RESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Study. OBJECTIVE: To explore the differences in Medicare reimbursement for lumbar fusion performed at an orthopaedic specialty hospital (OSH) and a tertiary referral center and to elucidate drivers of Medicare reimbursement differences. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: To provide more cost-efficient care, appropriately selected patients are increasingly being transitioned to OSHs for lumbar fusion procedures. There are no studies directly comparing reimbursement of lumbar fusion between tertiary referral centers (TRC) and OSHs. METHODS: Reimbursement data for a tertiary referral center and an orthopaedic specialty hospital were compiled through the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Any patient with lumbar fusions between January 2014 and December 2018 were identified. OSH patients were matched to TRC patients by demographic and surgical variables. Outcomes analyzed were reimbursement data, procedure data, 90-day complications and readmissions, operating room times, and length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: A total of 114 patients were included in the final cohort. The tertiary referral center had higher post-trigger ($13,554 vs. $8,541, P<0.001) and total episode ($49,973 vs. $43,512, P<0.010) reimbursements. Lumbar fusion performed at an OSH was predictive of shorter OR time (ß=0.77, P<0.001), shorter procedure time (ß=0.71, P<0.001), and shorter LOS (ß=0.53, P<0.001). There were no significant differences in complications (9.21% vs. 15.8%, P=0.353) or readmission rates (3.95% vs. 7.89%, P=0.374) between the 2 hospitals; however, our study is underpowered for complications and readmissions. CONCLUSION: Lumbar fusion performed at an OSH, compared with a tertiary referral center, is associated with significant Medicare cost savings, shorter perioperative times, decreased LOS, and decreased utilization of post-acute resources. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Although bundled payment models are well-established in Medicare-aged individuals, private insurers are now developing bundled payment plans. The role of these plans in spine surgery has not been evaluated. Our objective was to analyze the performance of a private insurance bundled payment program for lumbar decompression and microdiskectomy. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of all lumbar decompressions in a private payer bundled payment model at a single institution from October 2018 to December 2020. 120-day episode of care cost data were collected and reported as net profit or loss regarding set target prices. A stepwise multivariable linear regression model was developed to measure the effect of patient and surgical factors on net surplus or deficit. RESULTS: Overall, 151 of 468 (32.2%) resulted in a deficit. Older patients (58.6 vs. 50.9 years, P < 0.001) with diabetes (25.2% vs. 13.9%, P = 0.004), hypertension (38.4% vs. 28.4%, P = 0.038), heart disease (13.9% vs. 7.57%, P = 0.030), and hyperlipidemia (51.7% vs. 35.6%, P = 0.001) were more likely to experience a loss. Surgically, decompression of more levels (1.91 vs. 1.19, P < 0.001), posterior lumbar decompression (86.8% vs. 56.5%, P < 0.001), and performing surgery at a tertiary hospital (84.8% vs. 70.3%, P < 0.001) were more likely to result in loss. All readmissions resulted in a loss (4.64% vs. 0.0%, P < 0.001). On multivariable regression, microdiskectomy (ß: $2,398, P = 0.012) and surgery in a specialty hospital (ß: $1,729, P = 0.096) or ambulatory surgery center (ß: $3,534, P = 0.055) were associated with cost savings. Increasing number of levels, longer length of stay, active smoking, and history of cancer, dementia, or congestive heart failure were all associated with degree of deficit. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperatively optimizing comorbidities and using risk stratification to identify those patients who may safely undergo surgery at a facility other than an inpatient hospital may help increase cost savings in a bundled payment model of working-age and Medicare-age individuals.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: In a retrospective cohort study, we compared the outcomes among clinical and radiographic degenerative spondylolisthesis (CARDS) subtypes for patients undergoing posterior lumbar decompression and fusion (PLDF) or transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and evaluated the CARDS system as a tool to guide clinical decisions regarding the treatment of degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS). METHODS: Patients undergoing PLDF or TLIF for DS from 2010 to 2020 were identified. The patients were grouped by the preoperative CARDS classification. Multivariate analysis was used to determine the effects of the treatment approach on the 1-year patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and 90-day surgical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1056 patients were included: 148 patients with type A DS, 323 with type B, 525 with type C, and 60 with type D. Patients with CARDS types A and C who underwent PLDF experienced a longer length of stay and were less likely to be discharged home. No differences were found in the incidence of revisions, complications, or readmissions between the surgical approaches. Patients with CARDS type A undergoing PLDF were less likely to achieve a minimal clinically important difference for back pain (36.8% vs. 76.7%; P = 0.013). No other significant differences were found in the PROMs among the CARDS subtypes. TLIF independently predicted for better leg pain improvement using the visual analog scale at 1 year of follow-up (ß = -2.92; P = 0.017) for patients with CARDS type A. Multivariable analysis demonstrated no significant differences in PROMs by surgical approach among the other CARDS subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with disc space collapse and endplate apposition (CARDS type A) appear to benefit from TLIF. However, patients with lumbar spondylolisthesis without disc space collapse or kyphotic angulation (CARDS types B and C) showed no benefit from additional interbody placement.
