Trends in Indications and Contraindications for Cervical Disk Arthroplasty from 2009 to 2019.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. OBJECTIVE: Assess trends of indications and contraindications for the use of Cervical Disk Arthroplasty (CDA). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As spine surgeons become more familiar with CDA, there have been expansions in indications. METHODS: The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Sets for 2009, 2014, and 2019 were utilized. Patients undergoing elective CDA were included. Diagnosis for index surgery and "contraindications" as defined by original CDA Investigative Device Exemption (IDE) criteria were assessed. Variables were identified by the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 or ICD-10 diagnosis and procedural codes. RESULTS: A total of 1067 elective CDA patients were included. There were 230 patients in 2009, 300 patients in 2014, and 537 patients in 2019. The proportion of patients aged >65 increased from 35% to 51% (P<0.001). Incidence of CDA for radiculopathy increased from 57% to 69% (P<0.001), myelopathy increased from 23% to 78% (P<0.001), and spondylosis without radiculopathy or myelopathy decreased from 19% to 3% (P<0.001). There were increased incidences of ankylosing spondylitis (0.4% to 2.8%, P=0.007), long-term steroid use (1% to 2%, P=0.039), morbid obesity (2% to 6%, P=0.019), and osteoporosis (1% to 5%, P=0.014). The incidence of hybrid CDA and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) decreased from 28% to 23% (P=0.007). CONCLUSION: From 2009 to 2019, the number of CDA performed in older patients increased. An increase in the use of CDA for the treatment of myelopathy and radiculopathy and a decrease in the treatment of isolated cervical spondylosis was observed. The proportion of CDA performed in patients with original IDE trial "contraindications" increased. Further research into the efficacy of CDA for patients with contraindications is warranted.

Resource Utilization following Anterior Versus Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion for Acute Central Cord Syndrome.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare the impact of anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) versus posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) for the treatment of acute traumatic central cord syndrome (CCS) on hospital episodes of care in terms of (1) cost, (2) length of hospital stay, and (3) discharge destination. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Acute traumatic CCS is the most common form of spinal cord injury in the United States. CCS is commonly treated with surgical decompression and fusion. Hospital resource utilization based on surgical approach remains unclear. METHODS: Patients undergoing ACDF and PCDF for acute traumatic CCS were identified using the 2019 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Set and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2019 Impact File. Multivariate models for hospital cost of care, length of stay, and discharge destination were performed, controlling for confounders. Subanalysis of accommodation and revenue center cost drivers was performed. RESULTS: There were 1474 cases that met inclusion criteria: 673 ACDF (45.7%) and 801 PCDF (54.3%). ACDF was independently associated with a decreased cost of $9802 (P<0.001) and a 59.2% decreased risk of discharge to nonhome destinations (adjusted odds ratio: 0.408, P<0.001). The difference in length of stay was not statistically significant. On subanalysis of cost drivers, ACDF was associated with decreased charges ($55,736, P<0.001) compared with PCDF, the largest drivers being the intensive care unit ($15,873, 28% of total charges, P<0.001) and medical/surgical supply charges ($19,651, 35% of total charges, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: For treatment of acute traumatic CCS, ACDF was associated with almost $10,000 less expensive cost of care and a 60% decreased risk of discharge to nonhome destination compared with PCDF. The largest cost drivers appear to be ICU and medical/surgical-related. These findings may inform value-based decisions regarding the treatment of acute traumatic CCS. However, injury and patient clinical factors should always be prioritized in surgical decision-making, and increased granularity in reimbursement policies is needed to prevent financial disincentives in the treatment of patients with CCS better addressed with posterior approach-surgery.

Elective Single-Level Primary Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion for Degenerative Spondylotic Cervical Myelopathy is Associated With Decreased Resource Utilization Versus Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To compare elective single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) versus posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) in terms of (1) cost, (2) length of hospital stay, and (3) discharge destination in Medicare patients. A sub-analysis of potential cost drivers was also performed. BACKGROUND: In the era of value-based medicine, there is substantial interest in reducing the cost of care. Both ACDF and PCDF are used to treat DCM but carry different morbidity and risk profiles that can impact hospital resource utilization. However, this has not been assessed on a national level. METHODS: Patients undergoing single-level elective ACDF and PCDF surgery were identified using the 2019 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MedPAR) Limited Data Set (LDS) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 2019 Impact File. Multivariate models of hospital cost of care, length of stay, and discharge destination were performed, controlling for confounders. A univariate sub-analysis of 9 revenue centers was performed. RESULTS: In all, 3942 patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean cost of elective single-level cervical fusion for myelopathy was $18,084±10,783, and the mean length of stay was 2.45±2.95 d. On multivariate analysis, ACDF was independently associated with decreased cost of $5,814 (P<0.001), shorter length of stay by 1.1 days (P<0.001), and decreased risk of nonhome discharge destination by 58% (adjusted odds ratio: 0.422, P<0.001).On sub-analysis of 9 revenue centers, medical/surgical supply ($10,497, 44%), operating room charges ($5401, 23%), and accommodations ($3999, 17%) were the largest drivers of charge differences. CONCLUSIONS: Single-level elective primary ACDF for DCM was independently associated with decreased cost, decreased hospital length of stay, and a lower rate of nonhome discharge compared with PCDF. Medical and surgical supply, operating room, and accommodation differences between ACDF and PCDF are potential areas for intervention. Increased granularity in reimbursement structures is warranted to prevent the creation of disincentives to the treatment of patients with DCM with pathology that is better addressed with PCDF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level-III Retrospective Cohort Study.

What Are the Differences in Hospital Cost Associated With the Use of Cemented Versus Cementless Femoral Stems in Hemiarthroplasty and Total Hip Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fracture?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference in hospital costs associated with the use of cemented versus cementless femoral stems in hemiarthroplasty (HA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) for the treatment of femoral neck fracture (FNF). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilizes the 2019 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Set. Patients undergoing arthroplasty for the treatment of FNF were identified. Patients were grouped by cemented or cementless femoral stem fixation. There were 16,148 patients who underwent arthroplasty for FNF available: 4,913 THAs (3,705 patients who had cementless femoral stems and 1,208 patients who had cemented femoral stems) and 11,235 HAs (6,099 patients who had cementless femoral stems and 5,136 who had cemented femoral stems). Index hospital costs were estimated by multiplying total charges by cost-to-charge ratios. Costs were analyzed using univariable and multivariable generalized linear models. RESULTS: Cemented femoral stem THA generated 1.080 times (95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 1.10; P < .001), or 8.0%, greater index hospital costs than cementless femoral stem THA, and cemented femoral stem HA generated 1.042 times (95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 1.05; P < .001), or 4.2%, greater index hospital costs than cementless femoral stem HA. CONCLUSIONS: Cemented femoral stems for FNF treated with either THA or HA are associated with only a small portion of increased cost compared to cementless femoral stems. Providers may choose the method of arthroplasty stem fixation for the treatment of FNF based on what they deem most appropriate for the specific patient.

Elective THA for Indications Other Than Osteoarthritis Is Associated With Increased Cost and Resource Use: A Medicare Database Study of 135,194 Claims.

BACKGROUND: Under Medicare's fee-for-service and bundled payment models, the basic unit of hospital payment for inpatient hospitalizations is determined by the Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) coding system. Primary total joint arthroplasties (hip and knee) are coded under MS-DRG code 469 for hospitalizations with a major complication or comorbidity and MS-DRG code 470 for those without a major complication or comorbidity. However, these codes do not account for the indication for surgery, which may influence the cost of care.Questions/purposes We sought to (1) quantify the differences in hospital costs associated with six of the most common diagnostic indications for THA (osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, avascular necrosis, hip dysplasia, posttraumatic arthritis, and conversion arthroplasty), (2) assess the primary drivers of cost variation using comparisons of hospital charge data for the diagnostic indications of interest, and (3) analyze the median length of stay, discharge destination, and intensive care unit use associated with these indications. METHODS: This study used the 2019 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Set. Patients undergoing primary elective THA were identified using MS-DRG codes and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Procedure Coding System codes. Exclusion criteria included non-fee-for-service hospitalizations, nonelective procedures, patients with missing data, and THAs performed for indications other than the six indications of interest. A total of 713,535 primary THAs and TKAs were identified in the dataset. After exclusions were applied, a total of 135,194 elective THAs were available for analysis. Hospital costs were estimated using cost-to-charge ratios calculated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The primary benefit of using cost-to-charge ratios was that it allowed us to analyze a large national dataset and to mitigate the random cost variation resulting from unique hospitals' practices and patient populations. As an investigation into matters of health policy, we believe that assessing the surgical cost borne by the "average" hospital was most appropriate. To analyze estimated hospital costs, we performed a multivariable generalized linear model controlling for patient demographics (gender, age, and race), preoperative health status, and hospital characteristics (hospital setting [urban versus rural], geography, size, resident-to-bed ratio, and wage index). We assessed the principal drivers of cost variation by analyzing the median hospital charges arising from 30 different hospital revenue centers using descriptive statistics. Length of stay, intensive care use, and discharge to a nonhome location were analyzed using multivariable binomial logistic regression. RESULTS: The cost of THA for avascular necrosis was 1.050 times (95% confidence interval 1.042 to 1.069; p < 0.001), or 5% greater than, the cost of THA for osteoarthritis; the cost of hip dysplasia was 1.132 times (95% CI 1.113 to 1.152; p < 0.001), or 13% greater; the cost of posttraumatic arthritis was 1.220 times (95% CI 1.193 to 1.246; p < 0.001), or 22% greater; and the cost of conversion arthroplasty was 1.403 times (95% CI 1.386 to 1.419; p < 0.001), or 40% greater. Importantly, none of these CIs overlap, indicating a discernable hierarchy of cost associated with these diagnostic indications for surgery. Rheumatoid arthritis was not associated with an increase in cost. Medical or surgical supplies and operating room charges represented the greatest increase in charges for each of the surgical indications examined, suggesting that increased use of medical and surgical supplies and operating room resources were the primary drivers of increased cost. All of the orthopaedic conditions we investigated demonstrated increased odds that a patient would experience a prolonged length of stay and be discharged to a nonhome location compared with patients undergoing THA for osteoarthritis. Avascular necrosis, posttraumatic arthritis, and conversion arthroplasty were also associated with increased intensive care unit use. Posttraumatic arthritis and conversion arthroplasty demonstrated the largest increase in resource use among all the orthopaedic conditions analyzed. CONCLUSION: Compared with THA for osteoarthritis, THA for avascular necrosis, hip dysplasia, posttraumatic arthritis, and conversion arthroplasty is independently associated with stepwise increases in resource use. These cost increases are predominantly driven by greater requirements for medical and surgical supplies and operating room resources. Posttraumatic arthritis and conversion arthroplasty demonstrated substantially increased costs, which can result in financial losses in the setting of fixed prospective payments. These findings underscore the inability of MS-DRG coding to adequately reflect the wide range of surgical complexity and resource use of primary THAs. Hospitals performing a high volume of THAs for indications other than osteoarthritis should budget for an anticipated increase in costs, and orthopaedic surgeons should advocate for improved MS-DRG coding to appropriately reimburse hospitals for the financial and clinical risk of these surgeries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, economic and decision analysis.

Conversion THA With Concomitant Removal of Orthopaedic Hardware Should Be Reclassified as a Revision Surgery in the Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group Coding Scheme: An Analysis of Cost and Resource Use.

BACKGROUND: Conversion THA, which we defined for this study as THA with concomitant removal of preexisting orthopaedic hardware, has been associated with increased hospital costs and perioperative complications compared with primary THA. Yet, conversion THA is classified as a primary procedure under the Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group coding scheme, and hospitals are reimbursed based on the resource use expected for a routine primary surgery. Prior authors have argued for conversion THA to be reclassified as a revision procedure. Although prior research has focused on comparisons between conversion THAs and primary arthroplasties, little is known about the resource use of conversion THA compared with that of revision THA. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do inpatient hospital costs, estimated using cost-to-charge ratios, differ between conversion THA and revision THA? (2) Do the median length of stay, intensive care unit use, and likelihood of discharge to home differ between conversion and revision THA? METHODS: This was a retrospective study of the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Set for 2019. A total of 713,535 primary and 74,791 revision THAs and TKAs were identified initially. Exclusion criteria then were applied; these included non-fee-for-service hospitalizations, nonelective admissions, and patients with missing data. Approximately 37% (263,545 of 713,535) of primary and 34% (25,530 of 74,791) of revision arthroplasties were excluded as non-fee-for-service hospitalizations. Two percent (13,159 of 713,535) of primaries and 11% (8159 of 74,791) of revisions were excluded because they were nonelective procedures. Among the remaining 436,831 primary and 41,102 revision procedures, 31% (136,748 of 436,831) were primary THAs and 36% (14,774 of 41,102) were revision THAs. Two percent (2761 of 136,748) of primary THAs involved intraoperative removal of hardware and were classified as conversion THAs. After claims with missing data were excluded, there were 2759 conversion THAs and 14,764 revision THAs available for analysis. Propensity scores were generated using a multivariate logistic regression model using the following variables as covariates: gender, age, race, van Walraven index, hospital setting, geography, hospital size, resident-to-bed ratio, and wage index. After matching, 2734 conversion THAs and 5294 revision THAs were available for analysis. The van Walraven index, which is a weighted score of patient preoperative comorbidities, was used to measure patient health status. Hospital costs were estimated by multiplying cost-to-charge ratios obtained from the 2019 Impact File by total hospital charges. This methodology enabled the use of a large national database to mitigate the random effects of individual hospitals' unique practices and patient populations. Multivariable regression was performed after matching to determine the independent effects of surgery type (that is, conversion versus revision THA) on hospital cost, length of stay greater than 2 days, intensive care unit use, and discharge to home. RESULTS: There was no difference in the estimated hospital cost between conversion THA and revision THA (ß = 0.96 [95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.01]; p = 0.13). Patients undergoing conversion THA had increased odds of staying in the hospital for more than 2 days (odds ratio 1.12 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.23]; p = 0.01), increased odds of using the intensive care unit (OR 1.24 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.48]; p = 0.02), and decreased odds of being discharged to home (OR 0.74 [95% CI 0.67 to 0.80]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The inpatient hospital cost of conversion THA is no different from that of revision THA, although patients undergoing conversion surgery have modestly increased odds of prolonged length of stay, intensive care unit use, and discharge to a nonhome location. These findings support the conclusion that reclassification of conversion THA is warranted. Orthopaedic surgeons must advocate for the reclassification of conversion THA using data-backed evidence or run the risk that orthopaedic procedures will be given decreased reimbursement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, economic and decision analysis.

Trends in costs, reimbursements, and surgeon payments for cervical disc arthroplasty cost of care from 2009 to 2019.

OBJECTIVE: The use of cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) continues to increase in the Medicare population. As healthcare costs continue to rise, payors have begun to implement bundled payment structures for spine surgery. While Medicare has steadily decreased reimbursements for cervical fusions, Medicare reimbursements for CDA have not been studied. The purpose of this study was to assess trends in 1) hospital costs and reimbursement, 2) physician reimbursement, and 3) potential cost drivers for CDA in a Medicare population. METHODS: This is a retrospective longitudinal study of CDA in Medicare patients. The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Sets for 2009, 2014, and 2019 were used for this study. Patients undergoing elective CDA were included. Corresponding Inpatient Prospective Payment System files were used to calculate cost through cost-to-charge ratios. Physician fees were obtained from the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool. All financial data were adjusted for inflation to 2019 values based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers. Demographic, comorbidity, surgical, and hospital trends were assessed. Trends in revenue center-level charges were also assessed. RESULTS: Adjusted for inflation, from 2009 to 2019, mean total hospital charges for elective CDA increased from $64,609 ± $45,787 to $111,874 ± $78,611 (73% increase, p < 0.001) and the mean total cost for index hospital admission increased from $19,665 ± $13,414 to $24,682 ± $13,818 (26% increase, p < 0.001). Over the same period, Medicare reimbursement increased from a mean of $11,154 ± $11,684 to $12,879 ± $13,613 (15% increase, p = 0.003), while total reimbursement increased from a mean of $15,005 ± $15,684 to $15,547 ± $15,829 (4% increase, p = 0.040). The mean hospital profit decreased from -$4076 ± $14,041 to -$9023 ± $16,084 (-121%, p < 0.001). Surgeon reimbursement for CDA decreased from a mean of $1850 ± $165 (2009) to $1722 ± $138 (2019) (7% decrease, p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, increasing year of surgery (p < 0.001), increasing age (p = 0.001), increasing length of stay (p < 0.001), rural hospital setting (p = 0.027), and hospital geography (p < 0.001) were independently associated with cost of care. Medical/surgical supplies and operating room charges increased 71.6% (p < 0.001) and 98.5% (p < 0.001) and accounted for 41.1%-42.5% and 30.6%-35.1% of total charges, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: From 2009 to 2019, costs of care for elective inpatient CDA increased disproportionately to reimbursement. Hospitals operated at increasing losses and surgeon reimbursement decreased. Cost of care was independently associated with year of surgery, increasing age, length of stay, hospital setting, and hospital geography. The main charge drivers were medical/surgical supplies and operating room charges. These results may have implications for the future financial feasibility of inpatient CDA for Medicare patients and targets to improve the value of CDA. Further study is necessary to provide fair reimbursement for CDA in Medicare patients and prevent financially based bias against use of CDA in Medicare patients.

Impact of Race/Ethnicity on Hospital Resource Utilization After Elective Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion for Degenerative Myelopathy.

INTRODUCTION: With the advent of bundled care payments for spine surgery, there is increasing scrutiny on the costs and resource utilization associated with surgical care. The purpose of this study was to compare (1) the total cost of the hospital episode of care and (2) discharge destination between White, Black, and Hispanic patients receiving elective anterior cervical decompression and fusion for degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) in Medicare patients. METHODS: The 2019 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Set and the 2019 Impact File were used for this project. Multivariate models were created for total cost and discharge destination, controlling for confounders found on univariate analysis. We then performed a subanalysis for differences in specific cost-center charges. RESULTS: There were 11,506 White (85.4%), 1,707 Black (12.7%), and 261 Hispanic (1.9%) patients identified. There were 6,447 males (47.8%) and 7,027 females (52.2%). Most patients were between 65 to 74 years of age (n = 7,101, 52.7%). The mean cost of the hospital episode was $20,919 ± 11,848. Most patients were discharged home (n = 11,584, 86.0%). Race/ethnicity was independently associated with an increased cost of care (Black: $783, Hispanic: $1,566, P = 0.001) and an increased likelihood of nonhome discharge (Black: adjusted odds ratio: 1.990, P < 0.001, Hispanic: adjusted odds ratio: 1.822, P < 0.001) compared with White patients. Compared with White patients, Black patients were charged more for accommodations ($1808), less for supplies (-$1780), and less for operating room (-$1072), whereas Hispanic patients were charged more ($3556, $7923, and $5162, respectively, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Black and Hispanic race/ethnicity were found to be independently associated with an increased cost of care and risk for nonhome discharge after elective anterior cervical decompression and fusion for DCM compared with White patients. The largest drivers of this disparity appear to be accommodation, medical/surgical supply, and operating room-related charges. Further analysis of these racial disparities should be performed to improve value and equity of spine care for DCM.

Medicare Payments to Hospitals and Physicians for Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Declined From 2009 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Recent research has reported hospital payments for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA) from commercial payers to be increasing, despite increasing price pressure from the increasing scale and scope of alternative reimbursement schemes. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to analyze the recent trends in Medicare payments to hospitals and surgeons for primary THA and TKA. METHODS: The primary data source for this study was the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Set (MEDPAR) for the years 2009, 2014, and 2019. A total of 331,721 patients undergoing primary elective THA and 742,476 patients undergoing primary elective TKA were included. Total Medicare payments and total hospital reimbursements, which included Medicare payments and patient copayments, were calculated. Physician fees were obtained from the Medicare physician fee schedule (MPFS) look-up tool. All financial data were inflation-adjusted. Patient comorbidities were identified as a measure of health status. The data were stratified by year and analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2019, inflation-adjusted Medicare payments declined by 11.5% and total hospital reimbursements (Medicare payments plus copayments) declined by 6.5% for THA, while Medicare payments declined by 13.4%, and total hospital reimbursements declined by 7.7% for TKA. Over the same period, surgeons' fees declined by 13.1% for THA and 18.9% for TKA. CONCLUSION: From 2009 to 2019, Medicare payments to hospitals and physicians declined markedly. Physician payments decreased faster than hospital payments. These results may have implications for the future viability of performing THA and TKA on Medicare patients.

High-volume Arthroplasty Centers Are Associated With Lower Hospital Costs When Performing Primary THA and TKA: A Database Study of 288,909 Medicare Claims for Procedures Performed in 2019.

BACKGROUND: With bundled payments and alternative reimbursement models expanding in scope and scale, reimbursements to hospitals are declining in value. As a result, cost reduction at the hospital level is paramount for the sustainability of profitable inpatient arthroplasty practices. Although multiple prior studies have investigated cost variation in arthroplasty surgery, it is unknown whether contemporary inpatient arthroplasty practices benefit from economies of scale after accounting for hospital characteristics and patient selection factors. Quantifying the independent effects of volume-based cost variation may be important for guiding future value-based health reform. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We performed this study to (1) determine whether the cost incurred by hospitals for performing primary inpatient THA and TKA is independently associated with hospital volume and (2) establish whether length of stay and discharge to home are associated with hospital volume. METHODS: The primary data source for this study was the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Set, which includes claims data for 100% of inpatient Medicare hospitalizations. We included patients undergoing primary elective inpatient THA and TKA in 2019. Exclusion criteria included non-Inpatient Prospective Payment System hospitalizations, nonelective admissions, bilateral procedures, and patients with cancer of the pelvis or lower extremities. A total of 500,658 arthroplasties were performed across 2762 hospitals for 492,262 Medicare beneficiaries during the study period; 59% (288,909 of 492,262) of procedures were analyzed after the exclusion criteria were applied. Most exclusions (37% [182,733 of 492,262]) were because of non-Inpatient Prospective Payment System hospitalizations. Among the study group, 87% (251,996 of 288,909) of procedures were in patients who were 65 to 84 years old, 88% (255,415 of 288,909) were performed in patients who were White, and 63% (180,688 of 288,909) were in patients who were women. Elixhauser comorbidities and van Walraven indices were calculated as measures of patient health status. Hospital costs were estimated by multiplying cost-to-charge ratios obtained from the 2019 Impact File by total hospital charges. This methodology enabled us to use the large Medicare Provider Analysis and Review database, which helped decrease the influence of random cost variation through the law of large numbers. Hospital volumes were calculated by stratifying claims by national provider identification number and counting the number of claims per national provider identification number. The data were then grouped into bins of increasing hospital volume to more easily compare larger-volume and smaller-volume centers. The relationship between hospital costs and volume was analyzed using univariable and multivariable generalized linear models. Results are reported as exponential coefficients, which can be interpreted as relative differences in cost. The impact of surgical volume on length of stay and discharge to home was assessed using binary logistic regression, considering the nested structure of the data, and results are reported as odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: Hospital cost and mean length of stay decreased, while rates of discharge to home increased with increasing hospital volume. After controlling for potential confounding variables such as patient demographics, health status, and geographic location, we found that inpatient arthroplasty costs at hospitals with 10 or fewer, 11 to 100, and 101 to 200 procedures annually were 1.32 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.30 to 1.34; p < 0.001), 1.17 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.17; p < 0.001), and 1.10 (95% CI 1.10 to 1.10; p < 0.001) times greater than those of hospitals with 201 or more inpatient procedures annually. In addition, patients treated at smaller-volume hospitals had increased odds of experiencing a length of stay longer than 2 days (OR 1.25 to 3.44 [95% CI 1.10 to 4.03]; p < 0.001) and decreased odds of being discharged to home (OR 0.34 to 0.78 [95% CI 0.29 to 0.86]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Higher-volume hospitals incur lower costs, shorter lengths of stay, and higher rates of discharge to home than lower-volume hospitals when performing inpatient THA and TKA. These findings suggest that small and medium-sized regional hospitals are disproportionately impacted by declining reimbursement and may necessitate special treatment to remain viable as bundled payment models continue to erode hospital payments. Further research is also warranted to identify the key drivers of this volume-based cost variation, which may facilitate quality improvement initiatives at the hospital and policy levels.

Validation of the Artificial Floor Technique in First Metatarsophalangeal Joint Arthrodesis.

BACKGROUND: Patient function after arthrodesis of the first metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) relies on proper positioning of the first MTPJ. To maximize the likelihood of good postoperative function, the dorsiflexion angle, referred to as the fusion sagittal angle, should range between 20° and 30°, corresponding to 10° to 15° of dorsiflexion off the weightbearing axis. However, achieving appropriate sagittal alignment intraoperatively is challenging. The artificial floor technique (AFT) uses a rigid, flat surface to simulate the weightbearing position of the foot intraoperatively to accurately position the first MTPJ without fluoroscopy. This technique has been previously described and is commonly used but, to our knowledge, it has never been validated. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is the AFT a valid and repeatable technique for positioning the fusion sagittal angle between 20° and 30° of dorsiflexion from the first metatarsal? (2) Does the fusion sagittal angle obtained using the AFT vary with foot size? METHODS: In this retrospective study, a search was performed using Current Procedural Terminology codes for patients undergoing first MTPJ arthrodesis by one surgeon between June 2012 and June 2020. The surgical technique used during this time did not vary and consisted of the use of a rigid, flat, sterile surface. The entire foot was placed flat on the surface, simulating the weightbearing position and allowing for an evaluation of the fusion sagittal angle of the first MTPJ. The target sagittal alignment was achieved when the soft tissue of the plantar surface at the distal-most aspect of the proximal phalanx was measured (using a sterile ruler) as 1 cm off the artificial floor. The recommended fusion sagittal angle falls within a range of 20° to 30°, which allows for 1-mm to 2-mm variations in measuring the elevation of the proximal phalanx off the artificial floor. Fixation was achieved with two 2.8-mm threaded, double-pointed Steinmann pins placed through the intramedullary canal of the proximal and distal phalanges and into the first metatarsal. Once fixation was achieved, the fusion sagittal angle was confirmed with the AFT without using fluoroscopy. Postoperatively, patients were allowed to bear weight fully on their heels in a postoperative, rigid-soled shoe. During the study period, 117 patients (135 feet) underwent first MTPJ arthrodesis utilizing the AFT for either first MTPJ arthritis/hallux rigidus, hallux valgus, or inflammatory arthropathy. Of those, we considered patients with preoperative AP and lateral weightbearing radiographs and patients with AP and lateral weightbearing radiographs at 3 months postoperatively after the removal of the internal fixation construct as eligible for analysis. Based on these criteria, 84% (113 of 135) of feet were included in the final radiographic analysis. Sixteen percent (22 of 135) of the feet were excluded because postoperative radiographs demonstrating the removal of the internal fixation construct were absent from the Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) in these cases. The length of the whole foot, first metatarsal, and proximal phalanx were measured on preoperative weightbearing radiographs. In addition, fusion sagittal angles were measured on weightbearing radiographs after removal of internal fixation construct at a minimum of 3 months postoperatively (mean 3.5 ± 2.2 months). No patients were lost to follow-up before obtaining those radiographs. Two qualified reviewers independently evaluated each radiograph. We ascertained inter- and intraobserver reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). We determined whether the fusion sagittal angle obtained using the AFT varied with foot size by using a multiple linear regression model. RESULTS: In the entire study group, the mean fusion sagittal angle using the AFT was 27° ± 4°. The interobserver ICC of the fusion sagittal angle measurements was 0.92 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56 to 0.97; p < 0.001). The intraobserver ICC for reviewer 1 was 0.95 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.97; p < 0.001) and the intraobserver ICC for reviewer 2 was 0.97 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.98; p < 0.001). Ninety-one percent (103 of 113) of the study group fell within the acceptable range of 20° to 30° ± 2°. The multiple linear regression analyses demonstrated that the preoperative lengths of the whole foot (ß =-0.05 [95% CI -0.12 to 0.02]; p = 0.16), proximal phalanx (ß =-0.13 [95% CI -0.46 to 0.20]; p = 0.44), and first metatarsal (ß = 0.13 [95% CI -0.10 to 0.35]; p = 0.27) were not independently associated with the postoperative fusion sagittal angle. CONCLUSION: The AFT allows for accurate and reproducible positioning of the first MTPJ within the appropriate functional range of dorsiflexion, regardless of foot size. Additionally, this technique can be performed without fluoroscopy and so avoids radiation exposure to the patient and the surgical team. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Secrets of Success in the Management of Lower Extremity Nonunions.

The key to obtaining healing of nonunions in the lower extremity is to provide a balance of biology and stability. To achieve this goal, the surgeon must understand why the bone did not heal with the initial treatment and change the strategy to improve the outcome. Patients need to be optimized before any proposed surgery. Whether the surgeon uses a certain type of internal or external fixation depends on the location on bone, the type (atrophic versus hypertrophic) of nonunion, the local soft tissue, the element of infection, and the health of the host. The mechanical stability of the fixation, especially in the lower extremity, should be robust and allow some early weight bearing. Early weight bearing stimulates healing, decreases osteoporosis, improves the patient's overall health, and allows early return to function. Diagnosis and management of infected nonunions in the lower extremity is also a major key to a successful outcome in this difficult group of patients.

Are There Nationwide Socioeconomic and Demographic Disparities in the Use of Outpatient Orthopaedic Services?

BACKGROUND: Although disparities in the use of healthcare services in the United States have been well-documented, information examining sociodemographic disparities in the use of healthcare services (for example, office-based and emergency department [ED] care) for nonemergent musculoskeletal conditions is limited. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: This study was designed to answer two important questions: (1) Are there identifiable nationwide sociodemographic disparities in the use of either office-based orthopaedic care or ED care for common, nonemergent musculoskeletal conditions? (2) Is there a meaningful difference in expenditures associated with these same conditions when care is provided in the office rather than the ED? METHODS: This study analyzed data from the 2007 to 2015 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). The MEPS is a nationally representative database administered by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality that tracks patient interactions with the healthcare system and expenditures associated with each visit, making it an ideal data source for our study. Differences in the use of office-based and ED care were assessed across different socioeconomic and demographic groups. Healthcare expenditures associated with office-based and ED care were tabulated for each of the musculoskeletal conditions included in this study. The MEPS database defines expenditures as direct payments, including out-of-pocket payments and payments from insurances. In all, 63,514 participants were included in our study. Fifty-one percent (32,177 of 63,514) of patients were aged 35 to 64 years and 29% were older than 65 years (18,445 of 63,514). Women comprised 58% (37,031 of 63,514) of our population, while men comprised 42% (26,483 of 63,514). Our study was limited to the following eight categories of common, nonemergent musculoskeletal conditions: osteoarthritis (40%, 25,200 of 63,514), joint derangement (0.5%, 285 of 63,514), other joint conditions (43%, 27,499 of 63,514), muscle or ligament conditions (6%, 3726 of 63,514), bone or cartilage conditions (8%, 5035 of 63,514), foot conditions (1%, 585 of 63,514), fractures (7%, 4189 of 63,514), and sprains or strains (18%, 11,387 of 63,514). Multivariable logistic regression was used to ascertain which demographic, socioeconomic, and health-related factors were independently associated with differences in the use of office-based orthopaedic services and ED care for musculoskeletal conditions. Furthermore, expenditures over the course of our study period for each of our musculoskeletal categories were calculated per visit in both the outpatient and the ED settings, and adjusted for inflation. RESULTS: After controlling for covariates like age, gender, region, insurance status, income, education level, and self-reported health status, we found substantially lower use of outpatient musculoskeletal care among patients who were Hispanic (odds ratio 0.79 [95% confidence interval 0.72 to 0.86]; p < 0.001), non-Hispanic black (OR 0.77 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.84]; p < 0.001), lesser-educated (OR 0.72 [95% CI 0.65 to 0.81]; p < 0.001), lower-income (OR 0.80 [95% CI 0.73 to 0.88]; p < 0.001), and nonprivately-insured (OR 0.85 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.91]; p < 0.001). Public insurance status (OR 1.30 [95% CI 1.17 to 1.44]; p < 0.001), lower income (OR 1.53 [95% CI 1.28 to 1.82]; p < 0.001), and lesser education status (OR 1.35 [95% CI 1.14 to 1.60]; p = 0.001) were also associated with greater use of musculoskeletal care in the ED. Healthcare expenditures associated with care for musculoskeletal conditions was substantially greater in the ED than in the office-based orthopaedic setting. CONCLUSIONS: There are substantial sociodemographic disparities in the use of office-based orthopaedic care and ED care for common, nonemergent musculoskeletal conditions. Because of the lower expenditures associated with office-based orthopaedic care, orthopaedic surgeons should make a concerted effort to improve access to outpatient care for these populations. This may be achieved through collaboration with policymakers, greater initiatives to provide care specific to minority populations, and targeted efforts to improve healthcare literacy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Differences in Cross-Sectional Intervertebral Foraminal Area From C3 to C7.

STUDY DESIGN: Anatomical comparative study. OBJECTIVES: Few studies have evaluated foraminal areas in the cervical spine without degenerative changes. The purpose of this study was to determine and compare the mean cross-sectional foraminal areas between the C3/4, C4/5, C5/6, and C6/7 levels while also analyzing specimens for differences between sexes and races. METHODS: We performed an anatomic study of the intervertebral foramen at 4 levels (C3/4, C4/5, C5/6, C6/7) in 100 skeletally mature osseous specimens. Specimens were selected to obtain equal number of African American and Caucasian males and females (n = 25/group) aged 20 to 40 years at time of death. Foramina were photographed bilaterally with and without a silicone rubber disc. The maximal vertical height and mid-sagittal width of each foramen were digitally measured and the areas were calculated using an ellipse as a model. RESULTS: The average age at death for all specimens was 30 ± 6 years. The mean cross-sectional area of the C4/5 foramen was significantly smaller compared with the C5/6 (P < .001). C5/6 was significantly narrower than C6/7 (P < .001) foramen with and without disc augmentation. C3/4 was not significantly different from more caudal levels. There was no difference between male and female specimens, while African Americans had smaller foraminal sizes than Caucasians. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the largest anatomical reference of the cervical intervertebral foramen. In a mature spine without facet joint hypertrophy or osteophytic changes, the C4/5 foramen was narrower than C5/6, which was narrower than C6/7. Understanding the relative foraminal areas in the nonpathological cervical spine is crucial to understanding degenerative changes as well as the anatomical changes in pathologies that affect the intervertebral foramen.

The Growing Executive-Physician Wage Gap in Major US Nonprofit Hospitals and Burden of Nonclinical Workers on the US Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: In an era of increasing healthcare costs, the number and value of nonclinical workers, especially hospital management, has come under increased study. Compensation of hospital executives, especially at major nonprofit medical centers, and the "wage gap" with physicians and clinical staff has been highlighted in the national news. To our knowledge, a systematic analysis of this wage gap and its importance has not been investigated. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) How do wage trends compare between physicians and executives at major nonprofit medical centers? (2) What are the national trends in the wages and the number of nonclinical workers in the healthcare industry? (3) What do nonclinical workers contribute to the growth in national cost of healthcare wages? (4) How much do wages contribute to the growth of national healthcare costs? (5) What are the trends in healthcare utilization? METHODS: We identified chief executive officer (CEO) compensation and chief financial officer (CFO) compensation at 22 major US nonprofit medical centers, which were selected from the US News & World Report 2016-2017 Hospital Honor Roll list and four health systems with notable orthopaedic departments, using publicly available Internal Revenue Service 990 forms for the years 2005, 2010, and 2015. Trends in executive compensation over time were assessed using Pearson product-moment correlation tests. As institution-specific compensation data is not available, national mean compensation of orthopaedic surgeons, pediatricians, and registered nurses was used as a surrogate. We chose orthopaedic surgeons and pediatricians for analysis because they represent the two ends of the physician-compensation spectrum. US healthcare industry worker numbers and wages from 2005 to 2015 were obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and used to calculate the national cost of healthcare wages. Healthcare utilization trends were assessed using data from the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research, the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. All data were adjusted for inflation based on 2015 Consumer Price Index. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2015, the mean major nonprofit medical center CEO compensation increased from USD 1.6 ± 0.9 million to USD 3.1 ± 1.7 million, or a 93% increase (R = 0.112; p = 0.009). The wage gap increased from 3:1 to 5:1 with orthopaedic surgeons, from 7:1 to 12:1 with pediatricians, and from 23:1 to 44:1 with registered nurses. We saw a similar wage-gap trend in CFO compensation. From 2005 to 2015, mean healthcare worker wages increased 8%. Management worker wages increased 14%, nonclinical worker wages increased 7%, and physician salaries increased 10%. The number of healthcare workers rose 20%, from 13 million to 15 million. Management workers accounted for 3% of this growth, nonclinical workers accounted for 27%, and physicians accounted for 5% of the growth. From 2005 to 2015, the national cost-burden of healthcare worker wages grew from USD 663 billion to USD 865 billion (a 30% increase). Nonclinical workers accounted for 27% of this growth, management workers accounted for 7%, and physicians accounted for 18%. In 2015, there were 10 nonclinical workers for every one physician. The cost of healthcare worker wages accounted for 27% of the growth in national healthcare expenditures. From 2005 to 2015, the number of inpatient stays decreased from 38 million to 36 million (a 5% decrease), the number of physician office visits increased from 964 million to 991 million (a 3% increase), and the number of emergency department visits increased from 115 million to 137 million (a 19% increase). CONCLUSIONS: There is a fast-rising wage gap between the top executives of major nonprofit centers and physicians that reflects the substantial, and growing, cost of nonclinical worker wages to the US healthcare system. However, there does not appear to be a proportionate increase in healthcare utilization. These findings suggest a growing, substantial burden of nonclinical tasks in healthcare. Methods to reduce nonclinical work in healthcare may result in important cost-savings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE LEVEL: IV, economic and decision analysis.