Degenerative Adult Cervical Kyphosis With Secondary Diagnosis Codes Are Associated With Higher Cost and Complications After Spinal Fusion: A Medicare Database Study.

BACKGROUND: Adult cervical deformity (ACD) is a potentially debilitating condition resulting from kyphosis, scoliosis, or both, of the cervical spine. Conditions such as ankylosing spondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson's disease, and neuromuscular diseases are particularly known to cause severe deformities. We describe the 90-day cost and complications associated with spinal fusion for ACD using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding terminology and study if secondary diagnoses associated with potential for severe deformity affect the cost and complication profile of ACD surgery. METHODS: Medicare data were used to study hospital costs and complications within 90 days after primary cervical fusion for ACD in 2 cohorts matched by demographics and comorbidity burden: (1) patients with diagnoses of secondary pathology (SP) known to cause severe deformity and (2) without SP. Univariate and multiple-variable analyses to study incidence of complications, readmission, and costs within 90 days were done. RESULTS: A total of 2900 patients in matched cohorts of 1450 each were included. The mean index hospital payment ($26 545 ± $25 968 versus $22 991 ± $21 599) and length of stay (4.8 ± 5.6 versus 3.9 ± 4.5 days) was significantly (P < .01) higher in ACD patients with SP. On adjusted analysis, the risk of procedure-related complications was higher (odds ratio [OR] = 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-1.83) in patients with SP than those without SP, but not readmission (OR = 1.04, 95% CI, 0.82-1.32) or refusion (OR = 0.95, 95% CI, 0.45-2.0) within 90 days. The cost profile of complications, readmission, and refusion has been given. CONCLUSIONS: ACD patients with secondary diagnosis codes such as inflammatory arthropathy or neuromuscular pathology incur higher 90-day costs due to the inherent requirement of bigger fusions and higher risk of peri-operative complications, but with similar risk of readmission and refusion as those without SP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: With evolving health care reforms and payment models, knowledge of conditions associated with higher expenditure after elective spine surgical procedures will be beneficial to providers and payors for appropriate risk stratification.

The Association of "U.S. News & World Report" Hospital Rankings and Outcomes Following Anterior Cervical Fusions: Do Rankings Even Matter?

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether there are any differences in outcomes and costs for elective one- to three-level anterior cervical fusions (ACFs) performed at US News and World Report (USNWR) ranked and unranked hospitals. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although the USNWR rankings are advertised by media and are routinely used by patients as a guide in seeking care, evidence regarding whether these rankings are reflective of actual clinical outcome remains limited. METHODS: The 2010-2014 USNWR hospital rankings were used to identify ranked hospitals in "Neurosurgery" and "Orthopedics." The 2010-2014 100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files (SAF100) were used to identify patients undergoing elective ACFs at ranked and unranked hospitals. Multivariable logistic regression and generalized linear regression analyses were used to assess for differences in 90-day outcomes and costs between ranked and unranked hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 110,520 patients undergoing elective one- to three-level ACFs were included in the study, of which 10,289 (9.3%) underwent surgery in one of the 100 ranked hospitals. Following multivariate analysis, there were no significant differences between ranked versus unranked hospitals with regards to wound complications (1.2% vs. 1.1%; P = 0.907), cardiac complications (12.9% vs. 11.9%; P = 0.055), pulmonary complications (3.7% vs. 6.7%; P = 0.654), urinary tract infections (7.3% vs. 5.8%; P = 0.120), sepsis (9.3% vs. 7.9%; P = 0.847), deep venous thrombosis (1.9% vs. 1.3%; P = 0.077), revision surgery (0.3% vs. 0.3%; P = 0.617), and all-cause readmissions (4.7% vs. 4.4%; P = 0.266). Ranked hospitals, as compared to unranked hospitals, had a slightly lower odds of experiencing renal complications (7.0% vs. 4.9%; P = 0.047), but had significantly higher risk-adjusted 90-day charges (+$17,053; P < 0.001) and costs (+ $1695; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Despite the higher charges and costs of care at ranked hospitals, these facilities appear to have similar outcomes as compared to unranked hospitals following elective ACFs.Level of Evidence: 3.

Understanding the Trends and Variability in Procedures Performed During Orthopedic Spine Surgery Fellowship Training: An Analysis of ACGME Case Log Data.

OBJECTIVE: To understand trends and variability of procedures performed by orthopedic spine surgery fellows during training. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) case logs. PARTICIPANTS: Fellows enrolled in ACGME-accredited "Orthopaedic Surgery of the Spine" fellowships from 2010 to 2015. RESULTS: The 2010 to 2015 ACGME fellowship case logs for "Orthopaedic Surgery of the Spine" were retrieved. Spine cases in case logs are grouped into the following categories: (1) Excision, (2) Osteotomy, (3) Fracture and/or Dislocation, (4) Decompression, (5) Anterior fusion/arthrodesis, (6) Posterior fusion, (7) Deformity surgery, (8) Exploration, (9) Instrumentation, and (10) other/uncategorized. The total number of spine cases logged by each fellow increased from 821 in 2010 to 1134 in 2015 (38.2% increase). The greatest increases were noted from fracture/dislocation cases (77.9%), followed by posterior fusions (62.2%), anterior fusions (43.6%), decompressions (36.3%), and instrumentation (29.5%). The average number of deformity cases decreased from 23 in 2010 to 19 in 2016 (18.6% decrease). The average number of adult-only cases increased from 770 in 2010 to 1100 in 2015 (42.8% increase), whereas the average number of pediatric-only cases declined from 51 in 2010 to 35 in 2015 (32.1% decrease). Based on case logs from 2015, the greatest variation in case volume between the 10th centile and 90th centile of fellows was noted for deformity cases, followed by decompressions and posterior fusions. CONCLUSIONS: Even though there has been a 38% increase in the overall number of spine cases performed by fellows during training, a large amount of variation in type of case exposure exists between fellowships. The findings of our study call for the establishment of minimal case volumes and/or uniformity of training spectrums across the nation to ensure appropriate surgical care is made accessible to all patients.

Pediatric kidney transplant in undocumented immigrants: An American perspectives.

Kidney transplant in undocumented immigrants remains controversial. While in the United States the National Organ Transplant Act does not prohibit inclusion of these patients as transplant candidates, legislative and financial barriers and ethical concerns remain. The purpose of this article was to review the legal and financial barriers to kidney transplant for children with ESKD who are undocumented immigrants and consider arguments for and against inclusion of these children as kidney transplant candidates. While this discussion is largely restricted to the experience in the United States and its unique healthcare system, the themes and ideas may be more generalizable to the experience in many high-income countries. We conclude that access to kidney transplant is legal, ethically justifiable, and clearly in the best interest of these children. Transplant professionals should continue to advocate for changes in policy and greater resources to support these patients.

Hospital network participation and outcomes following elective posterior lumbar fusions - are mergers effective?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Due to financial pressures associated with healthcare reforms, an increasing number of hospitals are now merging (or consolidating) into networks (or systems). However, it remains unclear how these mergers or network participations affect quality of care and/or costs. PURPOSE: The current study aims to evaluate the impact of hospital network participation on 90-day complications, charges, and costs following elective posterior lumbar fusions (PLFs). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a 100% national sample of Medicare claims from 2010 to 2014 (SAF100). STUDY SAMPLE: All Medicare-eligible patients undergoing elective 1-to-3 level PLFs for degenerative lumbar pathology from 2010 to 2014. OUTCOME MEASURES: Ninety-day complications, charges, and costs. METHODS: The 2010 to 2014 100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files (SAF100) was used to identify patients undergoing elective 1- to 3-level PLFs for degenerative lumbar pathology. The Dartmouth Atlas for Healthcare hospital-level data, which uses a combination of American Hospital Association and additional source data, was used to identify hospitals that were part of a network (or system) between 2010 and 2014. The study sample was divided into 2 cohorts (network hospitals and non-network hospitals) for analyses. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to compare differences in 90-day complications between network and non-network hospitals, while controlling for baseline demographics (age, gender, region, year of surgery, median household income, co-morbidity burden) and hospital-level characteristics (case volume, teaching status, urban/rural location, and hospital ownership). Generalized linear regression modeling was used to assess for differences in 90-day charges and costs. RESULTS: A total of 145,141 patients undergoing surgery in 2,186 hospitals were included in the study, out of which 107,919 (74.4%) underwent surgery in a network hospital (N=1,526). Network hospitals were more prevalent in the South or West regions of the United States. Patients in network hospitals had a median household income less than the 5th quintile. Network hospitals were also more likely to have a higher annual case volume of elective 1- to 3-level PLFs, greater number of beds, be located in an urban location, and have a voluntary/nonprofit or proprietary/profit ownership model. Multivariate analyses showed that even though patients undergoing surgery at network hospitals (vs non-network hospitals) had a slightly increased odds of 90-day cardiac complications (7.9% vs 7.4%, odds ratio [OR] 1.07 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.02-1.12]; p=.010), thromboembolic complications (2.4% vs 2.2%, OR 1.12 [95% CI 1.01-1.20]; p=.025) and emergency department visits (16.4% vs 16.0%, OR 1.06 [95% CI 1.02-1.09]; p=.002), the differences would not be considered clinically significant. Despite a slight decrease in risk-adjusted 90-day reimbursements (-$272), the risk-adjusted 90-day charges were actually significantly higher (+$9,959; p<.001) at network hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Even though hospitals that are part of a network do not appear to have significantly different complication rates following elective PLFs, they do have significantly higher risk-adjusted charges as compared to non-network hospitals. Further research is required to understand market-level changes induced by hospital mergers into networks.

Primary single-level lumbar microdisectomy/decompression at a free-standing ambulatory surgical center vs a hospital-owned outpatient department-an analysis of 90-day outcomes and costs.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: While free-standing ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) have been extolled as lower cost settings than hospital outpatient facilities/departments (HOPDs) for performing routine elective spine surgeries, differences in 90-day costs and complications have yet to be compared between the two types of treatment facilities. PURPOSE: We carried a comprehensive analysis to report the differences on payments to providers and facilities as a reflection of true costs to patients, employers and health plans for patients undergoing primary, single-level lumbar microdiscectomy/decompression at ASC versus HOPD. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of Medicare advantage and commercially insured enrollees from the Humana dataset from 2007 to 2017Q1. OUTCOME MEASURES: To understand the differences in 90-day complications, readmissions, emergency department visits and costs for patients undergoing primary, single-level lumbar microdiscectomy/decompressions at an ASC versus HOPD. METHODS: The Humana 2007 to 2017Q1 was queried using Current Procedural Terminology codes to identify patients undergoing primary, single-level lumbar microdiscectomy/decompressions. Patients undergoing two-level surgery, open laminectomies, fusions, revision discectomies, and/or deformities were excluded. Service Location codes for HOPD (Location Code 22) and free-standing ASC (Location Code 24) were used to determine surgery treatment facilities. Using propensity scoring, we matched two groups who had surgery performed in ASCs or HOPDs based on age, gender, race, region and Elixhauser comorbidity index. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed on matched cohorts to assess for differences in 90-day outcomes between facilities, while controlling for age, gender, race, region, plan, and Elixhauser comorbidity index. RESULTS: A total of 1,077 and 10,475 primary single-level decompressions were performed in ASCs and HOPDs, respectively. Following a matching algorithm with propensity scoring, the two cohorts were comprised of 990 patients each. Observed differences in 90-day complication rates were not statistically or clinically significant (ASC=9.1% vs. HOPD=10.3%; p=.362) nor were readmissions (ASC=4.5% vs. HOPD=5.3%; p=.466). On average, performing surgery in an ASC versus HOPD resulted in significant cost savings of over $2,000/case in Medicare Advantage ($5,814 vs. $7,829) and over $3,500/case ($10,116 vs. $13,623) in commercial beneficiaries. CONCLUSION: Performing single-level decompression surgeries in an ASC compared with HOPDs was associated with approximately $2,000 to $3,500 cost-savings per case with no statistically significant impact on complication or readmission rates.

Costs Associated With a 90-Day Episode of Care After Single-Level Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.

BACKGROUND: Anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) is a commonly performed surgical procedure for the management of degenerative lumbar spine pathologic entities. Despite an increasing number of ALIFs performed nationally, to the best of our knowledge, no study has evaluated the costs associated with the 90-day episode of care postoperatively. METHODS: The 2007-2016 Humana Administrative Claims data set, a national database of commercial and Medicare Advantage (MA) beneficiaries, was queried using Current Procedural Terminology code 22558 for patients who had undergone single-level ALIF. The 90-day costs were defined using the following categories: facility, surgeon, anesthesia, other hospitalization costs and services, radiology, office visits, physical therapy/rehabilitation, emergency department visits, and readmissions. RESULTS: A total of 365 ALIF procedures (MA, n = 244; commercial, n = 121) were included in the analysis. The average 90-day cost of single-level ALIF was $25,568 and $51,741 for the MA and commercial enrollees, respectively. The major proportion of 90-day costs was attributable to facility reimbursement (74%-76%), followed by surgeon costs (9%-11%). Postacute care (i.e., office visits and physical therapy/rehabilitation) was not a major driver of the 90-day costs, consisting of only 0.7%-1.3% of the total 90-day reimbursement. Of patients who had required readmission, the costs of the readmission increased the average 90-day costs by 65%-66%. CONCLUSIONS: Facility costs were the major drivers of a stipulated 90-day reimbursement for patients undergoing single-level ALIF. Health policy makers and providers can use these data to better understand the distribution of costs in a stipulated bundled-payment model for ALIFs and allow them to identify areas in which cost reduction strategies can be performed.

Declining trend in osteoporosis management and screening following vertebral compression fractures - a national analysis of commercial insurance and medicare advantage beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Despite the increasing national incidence, osteoporosis and its associated comanagement, often remain an overlooked issue in the orthopedic world. Screening and associated management of osteoporosis is often only considered by providers when patients present with multiple fragility fractures. Current evidence with regard to the trends in screening and medical comanagement/antiosteoporotic therapy of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (VCFs) remains limited. PURPOSE: To understand trends, costs, and clinical impact associated the utilization of antiosteoporotic medication and screening with the 1 year following occurrences of sentinel/primary osteoporotic VCFs. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective review of 2008-2015Q3 Humana Administrative Claims (HAC) database. PATIENT SAMPLE: The 2008-2015Q3 HAC database was queried using International Classification of Diseases 9th Edition (ICD-9) diagnosis codes 805.2 and 805.4 to identify patients with primary closed osteoporotic thoracolumbar VCFs. Patients with a concurrent diagnosis of trauma and/or malignancy were excluded. Patients experiencing a fragility fracture of the hip, distal radius or proximal humerus, and/or those already on osteoporotic medications within the year before the VCF were excluded to prevent an overlap in the screening and/or antiresorptive medication rates. Finally, only those patients who had complete 2-year follow-up data were analyzed. OUTCOME MEASURES: To understand trends over time in the utilization of medication for osteoporosis and screening within 1 year following sentinel VCFs. The study also aimed to report per-prescription and per-patient average costs associated with different antiosteoporotic medications. As secondary objectives, we also assessed (1) risk factors associated with not receiving antiosteoporotic medication within the year following sentinel VCFs and (2) differences in rates of experiencing a secondary fragility fracture of vertebrae, hip, distal radius, and proximal humerus between patients who received medication following the sentinel VCF versus those who did not receive any medication. RESULTS: A total of 6,464 primary osteoporotic VCFs were retrieved from the database. A majority of the VCFs were seen in females (N=5,199; 80.4%). Only 28.8% (N=1,860) patients received some form of medication for osteoporosis medication in the year following the VCF. Over a 6-year interval, treatment with medication for osteoporosis declined from 38% in 2008 to 24% in 2014. The average cost of antiosteoporotic treatment per patient was $1,511. The most commonly prescribed treatment and associated average cost/patient was alendronate sodium (N=1,239; 66.6% to $120/patient). The most costly prescribed treatment was Forteo (N=177; 2.7%) with an average cost/patient of $12,074 and cost/injection being $2,373. Only 36.7% (N=2,371) received a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry/bone density scan in the year following the VCF with an average cost/patient of $76. Risk factors associated with no prescription of medication for osteoporosis within 1 year of VCF were male gender (odds ratio [OR] 1.17 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.01-1.35]; p=.027), history of cerebrovascular accident/stroke (OR 1.56 [95% CI 1.08-2.32]; p=.022), history of diabetes mellitus (OR 1.28 [95% CI 1.04-1.58]; p=.023). Of note, patients in the West versus Midwest (OR 1.26 [95% CI 1.04-1.51]; p=.016) and commercial insurance beneficiaries (OR 1.95 [95% CI 1.08-3.52]; p=.027) were more likely to receive antiosteoporotic medication. Patients who were placed on antiosteoporotic medication were significantly less likely to suffer a second fragility fracture compared with patients that did not receive medication (OR 0.27 [95% CI 0.24-0.31]; p=.033). CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of patients starting antiosteoporotic medication within a year after a VCF remains low (28.8%). Furthermore, a declining trend of antiosteoporotic medication prescription was noted over time. Providers who care for patients with sentinel VCFs need to be more diligent in their efforts to diagnose and treat the underlying osteoporosis to reduce the burden of future fragility fractures.

Are current DRG-based bundled payment models for lumbar fusions risk-adjusting adequately? An analysis of Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Current bundled payment programs in spine surgery, such as the bundled payment for care improvement rely on the use of diagnosis-related groups (DRG) to define payments. However, these DRGs may not be adequate enough to appropriately capture the large amount of variation seen in spine procedures. For example, DRG 459 (spinal fusion except cervical with major comorbidity or complication) and DRG 460 (spinal fusion except cervical without major comorbidity or complication) do not differentiate between the type of fusion (anterior or posterior), the levels/extent of fusion, the use of interbody/graft/BMP, indication of surgery (primary vs. revision) or even if the surgery was being performed for a vertebral fracture. PURPOSE: We carried out a comprehensive analysis to report the factors responsible for cost-variation in a bundled payment model for spinal fusions. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of a 5% national sample of Medicare claims from 2008 to 2014 (SAF5). OUTCOME MEASURES: To understand the independent marginal cost impact of various patient-level, geographic-level, and procedure-level characteristics on 90-day costs for patients undergoing spinal fusions under DRG 459 and 460. METHODS: The 2008 to 2014 Medicare 5% standard analytical files (SAF) were used to retrieve patients undergoing spinal fusions under DRG 459 and DRG 460 only. Patients with missing gender, age, and/or state-level data were excluded. Only those patients who had complete data, with regard to payments/costs/reimbursements, starting from day 0 of surgery up to 90 days postoperatively were included to prevent erroneous collection. Multivariate linear regression models were built to assess the independent marginal cost impact (decrease/increase) of each patient-level, state-level, and procedure-level characteristics on the average 90-day cost while controlling for other covariates. RESULTS: A total of 21,367 patients (DRG-460=20,154; DRG-459=1,213) were included in the study. The average 90-day cost for all lumbar fusions was $31,716±$18,124, with the individual 90-day payments being $54,607±$30,643 (DRG-459) and $30,338±$16,074 (DRG-460). Increasing age was associated with significant marginal increases in 90-day payments (70-74 years: +$2,387, 75-79 years: +$3,389, 80-84 years: +$2,872, ≥85: +$1,627). With regards to procedure-level factors-undergoing an anterior fusion (+$3,118), >3 level fusion (+$5,648) vs. 1 to 3 level fusion, use of interbody device (+$581), intraoperative neuromonitoring (+$1,413), concurrent decompression (+$768) and undergoing surgery for thoracolumbar fracture (+$6,169) were associated with higher 90-day costs. Most individual comorbidities were associated with higher 90-day costs, with malnutrition (+$12,264), CVA/stroke (+$5,886), Alzheimer's (+$4,968), Parkinson's disease (+$4,415), and coagulopathy (+$3,810) having the highest marginal 90-day cost-increases. The top five states with the highest marginal cost-increase, in comparison to Michigan (reference), were Maryland (+$12,657), Alaska (+$11,292), California (+$10,040), Massachusetts (+$8,800), and the District of Columbia (+$8,315). CONCLUSIONS: Under the proposed DRG-based bundled payment model, providers would be reimbursed the same amount for lumbar fusions regardless of the surgical approach (posterior vs. anterior), the extent of fusion (1-3 level vs. >3 level), use of adjunct procedures (decompressions) and cause/indication of surgery (fracture vs. degenerative pathology), despite each of these factors having different resource utilization and associated costs. When defining and developing future bundled payments for spinal fusions, health-policy makers should strive to account for the individual patient-level, state-level, and procedure-level variation seen within DRGs to prevent the creation of a financial dis-incentive in taking care of sicker patients and/or performing more extensive complex spinal fusions.

Orthopedic versus Neurosurgery-Understanding 90-Day Complications and Costs in Patients Undergoing Elective 1-Level to 2-Level Posterior Lumbar Fusions by Different Specialties.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar fusions are routinely performed by either orthopedic or neurologic spine surgeons. Controversy still exists as to whether a provider's specialty (orthopedic vs. neurosurgery) influences outcomes. METHODS: The 2007-2015Q2 Humana Commercial Database was queried using Current Procedural Terminology codes (22612, 22614, 22630, 22632, 22633 and 22634) to identify patients undergoing elective 1-to-2 level posterior lumbar fusions (PLFs) with active enrollment up to 90 days after procedure. Ninety-day complication rates were calculated for the 2 specialties. The surgical and 90-day resource utilization costs for the 2 groups were compared, by studying average reimbursements for acute-care and post-acute-care categories. Ninety-day complications and costs were compared using multivariable logistic and linear regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 10,509 patients (5523 orthopedic and 4986 neurosurgery) underwent an elective 1-to-2 level PLF during the period. With the exception of a significantly lower odds of wound complications (odds ratio, 0.81) and a higher odds of dural tears (odds ratio, 1.29) in elective PLFs performed by orthopedic surgeons, no statistically strong differences were seen in 90-day complication rates between the 2 groups. Total 90-day costs were also similar between orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons, with the only exception being that surgeon reimbursement was lower for orthopedic surgery versus neurosurgery ($1202 vs. $1372; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: It seems that a provider's specialty does not largely influence 90-day surgical outcomes and costs after elective PLFs. The results of the study promote the formation and acceptance of dual training pathways for entry into spine surgery.

Understanding Costs in a 90-Day Episode of Care Following Posterior Spinal Fusions for Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis.

OBJECTIVE: To understand cost distribution in a 90-day episode of care following posterior spinal fusions (PSFs) for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). METHODS: The 2007-2016 Humana PearlDiver dataset was queried using Current Procedural Terminology codes (22800, 22802, 22804, 22842, 22843, and 22844) to identify patients with AIS, aged 10-19 years, receiving PSFs. The following categories were used to define distribution in 90-day costs: 1) facility costs, 2) surgeon costs, 3) anesthesia costs, 4) intraoperative neuromonitoring, 5) hospital services and investigations, 6) intensive care unit stay, 7) radiology, 8) physical therapy/rehabilitation, 9) office visits, and 10) readmissions. RESULTS: A total of 455 patients with AIS received PSFs, of whom 381 (83.7%) were commercial insurance beneficiaries and 74 (16.3%) were Medicaid beneficiaries. The overall average 90-day cost of surgery was $124,360 with the 90-day stipulated bundled prices being $136,302 and $62,871 for commercial and Medicaid beneficiaries, respectively. Facility costs comprised 85%-92% of the 90-day cost, followed by surgeon costs (5.2%-5.7%). Post-acute care (physical therapy/rehab and office visits) was not a major driver of the 90-day cost (0.2%-0.3%). Significant independent predictors of increased 90-day costs were-increased co-morbidity burden (+$11,284), ≥7 levels fusion (+$65,330), and length of stay (+$5298/day). Medicaid (-$81,957) payer type was associated with lower 90-day costs. CONCLUSIONS: Facility costs are a major determinant of overall 90-day costs following PSFs in AIS. Providers should aim at optimizing the co-morbidity burden and constructing accelerated care-pathways to decrease the length of stay and reduce the cost of the entire episode of care.

Refining risk adjustment for bundled payment models in cervical fusions-an analysis of Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The current Bundled Payment for Care Improvement model relies on the use of "Diagnosis Related Groups" (DRGs) to risk-adjust reimbursements associated with a 90-day episode of care. Three distinct DRG groups exist for defining payments associated with cervical fusions: (1) DRG-471 (cervical fusions with major comorbidity/complications), (2) DRG-472 (with comorbidity/complications), and (3) DRG-473 (without major comorbidity/complications). However, this DRG system may not be entirely suitable in controlling the large amounts of cost variation seen among cervical fusions. For instance, these DRGs do not account for area/location of surgery (upper cervical vs. lower cervical), type of surgery (primary vs. revision), surgical approach (anterior vs. posterior), extent of fusion (1-3 level vs. >3 level), and cause/indication of surgery (fracture vs. degenerative pathology). PURPOSE: To understand factors responsible for cost variation in a 90-day episode of care following cervical fusions. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study of a 5% national sample of Medicare claims from 2008 to 2014 5% Standard Analytical Files (SAF5). OUTCOME MEASURES: To calculate the independent marginal cost impact of various patient-level, geographic-level, and procedure-level characteristics on 90-day reimbursements for patients undergoing cervical fusions under DRG-471, DRG-472, and DRG-473. METHODS: The 2008 to 2014 Medicare SAF5 was queried using DRG codes 471, 472, and 473 to identify patients receiving a cervical fusion. Patients undergoing noncervical fusions (thoracolumbar), surgery for deformity/malignancy, and/or combined anterior-posterior fusions were excluded. Patients with missing data and/or those who died within 90 days of the postoperative follow-up period were excluded. Multivariate linear regression modeling was performed to assess the independent marginal cost impact of DRG, gender, age, state, procedure-level factors (including cause/indication of surgery), and comorbidities on total 90-day reimbursement. RESULTS: Following application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, a total of 12,419 cervical fusions were included. The average 90-day reimbursement for each DRG group was as follows: (1) DRG-471=$54,314±$32,643, (2) DRG-472=$28,535±$17,271, and (3) DRG-473=$18,492±$10,706. The risk-adjusted 90-day reimbursement of a nongeriatric (age <65) female, with no major comorbidities, undergoing a primary 1- to 3-level anterior cervical fusion for degenerative cervical spine disease was $14,924±$753. Male gender (+$922) and age 70 to 84 (+$1,007 to +$2,431) was associated with significant marginal increases in 90-day reimbursements. Undergoing upper cervical surgery (-$1,678) had a negative marginal cost impact. Among other procedure-level factors, posterior approach (+$3,164), >3 level fusion (+$2,561), interbody (+$667), use of intra-operative neuromonitoring (+$1,018), concurrent decompression/laminectomy (+$1,657), and undergoing fusion for cervical fracture (+$3,530) were associated higher 90-day reimbursements. Severe individual comorbidities were associated with higher 90-day reimbursements, with malnutrition (+$15,536), CVA/stroke (+$6,982), drug abuse/dependence (+$5,059), hypercoagulopathy (+$5,436), and chronic kidney disease (+$4,925) having the highest marginal cost impacts. Significant state-level variation was noted, with Maryland (+$8,790), Alaska (+$6,410), Massachusetts (+$6,389), California (+$5,603), and New Mexico (+$5,530) having the highest reimbursements and Puerto Rico (-$7,492) and Iowa (-$3,393) having the lowest reimbursements, as compared with Michigan. CONCLUSIONS: The current cervical fusion bundled payment model fails to employ a robust risk adjustment of prices resulting in the large amount of cost variation seen within 90-day reimbursements. Under the proposed DRG-based risk adjustment model, providers would be reimbursed the same amount for cervical fusions regardless of the surgical approach (posterior vs. anterior), the extent of fusion, use of adjunct procedures (decompressions), and cause/indication of surgery (fracture vs. degenerative pathology), despite each of these factors having different resource utilization and associated reimbursements. Our findings suggest that defining payments based on DRG codes only is an imperfect way of employing bundled payments for spinal fusions and will only end up creating major financial disincentives and barriers to access of care in the healthcare system.

Posterior lumbar fusions at physician-owned hospitals - is it time to reconsider the restrictions of the Affordable Care Act?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Caused by perceptions regarding unnecessary healthcare resource utilization, high costs of care, and financial incentives towards "cherry-picking" cases in physician owned hospitals, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 imposed restrictions on existing physician-owned hospitals from expanding. Despite an increasing number of individuals requiring access to spine surgical care, no study has evaluated the surgical safety and costs of elective posterior lumbar fusions (PLFs) being performed in physician-owned vs. non-physician-owned hospitals. PURPOSE: We assessed differences in 90-day costs and outcomes between patients undergoing elective 1- to 3-level PLFs at physician-owned hospitals vs. nonphysician-owned hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of 2007 to 2014 100% Medicare claims database. PATIENT SAMPLE: The 2007 to 2014 Medicare 100% Standard Analytical Files (SAF100) was queried using International Classification of Diseases 9th Edition (ICD-9) procedure code for patients undergoing elective 1- to 3-level PLFs (81.07, 81.08, and 81.62). The Medicare Hospital Compare database was used to identify provider codes for physician-owned hospitals. These provider codes were cross-referenced to identify records of patients receiving elective PLFs at these hospitals from the SAF100 database. OUTCOME MEASURES: Ninety day complications, readmissions, emergency department (ED) visits, charges, and costs. METHODS: Multivariate logistic and linear regression analyses were used to assess significant differences in 90-day complications, readmissions, charges and costs between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 6,679 (2.9%) patients received an elective PLF at a physician-owned hospital (N=39; 2.2%) whereas 225,090 (97.1%) received surgery at nonphysician-owned hospital (N=1,774; 97.8%). After controlling for age, gender, region, hospital factors (socio-economic status area, urban vs. rural location and volume) and Elixhauser co-morbidity index, undergoing surgery at physician-owned hospital was associated with lower odds of thromboembolic complications (OR 0.66 [95% CI 0.53-0.82]; p<.001), urinary tract infections (OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.79-0.95]; p=.002) and renal complications (OR 0.52 [95% CI 0.43-0.63]; p<.001) within 90-days following the surgery. Patients undergoing PLFs at physician-owned hospitals vs. nonphysician-owned hospitals also had lower risk-adjusted inpatient charges (-$10,218), inpatient costs (-$2,302), 90-day charges (-$9,780) and 90-day costs (-$2,324). No significant differences were noted between physician-owned and nonphysician-owned hospitals with regards to 90-day wound complications (OR 1.08 [95% CI 0.94-1.22]; p=.279), pulmonary complications (OR 1.06 [95% CI 0.97-1.17]; p=.187), cardiac complications (OR 0.92 [95% CI 0.83-1.01]; p=.089), septic complications (OR 0.77 [95% CI 0.56-1.01]; p=.073), all-cause ED visits (OR 0.96 [95% CI 0.89-1.04]; p=.311), revision surgery (OR 1.09 [95% CI 0.72-1.59]; p=.653) and readmissions (OR 0.98 [95% CI 0.89-1.08]; p=.680). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that patients undergoing elective 1- to 3-level PLFs at physician-owned hospitals do not experience a greater number of complications and/or readmissions while having lower risk-adjusted charges and costs over the 90-day episode of care. The findings call on the need for revaluation/reconsideration of the ACAs restriction on the expansion of these physician-owned hospitals.

Development of a Spine Surgical Skills and Written Assessment for Orthopaedic Surgery Residents.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop an assessment module for orthopaedic spine surgery residents which is cost-effective and can reliably test knowledge and surgical skills. DESIGN: A ten-question multiple choice question and hands-on spine sawbones combination assessment was prospectively administered to consenting PGY-3 and PGY-4 residents before and after their 8-week spine rotation. Pre- and postrotation scores were compared using the paired t-test. SETTING: The Department of Orthopaedics, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, a large academic medical centre providing primary and tertiary care. PARTICIPANTS: Orthopaedic resident physicians. RESULTS: A total of 21 residents (15 PGY-3, 6 PGY-4) participated in the study. The mean pre- and postrotation written test score was 7.38 ± 1.53 and 9.24 ± 0.83, respectively (p < 0.001). Corresponding surgical skills assessment scores were 95.4% ± 4.7 and 97.1% ± 2.6, respectively (p = 0.10). Overall, the postrotation written and surgical scores improved and showed less variation about the mean. CONCLUSIONS: This combination assessment measured improvement in below-average scoring residents and maintenance or improvement in residents with average and above average prerotation scores.

Does Hospital Volume Affect Outcomes in Spine Surgeries? A Systematic Review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of hospital volume on postoperative outcomes in spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Several strategies have recently been proposed to optimize provider outcomes, such as regionalization to higher volume centers and setting volume benchmarks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review examining the association between hospital volume and spine surgery outcomes. To be included in the review, the study population had to include patients undergoing a primary or revision spinal procedure. These included anterior/posterior cervical fusions, anterior/posterior lumbar fusions, laminectomies, discectomies, spinal deformity surgeries, and surgery for spinal malignancies. We searched the Pubmed, OVID MEDLINE (1966-2018), Google Scholar, and Web of Science (1900-2018) databases in January 2018 using the search criteria ("Hospital volume" OR "volume" OR "volume-outcome" OR "volume outcome") AND ("spine" OR "spine surgery" OR "lumbar" OR "cervical" OR "decompression" OR "deformity" OR "fusions"). There were no restrictions placed on study design, publication date, or language. The studies were evaluated with respect to the quality of methodology as outlined by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in the review. Studies were variable in defining hospital volume thresholds. Higher hospital volume was associated with statistically significant lower risks of postoperative complications, a shorter length of stay, lower cost of hospital stay, and a lower risk of readmissions and reoperations/revisions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest a trend toward better outcomes for higher volume hospitals; however, further study needs to be carried out to define objective volume thresholds for specific spine surgeries for hospitals to use as a marker of proficiency.

A 90-day Bundled Payment for Primary Single-level Lumbar Discectomy/Decompression: What Does "Big Data" Say?

Episode-based bundling may become the major form of reimbursement for many elective spine procedures. As the amount for a 90-day episode of care is not known for a lumbar discectomy, we analyzed the previous reimbursements from Commercial payers (2007-Q2 2015), Medicare Advantage (2007-Q2 2015), and Medicare (2005-2012) for a primary single-level lumbar discectomy/decompression. Distribution of payments among various service providers was studied and a 90-day bundle was simulated. Depending on the payer type, the average facility costs constituted 59.7% to 73.6% of total payments, followed by surgeon's fees, which accounted for 13.7% to 18.5%. Postacute services made up 8.8% to 15.8% of the total reimbursement. Surgeries performed in the inpatient setting were significantly more expensive as compared with surgeries performed in the outpatient setting (P<0.01). The average 90-day bundle amount was estimated at $11,091, $6571, and $6239 for Commercial payers, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare, respectively. Overall, service providers in the Southern region were reimbursed the lowest from Commercial payers and Medicare, compared with other regions. Postacute services are not as major cost drivers after discectomy as after total joint arthroplasty or hip fracture repair.

The Pedicles Are Not the Densest Regions of the Lumbar Vertebrae: Implications for Bone Quality Assessment and Surgical Treatment Strategy.

STUDY DESIGN: Cadaver study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the bone density of lumbar vertebral anatomic subregions. Bone mineral density (BMD) is a major factor in osseous fixation construct strength. The standard region for implant fixation of the spine is the pedicle; however, other regions may be more viable options with higher bone quality. METHODS: Using computed tomography images, the spine was digitally isolated by applying a filter for adult bone. The spine model was separated into 5 lumbar vertebrae, followed by segmentation of each vertebra into 7 regions and determination of average Hounsfield units (HU). HU was converted to BMD with calibration phantoms of known BMD. RESULTS: Overall mean BMD in vertebral regions ranged from 172 to 393 mg/cm3 with the highest and lowest BMD in the lamina and vertebral body, respectively. Vertebral regions formed 3 distinct groups (P < .03). The vertebral body and transverse processes represent one group with significantly lower BMD than other regions. Spinous process, pedicles, and superior articular processes represent a second group with moderate BMD. Finally, inferior articular process (IAP) and lamina represent a third group with significantly higher BMD than other regions. CONCLUSIONS: Standard lumbar fusion currently uses the vertebral body and pedicles as primary locations for fixation despite their relatively low BMD. Utilization of posterior elements, especially the lamina and IAP, may be advantageous as a supplement to modern constructs or the primary site for fixation, possibly mitigating construct failures due to loosening or pullout.