Research prioritization in paediatric orthopaedics and the impact on funding.

In 2017, the British Society for Children's Orthopaedic Surgery engaged the profession and all relevant stakeholders in two formal research prioritization processes. In this editorial, we describe the impact of this prioritization on funding, and how research in children's orthopaedics, which was until very recently a largely unfunded and under-investigated area, is now flourishing. Establishing research priorities was a crucial step in this process.

Medicare in the 21 st Century: Understanding the Program to Promote Improvements.

Medicare is the largest single purchaser of health care in the United States and currently helps to pay medical expenses for approximately one-fifth of the US population. The impetus for Medicare to move away from fee-for-service and toward value-based care payments reflects the need to incentivize and improve healthcare quality while containing increasing costs. This primer provides a detailed overview of several interrelated topics for an improved understanding of the Medicare program for orthopaedic surgeons, other clinicians, healthcare administrators, policymakers, and business leaders. An improved understanding may stimulate additional ideas for successful program advancements.

Editorial Commentary: Improved Operating Room Efficiency Is the Best Way to Control Orthopaedic Costs.

Current procedural terminology codes and assigned relative value units associated with arthroscopic hip surgery lag behind other joints in accurately describing, and often undervaluing, what surgery entails. Hip arthroscopy is expensive, and, to address inequity, procedural cost drivers require review. Consumable implants and operating room (OR) time drive the costs associated with the procedure. Hospitals, healthcare payors, patients, and surgeons all benefit from increasing OR efficiency and reducing equipment cost. However, the patient loses if financial strategy supersedes care delivery, and it is wrong to cut necessary use of consumables to save money. Fewer anchors is not the answer (yet we should use reusable, nonimplantable supplies when feasible). The greater opportunity to lower costs is improved OR efficiency, requiring a team approach with buy-in from perioperative, anesthesia, surgical staff, and administrators. OR time is a consistent driver of cost across every type of orthopaedic surgery. Studies evaluating strategies for OR efficiency in hip arthroscopy will benefit the field. By leading this effort, surgeons could be best positioned to address inadequate relative value units.

Understanding Financial Relationships Between Orthopedic Surgeons and Industry for Research.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to understand trends in industry payments for research awarded to orthopedic surgeons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database was queried for the years 2016 to 2021 for industry payments for research. Financial analyses were performed to understand temporal trends and differences by orthopedic subspecialty and principal investigator characteristics such as sex. The threshold for statistical significance was set at .05. RESULTS: A total of 2014 orthopedic surgeons were identified, among whom 542 adult reconstruction (27%) and 460 sports medicine (23%) surgeons were major beneficiaries. Seventy-one female orthopedic surgeons comprised the minority (4%). Total research payments awarded during the study period aggregated to $266,633,592, with adult reconstruction ($88,819,047; 33%) and sports medicine ($57,949,822; 22%) receiving the highest amounts. Total research payments awarded trended upward yearly except for a decline in 2020 that subsequently rebounded (P<.001). Median annual research payment per orthopedic surgeon was $13,375. Median total industry payments per orthopedic surgeon differed between specialties (P <.001), with the highest amounts for adult reconstruction ($44,063) and sports medicine ($34,567) and the lowest amounts for hand ($12,052) and foot and ankle ($19,233). Median total payments did not differ significantly when stratified by sex (P=.276) and region (P=.906). Specialties in which the respective top three companies offered the majority of the research funding were musculoskeletal oncology (90%), pediatric orthopedics (66%), and shoulder and elbow (64%). CONCLUSION: These results can be used as a primer for orthopedic surgeons seeking to leverage industry relationships to fund translational research. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(3):172-178.].

AOA Critical Issues Symposium: Deficit Recovery for the Orthopaedic Service Line.

ABSTRACT: The COVID-19 pandemic and the mandated cessation of surgical procedures for a substantial portion of the 2020 year placed tremendous strain, both clinically and financially, on the health-care system in the United States. As a surgical specialty that accounts for nearly a quarter of all hospital net income, the revenue recovery of orthopaedic service lines (OSLs) is of particular importance to the financial recovery of their broader health-care institutions. In this American Orthopaedic Association (AOA) symposium report, the OSL leaders from 4 major academic medical institutions explain and reflect on their approaches to address their revenue deficits. Cost-reduction strategies, such as tightening budgets, adopting remote-work models, and limiting costs of human capital, were vital to stabilizing departmental finances at the onset of the pandemic, while strategies that focused on expanding surgical volume, such as those that improve efficiency in clinical and surgical settings, were important in growing revenue once elective procedures resumed. Institutional policy, payer administrative procedures, and the overall context of an ongoing public health crisis all placed limitations on recovery efforts, but engaging relevant stakeholders and working with available resources helped OSLs overcome these limitations. Due to clear strategic actions that were taken to address their deficits, each OSL represented in this AOA symposium saw substantial improvement in its year-end financial performance compared with its financial status at the end of the period of mandatory cessation of elective surgical cases.

Practice Management Strategies Among Current Members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: A survey was conducted at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) to evaluate current practice management strategies among AAHKS members. METHODS: An application was used by AAHKS members to answer both multiple-choice and yes or no questions. Specific questions were asked regarding the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on practice patterns. RESULTS: There was a dramatic acceleration in same day total joint arthroplasty with 85% of AAHKS members performing same day total joint arthroplasty. More AAHKS members remain in private practice (46%) than other practice types, whereas fee for service (34%) and relative value units (26%) are the major form of compensation. At the present time, 93% of practices are experiencing staffing shortages, and these shortages are having an impact on surgical volume. CONCLUSION: This survey elucidates the current practice patterns of AAHKS members. The pandemic has had a significant impact on some aspects of practice activity. Future surveys need to monitor changes in practice patterns over time.

Industry Payments Among Appropriate Use Criteria Voting Panels: An Open Payments Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although multiple studies have consistently demonstrated that orthopaedic surgeons receive greater transfers of value than other specialties, the industry payments of providers who are involved in the formation of practice guidelines have not been thoroughly explored. Therefore, the purpose of our analysis was to evaluate the industry payments of the authors of the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS). METHODS: The publicly available AAOS web portal (OrthoGuidelines.org) was queried for all AUCs that had been released between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2019, regarding the management of musculoskeletal pathologies. A cross-sectional analysis of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments database was conducted to determine the number and total value of industry payments to AUC voting committee members during the year of voting for the AUC. Industry payments for each orthopaedic surgeon voting member were compared with payments received by orthopaedic surgeons nationwide who received any payment within the same year. The proportion of orthopaedic surgeon voting members who received any industry payment was compared with the proportion of orthopaedic surgeons nationwide who received payments. RESULTS: Our analysis included a total of 18 different AUCs with 216 voting members, 157 of whom were orthopaedic surgeons. Of the orthopaedic surgeon voting members, 105 (67%) received industry payments, a rate roughly comparable with the national average among orthopaedic surgeons (74%). For 7 of 18 AUCs (39%), the median payment per orthopaedic surgeon voting member was above the median among orthopaedic surgeons receiving payments nationwide that year. Qualitatively, orthopaedic surgeon voting members were more likely to receive payments in the form of royalties, licenses, or speaking fees than orthopaedic surgeons nationwide. CONCLUSIONS: AUC voting members receive payments at frequencies and magnitudes that are roughly comparable with orthopaedic surgeons nationwide. Whether voting panel members receiving payments at these rates is ideal or is in the best interest of patients is a policy decision for the AAOS and society at large. Our study confirms that payments are common and, thus, continued vigilance is justified.

The Estimated Cost of Maintenance of Certification.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance of Certification (MOC) is a controversial topic in medicine for many different reasons. Studies have suggested that there may be associations between fewer negative outcomes and participation in MOC. However, MOC still remains controversial because of its cost. We sought to determine the estimated cost of MOC to the average orthopaedic surgeon, including fees and time cost, defined as the market value of the physician's time. METHODS: We calculated the total cost of MOC to be the sum of the fees required for applications, examinations, and other miscellaneous fees as well as the time cost to the physician and staff. Costs were calculated for the oral, written, and American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Web-based Longitudinal Assessment (ABOS WLA) MOC pathways based on the responses of 33 orthopaedic surgeons to a survey sent to a state orthopaedic society. RESULTS: We calculated the average orthopaedic surgeon's total cost in time and fees over the decade-long period to be $71,440.61 ($7,144.06 per year) for the oral examination MOC pathway and $80,391.55 ($8,039.16 per year) for the written examination pathway. We calculated the cost of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery web-based examination pathway to be $69,721.04 ($6,972.10 per year). CONCLUSIONS: The actual cost of MOC is much higher than just the fees paid to organizations providing services. The majority of the cost comes in the form of time cost to the physician. The ABOS WLA was implemented to alleviate the anxiety of a high-stakes examination and to encourage efficient longitudinal learning. We found that the ABOS WLA pathway does save time and money when compared with the written examination pathway when review courses and study periods are taken. We believe that future policy changes should focus on decreasing physician time spent completing MOC requirements, and decreasing the cost of these requirements, while preserving the model of continued evidence-based medical education.

Musculoskeletal Urgent Care Centers Restrict Access for Patients with Medicaid Insurance Based on Policy and Location.

BACKGROUND: As the urgent care landscape evolves, specialized musculoskeletal urgent care centers (MUCCs) are becoming more prevalent. MUCCs have been offered as a convenient, cost-effective option for timely acute orthopaedic care. However, a recent "secret-shopper" study on patient access to MUCCs in Connecticut demonstrated that patients with Medicaid had limited access to these orthopaedic-specific urgent care centers. To investigate how generalizable these regional findings are to the United States, we conducted a nationwide secret-shopper study of MUCCs to identify determinants of patient access. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of MUCCs in the United States provide access for patients with Medicaid insurance? (2) What factors are associated with MUCCs providing access for patients with Medicaid insurance? (3) What barriers exist for patients seeking care at MUCCs? METHODS: An online search of all MUCCs across the United States was conducted in this cross-sectional study. Three separate search modalities were used to gather a complete list. Of the 565 identified, 558 were contacted by phone with investigators posing over the telephone as simulated patients seeking treatment for a sprained ankle. Thirty-nine percent (216 of 558) of centers were located in the South, 13% (71 of 558) in the West, 25% (138 of 558) in the Midwest, and 24% (133 of 558) in New England. This study was given an exemption waiver by our institution's IRB. MUCCs were contacted using a standardized script to assess acceptance of Medicaid insurance and identify barriers to care. Question 1 was answered through determining the percentage of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid insurance. Question 2 considered whether there was an association between Medicaid acceptance and factors such as Medicaid physician reimbursements or MUCC center type. Question 3 sought to characterize the prevalence of any other means of limiting access for Medicaid patients, including requiring a referral for a visit and disallowing continuity of care at that MUCC. RESULTS: Of the MUCCs contacted, 58% (323 of 558) accepted Medicaid insurance. In 16 states, the proportion of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid was equal to or less than 50%. In 22 states, all MUCCs surveyed accepted Medicaid insurance. Academic-affiliated MUCCs accepted Medicaid patients at a higher proportion than centers owned by private practices (odds ratio 14 [95% CI 4.2 to 44]; p < 0.001). States with higher Medicaid physician reimbursements saw proportional increases in the percentage of MUCCs that accepted Medicaid insurance under multivariable analysis (OR 36 [95% CI 14 to 99]; p < 0.001). Barriers to care for Medicaid patients characterized included location restriction and primary care physician referral requirements. CONCLUSION: It is clear that musculoskeletal urgent care at these centers is inaccessible to a large segment of the Medicaid-insured population. This inaccessibility seems to be related to state Medicaid physician fee schedules and a center's affiliation with a private orthopaedic practice, indicating how underlying financial pressures influence private practice policies. Ultimately, the refusal of Medicaid by MUCCs may lead to disparities in which patients with private insurance are cared for at MUCCs, while those with Medicaid may experience delays in care. Going forward, there are three main options to tackle this issue: increasing Medicaid physician reimbursement to provide a financial incentive, establishing stricter standards for MUCCs to operate at the state level, or streamlining administration to reduce costs overall. Further research will be necessary to evaluate which policy intervention will be most effective. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.

Is There An Association Between Bundled Payments and "Cherry Picking" and "Lemon Dropping" in Orthopaedic Surgery? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The goal of bundled payments-lump monetary sums designed to cover the full set of services needed to provide care for a condition or medical event-is to provide a reimbursement structure that incentivizes improved value for patients. There is concern that such a payment mechanism may lead to patient screening and denying or providing orthopaedic care to patients based on the number and severity of comorbid conditions present associated with complications after surgery. Currently, however, there is no clear consensus about whether such an association exists. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this systematic review, we asked: (1) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the sociodemographic characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (2) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the comorbidities and/or case-complexity characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (3) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the recent use of healthcare resources characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? METHODS: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO before data collection (CRD42020189416). Our systematic review included scientific manuscripts published in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Econlit, Policyfile, and Google Scholar through March 2020. Of the 30 studies undergoing full-text review, 20 were excluded because they did not evaluate the outcome of interest (patient selection) (n = 8); were editorial, commentary, or review articles (n = 5); did not evaluate the appropriate intervention (introduction of a bundled payment program) (n = 4); or assessed the wrong patient population (not orthopaedic surgery patients) (n = 3). This led to 10 studies included in this systematic review. For each study, patient factors analyzed in the included studies were grouped into the following three categories: sociodemographics, comorbidities and/or case complexity, or recent use of healthcare resources characteristics. Next, each patient factor falling into one of these three categories was examined to evaluate for changes from before to after implementation of a bundled payment initiative. In most cases, studies utilized a difference-in-difference (DID) statistical technique to assess for changes. Determination of whether the bundled payment initiative required mandatory participation or not was also noted. Scientific quality using the Adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale had a median (range) score of 8 (7 to 8; highest possible score: 9), and the quality of the total body of evidence for each patient characteristic group was found to be low using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool. We could not assess the likelihood of publication using funnel plots because of the variation of patient factors analyzed in each study and the heterogeneity of data precluded a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the nine included studies that reported on the sociodemographic characteristics of patients selected for care, seven showed no change with the implementation of bundled payments, and two demonstrated a difference. Most notably, the studies identified a decrease in the percentage of patients undergoing an orthopaedic operative intervention who were dual-eligible (range DID estimate -0.4% [95% CI -0.75% to -0.1%]; p < 0.05 to DID estimate -1.0% [95% CI -1.7% to -0.2%]; p = 0.01), which means they qualified for both Medicare and Medicaid insurance coverage. Of the 10 included studies that reported on comorbidities and case-complexity characteristics, six reported no change in such characteristics with the implementation of bundled payments, and four studies noted differences. Most notably, one study showed a decrease in the number of treated patients with disabilities (DID estimate -0.6% [95% CI -0.97% to -0.18%]; p < 0.05) compared with before bundled payment implementation, while another demonstrated a lower number of Elixhauser comorbidities for those treated as part of a bundled payment program (before: score of 0-1 in 63.6%, 2-3 in 27.9%, > 3 in 8.5% versus after: score of 0-1 in 50.1%, 2-3 in 38.7%, > 3 in 11.2%; p = 0.033). Of the three included studies that reported on the recent use of healthcare resources of patients, one study found no difference in the use of healthcare resources with the implementation of bundled payments, and two studies did find differences. Both studies found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at a skilled nursing facility (range DID estimate -0.50% [95% CI -1.0% to 0.0%]; p = 0.04 to DID estimate: -0.53% [95% CI -0.96% to -0.10%]; p = 0.01), while one of the studies also found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at an acute care hospital (DID estimate -0.8% [95% CI -1.6% to -0.1%]; p = 0.03) or as part of home healthcare (DID estimate -1.3% [95% CI -2.0% to -0.6%]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In six of 10 studies in which differences in patient characteristics were detected among those undergoing operative orthopaedic intervention once a bundled payment program was initiated, the effect was found to be minimal (approximately 1% or less). However, our findings still suggest some level of adverse patient selection, potentially worsening health inequities when considered on a large scale. It is also possible that our findings reflect better care, whereby the financial incentives lead to fewer patients with a high risk of complications undergoing surgical intervention and vice versa for patients with a low risk of complications postoperatively. However, this is a fine line, and it may also be that patients with a high risk of complications postoperatively are not being offered surgery enough, while patients at low risk of complications postoperatively are being offered surgery too frequently. Evaluation of the longer-term effect of these preliminary bundled payment programs on patient selection is warranted to determine whether adverse patient selection changes over time as health systems and orthopaedic surgeons become accustomed to such reimbursement models.

Why Orthopaedic Residents Must Be Exposed to and Taught Value-Based Care: AOA Critical Issues.

ABSTRACT: The shift to value-based care is changing the practice of medicine. In order to prepare our orthopaedic trainees to survive in a value-based health-care environment, we must expose them to and educate them about value-based programs. This creates both challenges and opportunities for training programs. Academic medical centers (AMCs) will need to carefully consider how to adopt value-based programs and agreements, and assess whether they need alternative facilities, partnerships, or processes in order to be successful. Process improvement principles to adapt physician behavior, the introduction of outcome metrics into the surgical decision-making process, and the development of team-based care can greatly enhance the likelihood of success. AMCs should embrace these challenges to ensure that their residents are well-prepared for the future.

Relative Value Unit Compensation Rates for Hospital-Based Shoulder/Elbow Surgery Versus Hand Surgery.

Upper extremity surgeons perform diverse operations, including hand surgery, microsurgery, and shoulder/elbow arthroscopy and arthroplasty. Declining orthopedic reimbursement rates may encourage surgeons to adjust their case mix, favoring a shift toward procedures with higher compensation. To determine whether upper extremity surgeons and hand-fellowship trainees may be financially incentivized to perform more shoulder/elbow procedures than hand procedures in a hospital-based setting, relative value unit (RVU) compensation rates were compared for these 2 fields. Using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services-assigned work RVUs (wRVU) and National Surgical Quality Improvement Program operative time data, wRVU compensation rates per minute of operative time were determined for common shoulder/elbow surgeries. Overall nonweighted and weighted wRVU/min averages were calculated for hospital-based shoulder/elbow and hand surgery. A total of 27 shoulder/elbow procedures and 53 hand surgery procedures were analyzed. Nonweighted comparison showed shoulder/elbow surgery had a higher wRVU/min (0.19±0.03 vs 0.14±0.05, P<.0001) vs hand surgery. When weighted by procedure frequency, shoulder/elbow surgery also had higher wRVU/min (0.19±0.02 vs 0.15±0.05, P<.0001). Fourteen of the 27 shoulder/elbow procedures were compensated either the same wRVU/min or more than all hand procedures except for epicondyle debridement and flexor tendon bursectomy. Almost half of commonly performed shoulder/elbow procedures were compensated at greater rates than most hand procedures in a hospital-based setting. This disproportionate compensation may affect upper extremity surgeons' case mix and motivate providers and hand-fellowship trainees to seek additional training in shoulder arthroplasty and arthroscopy to supplement their practice. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(3):e373-e377.].

Virtual Fracture Clinics in Orthopaedic Surgery - A Systematic Review of Current Evidence.

AIMS: Approximately 75% of fractures are simple, stable injuries which are often unnecessarily immobilised with subsequent repeated radiographs at numerous fracture clinic visits. In 2014, the Glasgow Fracture Pathway offered an alternative virtual fracture clinic (VFC) pathway with the potential to reduce traditional fracture clinic visits, waiting times and overall costs. Many units have implemented this style of pathway in the non-operative management of simple, undisplaced fractures. This study aims to systematically review the clinical outcomes, patient reported outcomes and cost analyses for VFCs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed the literature search based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing the MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE Library databases. Studies reporting outcomes following the use of VFC were included. Outcomes analysed were: 1) clinical outcomes, 2) patient reported outcomes, and 3) cost analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 15 studies involving 11,921 patients with a mean age of 41.1 years and mean follow-up of 12.6 months were included. In total, 65.7% of patients were directly virtually discharged with protocol derived conservative management, with 9.1% using the Helpline and 15.6% contacting their general practitioner for advice or reassurance. A total of 1.2% of patients experienced fracture non-unions and 0.4% required surgical intervention. The overall patient satisfaction rate was 81.0%, with only 1.3% experiencing residual pain at the fracture site. Additionally, the mean cost per patient for VFC was £71, with a mean saving of £53 when compared to traditional clinic models. Subgroup analysis found that for undisplaced fifth metatarsal or radial head/neck fractures, the rates of discharge from VFC to physiotherapy or general practitioners were 81.2% and 93.7% respectively. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This study established that there is excellent evidence to support virtual fracture clinic for non-operative management of fifth metatarsal fractures, with moderate evidence for radial head and neck fractures. However, the routine use of virtual fracture clinics is presently not validated for all stable, undisplaced fracture patterns. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; Systematic Review of all Levels of Evidence.

The prevalence and impact of gender bias and sexual discrimination in orthopaedics, and mitigating strategies.

AIMS: Gender bias and sexual discrimination (GBSD) have been widely recognized across a range of fields and are now part of the wider social consciousness. Such conduct can occur in the medical workplace, with detrimental effects on recipients. The aim of this review was to identify the prevalence and impact of GBSD in orthopaedic surgery, and to investigate interventions countering such behaviours. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by searching Medline, EMCARE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library Database in April 2020, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to which we adhered. Original research papers pertaining to the prevalence and impact of GBSD, or mitigating strategies, within orthopaedics were included for review. RESULTS: Of 570 papers, 27 were eligible for inclusion. These were published between 1998 and 2020. A narrative review was performed in light of the significant heterogeneity displayed by the eligible studies. A total of 13 papers discussed the prevalence of GBSD, while 13 related to the impact of these behaviours, and six discussed mitigating strategies. GBSD was found to be common in the orthopaedic workplace, with all sources showing women to be the subjects. The impact of this includes poor workforce representation, lower salaries, and less career success, including in academia, for women in orthopaedics. Mitigating strategies in the literature are focused on providing female role models, mentors, and educational interventions. CONCLUSION: GBSD is common in orthopaedic surgery, with a substantial impact on sufferers. A small number of mitigating strategies have been tested but these are limited in their scope. As such, the orthopaedic community is obliged to participate in more thoughtful and proactive strategies that mitigate against GBSD, by improving female recruitment and retention within the specialty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(11):1446-1456.

[Economic aspects of digitalization in orthopedics and trauma surgery]. / Ökonomische Aspekte der Digitalisierung in Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie.

INTRODUCTION: In addition to the advantages for patients and physicians, the progression of digitalization will also have economic implications for healthcare systems in toto worldwide. The integration of digital innovations enables healthcare institutions to transform their current activities and processes and to create a new form of patient care. IMPORTANT ECONOMIC TOPICS OF DIGITALIZATION: Using digital applications process optimization can be achieved by increased efficiency and therefore a reduction in costs in the healthcare system. Improved processes can in turn achieve an increase in quality in the treatment of patients. Simultaneously, a duplication of investigations can be avoided through digital interfaces and the communication among the healthcare professions involved can be improved, which would result in a conservation of resources. Finally, these influences can lead to more precision in medicine, acceleration of healing processes and represent an advantage for all parties involved. PERSPECTIVES: Economic redistribution due to digitalization of medicine will become increasingly apparent in the future. Ethical considerations as well as data protection will be important topics. At the same time investments and digital innovations must be sponsored by the government and industry. Scientific studies are necessary to secure the evidence of new methods for practice in orthopedics and trauma surgery.

Telemedicine in Orthopaedic Surgery: Challenges and Opportunities.

Improvements in technology and a push toward value-based health care have poised the telemedicine industry for growth; however, despite the benefits of virtual care, widespread implementation had not occurred until the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Powerful barriers have hindered the widespread adoption of telemedicine, including lack of awareness, implementation costs, inefficiencies introduced, difficulty performing physical examinations, overall lack of perceived benefit of virtual care, negative financial implications, concern for medicolegal liability, and regulatory restrictions. Some of these challenges have been addressed with temporary state and federal mandates in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; however, continued investment in systems and technology as well as refinement of regulations around telemedicine are needed to sustain widespread adoption by patients and providers.

Association of State Legislation and Industry Compensation to Orthopaedic Residents: A 3-Year Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database.

BACKGROUND: The Sunshine Act aims to increase the transparency of physicians receiving compensation from pharmaceutical and medical device companies. Nine states have supplementary legislation in addition to the Federal Sunshine Act. The purpose of this study is to assess the characteristics of financial compensation to orthopaedic residents on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments Database in states with more restrictive regulations compared with those without additional restrictions. METHODS: A complete list of accredited orthopaedic residency programs in the United States was compiled using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics websites. The website of each orthopaedic residency program was searched to compile a list of residents who attended their program from 2014 to 2016. The CMS Open Payments Database was used to search the residents identified for the corresponding years. All data available on the CMS Open Payments Database were recorded. RESULTS: Over the 3-year period, 3,622 residents were identified from 151 programs. A total of 41% of the residents were reported as receiving compensation from the industry. The percent of residents reported from programs in less restrictive states was 45% versus 28% in more restrictive states (P < 0.001). Residents had a mean of 5.3 transactions per year in less restrictive states and 2.4 transactions per year in more restrictive states (P < 0.001). The mean compensation per resident reported was $2,730 for less restrictive sates versus $1,937 for more restrictive states (P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Overall, 41% of orthopaedic residents were reported on the CMS Open Payments Database with fewer transactions and less compensation going to residents in states with more restrictive legislature. Potential implications on resident education remain unknown.