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.

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.

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.].