Price Transparency in Neurosurgery: Challenges and Opportunities in the Online Publishing of Treatment Prices to Enable Cost-Conscious and Value-Based Practice.

OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of evidence describing the price information that is publicly available to patients wishing to undergo neurosurgical procedures. We sought to investigate the public availability and usefulness of price estimates for non-emergent, elective neurosurgical interventions. METHODS: Google was used to search for price information related to 15 procedures in 8 major U.S. health care markets. We recorded price information that was published for each procedure and took note of whether itemized prices, potential discounts, and cross-provider price comparisons were available. RESULTS: Online searches yielded 2356 websites, of which 228 (9.7%) offered geographically relevant price information for neurosurgical procedures. Although accounting for only 16.4% of total search results, price transparency websites provided most treatment price estimates (74.1% of all estimates), followed by clinical sites (19.3%), and other related sites (5.3%). The number of websites providing price information varied significantly by city and procedure. websites rarely divulged data sources, specified how prices were estimated, indicated how frequently price estimates were updated, offered itemized breakdowns of prices, or indicated whether price estimates encompassed the full spectrum of possible health care charges. CONCLUSIONS: Under 10% of websites queried yield geographically relevant price information for non-emergent neurosurgical imaging and operative procedures. Even when this information is publicly available, its usefulness to patients may be limited by various factors, including obscure data sources and methods, as well as sparse information on discounts and bundled price estimates. Inconsistent availability and clarity of price information likely impede patients' ability to discern expected costs of treatment and engage in cost-conscious, value-based neurosurgical decision-making.

Late-week surgery and discharge to specialty care associated with higher costs and longer lengths of stay after elective lumbar laminectomy.

OBJECTIVE: In a healthcare landscape in which costs increasingly matter, the authors sought to distinguish among the clinical and nonclinical drivers of patient length of stay (LOS) in the hospital following elective lumbar laminectomy-a common spinal surgery that may be reimbursed using bundled payments-and to understand their relationships with patient outcomes and costs. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years of age undergoing laminectomy surgery for degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis within the Cleveland Clinic health system between March 1, 2016, and February 1, 2019, were included in this analysis. Generalized linear modeling was used to assess the relationships between the day of surgery, patient discharge disposition, and hospital LOS, while adjusting for underlying patient health risks and other nonclinical factors, including the hospital surgery site and health insurance. RESULTS: A total of 1359 eligible patients were included in the authors' analysis. The mean LOS ranged between 2.01 and 2.47 days for Monday and Friday cases, respectively. The LOS was also notably longer for patients who were ultimately discharged to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) or rehabilitation center. A prolonged LOS occurring later in the week was not associated with greater underlying health risks, yet it nevertheless resulted in greater costs of care: the average total surgical costs for lumbar laminectomy were 20% greater for Friday cases than for Monday cases, and 24% greater for late-week cases than for early-week cases ultimately transferred to SNFs or rehabilitation centers. A Poisson generalized linear model fit the data best and showed that the comorbidity burden, surgery at a tertiary care center versus a community hospital, and the incidence of any postoperative complication were associated with significantly longer hospital stays. Discharge to home healthcare, SNFs, or rehabilitation centers, and late-week surgery were significant nonclinical predictors of LOS prolongation, even after adjusting for underlying patient health risks and insurance, with LOSs that were, for instance, 1.55 and 1.61 times longer for patients undergoing their procedure on Thursday and Friday compared to Monday, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Late-week surgeries are associated with a prolonged LOS, particularly when discharge is to an SNF or rehabilitation center. These findings point to opportunities to lower costs and improve outcomes associated with elective surgical care. Interventions to optimize surgical scheduling and perioperative care coordination could help reduce prolonged LOSs, lower costs, and, ultimately, give service line management personnel greater flexibility over how to use existing resources as they remain ahead of healthcare reforms.

Geospatial Mapping of Orthopaedic Surgeons Age 60 and Over and Confirmed Cases of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Although elective surgical procedures in the United States have been suspended because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, orthopaedic surgeons are being recruited to serve patients with COVID-19 in addition to providing orthopaedic acute care. Older individuals are deemed to be at higher risk for poor outcomes with COVID-19. Although previous studies have shown a high proportion of older providers nationwide across medical specialties, we are not aware of any previous study that has analyzed the age distribution among the orthopaedic workforce. Therefore, the purposes of the present study were (1) to determine the geographic distribution of U.S. orthopaedic surgeons by age, (2) to compare the distribution with other surgical specialties, and (3) to compare this distribution with the spread of COVID-19. METHODS: Demographic statistics from the most recent State Physician Workforce Data Reports published by the Association of American Medical Colleges were extracted to identify the 2018 statewide proportion of practicing orthopaedic surgeons ≥60 years of age as well as age-related demographic data for all surgical specialties. Geospatial data on the distribution of COVID-19 cases were obtained from the Environmental Systems Research Institute. State boundary files were taken from the U.S. Census Bureau. Orthopaedic workforce age data were utilized to group states into quintiles. RESULTS: States with the highest quintile of orthopaedic surgeons ≥60 years of age included states most severely affected by COVID-19: New York, New Jersey, California, and Florida. For all states, the median number of providers ≥60 years of age was 105.5 (interquartile range [IQR], 45.5 to 182.5). The median proportion of orthopaedic surgeons ≥60 years of age was higher than that of all other surgical subspecialties, apart from thoracic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, the present report provides the first age-focused view of the orthopaedic workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic. States in the highest quintile of orthopaedic surgeons ≥60 years old are also among the most overwhelmed by COVID-19. As important orthopaedic acute care continues in addition to COVID-19 frontline service, special considerations may be needed for at-risk staff. Appropriate health system measures and workforce-management strategies should protect the subset of those who are most potentially vulnerable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Comparing the short-term cost-effectiveness of epidural steroid injections and medical management alone for discogenic lumbar radiculopathy.

OBJECTIVE: Epidural steroid injections (ESIs) are a commonly used treatment strategy for low back pain and lumbar radiculopathy. However, their cost-effectiveness and ability to mediate long-term quality of life (QOL) improvements is debated. We sought to analyze the cost-effectiveness of lumbar epidural steroid injections (ESIs) compared to medical management alone for patients with lumbar radiculopathy and low back pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: QOL outcomes were prospectively collected at 3- and 6-months following initial consultation. Metrics included the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire, the Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ), the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Cost estimations were based on Medicare national payment amounts, median income, and missed workdays. A cost-utility analysis was performed based upon cost estimations and a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100,000/Quality-adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: One hundred forty-one patients met our inclusion/exclusion criteria; 89 received ESI and 52 were treated with medical management alone. Both cohorts showed improved EQ-5D scores at 3 months but were similar to one another: ESI (ΔEQ-5D = 0.06; p = 0.03) and medical-alone (ΔEQ-5D = 0.07; p = 0.03). No significant difference was seen between groups for total costs ($2,190 vs. $1,772; p = 0.18) or cost-utility ratios ($38,710/QALY vs. $27,313/QALY; p = 0.73). At both the 3-month and 6-month endpoints, absolute differences in cost-utility was driven by overall costs as opposed to QALY gains. Medical management alone was more cost effective at both points owing to lower expenditures, however these differences were not significant. No benefits were seen in either group on the EQ-5D or any of the patient reported outcomes at the 6-month time point. CONCLUSION: ESIs were not cost-effective at either the 3-month or 6-month follow-up period. At 3 months, ESIs provide similar improvements in QOL outcomes relative to medical management and at similar costs. At 6 months, neither ESIs nor conservative management provide significant improvements in QOL outcomes.

Quality of Life and Cost Implications of Pseudarthrosis After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion and its Subsequent Revision Surgery.

BACKGROUND: More than 120,000 anterior cervical discectomy and fusions (ACDFs) are performed annually. Pseudarthrosis is a potential delayed adverse event that affects up to 33% of patients. The degree to which this adverse event affects both patient quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes and health care costs is poorly understood. METHODS: Patients who underwent revision surgery for pseudarthrosis between 2007 and 2012 were identified and matched to controls not experiencing pseudarthrosis in a 1:2 fashion (case/control). Cases and controls were compared regarding total health care costs incurred in the year after the index ACDF and QOL outcomes on the following metrics: EuroQol Five-Dimensions Questionnaire, Patient Health Questionnaire-9, and Pain Disability Questionnaire. RESULTS: Of 738 patients who underwent ACDF, 11 underwent surgery for pseudarthrosis. No differences were noted between cases and controls regarding any of the matched variables. Patients in the pseudarthrosis cohort had poorer postoperative scores on the EuroQol Five-Dimensions Questionnaire mobility, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and quality-adjusted life-year dimensions. In addition, 64% of patients with pseudarthrosis had worsened quality-adjusted life-year scores compared with only 9% of controls (P < 0.01). Patients with pseudarthrosis also had poorer mental health (P < 0.01) and pain disability outcomes (P < 0.01) than did controls. Pseudarthrosis was associated with significant increases in direct costs, direct postoperative costs, and total costs (all P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to characterize the effect of surgical revision for pseudarthrosis on both QOL outcomes and care costs after ACDF. Patients requiring revision experienced significantly poorer QOL outcomes and higher care costs relative to controls.

The Impact of Preoperative Depression on Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey Results in a Cervical Spine Surgery Setting.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the association between preoperative depression and patient experience in a cervical spine surgery population. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey is used to measure patient experience and its scores directly influence reimbursement in the United States. Although it is well-established in the literature that untreated depression is associated with worse patient-reported outcomes in cervical spine surgery, no previous studies have analyzed the association between depression and patient satisfaction for these patients. METHODS: HCAHPS survey responses from patients undergoing cervical spine surgery between 2013 and 2015 were collected at a tertiary care center. HCHAPS survey responses were linked to demographic data as well as patient-reported quality of life (QOL) metrics including Patient Health Questionnaire, EuroQol 5 Dimensions index, and Visual Analog Scale for neck pain for each patient. Preoperative PHQ-9 scores of ≥10 (moderate to severe depression) was used to define preoperative depression. Uni- and multivariable analyses were performed to investigate the association of preoperative depression and top-box scores on several dimensions on the HCAHPS survey. RESULTS: In our 145-patient cohort, depressed patients were on average younger, had higher preoperative neck pain scores, and had a lower health-related QOL. Depressed patients were less likely to report satisfaction with questions related to doctor respect (P = 0.020) and doctors listening (P = 0.030). After adjusting for covariates, multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that patients with preoperative depression had lower odds of feeling respected by their physicians (odds ratio = 0.14, 95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.87, P = 0.035). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing cervical spine surgery, preoperative depression was found to have a negative association with patient perceptions of doctor communication as measured by the HCAHPS survey. These results highlight depression as a risk factor for worse patient experience communicating with their spine surgeon. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Association of Cost Savings and Surgical Quality With Single-Vendor Procurement for Spinal Implants.

Importance: Significant cost savings can be achieved from consolidating purchases of spinal implants with a single vendor. However, it is currently unknown whether sole-source contracting or vendor rationalization more broadly affects patient care. Objectives: To describe the single-vendor procurement of spinal implants, characterize the economic benefits of sole-source contracting, and gauge whether vendor rationalization is associated with a diminished quality of care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study assessed adult patients receiving single-level lumbar interbody fusions at a single institution from January 1, 2009, to July 31, 2017. Exclusion criteria included multilevel fusions and prior spinal fusions. Exposures: Patients were analyzed based on the number of vendors available to surgeons at the time of the patient's surgery. January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2010, was defined as the multivendor period (10 vendors); January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2014, was defined as the dual-vendor period; and January 1, 2015, to July 31, 2017, was defined as the single-vendor period. Main Outcomes and Measures: Rates of 12-month revision surgery, complications, 30-day readmissions, and postoperative patient-reported outcomes, as measured by 5-dimension European Quality of Life (EQ-5D) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Global Health (PROMIS-GH) utilities. Propensity score weighting was performed to control for confounding. The Holm method was used to correct for multiple testing. Annual cost savings associated with the dual-vendor and single-vendor periods were also reported. Results: A total of 1373 patients (mean [SD] age, 59.2 [12.6] years; 763 [55.6%] female; 1161 [84.6%] white) were analyzed. Rates of revisions after adjusting for confounding were 3.2% (95% CI, 1.5%-6.7%) for the multivendor period, 4.5% (95% CI, 3.1%-6.5%) for the dual-vendor period, and 3.0% (95% CI, 1.7%-5.0%) for the single-vendor period. Complication rates were 5.3% (95% CI, 2.7%-10.1%) for the multivendor period, 7.2% (95% CI, 5.4%-9.6%) for the dual-vendor period, and 6.4% (95% CI, 4.6%-8.8%) for the single-vendor period. Readmission rates were 14.2% (95% CI, 9.7%-20.2%) for the multivendor period, 12.6% (95% CI, 10.1%-15.5%) for the dual-vendor period, and 9.7% (95% CI, 7.4%-12.7%) for the single-vendor period. Revisions, complications, and patient-reported outcomes were statistically equivalent across all periods. Readmissions were not statistically equivalent but not statistically different. The savings attributable to vendor rationalization were 24% for the dual-vendor and 21% for the single-vendor periods. Conclusions and Relevance: The single-vendor procurement of spinal implants was associated with significant cost savings without evidence of an associated decline in the quality of care. Large hospital systems may consider sole-source purchasing as a viable cost reduction strategy.

Cost and quality of life outcome analysis of postoperative infections after posterior lumbar decompression and fusion.

Surgical site infections (SSI) following spine procedures are serious and costly complications that may reduce patient quality of life (QOL). Deep SSIs may also extend hospitalizations and require surgical debridement or antibiotic therapy, increasing costs to both patients and the healthcare system. Here we sought to evaluate the effect of deep SSI on care cost and QOL outcomes in patients undergoing posterior lumbar decompression and fusion. To do so we performed a retrospective study of patients undergoing lumbar decompression and fusion between 2008 and 2012. Patients experiencing postoperative deep SSI were matched to controls not experiencing a deep SSI. Included patients had prospectively-gathered QOL outcome measures collected preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively. Health resource utilization was recorded from patient electronic medical records over the 6-month follow-up. Direct costs were estimated using Medicare national payment amounts. Indirect costs were based on missed work days and patient income. We found both cohorts experienced significant improvements in QOL scores following surgery, and there were no significant differences between the cohorts. The average total cost was significantly higher in the infected cohort compared to controls ($37,009 vs. $16,227; p < 0.0001). Compared to controls, patients experiencing deep SSI had greater costs in each of the following categories: hospitalizations (p < 0.01), office visits (p = 0.03), imaging (p < 0.01), and medications (p < 0.01). Among those experiencing deep SSI, there are significant increases in costs, with minimal long-term impact on QOL outcomes as compared with controls at the six-month follow-up.

Cost-Effectiveness of Cervical Epidural Steroid Injections: A 3-Month Pilot Study.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVES: There are conflicting reports on the short- and long-term quality of life (QOL) outcomes and cost-effectiveness of cervical epidural steroid injections (ESIs). The present study analyzes the cost-effectiveness analysis of ESIs versus conservative management for patients with radiculopathy or neck pain in the short term. METHODS: Fifty patients who underwent cervical ESI and 29 patients who received physical therapy and pain medication alone for cervical radiculopathy and neck pain of <6 months duration were included. Three-month postoperative health outcomes were assessed based on EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D; measured in quality-adjusted life years [QALYs]). Medical costs were estimated using Medicare national payment amounts. Cost/utility ratios and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated to assess for cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The ESI cohort experienced significant (P < .01) improvement in the EQ-5D score while the control cohort did not (0.13 vs 0.02 QALYs, respectively; P = .01). There were no significant differences in costs between the cohorts. The cost-utility ratio for the ESI cohort was significantly lower ($21 884/QALY gained) than that for the control cohort ($176 412/QALY gained) (P < .01). The ICER for an ESI versus conservative management was negative, indicating that ESIs provide greater improvement in QOL at a lower cost. CONCLUSIONS: ESIs provide significant improvement in QOL within 3 months for patients with cervical radiculopathy and neck pain. ESIs are more cost-effective compared than conservative management alone in the shor -term. The durability of these results must be analyzed with longer term cost-utility analysis studies.

Assessment of postoperative outcomes in spinal epidural abscess following surgical decompression.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: A spinal epidural abscess (SEA) is a serious condition that may be managed with antibiotics alone or with decompressive surgery combined with antibiotics. PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to assess the clinical outcomes of SEA after surgical management and to identify the patient-level factors that are associated with outcomes following surgical decompression and removal of SEA. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective chart review analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE: An analysis of 154 consecutive patients who initially presented to a tertiary-care, academic medical center with SEA, and were subsequently treated with surgery between 2010 and 2015 was performed. OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative predischarge American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale (AIS) scores, 6-month follow-up encounter AIS scores, need for revision surgery, and mortality during SEA surgery were the primary outcomes.Physiological Measures: AIS scores. METHOD: Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to assess the associations between patient-level factors and surgical outcomes. Moreover, an interactive, predictive model for postoperative predischarge AIS score was developed using a proportional odds regression model. There was no funding secured for this study and there is no conflict of interest-associated biases. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-four patients (mean age of 58 years) were treated using surgical decompression in addition to antibiotics. The majority of patients were Caucasian (81%) and male (61%). No intraoperative mortality was reported. A second SEA surgery was performed in 8% of patients. A comparison of the preoperative and postoperative predischarge AIS scores showed that 49% of patients maintained a score of E or improved, while 45% remained at their preoperative status and 6% worsened. Among a subset of patients (n=36; 23%) for whom a 6-month follow-up encounter occurred, 75% maintained an AIS score of E or improved, 19% remained at their preoperative status, and 6% worsened. Both the presence and longer duration of preoperative paresis was associated with an increased risk of remaining at the same AIS score or worsening at the predischarge encounter (both p< .001). A predictive model for predischarge AIS scores was developed based on several patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical decompression can contribute to improving or maintaining AIS scores in a high percentage of SEA patients. The presence and duration of preoperative paresis are prognostic for poorer outcomes and suggest that rapid surgical intervention before paresis develops may lead to improved postoperative outcomes. Our modeling tool enables an estimation of probabilities of patients' predischarge condition.

Spine Surgeon Treatment Variability: The Impact on Costs.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. OBJECTIVES: Given the lack of strong evidence/guidelines on appropriate treatment for lumbar spine disease, substantial variability exists among surgical treatments utilized, which is associated with differences in costs to treat a given pathology. Our goal was to investigate the variability in costs among spine surgeons nationally for the same pathology in similar patients. METHODS: Four hundred forty-five spine surgeons completed a survey of clinical and radiographic case scenarios on patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation, low back pain, and spondylolisthesis. Those surveyed were asked to provide various details including their geographical location, specialty, and fellowship training. Treatment options included no surgery, anterior lumbar interbody fusion, posterolateral fusion, and transforaminal/posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Costs were estimated via Medicare national payment amounts. RESULTS: For recurrent lumbar disc herniation, no difference in costs existed for patients undergoing their first revision microdiscectomy. However, for patients undergoing another microdiscectomy, surgeons who operated <100 times/year had significantly lower costs than those who operated >200 times/year (P < .001) and those with 5-15 years of experience had significantly higher costs than those with >15 years (P < .001). For the treatment of low back pain, academic surgeons kept costs about 55% lower than private practice surgeons (P < .001). In the treatment of spondylolisthesis, there was significant treatment variability without significant differences in costs. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variability in surgical treatment paradigms exists for different pathologies. Understanding why variability in treatment selection exists in similar clinical contexts across practices is important to ensure the most cost-effective delivery of care among spine surgeons.

What provides a better value for your time? The use of relative value units to compare posterior segmental instrumentation of vertebral segments.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Relative value units (RVUs) are a compensation model based on the effort required to provide a procedure or service to a patient. Thus, procedures that are more complex and require greater technical skill and aftercare, such as multilevel spine surgery, should provide greater physician compensation. However, there are limited data comparing RVUs with operative time. Therefore, this study aims to compare mean (1) operative times; (2) RVUs; and (3) RVU/min between posterior segmental instrumentation of 3-6, 7-12, and ≥13 vertebral segments, and to perform annual cost difference analysis. METHODS: A total of 437 patients who underwent instrumentation of 3-6 segments (Cohort 1, current procedural terminology [CPT] code: 22842), 67 patients who had instrumentation of 7-12 segments (Cohort 2, CPT code: 22843), and 16 patients who had instrumentation of ≥13 segments (Cohort 3, CPT code: 22844) were identified from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Mean operative times, RVUs, and RVU/min, as well as an annualized cost difference analysis, were calculated and compared using Student t test. This study received no funding from any party or entity. RESULTS: Cohort 1 had shorter mean operative times than Cohorts 2 and 3 (217 minutes vs. 325 minutes vs. 426 minutes, p<.05). Cohort 1 had a lower mean RVU than Cohorts 2 and 3 (12.6 vs. 13.4 vs. 16.4). Cohort 1 had a greater RVU/min than Cohorts 2 and 3 (0.08 vs. 0.05, p<.05; vs. 0.08 vs. 0.05, p>.05). A $112,432.12 annualized cost difference between Cohorts 1 and 2, a $176,744.76 difference between Cohorts 1 and 3, and a $64,312.55 difference between Cohorts 2 and 3 were calculated. CONCLUSION: The RVU/min takes into account not just the value provided but also the operative times required for highly complex cases. The RVU/min for fewer vertebral level instrumentation being greater (0.08 vs. 0.05), as well as the $177,000 annualized cost difference, indicates that compensation is not proportional to the added time, effort, and skill for more complex cases.

Emergency department visits after lumbar spine surgery are associated with lower Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems scores.

BACKGROUND: Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) surveys are used to assess the quality of the patient experience following an inpatient stay. Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems scores are used to determine reimbursement for hospital systems and incentivize spine surgeons nationwide. There are conflicting data detailing whether early readmission or other postdischarge complications are associated with patient responses on the HCAHPS survey. Currently, the association between postdischarge emergency department (ED) visits and HCAHPS scores following lumbar spine surgery is unknown. PURPOSE: To determine whether ED visits within 30 days of discharge are associated with HCAHPS scores for patients who underwent lumbar spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 453 patients who underwent lumbar spine surgery who completed the HCAHPS survey between 2013 and 2015 at a single tertiary care center. OUTCOME MEASURES: The HCAHPS survey-the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' official measure of patient experience-results for each patient were analyzed as the primary outcome of this study. METHODS: All patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery between 2013 and 2015 who completed an HCAHPS survey were studied. Patients were excluded from the study if they had been diagnosed with spinal malignancy or scoliosis. Patients who had an ED visit at our institution within 30 days of discharge were included in the ED visit cohort. The primary outcomes of this study include 21 measures of patient experience on the HCAHPS survey. Statistical analysis included Pearson chi-square for categorical variables, Student t test for normally distributed continuous variables, and Mann-Whitney U test for nonparametric variables. Additionally, log-binomial regression models were used to analyze the association between ED visits within 30 days after discharge and odds of top-box HCAHPS scores. No funds were received in support of this study, and the authors report no conflict of interest-associated biases. RESULTS: After adjusting for patient-level covariates using log-binomial regression models, we found postdischarge ED visits were independently associated with lower likelihood of top-box score for several individual questions on HCAHPS. Emergency department visits within 30 days of discharge were negatively associated with perceiving your doctor as "always" treating you with courtesy and respect (risk ratio [RR] 0.26, p<.001), as well as perceiving your doctor as "always" listeningcarefully to you (RR 0.40, p=.003). Also, patients with an ED visit were less likely to feel as if their preferences were taken into account when leaving the hospital (RR 0.61, p=.008), less likely to recommend the hospital to family or friends (RR 0.46, p=.020), and less likely to rate the hospital as a 9 or a 10 out of 10, the top-box score (RR 0.43, p=.005). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate a strong association between postdischarge ED visits and low HCAHPS scores for doctor communication, discharge information, and global measures of hospital satisfaction in a lumbar spine surgery population.

The association between the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey and real-world clinical outcomes in lumbar spine surgery.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The patient experience of care as measured by the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey is currently used to determine hospital reimbursement. The current literature inconsistently demonstrates an association between patient satisfaction and surgical outcomes. PURPOSE: To determine whether patient satisfaction with hospital experience is associated with better clinical outcomes in lumbar spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study conducted at a single institution. PATIENT SAMPLE: A total of 249 patients who underwent lumbar spine surgery between 2013 and 2015 and completed the HCAHPS survey. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported health status measures, including the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Pain Disability Questionnaire (PDQ), and visual analog score for back pain (VAS-BP). METHODS: All patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery between 2013 and 2015 who completed an HCAHPS survey were studied. Patients were excluded from the study if they had been diagnosed with spinal malignancy, scoliosis, or had less than 1 year of follow-up. Patients who selected a 9 or 10 overall hospital rating (OHR) on HCAHPS were placed in the satisfied group, and the remaining patients comprised the unsatisfied group. The primary outcomes of this study include patient-reported health status measures such as EQ-5D, PDQ, and VAS-BP. No funds were received in support of this study, and the authors report no conflict of interest-associated biases. RESULTS: Our study population consisted of 249 patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery. Of these, 197 (79%) patients selected an OHR of 9 or 10 on the HCAHPS survey and were included in the satisfied group. The only preoperative characteristics that differed significantly between the twogroups were gender, a diagnosis of degenerative disc disease (DDD), heavy preoperative narcotic use, and a diagnosis of chronic renal failure. At 1 year follow-up, no statistically significant differences in EQ-5D, PDQ, or VAS-BP were observed. After using multivariable linear regression models to assess the association between patient satisfaction and pre- to 1-year postoperative changes in health status measures, selecting a top-box OHR was not found to be significantly associated with change in either EQ-5D (beta=0.055 [95% confidence interval {CI}: -0.035 to 0.145]), PDQ (beta=-9.013 [95% CI: -23.782 to 5.755]), or VAS-BP (beta=-0.849 [95% CI: -2.125 to 0.426]). These results suggest high satisfaction with the hospital experience may not necessarily correlate with favorable clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Top-box OHR was not associated with pre- to 1-year postoperative improvement in EQ-5D, PDQ, and VAS-BP. Although the associations between high satisfaction and improvement in health status did not reach statistical significance, the best estimates from our multivariable models reflect greater clinical improvement with top-box satisfaction. Future studies should seek to investigate whether HCAHPS are a reliable indicator of quality care in lumbar spine surgery.

Bending the Cost Curve-Establishing Value in Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: As publically promoted by all stakeholders in health care reform, prospective outcomes registry platforms lie at the center of all current evidence-driven value-based models. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the variability in outcomes and cost at population level and individual patient level for patients undergoing spine surgery for degenerative diseases. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of prospective longitudinal spine registry data was conducted. Baseline and postoperative 1-year patient-reported outcomes were recorded. Previously published minimal clinically important difference for Oswestry Disability Index (14.9) was used. Back-related resource utilization and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were assessed. Variations in outcomes and cost were analyzed at population level and at the individual patient level. RESULTS: A total of 1454 patients were analyzed. There was significant improvement in patient-reported outcomes at postoperative 1 year ( P < .0001). For patients demonstrating health benefit at population level, 12.5%, n = 182 of patients experienced no gain from surgery and 38%, n = 554 failed to achieve minimal clinically important difference. Mean 1-year QALY-gained was 0.29; 18% of patients failed to report gain in QALY. For patients with 2-year follow-up, surgery resulted in 0.62 QALY-gained at average direct cost of $28 953. A wide variation in both QALY-gained and cost was observed. CONCLUSION: Spine treatments that on average are cost-effective may have wide variability in value at the individual patient level. The variability demonstrated here represents an opportunity, through registries, to identify specific care that may be less effective, and refine patient-specific care delivery and indications to drive overall group-level treatment value. Understanding value of spine care at an individualized as well as population level will allow clinicians, and eventually payers, to better target resources for improving care for nonresponders, ultimately driving up the average health for the whole population.

Impact of Preoperative Depression on Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Survey Results in a Lumbar Fusion Population.

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study at a single institution. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of preoperative depression on Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey scores in a lumbar fusion population. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: HCAHPS surveys are used to assess the quality of the patient experience, and directly influences reimbursement for hospital systems and spine surgeons nationwide. Untreated depression has been linked to worse functional outcomes in spine surgery. We, however, aimed to elucidate whether HCAHPS survey responses were different in depressed patients. METHODS: Prospectively collected functional outcome data including Patient Health Questionnaire 9, EuroQol five dimensions, and Pain Disability Questionnaire were analyzed preoperatively. Preoperative Patient Health Questionnaire 9 scores of greater than or equal to 10 (moderate to severe depression) defined our depressed cohort of patients. HCAHPS responses were obtained for each individual, allowing for real-world analysis of outcomes in this population. RESULTS: In our 237 patient cohort, depressed patients were younger, female; were on full disability; and had lower scores on EuroQol five dimensions and Pain Disability Questionnaire preoperatively. Approximately 73.2% of depressed patients felt doctors treated them with respect, compared to 88.8% of patients without depression (P = 0.005). Also, depressed patients felt nurses treated them with less respect (P = 0.014) and that physicians did not listen to them as carefully (P = 0.029). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that patients with preoperative depression had higher odds of patients feeling less respected by both physicians and nurses. Multivariate analysis also revealed that depression was an independent predictor of lower patient satisfaction with nursing response to their needs. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing lumbar fusion, preoperative depression was shown to have negative effect on patient experience measured by the HCAHPS survey. These results suggest that depression may be a modifiable risk factor for poor hospital experience. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Insurance status and reportable quality metrics in the cervical spine fusion population.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The incidence of adverse care quality events among patients undergoing cervical fusion surgery is unknown using the definition of care quality employed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The effect of insurance status on the incidence of these adverse quality events is also unknown. PURPOSE: This study determined the incidence of hospital-acquired conditions (HAC) and patient safety indicators (PSI) in patients with cervical spine fusion and analyzed the association between primary payer status and these adverse events. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort design. PATIENT SAMPLE: All patients in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) aged 18 and older who underwent cervical spine fusion from 1998 to 2011 were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of HAC and PSI from 1998 to 2011 served as outcome variables. METHODS: We queried the NIS for all hospitalizations that included a cervical fusion during the inpatient episode from 1998 to 2011. All comparisons were made between privately insured patients and Medicaid or self-pay patients because Medicare enrollment is confounded with age. Incidence of nontraumatic HAC and PSI was determined using publicly available lists of International Classification of Disease, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes. We built logistic regression models to determine the effect of primary payer status on PSI and nontraumatic HAC. RESULTS: We identified 419,424 hospitalizations with cervical fusion performed during an inpatient episode. The estimated national incidences of nontraumatic HAC and PSI were 0.35% and 1.6%, respectively. After adjusting for patient demographics and hospital characteristics, Medicaid or self-pay patients had significantly greater odds of experiencing one or more HAC (odds ratio [OR] 1.51 95% conflict of interest [CI] 1.23-1.84) or PSI (OR 1.52 95% CI 1.37-1.70) than the privately insured cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing inpatient cervical fusion, primary payer status predicts PSI and HAC (both indicators of adverse health-care quality used to determine hospital reimbursement by CMS). As the US health-care system transitions to a value-based payment model, the cause of these disparities must be studied to improve the quality of care delivered to vulnerable patient populations.

Propensity-matched Analysis of Outcomes and Hospital Charges for Anterior Versus Posterior Cervical Fusion for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a nationally representative, all-payer database of inpatient diagnoses and procedures in the United States. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to compare anterior cervical fusion (ACF) to posterior cervical fusion (PCF) in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies used retrospective single-institution level data to quantify outcomes for CSM patients fusion. It is unclear whether ACF or PCF is superior with regards to charges or outcomes for the treatment of CSM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used Nationwide Inpatient Sample data to compare ACF to PCF in the management of CSM. All patients 18 years or older with a diagnosis of CSM between 1998 and 2011 were included. ACF patients were matched to PCF patients using propensity scores based on patient characteristics (number of levels fused, spine alignment, comorbidities), hospital characteristics, and patient demographics. Multivariable regression was used to measure the effect of treatment assignment on in-hospital charges, length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, discharge disposition, and dysphagia diagnosis. RESULTS: From 1998 to 2011, we identified 109,728 hospitalizations with a CSM diagnosis. Of these patients, 45,629 (41.6%) underwent ACF and 14,439 (13.2%) underwent PCF. The PCF cohort incurred an average of $41,683 more in-hospital charges (P<0.001, inflation adjusted to 2011 dollars) and remained in hospital an average of 2.4 days longer (P<0.001) than the ACF cohort. The ACF cohort was just as likely to die in the hospital [odds ratio 0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.68-1.2], 3.0 times more likely to be discharged to home or self-care (95% CI, 2.9-3.2), and 2.5 times more likely to experience dysphagia (95% CI, 2.0-3.1) than the PCF cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In treating CSM, ACF led to lower hospital charges, shorter hospital stays, and an increased likelihood of being discharged to home relative to PCF.

Association between insurance status and patient safety in the lumbar spine fusion population.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Lumbar fusion is a common and costly procedure in the United States. Reimbursement for surgical procedures is increasingly tied to care quality and patient safety as part of value-based reimbursement programs. The incidence of adverse quality events among lumbar fusion patients is unknown using the definition of care quality (patient safety indicators [PSI]) used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The association between insurance status and the incidence of PSI is similarly unknown in lumbar fusion patients. PURPOSE: This study sought to determine the incidence of PSI in patients undergoing inpatient lumbar fusion and to quantify the association between primary payer status and PSI in this population. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study was carried out. PATIENT SAMPLE: The sample comprised all adult patients aged 18 years and older who were included in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) that underwent lumbar fusion from 1998 to 2011. OUTCOME MEASURE: The incidence of one or more PSI, a validated and widely used metric of inpatient health-care quality and patient safety, was the primary outcome variable. METHODS: The NIS data were examined for all cases of inpatient lumbar fusion from 1998 to 2011. The incidence of adverse patient safety events (PSI) was determined using publicly available lists of the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes. Logistic regression models were used to determine the association between primary payer status (Medicaid and self-pay relative to private insurance) and the incidence of PSI. RESULTS: A total of 539,172 adult lumbar fusion procedures were recorded in the NIS from 1998 to 2011. Patients were excluded from the secondary analysis if "other" or "missing" was listed for primary insurance status. The national incidence of PSI was calculated to be 2,445 per 100,000 patient years of observation, or approximately 2.5%. In a secondary analysis, after adjusting for patient demographics and hospital characteristics, Medicaid and self-pay patients had significantly greater odds of experiencing one or more PSI during the inpatient episode relative to privately insured patients (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.07-1.27). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing inpatient lumbar fusion, insurance status is associated with the adverse health-care quality events used to determine hospital reimbursement by the CMS. The source of this disparity must be studied to improve the quality of care delivered to vulnerable patient populations.

Disparities in reportable quality metrics by insurance status in the primary spine neoplasm population.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) defines "adverse quality events" as the incidence of certain complications such as postsurgical hematoma or iatrogenic pneumothorax during an inpatient stay. Patient safety indicators (PSI) are a means to measure the incidence of these adverse events. When adverse events occur, reimbursement to the hospital decreases. The incidence of adverse quality events among patients hospitalized for primary spinal neoplasms is unknown. Similarly, it is unclear what the impact of insurance status is on adverse care quality among this patient population. PURPOSE: We aimed to determine the incidence of PSI among patients admitted with primary spinal neoplasms, and to determine the association between insurance status and the incidence of PSI in this population. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: We included all patients, 18 years and older, in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) who were hospitalized for primary spine neoplasms from 1998 to 2011. OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of PSI from 1998 to 2011 served as outcome variable. METHODS: The NIS was queried for all hospitalizations with a diagnosis of primary spinal neoplasm during the inpatient episode from 1998 to 2011. Incidence of PSI was determined using publicly available lists of International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes. Logistic regression models were used to determine the effect of primary payer status on PSI incidence. All comparisons were made between privately insured patients and Medicaid or self-pay patients. RESULTS: We identified 6,095 hospitalizations in which a primary spinal neoplasm was recorded during the inpatient episode. We excluded patients younger than 18 years and those with "other" or "missing" primary insurance status, leaving 5,880 patients for analysis. After adjusting for patient demographics and hospital characteristics, Medicaid or self-pay patients had significantly greater odds of experiencing one or more PSI (odds ratio [OR] 1.81 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-2.95) relative to privately insured patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized for primary spinal neoplasms, primary payer status predicts the incidence of PSI, an indicator of adverse health-care quality used to determine hospital reimbursement by the CMS. As reimbursement continues to be intertwined with reportable quality metrics, identifying vulnerable populations is critical to improving patient care.