Freestanding Ambulatory Surgery Centers and Patients Undergoing Outpatient Knee Arthroplasty.

Importance: In 2018, Medicare removed total knee arthroplasty from the list of inpatient-only procedures, resulting in a new pool of patients eligible for outpatient total knee arthroplasty. How this change was associated with the characteristics of patients undergoing outpatient knee arthroplasty at hospital-owned surgery centers (HOSCs) vs freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (FASCs) is unknown. Objectives: To describe the characteristics of patients undergoing outpatient, elective total and partial knee arthroplasty in 2017 and 2018 and to compare the cohorts receiving treatment at FASCs and HOSCs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This observational retrospective cohort study included 5657 patients having elective, outpatient partial and total knee arthroplasty in the Florida and Wisconsin State Ambulatory Surgery Databases in 2017 and 2018. Prior admissions were identified in the State Inpatient Database. Statistical analysis was performed from March to June 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Characteristics of patients undergoing surgery at a FASC vs a HOSC in 2017 and 2018 were compared. Results: A total of 5657 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.2 [9.9] years; 2907 women [51.4%]) were included in the study. Outpatient knee arthroplasties increased from 1910 in 2017 to 3747 in 2018 and were associated with an increase in total knee arthroplasties (474 in 2017 vs 2065 in 2018). The influx of patients undergoing outpatient knee arthroplasty was associated with an amplification of differences between the patients treated at FASCs and the patients treated at HOSCs. Patients with private payer insurance seen at FASCs increased from 63.4% in 2017 (550 of 867) to 72.7% in 2018 (1272 of 1749) (P < .001), while the percentage of patients with private payer insurance seen at HOSCs increased, but to a lesser extent (41.6% [427 of 1027] in 2017 vs 46.4% [625 of 1346] in 2018; P < .001). In 2017, the percentages of White patients seen at FASCs and HOSCs were similar (85.0% [737 of 867] vs 88.2% [906 of 1027], respectively); in 2018, the percentage of White patients seen at FASCs had increased and was significantly different from the percentage of White patients seen at HOSCs (90.6% [1585 of 1749] vs 87.9% [1183 of 1346]; P = .01). Both types of facilities saw an increase from 2017 to 2018 in the percentage of patients from communities of low social vulnerability, but this increase was greater for FASCs (FASCs: 6.7% [58 of 867] in 2017 vs 33.9% [593 of 1749] in 2018; HOSCs: 7.6% [78 of 1027] in 2017 vs 21.2% [285 of 1346] in 2018). Finally, while FASCs and HOSCs had cared for a similar portion of patients with prior admissions in 2017 (7.8% [68 of 867] vs 9.4% [97 of 1027], respectively; P = .25), in 2018, FASCs cared for fewer patients with prior admissions than HOSCs (4.0% [70 of 1749] vs 8.1% [109 of 1346]; P < .001). Conclusions: This study suggests that the increase in the number of patients undergoing outpatient knee arthroplasty in 2018 corresponded to FASCs treating a greater share of patients who were White, covered by private payer insurance, and healthier. These findings raise a concern that as more operations transition to the outpatient setting, variability in access to FASCs may increase, leaving hospital-owned centers to bear a greater share of the burden of caring for more vulnerable patients with more severe illness.

Association between "Balance Billing" Legislation and Anesthesia Payments in California: A Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Insured patients who receive out-of-network care may receive a "balance bill" for the difference between the practitioner's charge and their insurer's contracted rate. In 2017, California banned balance billing for anesthesia care. This study examined the association between California's law and subsequent payments for anesthesia care. The authors hypothesized that, after the law's implementation, there would be no change in in-network payment amounts, and that out-of-network payment amounts and the portion of claims occurring out-of-network would decline. METHODS: The study used average, quarterly, California county-level payment data (2013 to 2020) derived from a claims database of commercially insured patients. Using a difference-in-differences approach, the change was estimated in payment amounts for intraoperative or intrapartum anesthesia care, along with the portion of claims occurring out-of-network, after the law's implementation. The comparison group was office visit payments, expected to be unaffected by the law. The authors prespecified that they would refer to differences of 10% or greater as policy significant. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 43,728 procedure code-county-quarter-network combinations aggregated from 4,599,936 claims. The law's implementation was associated with a significant 13.6% decline in payments for out-of-network anesthesia care (95% CI, -16.5 to -10.6%; P < 0.001), translating to an average $108 decrease across all procedures (95% CI, -$149 to -$64). There was a statistically significant 3.0% increase in payments for in-network anesthesia care (95% CI, 0.9 to 5.1%; P = 0.007), translating to an average $87 increase (95% CI, $64 to $110), which may be notable in some circumstances but did not meet the study threshold for identifying a change as policy significant. There was a nonstatistically significant increase in the portion of claims occurring out-of-network (10.0%, 95% CI, -4.1 to 24.2%; P = 0.155). CONCLUSIONS: California's balance billing law was associated with significant declines in out-of-network anesthesia payments in the first 3 yr after implementation. There were mixed statistical and policy significant results for in-network payments and the proportion of out-of-network claims.

The Price-Quality Mismatch: Are Negotiated Prices for Total Joint Arthroplasty Associated With Hospital Quality in a Large California Health System?

BACKGROUND: Price variations in healthcare can be caused by quality or factors other than quality such as market share, negotiating power with insurers, or hospital ownership model. Efforts to improve care value (defined as the ratio between health outcomes and price) by making healthcare prices readily accessible to patients are driven by the assumption this can help patients more easily identify high-quality, low-price clinicians and health systems, thus reducing price variations. However, if price variations are driven by factors other than quality, then strategies that involve payments for higher-quality care are unlikely to reduce price variation and improve value. It is unknown whether prices for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) are correlated with the quality of care or whether factors other than quality are responsible for price variation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) How do prices insurers negotiate for TJA paid to a single, large health system vary across payer types? (2) Are the mean prices insurers negotiate for TJA associated with hospital quality? METHODS: We analyzed publicly available data from 22 hospitals in a single, large regional health system, four of which were excluded owing to incomplete quality information. We chose to use data from this single health system to minimize the confounding effects of between-hospital reputation or branding and geographic differences in the cost of providing care. This health system consists of large and small hospitals serving urban and rural populations, providing care for more than 3 million individuals. For each hospital, negotiated prices for TJA were classified into five payer types: commercial in-network, commercial out-of-network, Medicare Advantage (plans to which private insurers contract to provide Medicare benefits), Medicaid, and discounted cash pay. Traditional Medicare plans were not included because the prices are set statutorily, not negotiated. We obtained hospital quality measures from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services quality measures included TJA-specific complication and readmission rates in addition to hospital-wide patient survey star rating (measure of patient care experience) and total performance scores (aggregate measure of clinical outcomes, safety, patient experience, process of care, and efficiency). We evaluated the association between the mean negotiated hospital prices and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services quality measures using Pearson correlation coefficients and Spearman rho across all payer types. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.0025. RESULTS: The mean ± SD overall negotiated price for TJA was USD 54,500 ± 23,200. In the descriptive analysis, the lowest negotiated prices were associated with Medicare Advantage (USD 20,400 ± 1800) and Medicaid (USD 20,300 ± 8600) insurance plans, and the highest prices were associated with out-of-network care covered by commercial insurance plans (USD 78,800 ± 9200). There was no correlation between the mean negotiated price and TJA complication rate (discounted cash price: r = 0.27, p = 0.29; commercial out-of-network: r = 0.28, p = 0.26; commercial in-network: r = -0.07, p = 0.79; Medicare Advantage: r = 0.11, p = 0.65; Medicaid: r = 0.03, p = 0.92), readmission rate (discounted cash price: r = 0.19, p = 0.46; commercial out-of-network: r = 0.24, p = 0.33; commercial in-network: r = -0.13, p = 0.61; Medicare Advantage: r = -0.06, p = 0.81; Medicaid: r = 0.09, p = 0.74), patient survey star rating (discounted cash price: r = -0.55, p = 0.02; commercial out-of-network: r = -0.53, p = 0.02; commercial in-network: r = -0.37, p = 0.13; Medicare Advantage: r = -0.08, p = 0.75; Medicaid: r = -0.02, p = 0.95), or total hospital performance score (discounted cash price: r = -0.35, p = 0.15; commercial out-of-network: r = -0.55, p = 0.02; commercial in-network: r = -0.53, p = 0.02; Medicare Advantage: r = -0.28, p = 0.25; Medicaid: r = 0.11, p = 0.69) for any of the payer types evaluated. CONCLUSION: There is substantial price variation for TJA that is not accounted for by the quality of care, suggesting that a mismatch between price and quality exists. Efforts to improve care value in TJA are needed to directly link prices with the quality of care delivered, such as through matched quality and price reporting mechanisms. Future studies might investigate whether making price and quality data accessible to patients, such as through value dashboards that report easy-to-interpret quality data alongside price information, moves patients toward higher-value care decisions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Efforts to better match the quality of care with negotiated prices such as matched quality and price reporting mechanisms, which have been shown to increase the likelihood of choosing higher-value care in TJA, could improve the value of care.

Evaluation of Systemwide Improvement Programs to Optimize Time to Surgery for Patients With Hip Fractures: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Longer time to surgery (TTS) for hip fractures has been associated with higher rates of postoperative complications and mortality. Given that more than 300 000 adults are hospitalized for hip fractures in the United States each year, various improvement programs have been implemented to reduce TTS with variable results, attributed to contextual patient- and system-level factors. Objective: To catalog TTS improvement programs, identify their results, and categorize program strategies according to Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC), highlighting components of successful improvement programs within their associated contexts and seeking to guide health care systems in implementing programs designed to reduce TTS. Evidence Review: A systematic review was conducted per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline. Three databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Trials) were searched for studies published between 2000 and 2021 that reported on improvement programs for hip fracture TTS. Observational studies in high-income country settings, including patients with surgical, low-impact, nonpathological hip fractures aged 50 years or older, were considered for review. Improvement programs were assessed for their association with decreased TTS, and ERIC strategies were matched to improvement program components. Findings: Preliminary literature searches yielded 1683 articles, of which 69 articles were included for final analysis. Among the 69 improvement programs, 49 were associated with significantly decreased TTS, and 20 programs did not report significant decreases in TTS. Among 49 successful improvement programs, the 5 most common ERIC strategies were (1) assess for readiness and identify barriers and facilitators, (2) develop a formal implementation blueprint, (3) identify and prepare champions, (4) promote network weaving, and (5) develop resource-sharing agreements. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review, certain components (eg, identifying barriers and facilitators to program implementation, developing a formal implementation blueprint, preparing intervention champions) are common among improvement programs that were associated with reducing TTS and may inform the approach of hospital systems developing similar programs. Other strategies had mixed results, suggesting local contextual factors (eg, operating room availability) may affect their success. To contextualize the success of a given improvement program across different clinical settings, subsequent investigation must elucidate the association between interventional success and facility-level factors influencing TTS, such as hospital census and type, teaching status, annual surgical volume, and other factors.

Adoption of hospital diagnosis-related group financing in Switzerland and the availability of computed tomography scanners.

We study the relationship between diagnosis-related group (DRG) financing and the availability of computed tomography (CT) scanners in Switzerland. A number of Swiss hospitals switched to DRG payment for a portion of their payments progressively between 2002 and 2011. As of 2012, all hospitals were required to use DRG payment for a substantial portion of reimbursement. We conducted two main analyses. First, we studied hospitals switching in 2002-2011 and estimated event study models to compare changes in CT availability before and after the adoption of DRG financing, using the hospitals that did not switch during this time as a comparison group. In the second, we compared trends in CT availability before and after 2012, for the hospitals that switched in that year. In both analyses, we find a statistically significant association between the switch to DRG financing and lower levels of CT availability.

Prevalence, Burden, and Sources of Out-of-Network Billing in Elective Hand Surgery: A National Claims Database Analysis.

PURPOSE: Surprise out-of-network (OON) bills can represent a considerable cost burden on patients. However, OON billing remains underexplored in elective, outpatient surgery procedures, which have greater latitude for patient choice. We aimed to answer the following questions: (1) What is the prevalence and magnitude of OON charges in hand surgery? (2) What are the sources of OON charges? and (3) What factors are associated with OON charges? METHODS: We analyzed patient-level data from the Clinformatics Data Mart database. We identified patients undergoing carpal tunnel release, trigger finger release, wrist ganglion removal, de Quervain release, limited palmar fasciectomy, or thumb carpometacarpal arthroplasty at in-network facilities with an in-network primary surgeon. The primary outcome was the proportion of surgical episodes with at least 1 OON charge. Secondary outcomes included the magnitude of potential balance bills (portion of OON bill exclusive of the standardized payment and expected patient cost-sharing), sources of OON charges, and factors associated with OON charges. RESULTS: Of 112,211 elective hand surgery episodes, 8% (9,158) had at least 1 OON charge. OON charges ranged from $1,154 (95% confidence interval, $1,018-$1,289) for wrist ganglion removal to $3,162 (95% confidence interval, $2,902-$3,423) for thumb carpometacarpal arthroplasty. In episodes with OON charges, the major sources of OON charges were anesthesiologists (75% of episodes), durable medical equipment (10% of episodes), and pathologists (9% of episodes). Site of service, geographic region, and health exchange-purchased plans were highly associated with OON charges. CONCLUSIONS: Out-of-network billing can represent a substantial cost burden to patients and should be considered in perioperative decision-making in elective hand surgery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Understanding the potential costs related to OON services during a surgical episode, and its drivers, allows surgeons to consider detailed cost discussions during perioperative decision making.

The relationship between provider age and opioid prescribing behavior.

OBJECTIVES: The relationship between provider age and quality of care is theoretically indeterminate. Older providers are more experienced, which could lead to a positive relationship between age and quality, but providers' practice patterns could become outdated as technology and scientific knowledge change, which could lead to a negative relationship between age and quality. However, little work has investigated the provider age/quality relationship, and no work has investigated the relationship between provider age and opioid prescribing behavior. STUDY DESIGN: We analyze Medicare Part D data to investigate how opioid prescribing differs by provider age. METHODS: We use regression analysis to estimate the effect of provider age, holding other factors constant. RESULTS: We find that older providers prescribe significantly more opioids, with the gap between older and younger providers increasing from 2010 to 2015. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming that older physicians follow patterns of previous generations, anticipated retirement of older providers and entry by younger providers will tend to reduce opioid volumes, undoing at least in part the rapid increase since 2000.

Is Low-value Testing Before Low-risk Hand Surgery Associated With Increased Downstream Healthcare Use and Reimbursements? A National Claims Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minor hand procedures can often be completed in the office without any laboratory testing. Preoperative screening tests before minor hand procedures are unnecessary and considered low value because they can lead to preventable invasive confirmatory tests and/or procedures. Prior studies have shown that low-value testing before low-risk hand surgery is still common, yet little is known about their downstream effects and associated costs. Assessing these downstream events can elucidate the consequences of obtaining a low-value test and inform context-specific interventions to reduce their use. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Among healthy adults undergoing low-risk hand surgery, are patients who receive a preoperative low-value test more likely to have subsequent diagnostic tests and procedures than those who do not receive a low-value test? (2) What is the increased 90-day reimbursement associated with subsequent diagnostic tests and procedures in patients who received a low-value test compared with those who did not? METHODS: In this retrospective, comparative study using a large national database, we queried a large health insurance provider's administrative claims data to identify adult patients undergoing low-risk hand surgery (carpal tunnel release, trigger finger release, Dupuytren fasciectomy, de Quervain release, thumb carpometacarpal arthroplasty, wrist ganglion cyst, or mass excision) between 2011 and 2017. This database was selected for its ability to track patient claims longitudinally with direct provision of reimbursement data in a large, geographically diverse patient population. Patients who received at least one preoperative low-value test, including complete blood count, basic metabolic panel, electrocardiogram, chest radiography, pulmonary function test, and urinalysis within the 30-day preoperative period, were matched with propensity scores to those who did not. Among the 73,112 patients who met our inclusion criteria (mean age 57 ± 14 years; 68% [49,847] were women), 27% (19,453) received at least one preoperative low-value test and were propensity score-matched to those who did not. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to assess the frequency and reimbursements of subsequent diagnostic tests and procedures in the 90 days after surgery while controlling for potentially confounding variables such as age, sex, comorbidities, and baseline healthcare use. RESULTS: When controlling for covariates such as age, sex, comorbidities, and baseline healthcare use, patients in the low-value test cohort had an adjusted odds ratio of 1.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.50 to 1.64; p < 0.001) for a postoperative use event (a downstream diagnostic test or procedure) compared with those who did not have a low-value test. The median (IQR) per-patient reimbursements associated with downstream utilization events in patients who received a low-value test was USD 231.97 (64.37 to 1138.84), and those who did not receive a low-value test had a median of USD 191.52 (57.1 to 899.42) (adjusted difference when controlling for covariates: USD 217.27 per patient [95% CI 59.51 to 375.03]; p = 0.007). After adjusting for inflation, total additional reimbursements for patients in the low-value test cohort increased annually. CONCLUSION: Low-value tests generate downstream tests and procedures that are known to provide minimal benefit to healthy patients and may expose patients to potential harms associated with subsequent, unnecessary invasive tests and procedures in response to false positives. Nevertheless, low-value testing remains common and the rising trend in low-value test-associated spending demonstrates the need for multicomponent interventions that target change at both the payer and health system level. Such interventions should disincentivize the initial low-value test and the cascade that may follow. Future work to identify the barriers and facilitators to reduce low-value testing in hand surgery can inform the development and revision of deimplementation strategies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Microsimulation of Serial Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Active Surveillance of Localized Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Many localized prostate cancers will follow an indolent course. Management has shifted toward active surveillance (AS), yet an optimal regimen remains controversial especially regarding expensive multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). We aimed to assess cost-effectiveness of MRI in AS protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A probabilistic microsimulation modeled individual patient trajectories for men diagnosed with low-risk cancer. We assessed no surveillance, up-front treatment (surgery or radiation), and scheduled AS protocols incorporating transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS) biopsy or MRI based regimens at serial intervals. Lifetime quality-adjusted life-years and costs adjusted to 2020 US$ were used to calculate expected net monetary benefit at $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Uncertainty was assessed with probabilistic sensitivity analysis and linear regression metamodeling. RESULTS: Conservative management with AS outperformed up-front definitive treatment in a modeled cohort reflecting characteristics from a multi-institutional trial. Biopsy decision conditional on positive imaging (MRI triage) at 2-year intervals provided the highest expected net monetary benefit (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio $44,576). Biopsy after both positive and negative imaging (MRI pathway) and TRUS biopsy based regimens were not cost-effective. MRI triage resulted in fewer biopsies while reducing metastatic disease or cancer death. Results were sensitive to test performance and cost. MRI triage was the most likely cost-effective strategy on probabilistic sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For men with low-risk prostate cancer, our modeling demonstrated that AS with sequential MRI triage is more cost-effective than biopsy regardless of imaging, TRUS biopsy alone or immediate treatment. AS guidelines should specify the role of imaging, and prospective studies should be encouraged.

Changes in Medicaid enrollment during the COVID-19 pandemic across 6 states.

The coronavirus disease 2019 public health emergency (PHE) caused extensive job loss and loss of employer-sponsored insurance. State Medicaid programs experienced a related increase in enrollment during the PHE. However, the composition of enrollment and enrollee changes during the pandemic is unknown. This study examined changes in Medicaid enrollment and population characteristics during the PHE. A retrospective study documenting changes in Medicaid new enrollment and disenrollment, and enrollee characteristics between March and October 2020 compared to the same time in 2019 using full-state Medicaid populations from 6 states of a wide geographical region. The primary outcomes were Medicaid enrollment and disenrollment during the PHE. New enrollment included persons enrolled in Medicaid between March and October 2020 who were not enrolled in January or February, 2020. Disenrollment included persons who were enrolled in March of 2020 but not enrolled in October 2020. The study included 8.50 million Medicaid enrollees in 2020 and 8.46 million in 2019. Overall, enrollment increased by 13.0% (1.19 million) in the selected states during the PHE compared to 2019. New enrollment accounted for 24.9% of the relative increase, while the remaining 75.1% was due to disenrollment. A larger proportion of new enrollment in 2020 was among adults aged 27 to 44 (28.3% vs 23.6%), Hispanics (34.3% vs 32.5%) and in the financial needy (44.0% vs 39.0%) category compared to 2019. Disenrollment included a larger proportion of older adults (26.1% vs 8.1%) and non-Hispanics (70.3% vs 66.4%) than in 2019. Medicaid enrollment grew considerably during the PHE, and most enrollment growth was attributed to decreases in disenrollment rather than increases in new enrollment. Our results highlight the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on state health programs and can guide federal and state budgetary planning once the PHE ends.

Analysis of Medicare Payments and Patient Outcomes With Pre-Operative Imaging for Carotid Endarterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: The use of radiographic evaluation of carotid disease may vary, and current guidelines do not strongly recommend the use of cross-sectional imaging (CSI) prior to surgical intervention. We sought to describe the trends in preoperative carotid imaging and evaluate the associated clinical outcomes and Medicare payments for patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) for asymptomatic carotid disease. METHODS: We used a 20% Medicare sample from 2006 to 2014 identifying patients undergoing CEA for asymptomatic disease. We evaluated preoperative carotid ultrasound and CSI use: CT or MRI of the neck prior to CEA. We calculated average payments of each study from the carrier file and revenue center file. Imaging payments included both the professional component (PC) and the technical component (TC). Claims with a reimbursement of $0 and studies where payment for both the TC and PC could not be identified were excluded from the overall calculation to determine average payment per study. Inpatient reimbursements according to DRG 37-39 were calculated. We compared hospital length of stay (LOS), in hospital stroke, carotid re-exploration, and mortality according to CSI use. RESULTS: A total of 58,993 CEAs were identified with pre-operative carotid imaging. The average age was 74.8 ± 7.5 years, and 56.0% were men. A total of 19,678 (33%) patients had ultrasound alone with an average of (2.4 ± 1.9) exams prior to CEA. A total of 39,315 patients underwent CSI prior to CEA with 2.5 ± 2.1 ultrasounds, 0.95 ± 0.86 neck CTs and 0.47 ± 0.7 MRIs per patient. The average payment for ultrasound was $140 ± 40, $282 ± 94 for CT and $410 ± 146 for MRI. The average inpatient reimbursements were $7,413 ± 4,215 for patients without CSI compared with $7,792 ± 3,921 for patients with CSI, P < 0.001. The average LOS during CEA admission was 2.5 ± 3.7days. Patients with CSI had a slightly lower percentage of patients being discharged by postoperative day 2 compared with ultrasound alone (88.9% vs. 91.5%, respectively, P < 0.001). The overall in-hospital stroke rate was 0.38% and carotid re-exploration rate was 1.0% and there was no statistical significant difference between groups. Median follow-up was 3.9 years, and mortality at 8 years was 50% and did not statistically differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis found preoperative imaging to include CSI in nearly two-thirds of patients prior to CEA for asymptomatic disease. As imaging and inpatient payments were higher with patients with CSI further work is needed to understand when CSI is appropriate prior to surgical intervention to appropriately allocate healthcare resources.

Cost-Effectiveness of Open Versus Endoscopic Carpal Tunnel Release.

BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel syndrome is the most common upper-extremity nerve compression syndrome. Over 500,000 carpal tunnel release (CTR) procedures are performed in the U.S. yearly. We estimated the cost-effectiveness of endoscopic CTR (ECTR) versus open CTR (OCTR) using data from published meta-analyses comparing outcomes for ECTR and OCTR. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to examine the cost-effectiveness of OCTR versus ECTR for patients undergoing unilateral CTR in an office setting under local anesthesia and in an operating-room (OR) setting under monitored anesthesia care. The main outcomes were costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We modeled societal (modeled with a 50-year-old patient) and Medicare payer (modeled with a 65-year-old patient) perspectives, adopting a lifetime time horizon. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses (PSAs). RESULTS: ECTR resulted in 0.00141 additional QALY compared with OCTR. From a societal perspective, assuming 8.21 fewer days of work missed after ECTR than after OCTR, ECTR cost less across all procedure settings. The results are sensitive to the number of days of work missed following surgery. From a payer perspective, ECTR in the OR (ECTROR) cost $1,872 more than OCTR in the office (OCTRoffice), for an ICER of approximately $1,332,000/QALY. The ECTROR cost $654 more than the OCTROR, for an ICER of $464,000/QALY. The ECTRoffice cost $107 more than the OCTRoffice, for an ICER of $76,000/QALY. From a payer perspective, for a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY, OCTRoffice was preferred over ECTROR in 77% of the PSA iterations. From a societal perspective, ECTROR was preferred over OCTRoffice in 61% of the PSA iterations. CONCLUSIONS: From a societal perspective, ECTR is associated with lower costs as a result of an earlier return to work and leads to higher QALYs. Additional research on return to work is needed to confirm these findings on the basis of contemporary return-to-work practices. From a payer perspective, ECTR is more expensive and is cost-effective only if performed in an office setting under local anesthesia. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Real-world Evidence to Estimate Prostate Cancer Costs for First-line Treatment or Active Surveillance.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men and second leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Changes in screening guidelines, adoption of active surveillance (AS), and implementation of high-cost technologies have changed treatment costs. Traditional cost-effectiveness studies rely on clinical trial protocols unlikely to capture actual practice behavior, and existing studies use data predating new technologies. Real-world evidence reflecting these changes is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To assess real-world costs of first-line prostate cancer management. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We used clinical electronic health records for 2008-2018 linked with the California Cancer Registry and the Medicare Fee Schedule to assess costs over 24 or 60 mo following diagnosis. We identified surgery or radiation treatments with structured methods, while we used both structured data and natural language processing to identify AS. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Our results are risk-stratified calculated cost per day (CCPD) for first-line management, which are independent of treatment duration. We used the Kruskal-Wallis test to compare unadjusted CCPD while analysis of covariance log-linear models adjusted estimates for age and Charlson comorbidity. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: In 3433 patients, surgery (54.6%) was more common than radiation (22.3%) or AS (23.0%). Two years following diagnosis, AS ($2.97/d) was cheaper than surgery ($5.67/d) or radiation ($9.34/d) in favorable disease, while surgery ($7.17/d) was cheaper than radiation ($16.34/d) for unfavorable disease. At 5 yr, AS ($2.71/d) remained slightly cheaper than surgery ($2.87/d) and radiation ($4.36/d) in favorable disease, while for unfavorable disease surgery ($4.15/d) remained cheaper than radiation ($10.32/d). Study limitations include information derived from a single healthcare system and costs based on benchmark Medicare estimates rather than actual payment exchanges. PATIENT SUMMARY: Active surveillance was cheaper than surgery (-47.6%) and radiation (-68.2%) at 2 yr for favorable-risk disease, which decreased by 5 yr (-5.6% and -37.8%, respectively). Surgery was less costly than radiation for unfavorable risk for both intervals (-56.1% and -59.8%, respectively).

The effects of medicare advantage on opioid use.

Despite a vast literature on the determinants of prescription opioid use, the role of health insurance plans has received little attention. We study how the form of Medicare beneficiaries' drug coverage affects the volume of opioids they consume. We find that enrollment in Medicare Advantage, which integrates drug coverage with other medical benefits, significantly reduces beneficiaries' likelihood of filling an opioid prescription, as compared to enrollment in a stand-alone drug plan. Approximately half of this effect was due to fewer fills from prescribers who write a very large number of opioid prescriptions.

Initial financial impact of office-based laboratories on Medicare payments for percutaneous interventions for peripheral artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: Percutaneous interventions for peripheral artery disease (PAD) are transitioning away from hospital-based settings to office-based laboratories (OBLs). Those in favor of OBL use reference lower hospitalization rates and high efficiency; however, critics claim financial incentives may lead to multiple procedures and higher atherectomy use. We sought to determine how Medicare payments are affected by OBL use. METHODS: We identified physicians performing percutaneous interventions for PAD from 2006 to 2013 in a 20% Medicare sample. Physicians performing a majority of interventions at OBLs were classified as high OBL users; control physicians performed interventions at hospital-based settings. The primary outcomes were total Medicare payments at 30 days and 1 year. Generalized log-gamma regression models were used to evaluate factors influencing payments reported as a percentage change and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). A secondary analysis was performed of physicians who transitioned from hospital-based settings to OBLs, "switch physicians." A multivariate model with difference-in-differences regression was used to evaluate the effects of transitioning to OBLs. RESULTS: A total of 89 high OBL users performed percutaneous interventions on 887 patients, and 3715 control physicians treated 54,213 patients during the time period. Payments for patients treated by high OBL users were significantly higher compared with control physicians at 30 days ($4465), 90 days ($8925), and 1 year ($27,436). Major factors increasing payments at 1 year were treatment by a high OBL user (49%; 95% CI, 42%-56%), hospital admissions (127%; 95% CI, 123%-131%), repeated lower extremity procedures (41%; 95% CI, 39%-43%), and lower extremity wound (20%; 95% CI,18%-22%). Factors decreasing payments at 1 year were living in a rural setting (8%; 95% CI, 7%-9%) and dementia (5%; 95% CI, 3%-7%). Analysis of 292 switch physicians identified 3888 patients treated before OBLs (pre-switch) and 3246 after OBLs (post-switch). Transitioning to OBLs was associated with higher payments at 30 days and 90 days, and this increase was higher compared with control physicians. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight that OBL use for PAD interventions significantly influences Medicare payments, and its widespread adaptation should be made with caution. The main factors driving payments were hospitalization admissions, repeated lower extremity procedures, and wound status. Further work is needed to evaluate the appropriate use of OBLs to optimize patient outcomes and resource allocations.

Does Multispecialty Practice Enhance Physician Market Power?

In health care, vertical integration - common ownership of producers of complementary services - may have both pro- and anti-competitive effects. We use data on 40 million commercially-insured individuals from the Health Care Cost Institute to construct price indices for office visits to general-practice and specialist physicians for the years 2008-2012. Controlling for generalist market concentration, we find that generalists charge higher prices when they are integrated with specialists, and that the effect of integration is larger in more concentrated specialist markets. Conversely, controlling for specialist market concentration, specialists charge higher prices when integrated with generalists, with larger effects in more concentrated generalist markets. Our results suggest that multispecialty practice enhances physician market power.

Demographics, Usage Patterns, and Safety of Male Users of Clomiphene in the United States.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to characterize the demographics, usage patterns and complication rates of clomiphene use in male patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed male patients from ages 20 to 55 years old who were prescribed clomiphene citrate from 2001 to 2014 using the Truven Health MarketScan, a US claims database. We collected data regarding associated medical diagnoses, diagnostic testing, duration of use, and reported side effects including thrombotic events, vision problems, gynecomastia, mental disorders, liver disease, nausea, or skin problems. RESULTS: In total, 12,318 men took clomiphene and represented the primary study cohort, with a mean age of 37.8 years. The percentage of men prescribed clomiphene increased over the study period, as did the average age of clomiphene users. Associated diagnoses included male infertility (52.0%), testicular hypofunction (13.5%), erectile dysfunction (2.4%), and low libido (0.4%). Associated testing included semen analysis (43.7%), testosterone (23.5%), luteinizing hormone (19.3%), and follicle-stimulating hormone (21.1%) levels. The median time of clomiphene use was 3.6 months, with 63% of men stopping within 6 months. No increased risk of reported clomiphene side effects were apparent in men taking the medication. CONCLUSIONS: There is a rising prevalence of clomiphene usage without associated adverse side effects in the US. The variability in associated diagnoses, diagnostic testing, and duration of use suggest a need for greater awareness of the proper evaluation and treatment of the men who are prescribed clomiphene.

Are Changes in Medical Group Practice Characteristics Over Time Associated With Medicare Spending and Quality of Care?

Physician practices have been growing in size, and becoming more commonly owned by hospitals, over time. We use survey data on physician practices surveyed at two points in time, linked to Medicare claims data, to investigate whether changes in practice size or ownership are associated with changes in the use of care management, health information technology (HIT), or quality improvement processes. We find that practice growth and becoming hospital-owned are associated with adoption of more quality improvement processes, but not with care management or HIT. We then investigate whether growth or becoming hospital-owned are associated with changes in Medicare spending, 30-day readmission rates, or ambulatory care sensitive admission rates. We find little evidence for associations with practice size and ownership, but the use of care management practices is associated with lower rates of ambulatory care sensitive admissions.

The Usability and Feasibility of Conjoint Analysis to Elicit Preferences for Distal Radius Fractures in Patients 55 Years and Older.

PURPOSE: Eliciting patient preferences is one part of the shared decision-making process-a process of decision making focused on the values and preferences of the patient. We evaluated the usability and feasibility of a point-of-care conjoint analysis tool for preference elicitation for shared decision making in the treatment of distal radius fractures in patients over the age of 55 years. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients 55 years of age or older with a displaced distal radius fracture were recruited from a hand and upper extremity clinic. A conjoint analysis tool was created describing the attributes of care (eg, return of grip strength) of surgical and nonsurgical treatment. This tool was administered to patients to determine their preferences for the treatment attributes when choosing between surgical and nonsurgical treatment. Patients completed a System Usability Scale (SUS) to evaluate usability, and time to complete the tool was measured to evaluate feasibility. RESULTS: Patients considered the conjoint analysis tool to be usable (SUS, 91.4; SD, 10.9). Mean time to complete the tool was 5.1 minutes (SD, 1.4 minutes). The most important attributes driving the decision for surgical treatment were return of grip strength at 1 year and time spent in a cast or brace. The most important attributes driving the decision for nonsurgical treatment were use of anesthesia during treatment and return of grip strength at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: A point-of-care conjoint analysis tool for distal radius fractures in patients 55 years and older can be used to elicit patient preferences to inform the shared decision-making process. Further investigation evaluating the effect of preference elicitation on treatment choice, involvement in decision making, and patient-reported outcomes are needed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A conjoint analysis tool is a simple, structured process physicians can use during shared decision making to highlight trade-offs between treatment options and elicit patient preferences to inform treatment choices.

Assessment of Out-of-Network Billing for Privately Insured Patients Receiving Care in In-Network Hospitals.

IMPORTANCE: Although surprise medical bills are receiving considerable attention from lawmakers and the news media, to date there has been little systematic study of the incidence and financial consequences of out-of-network billing. OBJECTIVE: To examine out-of-network billing among privately insured patients with an inpatient admission or emergency department (ED) visit at in-network hospitals. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective analysis using data from the Clinformatics Data Mart database (Optum), which includes health insurance claims for individuals from all 50 US states receiving private health insurance from a large commercial insurer was conducted of all inpatient admissions (n = 5 457 981) and ED visits (n = 13 579 006) at in-network hospitals between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016. Data were collected and analyzed in March 2019. EXPOSURES: Receipt of a bill for care from at least 1 out-of-network physician or medical transport service associated with patient admission or ED visit. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The incidence of out-of-network billing and the potential amount of patients' financial liability associated with out-of-network bills from the admission or visit. RESULTS: Of 5 457 981 inpatient admissions and 13 579 006 ED admissions between 2010 and 2016, the percentage of ED visits with an out-of-network bill increased from 32.3% to 42.8% (P < .001) during the study period, and the mean (SD) potential financial responsibility for these bills increased from $220 ($420) to $628 ($865) (P < .001; all dollar values in 2018 US$). Similarly, the percentage of inpatient admissions with an out-of-network bill increased from 26.3% to 42.0% (P < .001), and the mean (SD) potential financial responsibility increased from $804 ($2456) to $2040 ($4967) (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Out-of-network billing appears to have become common for privately insured patients even when they seek treatment at in-network hospitals. The mean amounts billed appear to be sufficiently large that they may create financial strain for a substantial proportion of patients.