Reducing post-operative length of stay, is it worth the effort?

BACKGROUND: Studies show that reducing the length of hospital stay (LOS) for surgical patients leads to cost savings. We hypothesize that LOS has a nonlinear relationship to cost of care and reduction may not have a meaningful impact on it. We have attempted to define the relationship of LOS to cost of care. We utilized the itemized bill, generated in real time, for hospital services. MATERIALS: Adult patients admitted under General, Neuro, and Orthopedic surgery over a 3-month period, with an LOS between 4 and 14 days, were the study population. Itemized bill details were analyzed. Charges in Pakistani rupees were converted to US dollar. Ethical exemption for study was obtained. RESULTS: Of the 853 patients, 38% were admitted to General Surgery, 27% to Neurosurgery, and 35% to Orthopedics. A total of 64% of the patients had an LOS between 4 and 6 days; 36% had an LOS between 7 and 14 days. Operated and conservatively managed constituted 82% and 18%, respectively. Mean total charge for operated patients was higher $3387 versus $1347 for non-operated ones. LOS was seen to have a nonlinear relationship to in-hospital cost of care. The bulk of cost was centered on the day of surgery. This was consistent across all services. The last day of stay contributed 2.4%-3.2% of total charge. CONCLUSIONS: For surgical patients, the cost implications rapidly taper in the postoperative period. The contribution of the last day of stay cost to total cost is small. For meaningful cost containment, focus needs to be on the immediate perioperative period.

Using PROMIS Scores to Provide Cost-Conscious Follow-up After Foot and Ankle Surgery.

BACKGROUND: National campaigns in the United States, such as Choosing Wisely, emphasize that decreasing low-value office visits maximizes health care value. Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are frequently used to quantify postoperative outcomes, they have not been assessed as a tool to help guide clinicians consider alternatives or discontinue in-person follow-up visits. The purpose of this study is to assess the frequency and cost of in-person follow-up visits after patients report substantial improvement defined as 2 consecutive improvements above preoperative Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) scores. METHODS: Retrospective PROMIS PI data were obtained between 2015 and 2020 for common elective foot (n = 759) and ankle (n = 578) surgical procedures. Patients were divided into quartiles according to their preoperative PI score. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate time to substantial improvement. Substantial improvement was defined as having 2 consecutive postoperative minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) above preoperative PROMIS PI scores. MCID was measured using the distribution-based method. Multivariable negative binomial models were used to determine the number of visits and direct associated costs after substantial improvement. The cost to payors was estimated using reimbursement rates. RESULTS: Within 3 months, 12% to 46% of foot and 16% to 61% of ankle patients achieved substantial improvement. Results vary by preoperative pain quartile, with patients who report higher preoperative pain scores achieving earlier improvement. After achieving substantial improvement, foot and ankle patients averaged 3.60 and 4.01 follow-up visits during the remaining 9 months of the year. Visit costs averaged $266 and $322 per foot and ankle patient respectively. CONCLUSION: Postoperative follow-up visits are time-consuming and costly. Physicians might consider objective measures, such as PROMIS PI, to determine the need, timing, and alternatives for in-person follow-up visits for elective foot and ankle surgeries after patients demonstrate reliable clinical improvement. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study at a single institution.

The Impact of Unexpected Billing in Spine Surgery and How the Price Calculator Can Improve Patient Care.

STUDY DESIGN: Survey study. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the impact of unexpected in-network billing on the patient experience after spinal surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The average American household faces difficulty paying unexpected medical bills. Although legislative efforts have targeted price transparency and rising costs, elective surgical costs continue to rise significantly. Patients are therefore sometimes still responsible for unexpected medical costs, the impact of which is unknown in spine surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective spine surgery patients from January 2021 to January 2022 at a single institution were surveyed regarding their experience with the billing process. Demographic characteristics associated with unexpected billing situations, patient satisfaction, and financial distress, along with utilization and evaluation of the online price estimator, were collected. RESULTS: Of 818 survey participants, 183 (22.4%) received an unexpected in-network bill, and these patients were younger (56.7 vs. 63.4 y, P <0.001). Patients who received an unexpected bill were more likely to feel uninformed about billing (41.2% vs. 21.7%, P <0.001) and to report that billing impacted surgical satisfaction (53.8% vs. 19.1%, P <0.001). However, both groups reported similar satisfaction postoperatively (Likert >3/5: 86.0% vs. 85.5%, P =0.856). Only 35 (4.3%) patients knew of the price estimator's existence. The price estimator was reported to be very easy or easy (N=18, 78.2%) to understand and very accurate (N=6, 35.3%) or somewhat accurate (N=8, 47.1%) in predicting costs. CONCLUSIONS: Despite new regulations, a significant portion of patients received unexpected bills leading to financial distress and affecting their surgical experience. Although most patients were unaware of the price estimator, almost all patients who did know of it found it to be easy to use and accurate in cost prediction. Patients may benefit from targeted education efforts, including information on the price estimator to alleviate unexpected financial burden.

Geographic Financial Analysis of Craniosynostosis Surgery in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate the financial implications of demographic and socioeconomic factors upon the cost of surgical procedures for craniosynostosis. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of admissions for craniosynostosis surgery in the United States from 2015 through 2020 using the Pediatric Health Information System. Patient demographics, case volume, and surgical approach were analyzed in context of hospital charges. RESULTS: During the study interval, 3869 patients were admitted for surgery for craniosynostosis. In multivariate regression accounting for demographic and socioeconomic factors, hospital admission charges were significantly higher in patients with longer hospital length of stay ( P < 0.001), longer ICU length of stay ( P < 0.001), living in an underserved area ( P = 0.046), preoperative risk factors ( P = 0.016), and those undergoing open procedures ( P < 0.001); hospital admission charges were significantly lower in patients with White race ( P = 0.020) and those treated at high-volume centers ( P < 0.001). In multivariate regression, ICU length of stay was significantly higher in patients with preoperative risk factors ( P < 0.001), undergoing open procedures ( P < 0.001), government insurance ( P = 0.018), and not treated at high-volume centers ( P = 0.005). There were significant differences in admission charges ( P < 0.001), charge-to-cost ratios ( P < 0.001), and likelihood of being treated at high-volume craniofacial centers ( P < 0.001) across geographic regions of the country. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, there is significant sociodemographic variability in charges for craniosynostosis care, with increased hospital charges independently associated with non-White race, preoperative risk factors, and living in an underserved area.

How Did Orthopaedic Surgeons Perform in the 2018 Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System?

BACKGROUND: The Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) is the latest value-based payment program implemented by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. As performance-based bonuses and penalties continue to rise in magnitude, it is essential to evaluate this program's ability to achieve its core objectives of quality improvement, cost reduction, and competition around clinically meaningful outcomes. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked the following: (1) How do orthopaedic surgeons differ on the MIPS compared with surgeons in other specialties, both in terms of the MIPS scores and bonuses that derive from them? (2) What features of surgeons and practices are associated with receiving penalties based on the MIPS? (3) What features of surgeons and practices are associated with receiving a perfect score of 100 based on the MIPS? METHODS: Scores from the 2018 MIPS reporting period were linked to physician demographic and practice-based information using the Medicare Part B Provider Utilization and Payment File, the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System Data (NPPES), and National Physician Compare Database. For all orthopaedic surgeons identified within the Physician Compare Database, there were 15,210 MIPS scores identified, representing a 72% (15,210 of 21,124) participation rate in the 2018 MIPS. Those participating in the MIPS receive a final score (0 to 100, with 100 being a perfect score) based on a weighted calculation of performance metrics across four domains: quality, promoting interoperability, improvement activities, and costs. In 2018, orthopaedic surgeons had an overall mean ± SD score of 87 ± 21. From these scores, payment adjustments are determined in the following manner: scores less than 15 received a maximum penalty adjustment of -5% ("penalty"), scores equal to 15 did not receive an adjustment ("neutral"), scores between 15 and 70 received a positive adjustment ("positive"), and scores above 70 (maximum 100) received both a positive adjustment and an additional exceptional performance adjustment with a maximum adjustment of +5% ("bonus"). Adjustments among orthopaedic surgeons were compared across various demographic and practice characteristics. Both the mean MIPS score and the resulting payment adjustments were compared with a group of surgeons in other subspecialties. Finally, multivariable logistic regression models were generated to identify which variables were associated with increased odds of receiving a penalty as well as a perfect score of 100. RESULTS: Compared with surgeons in other specialties, orthopaedic surgeons' mean MIPS score was 4.8 (95% CI 4.3 to 5.2; p < 0.001) points lower. From this difference, a lower proportion of orthopaedic surgeons received bonuses (-5.0% [95% CI -5.6 to -4.3]; p < 0.001), and a greater proportion received penalties (+0.5% [95% CI 0.2 to 0.8]; p < 0.001) and positive adjustments (+4.6% [95% CI 6.1 to 10.7]; p < 0.001) compared with surgeons in other specialties. After controlling for potentially confounding variables such as gender, years in practice, and practice setting, small (1 to 49 members) group size (adjusted odds ratio 22.2 [95% CI 8.17 to 60.3]; p < 0.001) and higher Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) scores (aOR 2.32 [95% CI 1.35 to 4.01]; p = 0.002) were associated with increased odds of a penalty. Also, after controlling for potential confounding, we found that reporting through an alternative payment model (aOR 28.7 [95% CI 24.0 to 34.3]; p < 0.001) was associated with increased odds of a perfect score, whereas small practice size (1 to 49 members) (aOR 0.35 [95% CI 0.31 to 0.39]; p < 0.001), a high patient volume (greater than 500 Medicare patients) (aOR 0.82 [95% CI 0.70 to 0.95]; p = 0.01), and higher HCC score (aOR 0.79 [95% Cl 0.66 to 0.93]; p = 0.006) were associated with decreased odds of a perfect MIPS score. CONCLUSION: Collectively, orthopaedic surgeons performed well in the second year of the MIPS, with 87% earning bonus payments. Among participating orthopaedic surgeons, individual reporting affiliation, small practice size, and more medically complex patient populations were associated with higher odds of receiving penalties and lower odds of earning a perfect score. Based on these findings, we recommend that individuals and orthopaedic surgeons in small group practices strive to forge partnerships with larger hospital practices with adequate ancillary staff to support quality reporting initiatives. Such partnerships may help relieve surgeons of growing administrative obligations and allow for maintained focus on direct patient care activities. Policymakers should aim to produce a shortened panel of performance measures to ensure more standardized comparison and less time and energy diverted from established clinical workflows. The current MIPS scoring methodology should also be amended with a complexity modifier to ensure fair evaluation of surgeons practicing in the safety net setting, or those treating patients with a high comorbidity burden. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Direct medical costs after surgical or nonsurgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal disease: A nationwide matched cohort study with a 10-year follow-up.

OBJECTIVE: The demand for treating degenerative lumbar spinal disease has been increasing, leading to increased utilization of medical resources. Thus, we need to understand how the budget of insurance is currently used. The objective of the present study is to overview the utilization of the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS) by providing the direct insured cost between patients receiving surgery and patients receiving nonsurgical treatment for degenerative lumbar disease. METHODS: The NHIS-National Sample Cohort was utilized to select patients with lumbar disc herniation, spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis or spondylolysis. A matched cohort study design was used to show direct medical costs of surgery (n = 2,698) and nonsurgical (n = 2,698) cohorts. Non-surgical treatment included medication, physiotherapy, injection, and chiropractic. The monthly costs of the surgery cohort and nonsurgical cohort were presented at initial treatment, posttreatment 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and yearly thereafter for 10 years. RESULTS: The characteristics and matching factors were well-balanced between the matched cohorts. Overall, surgery cohort spent $50.84/patient/month, while the nonsurgical cohort spent $29.34/patient/month (p<0.01). Initially, surgery treatment led to more charge to NHIS ($2,762) than nonsurgical treatment ($180.4) (p<0.01). Compared with the non-surgical cohort, the surgery cohort charged $33/month more for the first 3 months, charged less at 12 months, and charged approximately the same over the course of 10 years. CONCLUSION: Surgical treatment initially led to more government reimbursement than nonsurgical treatment, but the charges during follow-up period were not different. The results of the present study should be interpreted in light of the costs of medical services, indirect costs, societal cost, quality of life and societal willingness to pay in each country. The monetary figures are implied to be actual economic costs but those in the reimbursement system instead reflect reimbursement charges from the government.

Three months in a high-volume tertiary orthopaedic trauma unit: What is a registrar worth?

BACKGROUND: South Africa has a high burden of traumatic injuries that is predominantly managed in the public healthcare system, despite the relative disparity in human resources between the public and private sectors. Because of budget and theatre time constraints, the trauma waiting list often exceeds 50 - 60 patients who need urgent and emergent surgery in high-volume orthopaedic trauma centres. This situation is exacerbated by other surgical disciplines using orthopaedic theatre time for life-threatening injuries because of lack of own theatre availability. One of the proposed solutions to this problem is outsourcing of some of the cases to private medical facilities. OBJECTIVES: To establish the volume of work done by an orthopaedic registrar during a 3-month trauma rotation, and to calculate the implant and theatre costs, as well as compare the salary of a registrar with the theoretical private surgeon fees for procedures performed by the registrar in the 3-month period. METHODS: In a retrospective study, the surgical logbook of a single registrar during a 3-month rotation, from 14 January to 14 April 2019, was reviewed. Surgeon fees were calculated for these procedures, according to current medical aid rates, without additional modifier codes being added. RESULTS: During the 3-month study period, a total of 157 surgical procedures was performed, ranging from total hip arthroplasty to debridement of septic hands. Surgeon fees amounted to ZAR186 565.10 per month ‒ double the gross salary of a registrar. Total implant costs amounted to ZAR1 272 667. Theatre costs were ZAR1 301 976 for the 3-month period. CONCLUSIONS: Although this analysis was conducted over a short period, it highlights the significant amount of trauma work done by a single individual at a high-volume tertiary orthopaedic trauma unit. With increasing budget constraints, pressure on theatre time and a growing population, cost-effective expansion of resources is needed. From this study, it appears that increasing capacity in the state sector could be cheaper than private outsourcing, although a more in-depth analysis needs to be conducted.

Comparative study between admission, orthopaedic surgery, and economic trends during Covid-19 and non-Covid-19 pandemic in an Italian tertiary hospital: a retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic represents one of the most massive health emergencies in the last century and has caused millions of deaths worldwide and a massive economic and social burden. The aim of this study was to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic-during the Italian lockdown period between 8 March and 4 May 2020-influenced orthopaedic access for traumatic events to the Emergency Department (ER). METHODS: A retrospective review of the admission to the emergency room and the discharge of the trauma patients' records was performed during the period between 8 March and 4 May 2020 (block in Italy), compared to the same period of the previous year (2019). Patients accesses, admissions, days of hospitalisation, frequency, fracture site, number and type of surgery, the time between admission and surgery, days of hospitalisation, and treatment cost according to the diagnosis-related group were collected. Chi-Square and ANOVA test were used to compare the groups. RESULTS: No significant statistical difference was found for the number of emergency room visits and orthopaedic hospitalisations (p < 0.53) between the year 2019 (9.5%) and 2020 (10.81%). The total number of surgeries in 2019 was 119, while in 2020, this was just 48 (p < 0.48). A significant decrease in the mean cost of orthopaedic hospitalisations was detected in 2020 compared (261.431 euros, equal to - 52.07%) relative to the same period in 2019 (p = 0.005). Although all the surgical performances have suffered a major decline, the most frequent surgery in 2020 was intramedullary femoral nailing. CONCLUSION: We detected a decrease in traumatic occasions during the lockdown period, with a decrease in fractures in each district and a consequent decrease in the diagnosis-related group (DRG).

Patient Perspectives on the Cost of Hand Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Health-care expenditures in the U.S. are continually rising, prompting providers, patients, and payers to search for solutions to reduce costs while maintaining quality. The present study seeks to define the out-of-pocket price that patients undergoing hand surgery are willing to pay, and also queries the potential cost-cutting measures that patients are most and least comfortable with. We hypothesized that respondents would be less accepting of higher out-of-pocket costs. METHODS: A survey was developed and distributed to paid, anonymous respondents through Amazon Mechanical Turk. The survey introduced 3 procedures: carpal tunnel release, cubital tunnel release, and open reduction and internal fixation of a distal radial fracture. Respondents were randomized to 1 of 5 out-of-pocket price options for each procedure and asked if they would pay that price. Respondents were then presented with various cost-saving methods and asked to select the options that made them most uncomfortable, even if those would save them out-of-pocket costs. RESULTS: There were 1,408 respondents with a mean age of 37 years (range, 18 to 74 years). Nearly 80% of respondents were willing to pay for all 3 of the procedures regardless of which price they were presented. Carpal tunnel release was the most price-sensitive, with rejection rates of 17% at the highest price ($3,000) and 6% at the lowest ($250). Open reduction and internal fixation was the least price-sensitive, with rejection rates of 11% and 6% at the highest and lowest price, respectively. The use of older-generation implants was the least acceptable cost-cutting measure, at 50% of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed that most patients are willing to pay a considerable amount of money out of pocket for hand surgery after the condition, treatment, and outcomes are explained to them. Furthermore, respondents are hesitant to sacrifice advanced technology despite increased costs.

Discrepancies Created by Surgeon Self-Reported Operative Time and the Effects on Procedural Relative Value Units and Reimbursement.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate discrepancies between operative times in the ACS NSQIP (American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project) and self-reported operative time from the American Medical Association's Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC) and their effect on relative value units (RVU) determination. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional review of registry data using the ACS NSQIP 2016 Participant User File and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services physician procedure time file for 2018. We analyzed total RVUs for surgeries by operative time to calculate RVU per hour and stratified by specialty. Multivariate regression analysis adjusted for patient comorbidities, age, length of stay, and ACS NSQIP mortality and morbidity probabilities. The surgeon self-reported operative times from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services physician were compared with operative times recorded in the ACS NSQIP, with excess time from RUC estimates termed "overreported time." RESULTS: Analysis of 901,917 surgeries revealed a wide variation in median RVU per hour between specialties. Orthopedics (14.3), neurosurgery (12.9), and general surgery (12.1) had the highest RVU per hour, whereas gynecology (10.2), plastic surgery (9.5), and otolaryngology (9) had the lowest (P<.001 for all comparisons). These results remained unchanged on multivariate regression analysis. General surgery had the highest median overreported operative time (+26 minutes) followed by neurosurgery (+23.5 minutes) and urology (+20 minutes). Overreporting of the operative time strongly correlated to higher RVU per hour (r=0.87, P=.002). CONCLUSION: Despite reliable electronic records, the AMA-RUC continues to use inaccurate self-reported RUC surveys for operative times. This results in discrepancies in RVU per hour (and subsequent reimbursement) across specialties and a persistent disparity for women-specific procedures in gynecology. Relative value unit levels should be based on the available objective data to eliminate these disparities.

Short-term general, gynecologic, orthopedic, and pediatric surgical mission trips in Nicaragua: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Short-term surgical missions facilitated by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) may be a possible platform for cost-effective international global surgical efforts. The objective of this study is to determine if short-term surgical mission trips provided by the non-governmental organization (NGO) Esperança to Nicaragua from 2016 to 2020 are cost-effective. METHODS: Using a provider perspective, the costs of implementing the surgical trips were collected via Esperança's previous trip reports. The reports and patient data were analyzed to determine disability-adjusted life years averted from each surgical procedure provided in Nicaragua from 2016-2020. Average cost-effectiveness ratios for each surgical trip specialty were calculated to determine the average cost of averting one disability-adjusted life year. RESULTS: Esperança's surgical missions' program in Nicaragua from 2016 to 2020 was found to be cost-effective, with pediatric and gynecology surgical specialties being highly cost-effective and general and orthopedic surgical specialties being moderately cost-effective. These results were echoed in both scenarios of the sensitivity analysis, except for the orthopedic specialty which was found to not be cost-effective when testing an increased discount rate. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of short-term surgical missions provided by NGOs can be cost-effective, but limitations include inconsistent data from a societal perspective and lack of an appropriate counterfactual. Future studies should examine the capacity for NGOs to collect adequate data and conduct rigorous economic evaluations.

Compensation claims in pediatric orthopedics in Norway between 2012 and 2018: a nationwide study of 487 patients.

Background and purpose - In Norway all compensation claims based on healthcare services are handled by a government agency (NPE, Norsk Pasientskade Erstatning). We provide an epidemiological overview of claims within pediatric orthopedics in Norway, and identify the most common reasons for claims and compensations.Patients and methods - All compensation claims handled by NPE from 2012 to 2018 within pediatric orthopedics (age 0 to 17 years) were reviewed. Data were analyzed with regard to patient demographics, diagnoses, type of injury, type of treatment, reasons for granted compensation, and total payouts.Results - 487 compensation claims (259 girls, 228 boys) within orthopedic surgery in patients younger than 18 years at time of treatment were identified. Mean age was 12 years (0-17). 150 out of 487 claims (31%) resulted in compensation, including 79 compensations for inadequate treatment, 58 for inadequate diagnostics, 12 for infections, and 1 based on the exceptional rule. Total payouts were US$8.45 million. The most common primary diagnoses were: upper extremity injuries (26%), lower extremity injuries (24%), congenital malformations and deformities (12%), spine deformities (11%), disorders affecting peripheral joints (9%), chondropathies (6%), and others (12%).Interpretation - Most claims were submitted and granted for mismanagement of fractures in the upper and lower extremity, and mismanagement of congenital malformations and disorders of peripheral joints. Knowledge of the details of malpractice claims should be implemented in educational programs and assist pediatric orthopedic surgeons to develop guidelines in order to improve patient safety and quality of care.

Transition to Independent Research Funding Among National Institutes of Health K Grant Awardees at Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports mentored research career development awards (K awards) to increase the pipeline of independently funded scientists. This study analyzed the portfolio of K grants that were awarded to orthopaedic surgery departments and characterized the factors that were associated with successful transition to independent NIH research funding, including R01 grants. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of K-award recipients in orthopaedic surgery departments in the United States from 1996 to 2018. A query was performed on the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) database for NIH grants that were awarded to departments of orthopaedic surgery, general surgery, otolaryngology, obstetrics and gynecology, ophthalmology, and urology. Rates of transition to independent research funding were compared by specialty for K grants that were awarded from 1996 to 2011. The percentage of faculty with mentored research career development awards and the return on investment (ROI) were calculated. An internet and Scopus (Elsevier) database search determined the investigator characteristics. The factors that were associated with successful transition to independent funding were determined via chi-square and unpaired t tests. RESULTS: Sixty K-award recipients were identified in orthopaedic surgery departments. Most were men (77%) and research scientists (53%). Fifty percent of the K-award recipients transitioned to independent research funding. Research scientists had the highest rate of transition to independent research funding (71%, p = 0.016) relative to clinicians (0%) and orthopaedic surgeons (40%). Higher levels of publication productivity were associated with successful transition to independent research funding. Similar rates of transition to independent research funding existed among surgical specialties (p = 0.107). Orthopaedic surgery had the lowest percentage of faculty with a K award (1.4%) but had the highest ROI (198%) of these awards. CONCLUSIONS: Orthopaedic surgery had similar rates of transition to independent research funding when compared with other surgical specialties but had a lower prevalence of K awards among faculty. Orthopaedic surgeon-scientists have lower rates of transition to independent research funding when compared with their research-scientist colleagues. These findings highlight a need for greater support to foster the pipeline of future NIH-funded orthopaedic investigators. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As the largest support of biomedical research in the U.S., the NIH is an important stakeholder in orthopaedic innovations and discoveries. This study highlights barriers in the procurement of NIH funding across surgical specialties and affirms the need for greater resources toward supporting NIH funding in orthopaedic surgery.

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.

Orthopedic Versus Podiatric Care of the Foot and Ankle: A Literature Review.

As the scope of podiatric surgery expands, the relative roles and outcomes of orthopedic surgeons and podiatrists need to be defined. With growing demand for foot and ankle services, the roles of podiatrists and orthopedic surgeons are increasingly overlapping. Few studies have examined the overlapping scope of practice of each of the groups or compared the relative costs and outcomes associated with each.

Recent Trends in Medicare Utilization and Reimbursement for Orthopaedic Procedures Performed at Ambulatory Surgery Centers.

BACKGROUND: As part of a market-driven response to the increasing costs of hospital-based surgical care, an increasing volume of orthopaedic procedures are being performed in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). The purpose of the present study was to identify recent trends in orthopaedic ASC procedure volume, utilization, and reimbursements in the Medicare system between 2012 and 2017. METHODS: This cross-sectional, national study tracked annual Medicare claims and payments and aggregated data at the county level. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression models were used to evaluate trends in procedure volume, utilization rates, and reimbursement rates, and to identify demographic predictors of ASC utilization. RESULTS: A total of 1,914,905 orthopaedic procedures were performed at ASCs in the Medicare population between 2012 and 2017, with an 8.8% increase in annual procedure volume and a 10.5% increase in average reimbursements per case. ASC orthopaedic procedure utilization, including utilization across all subspecialties, is strongly associated with metropolitan areas compared with rural areas. In addition, orthopaedic procedure utilization, including for sports and hand procedures, was found to be significantly higher in wealthier counties (measured by average household income) and in counties located in the South. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated increasing orthopaedic ASC procedure volume in recent years, driven by increases in hand procedure volume. Medicare reimbursements per case have steadily risen and outpaced the rate of inflation over the study period. However, as orthopaedic practice overhead continues to increase, other Medicare expenditures such as hospital payments and operational and implant costs also must be evaluated. These findings may provide a source of information that can be used by orthopaedic surgeons, policy makers, investors, and other stakeholders to make informed decisions regarding the costs and benefits of the use of ASCs for orthopaedic procedures.