Implementation of a Private Payer Bundled Payment Model While Maintaining High-Value Lumbar Spinal Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective single-institution cohort. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation of a commercial bundled payment model in patients undergoing lumbar spinal fusion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: BPCI-A caused significant losses for many physician practices, prompting private payers to establish their own bundled payment models. The feasibility of these private bundles has yet to be evaluated in spine fusion. METHODS: Patients undergoing lumbar fusion from October to December 2018 in BPCI-A before our institution's departure were included for BPCI-A analysis. Private bundle data was collected from 2018 to 2020. Analysis of the transition was conducted among Medicare-aged beneficiaries. Private bundles were grouped by calendar year (Y1, Y2, Y3). Stepwise multivariate linear regression was performed to measure independent predictors of net deficit. RESULTS: The net surplus was the lowest in Y1 ($2,395, P =0.03) but did not differ between our final year in BPCI-A and subsequent years in private bundles (all, P >0.05). AIR and SNF patient discharges decreased significantly in all private bundle years compared with BPCI. Readmissions fell from 10.7% (N=37) in BPCI-A to 4.4% (N=6) in Y2 and 4.5% (N=3) Y3 of private bundles ( P <0.001). Being in Y2 or Y3 was independently associated with a net surplus in comparison to the Y1 (ß: $11,728, P =0.001; ß: $11,643, P =0.002). Postoperatively, length of stay in days (ß: $-2,982, P <0.001), any readmission (ß: -$18,825, P =0.001), and discharge to AIR (ß: $-61,256, P <0.001) or SNF (ß: $-10,497, P =0.058) were all associated with a net deficit. CONCLUSIONS: Nongovernmental bundled payment models can be successfully implemented in lumbar spinal fusion patients. Constant price adjustment is necessary so bundled payments remain financially beneficial to both parties and systems overcome early losses. Private insurers who have more competition than the government may be more willing to provide mutually beneficial situations where cost is reduced for payers and health systems. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Assessment of a Private Payer Bundled Payment Model for Lumbar Decompression Surgery.

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.

Evaluation of Hospital Compliance With Federal Price Transparency Regulations and Variability of Negotiated Rates for Spinal Fusion.

INTRODUCTION: To improve price transparency, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) requires hospitals to post accessible pricing data for common elective procedures along with all third-party-negotiated rates. We aimed to evaluate hospital compliance with CMS regulations for both price estimators and machine-readable files for spinal fusions and to evaluate factors contributing to variability in hospital-negotiated pricing. METHODS: We reviewed the top 100 orthopaedic hospitals ranked by US News & World Report to assess compliance with CMS price transparency regulations for all spine diagnosis-related groups. We recorded gross inpatient charge, cash price, and deidentified maximum and minimum rates for the 11 spine diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). Variability was compared with geographic practice costs (GPCI), expected Medicare reimbursements, and poverty rate and median income ratio. RESULTS: Only 72% of hospitals were fully compliant in reporting spinal fusions on their price estimator, and 39% were fully compliant in reporting all mandatory rates for spinal fusions. The overall estimated cash price was $96,979 ± $56,262 and $62,595 ± $40,307 for noncervical and cervical fusion, respectively. Cash prices at top 50 hospitals were higher for both noncervical and cervical fusions ( P = 0.0461 and P = 0.0341, respectively). The average minimum negotiated rates ranged from 0.88 to 1.15 times the expected Medicare reimbursement, while maximum and cash prices were 3.41 to 3.90 and 2.53 to 4.08 times greater than Medicare reimbursement. GPCI demonstrated little to no correlation with DRG pricing. However, minimum negotiated rates and cash prices demonstrated weak positive correlations with the median income ratio and weak negative correlations with the poverty rate. DISCUSSION: Most US hospitals are not fully compliant with CMS price transparency regulations for spinal fusions despite increased overall utilization of price estimators and machine-readable files. Although higher ranked hospitals charged more for spinal fusions, DRG prices remain widely variable with little to no correlation with practice cost or socioeconomic parameters.

Facet Distraction and Dysphagia: A Prospective Evaluation of This Common Postoperative Issue Following Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: Our primary study was to investigate whether the degree of postoperative facet and disk space distraction following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) affects the rate of postoperative dysphagia. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Although ACDF is safe and well tolerated, postoperative dysphagia remains a common complication. Intervertebral disk space distraction is necessary in ACDF to visualize the operative field, prepare the endplates for fusion, and facilitate graft insertion. However, the degree of distraction tolerated, before onset of dysphagia, is not well characterized ACDF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted of 70 patients who underwent ACDF between June 2018 and January 2019. Two independent reviewers measured all preoperative and postoperative radiographs measured for interfacet distraction distance and intervertebral distraction distance, with intrareviewer reproducibility measurements after one month. For multilevel surgery, the level with the greatest distraction was measured. Primary outcomes were numerical dysphagia (0-10), Eating Assessment Tool 10, and Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire score collected at initial visit and two, six, 12, and 24 weeks postoperatively. RESULTS: A total of 70 patients were prospectively enrolled, 59 of whom had adequate radiographs. An average of 1.71 (SD: 0.70) levels were included in the ACDF construct. Preoperatively, 13.4% of patients reported symptoms of dysphagia, which subsequently increased in the postoperative period at through 12 weeks postoperatively, before returning to baseline at 24 weeks. Intrareviewer and interreviewer reliability analysis demonstrated strong agreement. There was no relationship between interfacet distraction distance/intervertebral distraction distance and dysphagia prevalence, numerical rating, Eating Assessment Tool 10, or Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who had an ACDF have an increased risk of dysphagia in the short term, however, this resolved without intervention by six months. Our data suggests increased facet and intervertebral disk distraction does not influence postoperative dysphagia rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Evaluating Outcomes of Spinopelvic Fixation for Patients Undergoing Long Segment Thoracolumbar Fusion with a Prior Total Hip Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Understanding the relationship between spinal fusion and its effects on relative spinopelvic alignment in patients with prior total hip arthroplasty (THA) is critical. However, limited data exist on the effects of long spinal fusions on hip alignment in patients with a prior THA. Our objective was to compare clinical outcomes and changes in hip alignment between patients undergoing long fusion to the sacrum versus to the pelvis in the setting of prior THA. METHODS: Patients with a prior THA who underwent elective thoracolumbar spinal fusion starting at L2 or above were retrospectively identified. Patients were placed into one of two groups: fusion to the sacrum or pelvis. Preoperative, six-month postoperative, one-year postoperative, and delta spinopelvic and acetabular measurements were measured from standing lumbar radiographs. RESULTS: A total of 112 patients (55 sacral fusions, 57 pelvic fusions) were included. Patients who underwent fusion to the pelvis experienced longer length of stay (LOS) (8.31 vs. 4.21, P < 0.001) and less frequent home discharges (30.8% vs. 61.9%, P = 0.010), but fewer spinal revisions (12.3% vs. 30.9%, P = 0.030). No difference was observed in hip dislocation rates (3.51% vs. 1.82%, P = 1.000) or hip revisions (5.26% vs. 3.64%, P = 1.000) based on fusion construct. Fusion to the sacrum alone was an independent predictor of an increased spine revision rate (odds ratio: 3.56, P = 0.023). Patients in the pelvic fusion group had lower baseline lumbar lordosis (LL) (29.2 vs. 42.9, P < 0.001), six-month postoperative LL (38.7 vs. 47.3, P = 0.038), and greater 1-year ∆ pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (-7.98 vs. 0.21, P = 0.032). CONCLUSION: Patients with prior THA undergoing long fusion to the pelvis experienced longer LOS, more surgical complications, and lower rate of spinal revisions. Patients with instrumentation to the pelvis had lower LL preoperatively with greater changes in LL and pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis postoperatively. No differences were observed in acetabular positioning, hip dislocations, or THA revision rates between groups.