RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patterns and disparities in guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) uptake for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) across rural vs urban regions are not well described. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate patterns, prognostic implications, and rural-urban differences in GDMT use among Medicare beneficiaries following new-onset HFrEF. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of new-onset HFrEF in a 5% Medicare sample with available data for Part D medication use were identified from January 2015 through December 2020. The primary exposure was residence in rural vs urban zip codes. Optimal triple GDMT was defined as ≥50% of the target daily dose of beta-blockers, ≥50% of the target daily dose of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blocker or any dose of sacubitril/valsartan, and any dose of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist. The association between the achievement of optimal GDMT over time following new-onset HFrEF diagnosis and risk of all-cause mortality and subsequent HF hospitalization was also evaluated using adjusted Cox models. The association between living in rural vs urban location and time to optimal GDMT achievement over a 12-month follow-up was assessed using cumulative incidence curves and adjusted Fine-Gray subdistribution hazard models. RESULTS: A total of 41,296 patients (age: 76.7 years; 15.0% Black; 27.6% rural) were included. Optimal GDMT use over the 12-month follow-up was low, with 22.5% initiated on any dose of triple GDMT and 9.1% on optimal GDMT doses. Optimal GDMT on follow-up was significantly associated with a lower risk of death (HR: 0.89 [95% CI: 0.85-0.94]; P < 0.001) and subsequent HF hospitalization (HR: 0.93 [95% CI: 0.87-0.98]; P = 0.02). Optimal GDMT use at 12 months was significantly lower among patients living in rural (vs urban) areas (8.4% vs 9.3%; P = 0.02). In adjusted analysis, living in rural (vs urban) locations was associated with a significantly lower probability of achieving optimal GDMT (HR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.86-0.98]; P = 0.01 Differences in optimal GDMT use following HFrEF diagnosis accounted for 16% of excess mortality risk among patients living in rural (vs urban) areas. CONCLUSIONS: Use of optimal GDMT following new-onset HFrEF diagnosis is low, with substantially lower use noted among patients living in rural vs urban locations. Suboptimal GDMT use following new-onset HFrEF was associated with an increased risk of mortality and subsequent HF hospitalization.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The current value-driven healthcare system encourages physicians to continuously optimize the value of the services they provide. Relative value units (RVUs) serve as the basis of a reimbursement model linking the concept that as the effort and value of services provided to patient's increases, physician reimbursement should increase proportionately. Spine surgery is particularly affected by these factors as there are multiple ways to achieve similar outcomes, some of which require more time, effort, and risk. Specifically, as the trend of spinal interbody fusion has increased over the past decade, the optimal approach to use-posterior versus anterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF vs. ALIF)-has been a source of controversy. Due to potential discrepancies in effort, one factor to consider is the correlation between RVUs and the time needed to perform a procedure. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare: 1) mean RVUs; 2) mean operative time; and 3) mean RVUs per unit of time between PLIF and ALIF with the utilization of a national surgical database. We also performed an individual surgeon cost benefit analysis for performing PLIF versus ALIF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database was utilized to identify 6,834 patients who underwent PLIF (CPT code: 22630) and 6,985 patients who underwent ALIF (CPT code: 22558) between 2008 and 2015. The mean operative times (in minutes), mean RVUs, and RVUs per minute were calculated and compared using the Student's t-tests. In addition, the reimbursement amount (in dollars) per minute, case, day, and year for an individual surgeon performing PLIF versus ALIF were also calculated and compared. A p-value of less than 0.05 was used as the threshold for statistical significance. RESULTS: Compared to ALIF cases, PLIF cases had longer mean operative times (203 vs. 212 minutes, p<0.001). However, PLIF cases were assigned lower mean RVUs than ALIF cases (22.08 vs. 23.52, p<0.001). Furthermore, PLIF had a lower mean RVU/minutes than ALIF cases (0.126 vs. 0.154, p<0.001). The reimbursement amounts calculated for PLIF versus ALIF were: $4.52 versus $5.53 per minute, $958.66 versus $1,121.95 per case, and $2,875.98 versus $3,365.86 per day. The annual cost difference was $78,380.92. CONCLUSION: The data from this study indicates a potentially greater annual compensation of nearly $80,000 for performing ALIF as opposed to PLIF due to a higher "hourly rate" for ALIF as is noted by the significantly greater RVU per minute (0.154 vs. 0.126 RVU/minutes). These results can be used by spine surgeons to design more appropriate compensation effective practices while still providing quality care.