Site of Ambulance Origination and Billing for Out-of-Network Services.

Importance: The No Surprises Act implemented in 2022 aims to protect patients from surprise out-of-network (OON) bills, but it does not include ground ambulance services. Understanding ground ambulance OON and balance billing patterns from previous years could guide legislation aimed to protect patients following ground ambulance use. Objective: To characterize OON billing from ground ambulance services by evaluating whether OON billing risk differs by the site of ambulance origination (home, hospital, nonhospital medical facility, or scene of incident). Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of the Merative MarketScan dataset between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, using claims-based data from employer-based private health insurance plans in the US. Participants included patients who utilized ground ambulances during the study period. Data were analyzed from June to December 2023. Exposure: Medical encounter requiring ground ambulance transportation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ground ambulance OON billing prevalence was calcuated. Linear probability models adjusted for state-level mixed effects were fit to evaluate OON billing probability across ambulance origins. Secondary outcomes included the allowed payment, patient cost-sharing amounts, and potential balance bills for OON ambulances. Results: Among 2 031 937 ground ambulance services (1 375 977 unique patients) meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 1 072 791 (52.8%) rides transported men, and the mean (SD) patient age was 41 (18) years. Of all services, 1 113 676 (54.8%) were billed OON. OON billing probabilities for ambulances originating from home or scene were higher by 12.0 percentage points (PP) (95% CI, 11.8-12.2 PP; P < .001 for home; 95% CI, 11.7-12.2 PP; P < .001 for scene) vs those originating from hospitals. Mean (SD) total financial burden, including cost-sharing and potential balance bills per ambulance service, was $434.70 ($415.99) per service billed OON vs $132.21 ($244.92) per service billed in-network. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of over 2 million ground ambulance services, ambulances originating from home, the scene of an incident, and nonhospital medical facilities were more likely to result in OON bills. Legislation is needed to protect patients from surprise billing following use of ground ambulances, more than half of which resulted in OON billing. Future legislation should at minimum offer protections for these subsets of patients often calling for an ambulance in urgent or emergent situations.

Bone Health Screening Prior to Medicare Eligibility-Osteoporosis Screening and Fracture Prevention After Distal Radius Fractures in Patients Aged 50-59.

PURPOSE: Current guidelines recommend bone mineral density (BMD) testing after fragility fractures in patients aged 50 years or older. This study aimed to assess BMD testing and subsequent fragility fractures after low-energy distal radius fractures (DRFs) among patients aged 50-59 years. METHODS: We used the 2010-2020 MarketScan dataset to identify patients with initial DRFs with ages ranging between 50 and 59 years. We assessed the 1-year BMD testing rate and 3-year non-DRF fragility fracture rate. We created Kaplan-Meier plots to depict fragility fracture-free probabilities over time and used log-rank tests to compare the Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Among 78,389 patients aged 50-59 years with DRFs, 24,589 patients met our inclusion criteria, and most patients were women (N = 17,580, 71.5%). The BMD testing rate within 1 year after the initial DRF was 12.7% (95% CI, 12.3% to 13.2%). In addition, 1-year BMD testing rates for the age groups of 50-54 and 55-59 years were 10.4% (95% CI, 9.9% to 11.0%) and 14.9% (95% CI, 14.2% to 15.6%), respectively. Only 1.8% (95% CI, 1.5% to 2.1%) of men, compared with 17.1% (95% CI, 16.5% to 17.7%) of women, underwent BMD testing within 1 year after the initial fracture. The overall 3-year fragility fracture rate was 6.0% (95% CI, 5.6% to 6.3%). The subsequent fragility fracture rate was lower for those with any BMD testing (4.4%; 95% CI, 3.7% to 5.2%), compared with those without BMD testing (6.2%; 95% CI, 5.9% to 6.6%; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: We report a low BMD testing rate for patients aged between 50 and 59 years after initial isolated DRFs, especially for men and patients aged between 50 and 54 years. Patients who received BMD testing had a lower rate of subsequent fracture within 3 years. We recommend that providers follow published guidelines and initiate an osteoporosis work-up for patients with low-energy DRFs to ensure early diagnosis. This provides an opportunity to initiate treatment that may prevent subsequent fractures. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognosis II.

Video-Based Assessment of Microsurgical Trainees: An Evaluation of Gender Bias.

BACKGROUND: Gender bias in graduate medical evaluations remains a challenging issue. This study evaluates implicit gender bias in video-based evaluations of microsurgical technique, which has not previously been described in the literature. METHODS: Two videos were recorded of microsurgical anastomosis; the first was performed by a hand/microsurgery fellow and the second by an expert microsurgeon. A total of 150 surgeons with microsurgical experience were recruited to evaluate the videos; they were told these videos depicted a surgical trainee 1 month into fellowship followed by the same trainee 10 months later. The only variable was the name ("Rachel" or "David") that each participant was randomly assigned to evaluate. Participants were asked to score each video for quality, technique, efficiency, as well as overall progression and development after the second video compared with the initial video. To focus on bias, these outcome measures were selected to be purposefully subjective and all ratings were based on a subjective 1to 10 scale (10 = excellent). RESULTS: The analysis included 150 participants (75% male). There were no statistically significant differences in scores between the "female" and "male" trainee. The trainees received the same median initial (1-month video) and final (11th-month video) scores for all criteria except initial technique, in which the female trainee received a 7 and the male trainee received an 8. Notably, 11-month scores were consistently the same or lower than 1-month scores for both study groups (p < 0.001). There were also no differences within either study group based on participant sex. Microsurgery practitioners overall rated both groups lower than those who do not currently practice microsurgery. CONCLUSION: Our study did not identify a gender bias in this evaluation method. Further investigation into how we assess and grade trainees as well as the presence and impact of implicit biases on varying surgical assessment methods is warranted.

Billing and Utilization Trends for Hand Surgery Indicate Worsening Barriers to Accessing Care.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals and providers may increase hand surgery charges to compensate for decreasing reimbursement. Higher charges, combined with increasing utilization of ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), may threaten the accessibility of affordable hand surgery care for uninsured and underinsured patients. METHODS: We queried the Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary to collect the number of procedures, charges, and reimbursements of hand procedures from 2010 to 2019. We adjusted procedural volume by Medicare enrollment and monetary values to the 2019 US dollar. We calculated weighted means of charges and reimbursement that were then used to calculate reimbursement-to-charge ratios (RCRs). We calculated overall change and r2 from 2010 to 2019 for all procedures and stratified by procedural type, service setting, and state where service was rendered. RESULTS: Weighted mean charges, reimbursement, and RCRs changed by + 21.0% (from $1,227 to $1,485; r2 = 0.93), +10.8% (from $321 to $356; r2 = 0.69), and -8.4% (from 0.26 to 0.24; r2 = 0.76), respectively. The Medicare enrollment-adjusted number of procedures performed in ASCs increased by 63.8% (r2 = 0.95). Trends in utilization and billing varied widely across different procedural types, service settings, and states. CONCLUSIONS: Charges for hand surgery procedures steadily increased, possibly reflecting an attempt to make up for reimbursements perceived to be inadequate. This trend places uninsured and underinsured patients at greater risk for financial catastrophe, as they are often responsible for full or partial charges. In addition, procedures shifted from inpatient to ASC setting. This may further limit access to affordable hand care for uninsured and underinsured patients.

Compliance and Variability of Hospital Price Transparency in Total Knee and Hip Arthroplasty in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: On January 1, 2019, in an effort to improve price transparency, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) mandated that hospitals display chargemasters and pricing for diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) online. We examined the compliance of the 50 top orthopaedic hospitals, ranked by US News, with CMS's mandate and compared pricing. METHODS: The chargemaster and pricing of DRG codes related to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) (469, 470, 461, 462, 466, 467, and 468) were evaluated in the top 50 orthopaedic hospitals in the United States. Spearman rank correlation coefficients (ρ) were used to evaluate the association between DRG 469, 470, and 467 prices with geographic practice cost index (GPCI) work and practice expense values. RESULTS: Thirty-six of the 50 hospitals reported DRG pricing for THA and TKA. Of these hospitals, 15 had prices for all seven DRGs of interest; only 467, 469, and 470 were reported across all the 36 hospitals. Of the 14 hospitals without DRG information, 12 had nothing and two had unsatisfactory reporting. Prices for DRGs 469, 470, and 467 were moderately or weakly correlated with both GPCI work and GPCI practice expense. All correlation analyses were statistically significant (P < 0.05). DISCUSSION: In summary, compliance with CMS's 2019 rule was poor overall. Fourteen of the 50 hospitals did not adequately report any DRG pricing, and only 15 of the hospitals were fully compliant with the mandate. In addition to poor compliance, the reported costs had variation not strongly accounted for by established geographic differences.

Patient-level barriers and facilitators to completion of patient-reported outcomes measures.

PURPOSE: To identify patient-level barriers and facilitators to completion of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in a hand and upper extremity clinic in Baltimore, Maryland. METHODS: We conducted 12 h of direct observation of PROM completion (October-November, 2020). Ethnographic observation memos were qualitatively analyzed for barriers and facilitators using rapid thematic analysis. Informed by observation findings, we conducted 17 semi-structured interviews with mixed-literacy patients, caregivers, and clinic staff to understand the patient experience when completing PROMs (November 2020-March 2021). We identified initial themes through inductive and deductive framework analysis and validated findings through subsequent interviews with member-checking. RESULTS: We identified nine patient-level factors that influence PROM completion: platform design, print literacy, health literacy, technology literacy, language proficiency, physical functioning, vision, cognitive functioning, and time. CONCLUSIONS: There are multiple distinct patient-level factors that affect PROM completion. Failure to consider these factors in PROM design and implementation may lower completion rates or prevent accurate completion, undermining PROM validity. Because certain factors affect minority populations at disproportionate rates, this may also contribute to existing health disparities.

Surprise Out-of-Network Bills for Hand and Upper Extremity Trauma Patients.

PURPOSE: Patients may receive surprise out-of-network bills even when they present to in-network facilities. Surprise bills are common following emergency care. We sought to characterize and determine risk factors for surprise billing in hand and upper extremity trauma patients in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: We used IBM MarketScan data to evaluate hand and upper extremity trauma patients who received care in the ED from 2010 to 2017. Our primary outcome was the surprise billing incidence, defined as encounters in in-network EDs with out-of-network claims. We used descriptive and bivariate analyses to characterize surprise billing and used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate independent factors associated with surprise billing. RESULTS: Of 710,974 ED encounters, 97,667 (14%) involved surprise billing. The incidence decreased from 26% in 2010 to 11% in 2017. Mean coinsurance payments were higher for surprise billing encounters and had double the growth from 2010 to 2017 compared to those without surprise billing. Receiving care from different provider types-especially therapists, radiologists, and pathologists, as well as hand surgeons-was associated with significantly higher odds of surprise billing. Transfer to another facility was not significantly associated with surprise billing. CONCLUSIONS: Although the incidence of surprise billing decreased, more than 10% of patients treated in an ED for hand trauma remain at risk. Coinsurance for surprise billing encounters increased by twice as much as encounters without surprise billing. Patients requiring services from therapists, radiologists, pathologists, and hand surgeons were at greater risk for surprise bills. The federal No Surprises Act, passed in 2020, targets surprise billing and may help address some of these issues. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Many hand and upper extremity patients requiring ED care receive surprise bills from various sources that result in higher out-of-pocket costs.

Decreasing Medicare Utilization, Reimbursement, and Reimbursement-to-Charge Ratio of Reconstructive Plastic Surgery Procedures: 2010 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate recent trends in utilization, reimbursement, and charges for reconstructive plastic surgery procedures billed to Medicare. METHODS: We queried the Physician/Supplier Procedure Summary from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for procedures billed by plastic surgeons to Medicare Part B between 2010 and 2019. We collected service counts, charges, and reimbursements. We adjusted utilization by Medicare enrollment and adjusted monetary values for inflation. We calculated the weighted mean charge and reimbursement, which were used to calculate the reimbursement-to-charge ratio (RCR). We examined trends over time by calculating differences and performing correlation analyses of utilization, charges, reimbursement, and RCR for all procedures and for different procedural categories. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2019, the overall enrollment-adjusted utilization for 912 reconstructive procedures decreased by 6.6% (r2 = 0.46). Utilization increased in certain procedural categories such as skin debridement (+36.9%, r2 = 0.48) and procedures of the breast (+114.9%, r2 = 0.48). Charges increased by 32.9% (r2 = 0.99), reimbursement decreased by 5.3% (r2 = 0.84), and RCR decreased by 28.7% (r2 = 0.99). Skin replacement/flaps/grafts procedures underwent the greatest relative decrease in reimbursement (-26.8%, r2 = 0.87). Reimbursement-to-charge ratio decreased for all procedural categories except for procedures of the auditory system. CONCLUSIONS: In the past decade, Medicare utilization and reimbursement for reconstructive plastic surgery procedures decreased, whereas charges increased. This resulted in decreasing reimbursement relative to charged amounts. These findings raise concerns regarding the economic viability of providing plastic surgery services to an aging population and may impact patients' ability to access affordable plastic surgical care.

Developing a protocol for adapting multimedia patient-reported outcomes measures for low literacy patients.

BACKGROUND: Self-administration of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) by patients with low literacy is a methodologic and implementation challenge. There is an increasing emphasis on patient-centered care and wider adoption of PROMs to understand outcomes and measure healthcare quality. However, there is a risk that the use of PROMs could perpetuate health disparities unless they are implemented in an inclusive fashion. We present a protocol to adapt validated, text-based PROMs to a multimedia format (mPROMs) to optimize self-administration in populations with limited literacy. We describe the processes used to develop the protocol and the planned protocol implementation. METHODS/DESIGN: Our study protocol development was guided by the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) protocol for translating and culturally adapting PROMs to different languages. We used the main components of IQOLA's protocol to generate a conceptual framework to guide development of a Multimedia Adaptation Protocol (MAP). The MAP, which incorporates human-centered design (HCD) and takes a community-engaged research approach, includes four stages: forward adaptation, backward adaptation, qualitative evaluation, and validation. The MAP employs qualitative and quantitative methods including observation, cognitive and discovery interviews, ideation workshops, prototyping, user testing, co-creation interviews, and psychometric testing. An iterative design is central to the MAP and consistent with both the IQOLA protocol and HCD processes. We will pilot test and execute the MAP to adapt the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Short Form for use in a mixed literacy hand and upper extremity patient population in Baltimore, Maryland. DISCUSSION: The MAP provides an approach for adapting PROMs to a multimedia format. We encourage others to evaluate and test this approach with other questionnaires and patient populations. The development and use of mPROMs has the potential to expand our ability to accurately capture PROs in limited literacy populations and promote equity in PRO measurement.

Disparities Limit the Effect and Benefit of a Web-Based Clinic Intake System.

With increasing value being placed on patient-centered care and the focus on efficiency and workflow in health care delivery, the authors have implemented a web-based system for demographic, medical history, and patient-reported outcomes data collection for every clinical visit at their specialty upper-extremity center. They evaluated initial success and disparities in use after 12 months. The authors evaluated questionnaire parameters from 2018 patients, focusing primarily on the new patient intake form. They analyzed form-completion time relative to appointment time and form-completion percentage at various times before the appointment. The authors grouped patients by age, sex, race, income, education, employment status, transportation access, self-reported pain, and quality-of-life scores. Waiting room time was evaluated. Of new patients, 94% used the web-based platform to complete the intake form. Of the 4898 completed forms, 69.7% were done more than 1 hour before appointment time, indicating that a personal device was used. When grouped by patient characteristics and controlling for all demographic factors, patients who were male, non-White, and older than 40 years; had lower family income; and had a high school education or less were significantly associated with later form completion. Of the 1136 patients for whom the authors had adequate waiting room time data, late form completion significantly increased odds of waiting more than 15 minutes to be placed into an examination room. These data indicate that the authors are reliably capturing important patient information before appointment time. This could improve clinical workflow and overall quality of care and also identify limits in access and online system use, providing opportunities to improve capture by developing targeted interventions for specific patient populations. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(3):e434-e439.].

Reassessment of Relative Value in Shoulder and Elbow Surgery: Do Payment and Relative Value Units Reflect Reality?

BACKGROUD: Many U.S. health care institutions have adopted compensation models based on work relative value units (wRVUs) to standardize payments and incentivize providers. A major determinant of payment and wRVU assignments is operative time. We sought to determine whether differences in estimated operative times between the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) contribute to payment and wRVU misvaluation for the most common shoulder/elbow procedures. METHODS: We collected data on wRVUs, payments, and operative times from CMS for 29 types of isolated arthroscopic and open shoulder/elbow procedures. Using regression analysis, we compared relationships between these variables, in addition to median operative times reported by NSQIP (2013-2016). We then determined the relative valuation of each procedure based on operative time. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of CMS operative time were longer than NSQIP time (R2 = 0.58), including, but not limited to, shoulder arthroplasty and arthroscopic shoulder surgery. The correlation between payments and operative times was stronger between CMS data (R2 = 0.61) than NSQIP data (R2 = 0.43). Similarly, the correlation between wRVUs and operative times was stronger when using CMS data (R2 = 0.87) than NSQIP data (R2 = 0.69). Nearly all arthroscopic shoulder procedures (aside from synovectomy, debridement, and decompression) were highly valued according to both datasets. Per NSQIP, compensation for revision total shoulder arthroplasty ($10.14/min; 0.26 wRVU/min) was higher than that for primary cases ($9.85, 0.23 wRVU/min) and nearly twice the CMS rate for revision cases ($5.84/min; 0.13 wRVU/min). CONCLUSIONS: CMS may overestimate operative times compared to actual operative times as recorded by NSQIP. Shorter operative times may render certain procedures more highly valued than others. Case examples show that this can potentially affect patient care and incentivize higher compensating procedures per operative time when less-involved, shorter operations have similar patient-reported outcomes.

Understanding Surprise Out-of-Network Billing in Hand and Upper Extremity Care.

Surprise billing occurs when insured patients receive unexpected out-of-network charges and fees even when the emergency department, facility, or primary physician who provided care is in their insurance network. This issue is particularly relevant for hand surgery. The multidisciplinary nature of hand care and the number of ancillary services involved result in various levels at which out-of-network billing can be introduced, even when the hand surgeon is in-network for the patient. In addition, surprise billing is often associated with emergency department encounters, elective surgeries, and ambulance and helicopter transfers. In this article, we review surprise billing as it pertains to hand surgery. Little is known about surprise billing in hand care; however, we believe that these practices may substantially affect the patient population. We define key elements of surprise billing, review the literature, discuss the relevance and potential of surprise billing in hand surgery in various settings, and provide an overview of the status of health policy surrounding this practice. It is imperative for hand surgery as a field to understand the prevalence, operationalization, and policies of surprise billing better to prevent the exploitation of patients.

Misvaluation of Hospital-Based Upper Extremity Surgery Across Payment, Relative Value Units, and Operative Time.

Background: Many US health care institutions have adopted compensation models based on work relative value units (wRVUs) to standardize payments and incentivize providers. Among other factors, a major determinant of payment and wRVU assignments is operative time. Our objective was to determine whether differences in estimated operative times between the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) contribute to payment and wRVU misvaluation for the most common hospital-based hand and upper extremity procedures. Methods: Data on wRVUs, surgeon payment, and estimated operative times were collected from CMS for 53 procedures. We used regression models to compare relationships between these variables, in addition to actual median operative times as reported in the NSQIP database, from 2011 to 2016. We then determined the relative valuation of each procedure based on operative time. Results: There was a wide discrepancy between CMS and NSQIP operative times (R2=0.49), with 60% of CMS times being longer than NSQIP times. Payment correlated more strongly with CMS operative times (R2=0.55) than with NSQIP operative times (R2=0.24). Similarly, wRVUs more strongly correlated with CMS operative times (R2=0.84) than with NSQIP operative times (R2=0.51). In general, for trauma-related procedures, any distal radius open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) had the highest valuation while any ORIF proximal to the distal radius had lower valuation in analysis of both databases. While 61% of trauma procedures were highly valued, 70% of elective procedures had a low valuation, including nearly all elective tendon procedures. Notable compensation differences were found between trapeziectomy versus ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition, epicondyle debridement with tendon repair versus denervation, proximal row carpectomy versus four corner fusion, and distal radius open versus percutaneous fixation. Conclusions: CMS may misvalue payment and wRVU rates of hospital-based hand procedures due to inaccurate operative time estimates. By identifying which procedures are misvalued in terms of payment and wRVU per operative time, providers and payors may be able to address these imbalances and maximize appropriate care delivery incentives.Level of Evidence: III.

Adhering to Radiographic Clinical Practice Guidelines for Distal Radial Fracture Management Is Associated with Improved Outcomes and Lower Costs.

BACKGROUND: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline on the Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures has not been evaluated in clinical practice. We hypothesized that adhering to the distal radial fracture radiographic clinical practice guideline (CPG) improves outcomes and reduces costs. METHODS: We reviewed 266 patients with distal radial fractures treated at 1 institution. Based on CPG radiographic parameters (Recommendation 3), care was rated as "appropriate" or "inappropriate." QuickDASH (an abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand [DASH] questionnaire) scores were collected. The direct costs of distal radial fracture care were determined. Descriptive statistics and nonparametric tests were used to evaluate demographic characteristics and outcomes across groups. QuickDASH scores, grouped by postoperative time interval, were analyzed using linear mixed effect models to predict outcome trends. RESULTS: In this study, 145 patients in the operative treatment group and 121 patients in the nonoperative treatment group were included. Of the 145 patients in the operative treatment group, 6 underwent an inappropriate surgical procedure, limiting any analyses of that group. Of the 121 patients in the nonoperative treatment group, 68 were treated inappropriately. For the patients in the nonoperative treatment group, appropriate care provided a significant outcome benefit by 1 year; the median QuickDASH score was 10.1 points for the appropriate treatment group and 19.5 points for the inappropriate treatment group (p = 0.05). The total direct costs for inappropriate nonoperative treatment were, on average, 60% higher than appropriate nonoperative treatment. In predictive models, patients with appropriate care in the operative treatment group and the nonoperative treatment group had better outcomes than patients with inappropriate nonoperative treatment at all time points after 29 days. CONCLUSIONS: When nonoperative distal radial fracture management was aligned with radiographic CPG criteria, patients in our cohort had improved patient-reported outcomes with lower costs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The Effects of Medicaid Expansion on Triage and Regional Transfer After Upper-Extremity Trauma.

PURPOSE: Underinsured hand trauma patients are more likely to be transferred to quaternary care centers, which burdens these patients and centers. By increasing insurance coverage, care for less severe upper-extremity injuries may be available closer to patients' homes. We evaluated whether the 2014 expansion of Medicaid in Maryland under the Affordable Care Act decreased the number of uninsured upper-extremity trauma patients and the volume of unnecessary emergency trauma visits at our hand center. METHODS: We identified all upper-extremity trauma patients between 2010 and 2017 at our hand trauma referral center. Injury severity was classified based on the need for subspecialty care. Bivariate relations between insurance status and demographic covariates, including injury type and distance, both before and after Medicaid expansion were evaluated. We used patient-level and multinomial logistic regression models to evaluate changes in payer and transfer appropriateness. RESULTS: We studied 12,009 acute upper-extremity trauma patients. With Medicaid expansion, the percentage of trauma patients with Medicaid coverage increased from 15% to 24%, with a decrease in uninsured from 31% to 24%. After Medicaid expansion, non-transfer patient appropriateness decreased and appropriateness of transfers remained consistent across all payers. The average distance patients traveled for care remained similar before and after expansion. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion significantly decreased the proportion of uninsured upper-extremity trauma patients. We identified no significant changes in the distances these patients traveled for specialized care. In addition, the appropriateness of transferred patients did not change significantly after expansion, whereas appropriateness of nontransferred patients actually declined after Medicaid expansion. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study indicates no notable change in adherence to transfer guidelines after expansion, and a possible increase in use of emergency services by newly insured patients.

Comparison of Direct Perioperative Costs in Treatment of Unstable Distal Radial Fractures: Open Reduction and Internal Fixation Versus Closed Reduction and Percutaneous Pinning.

BACKGROUND: As the United States transitions to value-based insurance, bundled payments, and capitated models, it is paramount to understand health-care costs and resource utilization. The financial implications of open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with a volar locking plate for management of unstable distal radial fractures have not been established. We aimed to elucidate cost differences between ORIF and closed reduction and percutaneous pinning (CRPP). Our hypothesis was that ORIF has greater direct perioperative costs than CRPP but that the costs equilibrate over time. METHODS: We reviewed financial data for 40 patients prospectively enrolled and randomized to undergo CRPP or ORIF for treatment of a closed, displaced, unstable distal radial fracture. Clinical and functional outcomes, hospital-associated direct perioperative costs, postoperative care and therapy costs, and costs for additional procedures were compared. Cost data were stratified into perioperative, 90-day, and 1-year periods, and were reported utilizing cost ratios (CRs) relative to the CRPP cohort. Statistical analysis was performed with chi-square and independent-samples t tests with an alpha level of <0.05. RESULTS: Seventeen patients underwent CRPP and 23 underwent ORIF with a volar plate. Patients who underwent ORIF incurred greater 90-day (CR = 2.03/1.0, p < 0.001) and 1-year (CR = 1.60/1.0, p < 0.001) direct costs than those who underwent CRPP. The differential was greatest in the immediate perioperative period and gradually decreased over time. Operating room fees (CR = 1.7/1.0, p < 0.001), operating room implants, anesthesia (CR = 1.8/1.0, p < 0.001), and total perioperative costs (CR = 2.7/1.0, p < 0.001) were significantly greater in the ORIF cohort. Rehabilitation and cast technician costs were comparable (CR = 0.9/1.0 [ORIF/CRPP], p = 0.69). At 1 year, the CR for all costs of decreased to 1.6/1.0 (ORIF/CRPP, p < 0.001). Compared with the CRPP cohort, the ORIF cohort demonstrated significantly better functional outcomes at 6, 9, and 12 weeks and similar outcomes at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: ORIF for a displaced, unstable distal radial fracture incurred greater direct costs than CRPP. Although implant costs for ORIF provided the greatest cost differential, additional procedures and higher clinic costs in the CRPP cohort narrowed the 90-day and 1-year cost gaps. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Trends in Medicaid beneficiaries' receipt of breast reconstruction procedures following Pre-Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion in New York State.

BACKGROUND: Expanding eligibility will increase the demand for surgical services within Medicaid but little is known of the response to such increase in demand. We examined how much of the increased demand for breast reconstruction was met after expansion of Medicaid eligibility. METHODS: We used New York state databases from 1998 to 2006 and a population of non-elderly adults (19-64) who underwent breast cancer treatment and reconstructive procedures. We used an Interrupted Time-Series design to examine the association between Medicaid expansion in 2001 and changes in the percentages of treatment and reconstructive procedures covered by Medicaid. RESULTS: After expansion, there was an increase of 9.6% in the percentage of treatment procedures covered by Medicaid (added demand for breast reconstruction). However, there was a 6.8% increase in the percentage of reconstructive procedures covered by Medicaid. CONCLUSIONS: The smaller increase in Medicaid percentage of reconstructive procedures suggests that the added demand for reconstruction was not met.

Utilization of Post-Acute Care Following Distal Radius Fracture Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

PURPOSE: To examine the utilization and cost of post-acute care following isolated distal radius fractures (DRFs) among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: We examined utilization of post-acute care among Medicare beneficiaries who experienced an isolated DRF (n = 38,479) during 2007 using 100% Medicare claims data. We analyzed the effect of patient factors on hospital admission following DRF and the receipt of post-acute care delivered by skilled nursing facilities, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, home health care agencies, and outpatient occupational therapy/physical therapy for the recovery of DRF. RESULTS: In this cohort of isolated DRF patients, 1,694 (4.4%) were admitted to hospitals following DRF, and 20% received post-acute care. Women and patients with more comorbid conditions were more likely to require hospital admission. The utilization of post-acute care was higher among women, patients who resided in urban areas, and patients of higher socioeconomic status. The average cost per patient of post-acute care services from inpatient rehabilitation facilities and skilled nursing facilities ($15,888/patient) was significantly higher than the average cost other aspects of DRF care and accounted for 69% of the total DRF-related expenditure among patients who received inpatient rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: Sociodemographic factors, including sex, socioeconomic status, and age, were significantly correlated with the use of post-acute care following isolated DRFs, and post-acute care accounted for a substantial proportion of the total expenditures related to these common injuries among the elderly. Identifying patients who will derive the greatest benefit from post-acute care can inform strategies to improve the cost efficiency of rehabilitation and optimize scarce health care resources. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic III.

The Effect of Medicaid Expansion on Delivery of Finger and Thumb Replantation Care to Medicaid Beneficiaries and the Uninsured.

BACKGROUND: Despite advances in replantation, over 80 percent of finger and thumb amputation injuries in the United States result in revision amputation. Although numerous factors contribute to this, disparities in access and delivery of replantation care play a substantial role. With ongoing Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, it is prudent to understand whether expansion of coverage changes use of replantation care. METHODS: The authors used the 2001 Medicaid expansion in New York State to evaluate changes in replantation for Medicaid beneficiaries and the uninsured. Data for patients having undergone replantation between 1998 and 2006 were obtained from the New York State Inpatient Database. The authors used an interrupted time series to evaluate the effect of Medicaid expansion on the probability that Medicaid beneficiaries or uninsured patients underwent replantation. Census data were used for population-adjusted case volume analysis. RESULTS: After expansion, the likelihood of Medicaid as the primary payer for replantation increased 0.0059 percent per quarter, reaching a 1.7 percent increase 5 years after expansion. With population-based analysis, this indicates that Medicaid covered 12 additional replantation cases in New York State annually. After expansion, 11 fewer of the replantation cases in New York State each year were provided to patients without health care coverage. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion resulted in a modest but significant increase in replantation for Medicaid beneficiaries. In addition, fewer patients that underwent replantation remained uninsured. Considering the substantial cost and effort burden of replantation, these findings support the benefits of Medicaid expansion on delivery and payer coverage of replantation.

Effect of federal and state policy changes on racial/ethnic variation in immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction after mastectomy has been shown to provide substantial clinical and psychosocial benefits for many patients; however, disparities in the use of immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction persist. Using the unique dataset from the New York State Inpatient Database, the following developments were studied: (1) trends in immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction between 1998 and 2006 among white, African American, and Hispanic women; (2) factors associated with its use; and (3) changes in racial/ethnic variation in immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction before and after implementation of the New York State Medicaid expansion in 2001. METHODS: A step-in multivariable logistic regression model was used to assess the effect of race/ethnicity, age, mastectomy type, number of comorbidities, socioeconomic status, and insurance on the probability of undergoing immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction. Then, adjusted immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction rates for before and after Medicaid expansion were predicted, stratified by race/ethnicity. RESULTS: The probability of undergoing immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction increased (p < 0.001); however, even with Medicaid expansion occurring during the 8 years studied, gaps in use between white and African American women and between white and Hispanic women increased by 6 percent (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.05) and 5 percent (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.04), respectively. Being younger, having greater income and education, and having private health insurance are associated with a greater probability of immediate postmastectomy breast reconstruction. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that expanding safety-net policies such as Medicaid without providing support such as consultation or health literacy education might not be effective in reducing disparities in health care. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.