment outcomes. Demographics of metastatic spinal melanoma are similar to those for cutaneous melanoma, and cutaneous primary tumors tend to be most common. Decompressive surgical intervention and radiotherapy have traditionally been considered mainstays of treatment, and stereotactic radiosurgery has emerged as a promising approach in the operative management of metastatic spinal melanoma. While survival outcomes for metastatic spinal melanoma remain poor, they have improved in recent years with the advent of immune checkpoint inhibition, used in conjunction with surgery and radiotherapy. New treatment options remain under investigation, especially for patients with disease refractory to immunotherapy. We additionally explore several of these promising future directions. Nevertheless, further investigation of treatment outcomes, ideally incorporating high-quality prospective data from randomized controlled trials, is needed to identify optimal management of metastatic spinal melanoma.

Oncologist Participation and Performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System.

The merit-based incentive payment system (MIPS) is a value-based payment model created by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to promote high-value care through performance-based adjustments of Medicare reimbursements. In this cross-sectional study, we examined the participation and performance of oncologists in the 2019 MIPS. Oncologist participation was low (86%) compared to all-specialty participation (97%). After adjusting for practice characteristics, higher MIPS scores were observed among oncologists with alternative payment models (APMs) as their filing source (mean score, 91 for APMs vs. 77.6 for individuals; difference, 13.41 [95% CI, 12.21, 14.6]), indicating the importance of greater organizational resources for participants. Lower scores were associated with greater patient complexity (mean score, 83.4 for highest quintile vs. 84.9 for lowest quintile, difference, -1.43 [95% CI, -2.48, -0.37]), suggesting the need for better risk-adjustment by CMS. Our findings may guide future efforts to improve oncologist engagement in MIPS.

Declining Geographic Access to High-Volume Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Surgeons: A National Medicare Analysis.

BACKGROUND: While trends in the economics of revision THA (revTHA) procedures have been well-described from the standpoint of both hospitals and surgeons, their population-level effects of these trends on patient access are not well-understood. METHODS: The Medicare fee-for-service provider utilization and payment public use files were used to extract data for primary and revTHA for beneficiaries between 2013 and 2019. Primary and revTHA procedures were identified using the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System code; 27130 for primaries and 27132, 27134, 27137, or 27138 for revisions. Geospatial analyses were performed by aggregating surgeon practice locations at the level of individual counties, hospital service areas, and hospital referral regions. RESULTS: The number of high-volume primary THA surgeons within the Medicare population increased by 17.6% over the study period (3,838 in 2013 to 4,515 in 2019). Conversely, the number of high-volume revTHA surgeons decreased by 36.1% (178 in 2013 to 129 in 2019). Linear regression revealed a significant increase and decrease in high-volume primary (ß = 109.07, P ≤ .001) and revision (ß = -13.04, P = .011) THA surgeons, respectively. Over the study period, the number of counties with at least 1 high-volume primary THA surgeon increased by 6.1% (1,194 to 1,267), while the number of counties with at least 1 high-volume revTHA surgeon decreased by 30.2% (159 to 111). CONCLUSION: The present findings of declining geographic access may represent a consequence of shifting economic incentives and declining reimbursements for the care of complicated revTHA patients.

Trends in testosterone prescription amongst medical specialties: a 5-year CMS data analysis.

Testosterone Therapy (TTh) trends have changed as a result of clinical research and market forces over the past several years. Understanding the trends or preferences regarding testosterone prescriptions remains unknown. Our objective was to assess both regional and national trends in TTh prescriptions amongst medical specialties within the United States between 2013 and 2017. Publicly available data from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Part D Prescriber database with regards to TTh prescriptions across a 5-year span (January 1, 2013-December 31, 2017) were analyzed. TTh therapies were consolidated into four categories: Topical, Oral, Injection and Pellet. Statistical analysis utilizing R 4.0.2 was performed on the resulting data. Trends in prescription modality claim count and cost were plotted over the study period while statistical analysis evaluated associations between TTh modality and medical specialist. We found that Endocrinologists and Urologists prescribed topical testosterone more than all other specialties (60.4% and 53.5%, respectively), while Family and Internal medicine physicians were more likely to prescribe injections (59.82% and 50.69%, respectively). Oral and pellet testosterone were rarely prescribed across all specialties. In conclusion, the wide variation in modalities of testosterone prescriptions illustrates an opportunity for treatment guidelines to be streamlined across all specialists to improve patient 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.

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.

Are Trends in Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty Sustainable? Declining Inflation-Adjusted Medicare Reimbursement for Hospitalizations.

BACKGROUND: While the burden of revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA) procedures increases within the United States, it is unclear whether health care resource allocation for these complex cases has kept pace. This study examined the trends in hospital-level reimbursements for revision TJA hospitalizations. METHODS: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) inpatient utilization and payment public use files from 2014 to 2019 were queried for diagnostic-related groups (DRGs) for revision TJA: DRG 467 (revision of hip or knee arthroplasty with complication or comorbidity [CC]) and DRG 468 (revision of hip or knee arthroplasty without CC or major CC). From 2014 to 2019, 170,808 revision TJA hospitalizations were billed to Medicare, and revision TJA procedures increased by 3,121 (10.7%). After adjusting to 2019 US dollars with the consumer price index, a multiple linear mixed-model regression analysis was performed. Analysis of covariance compared regressions from 2014 to 2019 for mean-adjusted Medicare payment and mean- adjusted charge were submitted for these DRGs. RESULTS: Mean-adjusted average Medicare payment for DRG 467 decreased by $804.37 (-3.5%) from 2014 to 2019, whereas, that for DRG 468 decreased by $647.33 (-3.6%). The average inflation-adjusted Medicare payment for DRG 467 decreased at a greater rate during the study period, compared to that for DRG 468 (P = .02). CONCLUSION: The decline in reimbursement for DRGs 467 and 468 reveals decreasing incentives for revision TJA hospitalizations. Further research should assess the efficacy of current Medicare payment algorithms and identify modifications which may provide for fair hospital level reimbursements.

Geographic disparities in access to immunotherapy clinical trials for metastatic melanoma.

Survival outcomes for metastatic melanoma have drastically improved with the advent of immunotherapy. Access to ongoing immunotherapy clinical trials has become increasingly important to patients with advanced disease. We sought to quantify geographic disparities in access to these trials by U.S. division, region, urban/rural status, and median income. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for interventional immunotherapy trials for metastatic melanoma from 2015 to 2021 and identified U.S. zip codes for each participating trial site. ArcGIS was used to calculate the one-way driving time from each zip code to the nearest treatment center. Melanoma burden in each zip code outside a 60 min driving radius was calculated by multiplying population by the corresponding state's cancer-specific mortality rate. χ2 tests were used to test for significance between census regions, divisions, and urban vs. rural zip codes, while logistic regression was used to quantify risk of poor access with median income. Across 148 trials, 4844 treatment centers were located in 1102 unique zip codes. 9010 zip codes were located greater than one-hour driving time from the nearest clinical trial. Southern regions were most likely to have poor access of all regions (p < 0.001), and rural status also significantly correlated with poor access (p < 0.001). For every $10,000 increase in median income, the likelihood of a zip code being within 60 min from a trial increased by 1.315. While immunotherapy continue to improve survival outcomes for metastatic melanoma, geographic access to clinical trials investigating these therapies remains a challenge for a significant proportion of the U.S. population.

Concurrent Mental Illness and Financial Barriers to Mental Health Care Among a Nationally Representative Sample of Orthopaedic Trauma Survivors.

OBJECTIVES: To understand prevalence and factors associated with concurrent mental illness and financial barriers to mental health care after orthopaedic trauma. DESIGN: This is a retrospective, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Interview-based survey was conducted across representative sample of 30,000 US households. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: The study included 2,309 survey respondents reporting a fracture over the past 3 months, between 2004 and 2017. INTERVENTION: Screening for financial barriers to mental health care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Prevalence and factors associated with concurrent mental illness and financial barriers to mental health care based on sociodemographic and injury characteristics were the main outcome measurements. RESULTS: Of the 2309 orthopaedic trauma survivors included in our analysis, 203 patients [7.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 6.4%-9.2%] were determined to experience severe mental illness, of whom 54 (25.3%, 95% CI: 18.0%-32.6%) and 86 (40.9%, 95% CI: 31.5%-50.2%) reported financial barriers to counseling and pharmacotherapy, respectively. Factors associated with concurrent severe mental illness and cost barriers to care were 45 to 64 years of age [adjusted odds ratios (AOR) 5.1, 95% CI: 1.7-15, P = 0.004], income below 200% of the Federal Poverty Threshold (AOR 2.5, 95% CI: 1.2-5.3, P = 0.012), and unemployment at the time of injury (AOR 3.9, 95% CI: 1.4-11, P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one half of orthopaedic trauma survivors with severe mental illness face financial barriers to some form of mental health services. Younger, minority, and low socioeconomic status patients are most affected. These data suggest the presence of postdiagnosis disparities in mental health access that may be improved through direct provision and subsidization of integrated mental health support services for high-risk populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Nationwide disparities in transportation related delays to care experienced by children with frequent ear infections.

BACKGROUND: Acute otitis media (AOM), or ear infection, is the most common reason for pediatric medical visits in the United States [1]. Additionally, transportation barriers are a significant driver of missed and delayed care across medical specialties [2,3]. Yet, the role of transportation barriers in impeding access for children with frequent ear infections (FEI) has not been investigated. Assessing the prevalence of transportation barriers across sociodemographic groups may help clinicians improve outcomes for children with FEI. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the U.S. National Health Interview Survey was completed to examine associations between sociodemographic characteristics among children with FEI and transportations barriers to seeking care between 2011 and 2018. RESULTS: Multivariable logistic regression found that income level, insurance status, and health status were linked to disparities in transportation barriers among children with FEI. Those in the middle (aOR 3.00, 95% CI 1.77-5.08, p < 0.001) and lowest income brackets (aOR 6.33, 95% CI 3.80, p < 0.001), who were publicly insured (aOR 3.24, 95% CI 2.00-5.23, p < 0.001) or uninsured (aOR 3.46, 95% CI 1.84-6.51, p < 0.001), and with Poor to Fair health status were more likely to face transportation delays than patients who were in the highest income bracket, privately insured, or had Good to Excellent health status. CONCLUSION: Children with FEI from families that were lower-income, less insured, and less healthy faced more transportation barriers when accessing care than their counterparts. Future interventions to improve health-related transportation should be targeted toward these patient subgroups to reduce gaps in outcomes.

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.

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.

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.