Ankle fractures: High implant cost is not associated with better patient reported outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Ankle fractures comprise 9% of all fractures and are among the most common fractures requiring operative management. Open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with plates and screws is the gold standard for the treatment of unstable, displaced ankle fractures. While performing ORIF, orthopaedic surgeons may choose from several fixation methods including locking versus nonlocking plating and whether to use screws or suture buttons for syndesmotic injuries. Nearly all orthopaedic surgeons treat ankle fractures but most are unfamiliar with implant costs. No study to date has correlated the cost of ankle fracture fixation with health status as perceived by patients through patient reported outcomes (PROs). The purpose of this study was to determine whether there is a relationship between increasing implant cost and PROs after a rotational ankle fracture. METHODS: All ankle fractures treated with open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) at a level I academic trauma center from January 2018 to December 2022 were identified. Inclusion criteria included all rotational ankle fractures with a minimum 6-month follow-up and completed 6-month PRO. Patients were excluded for age <18, polytrauma and open fracture. Variables assessed included demographics, fracture classifications, Foot and Ankle Ability Measure-Activities of Daily Living (FAAM-ADL) score, implant type, and implant cost. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference in cost between fracture types (p < 0.0001) with trimalleolar fractures being the most expensive. The mean FAAM-ADL score was lowest for trimalleolar fractures at 78.9, 95% CI [75.5, 82.3]. A diagnosis of osteoporosis/osteopenia was associated with a decrease in cost of $233.3, 95% CI [-411.8, -54.8]. There was no relationship between syndesmotic fixation and implant cost, $102.6, 95% CI [-74.9, 280.0]. There was no correlation between implant cost and FAAM-ADL score at 6 months (p = 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of higher cost ankle fixation does not correlate with better FAAM-ADL scores. Orthopaedic surgeons may choose less expensive implants to improve the value of ankle fixation without impacting patient reported outcomes.

Cost Savings of Carpal Tunnel Release Performed In-Clinic Compared to an Ambulatory Surgery Center: Time-Driven Activity-Based-Costing.

Purpose: The purpose of our study was to investigate carpal tunnel release (CTR) performed in the clinic versus the ambulatory surgery center (ASC) to evaluate for potential cost savings. Methods: Patients who underwent either CTR in clinic under a local anesthetic or CTR in the ASC with sedation and local anesthetic were prospectively enrolled in a registry between 2014 and 2016. All patients completed a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scale for procedural and postprocedure pain. Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC) was utilized to quantify cost of both CTR in clinic and CTR in the ASC. Statistical analysis involved parametric comparative tests between patient cohorts for both the TDABC-cost and patient pain. Results: A total of 59 participants completed the postprocedure CTR survey during the study period, 23 (38.9%) in the ASC group and 36 (61.1%) in the clinic group. Overall time for the procedure from patient arrival to discharge was significantly longer for the ASC cases, averaging 215.7 minutes (range: 201-230) compared to 78.6 minutes (range: 59-98) in the clinic group (P < .01). Both procedural and postoperative VAS pain scores were comparable between clinic and ASC cohorts, procedural pain: 1.8 vs 1.9 (P = .91) and postoperative pain: 4.8 vs 4.9 (P = .88). TDABC analysis estimated ASC CTR procedures to cost an average of $557.07 ($522.06-$592.08) and clinic procedures to cost an average of $151.92 ($142.59-$161.25) (P < .05). Conclusions: CTR in the clinic setting results in significant cost savings compared to CTR in the ASC with no difference in pain scores during the procedure or postoperative period. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing: A Better Way to Understand the Cost of Caring for Hip Fractures.

Geriatric hip fractures are a common and costly injury. They are expected to surge in incidence and economic burden as the population ages. With an increasing financial strain on the healthcare system, payors and providers are looking toward alternative, value-based models to contain costs. Value in healthcare is the ratio of outcomes achieved over costs incurred, and can be improved by reducing cost while maintaining or improving outcomes, or by improving outcomes while maintaining or reducing costs. Therefore, an understanding of cost, the denominator of the value equation, is essential to value-based healthcare. Because traditional hospital accounting methods do not link costs to conditions, there has been little research to date on the costs of treating geriatric hip fractures over the entire cycle of care. The aim of this article is to summarize existing costing methodologies, and in particular, to review the strengths and limitations of Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC) in orthopaedic trauma, especially as it pertains to the needs and challenges unique to hip fracture care. TDABC determines costs at the patient-level over the entire care cycle, allowing for population variability, while simultaneously identifying cost drivers that might inform risk-stratification for future alternative payment models. Through process mapping, TDABC also reveals areas of variation or inefficiency that can be targeted for optimization, and empowers physicians by focusing on costs in the control of the provider. Although barriers remain, TDABC is well-positioned to provide transparent costing and targets to improve the value of hip fracture care.

Does Value Matter in Orthopaedic Trauma?: A Survey of Orthopaedic Trauma Association Members.

OBJECTIVES: With value-based payment models on the horizon, this study was designed to examine the perceptions of value-based care among orthopaedic traumatologists and how they influence their practice. DESIGN: Systems-based survey study. SETTING: Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) research surveys. PARTICIPANTS: OTA members. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Thirty-eight-question surveys focusing on 5 areas related to value-based care: understanding value, assessing interest, barriers, perceptions around implementing value-based strategies, and policy. RESULTS: Of 1106 OTA members, 252 members responded for a response rate of 22.7%. Consideration around cost was not different between hospital, academic, and private practice settings (P = 0.47). Previous reported experience in finance increased the amount surgical decision-making was influenced by cost (P < 0.01), along with reported understanding of implant costs (P < 0.01). Over half of the respondents (59.4%) believed value-based payments are coming to orthopaedic trauma. The vast majority (88.5%) believed bundled payments would be unsuccessful or only partially successful. With respect to barriers, a third of respondents (34.7%) indicated accurate cost data prevented the implementation of programs that track and maximize value, another third (31.5%) attributed it to a limited ability to collect patient-reported outcomes, and the rest (33.8%) were split between lack of institutional interest and access to funding. CONCLUSION: Our study indicated the understanding of value in orthopaedic trauma is limited and practice integration is rare. Reported experience in finance was the only factor associated with increased consideration of value-based care in practice. Our results highlight the need for increased exposure and resources to changing health care policy, specifically for orthopaedic traumatologists. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Patient-Level Value Analysis: An Innovative Approach to Optimize Care Delivery.

BACKGROUND: An increasing emphasis has been placed on developing value-based care delivery systems in orthopaedics to combat rising health care costs. The goal of these systems is to both measure and improve the provisional value of care. Patient-level value analysis creates a mechanism to quantify and optimize value within a procedure, in contrast to traditional methods, which only measures value. The purpose of this study was to develop a patient-level value analysis model and determine the efficacy of this model to improve value in orthopaedic care. METHODS: Patients treated operatively for isolated closed ankle fractures at a single level 1 trauma center were prospectively identified. Short musculoskeletal function assessment was collected at the time of the initial clinical presentation and 6 months postoperatively. The cost of care was determined using time-driven activity-based costing, which included personnel, supplies, length of stay, implants, pharmacy, and radiology. Value was defined as each patient's change in the outcome score divided by their cost as determined by time-driven activity-based costing. A multiple linear regression was performed to determine which aspects of care significantly predicted value. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients met inclusion/exclusion criteria. The multiple linear regression indicated treatment by physician D (ß = -0.135, P = 0.04) and inpatient stay (ß = -0.468, P < 0.01) were predictors of lesser value and represent areas for potential care pathway and value improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-level value analysis represents a paradigm shift in the quantification of value. We recommend surgeons, practices, and health care systems begin implementing a system to quantify and optimize the value of care provided. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing in Fracture Care: Is This a More Accurate Way to Prepare for Alternative Payment Models?

OBJECTIVES: To use surgical treatment of isolated ankle fractures as a model to compare time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) and our institution's traditional cost accounting (TCA) method to measure true cost expenditure around a specific episode of care. METHODS: Level I trauma center ankle fractures treated between 2012 and 2016 were identified through a registry. Inclusion criteria were age greater than 18 years and same-day ankle fracture operation. Exclusion criteria were pilon fractures, vascular injuries, soft-tissue coverage, and external fixation. Time for each phase of care was determined through repeated observations. The TCA method at our institution uses all hospital costs and allocates them to surgeries using a relative value method. RESULTS: A total of 35 patients met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, 18 were men and 17 were women. Age at time of surgery was 47 ± 15 years. Time from injury to surgery was 10 ± 4 days. Operative time was 86 ± 30 minutes, Post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) time was 87 ± 27 minutes, and secondary recovery time was 100 ± 56 minutes. Average cost was significantly lower for the TDABC method ($2792 ± 734) than the TCA method ($5782 ± 1348) (P < 0.001). There was no difference between methods for implant cost ($882 ± 507 for Traditional Accounting (TA) and $957 ± 651 for TDABC, P = 0.593). TCA produced a significantly greater cost (P < 0.01) in every other category. CONCLUSIONS: As orthopaedics transitions to alternative payment models, accurate costing will become critical to maintaining a successful practice. TDABC may provide a better estimate of the cost of the resources necessary to treat a patient.