American Shoulder & Elbow Surgeons Perspectives on Political Advocacy.

BACKGROUND: Physician involvement in political advocacy has become increasingly important in recent years. This study aims to explore the types of involvement and barriers to involvement in political advocacy among American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) members, identify issues considered most important by ASES members, and assess demographic factors that might correlate with involvement in political advocacy efforts among ASES members. METHODS: This survey was conducted by the ASES Political Advocacy Committee over a two-week period in June 2021. The survey collected demographic information including sex, ethnicity, years in practice, practice type, political affiliation, and level of current involvement in political advocacy. Additional questions consisted of thoughts regarding current health care policy issues and the role of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS)/ASES regarding such policy issues. RESULTS: We received 297 responses for a total response rate of 27%. Of those who responded, 24.6% identified as Democrat, 33% identified as Republican, and 42.4% identified as Independent. There was no difference in political affiliation between membership groups. Physician Reimbursement (82%), Medical Liability Reform (50%), and Physician Ownership (50%) were the most important issues identified among respondents. Physician Ownership, Physician Reimbursement and GME and Student Loan Reform were most important to those in early practice, while Quality and Research was most important to those with greater than 25 years of practice experience. CONCLUSION: There is strong agreement among surgeons regarding the most important political advocacy issues. The efforts of the AAOS and ASES should focus on these areas. Additionally, the vast majority of respondents felt that advocacy efforts had a positive impact on patients and surgeons.

Influence of backside seating parameters and augmented baseplate components in virtual planning for reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The primary goal of this investigation was to examine the influence of a backside seating percentage variable on volume of reamed bone and contact area in virtual planning for glenoid baseplate placement for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). The secondary goal was to assess how the option of augmented glenoid baseplate components affected reamed volume and cortical contact area of virtually positioned baseplates. METHODS: Nine surgeons virtually planned 30 RTSA cases using a commercially available software system. The 30 cases were chosen to span a spectrum of glenoid deformity. The study consisted of 3 phases. In phase 1, cases were planned with the backside seating percentage blinded and without the option of augmented baseplate components. In phase 2, the backside seating parameter was unblinded. In phase 3, augmented baseplate components were added as an option. Implant version and inclination were recorded. By use of computer-assisted design models, total volume of bone reamed, as well as reamed cortical volume and cancellous volume, was calculated. Total, cortical, and cancellous baseplate contact areas were also calculated. Finally, total glenoid lateralization was calculated for each phase and compared. RESULTS: Mean implant version was clinically similar across phases but was statistically significantly lower in phase 3 (P = .006 compared with phase 1 and P = .001 compared with phase 2). Mean implant inclination was clinically similar across phases but was statistically significantly lower in phase 3 (P < .001). Phase 3 had statistically significantly lower cancellous and total reamed bone volumes compared with phase 1 and phase 2 (P < .001 for all comparisons). Phase 3 had statistically significantly larger cortical contact area, lower cancellous contact area, and larger total contact area compared with phase 1 and phase 2 (P < .001 for all comparisons). Phase 3 had significantly greater glenoid lateralization (mean, 10.5 mm) compared with phase 1 (mean, 7.8 mm; P < .001) and phase 2 (mean, 7.9 mm; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Across a wide range of glenoid pathology during virtual surgical planning, experienced shoulder arthroplasty surgeons chose augmented baseplates frequently, and the option of a full-wedge augmented baseplate resulted in statistically significantly greater correction of glenoid deformity, improved total and cortical baseplate contact area, less cancellous reamed bone, and greater glenoid lateralization. Backside seating information does not have a significant impact on how glenoid baseplates are virtually positioned for RTSA, nor does it impact the baseplate contact area or volume of reamed bone.

The impact of prior authorization review on orthopaedic subspecialty care: a prospective multicenter analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prior authorization review (PAR), in the United States, is a process that was initially intended to focus on hospital admissions and costly high-acuity care. Over time, payors have broadened the scope of PAR to include imaging studies, prescriptions, and routine treatment. The potential detrimental effect of PAR on health care has recently been brought into the limelight, but its impact on orthopedic subspecialty care remains unclear. This study investigated the denial rate, the duration of care delay, and the administrative burden of PAR on orthopedic subspecialty care. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter study was performed analyzing the PAR process. Orthopedic shoulder and/or sports subspecialty practices from 6 states monitored payor-mandated PAR during the course of providing routine patient care. The insurance carrier (traditional Medicare, managed Medicare, Medicaid, commercial, worker's compensation, or government payor [ie, Tricare, Veterans Affairs]), location of service, rate of approval or denial, time to approval or denial, and administrative time required to complete process were all recorded and evaluated. RESULTS: Of 1065 total PAR requests, we found a 1.5% (16/1065) overall denial rate for advanced imaging or surgery when recommended by an orthopedic subspecialist. Commercial and Medicaid insurance resulted in a small but statistically significantly higher rate of denial compared to traditional Medicare, managed Medicare, worker's compensation, or governmental insurance (P < .001). The average administrative time spent on a single PAR was 19.5 minutes, and patients waited an average of 2.2 days to receive initial approval. Managed Medicare, commercial insurance, worker's compensation, and Medicaid required approximately 3-4 times more administrative time to process a PAR than to traditional Medicare or other governmental insurance (P < .001). After controlling for the payor, we identified a significant difference in approval or denial based on geographic location (P < .001). An appeal resulted in a relatively low rate of subsequent denial (20%). However, approximately a third of all appeals remained in limbo for 30 days or more after the initial request. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest prospective analysis to date of the impact of PAR on orthopedic subspecialty care in the United States. Nearly all PAR requests are eventually approved when recommended by orthopedic subspecialists, despite requiring significant resource use and delaying care. Current PAR practices constitute an unnecessary process that increases administrative burden and negatively impacts access to orthopedic subspecialty care. As health care shifts to value-based care, PAR should be called into question, as it does not seem to add value but potentially negatively impacts cost and timeliness of care.

Eclipse stemless shoulder prosthesis vs. Univers II shoulder prosthesis: a multicenter, prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Total shoulder arthroplasty is an accepted treatment for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. The Arthrex Eclipse shoulder prosthesis is a stemless, canal-sparing humeral prosthesis with bone ingrowth capacity on the trunnion, as well as through the fenestrated hollow screw, that provides both diaphyseal and metaphyseal load sharing and fixation. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2018, 16 sites in the United States enrolled 327 patients (Eclipse in 237 and Arthrex Univers II in 90). All patients had glenohumeral arthritis refractory to nonsurgical care. Strict exclusion criteria were applied to avoid confounding factors such as severe patient comorbidities, arthritis not consistent with osteoarthritis, and medical or prior surgical treatments that may have affected outcomes. Patients were randomized to the Eclipse or Univers II group via block randomization. RESULTS: In total, 149 Eclipse and 76 Univers II patients reached 2-year follow-up (139 Eclipse patients [93.3%] and 68 Univers II patients [89.5%] had complete data). The success rate using the Composite Clinical Success score was 95% in the Eclipse group vs. 89.7% in the Univers II group. No patient exhibited radiographic evidence of substantial humeral radiolucency, humeral migration, or subsidence at any point. Reoperations were performed in 7 patients (3.2%) in the Eclipse group and 3 (3.8%) in the Univers II group. CONCLUSION: The Arthrex Eclipse shoulder prosthesis is a safe and effective humeral implant for patients with glenohumeral arthritis at 2-year follow-up, with no differences in outcomes compared with the Univers II shoulder prosthesis.