Value Defects in Spine Surgery: How to Reduce Wasteful Care and Improve Value.

Technological innovation has advanced the efficacy of spine surgery for patients; however, these advances do not consistently translate into clinical effectiveness. Some patients who undergo spine surgery experience continued chronic back pain and other complications that were not present before the procedure. Defects in healthcare value, such as the lack of clinical benefit from spine surgery, are, unfortunately, common, and the US healthcare system spends $1.4 trillion annually on value defects. In this article, we examine how avoidable complications, postacute healthcare use, revision surgeries, and readmissions among spine surgery patients contribute to $67 million of wasteful spending on value defects. Furthermore, we estimate that almost $27 million of these costs could be recuperated simply by redirecting patients to facilities referred to as centers of excellence. In total, quality improvement efforts are costly to implement but may only cost about $36 million to fully correct the $67 million in finances misappropriated to value defects. The objectives of this article are to present an approach to eliminate defects in spine surgery, including a center-of-excellence framework for eliminating defects specific to this group of procedures.

Does Reusable Instrumentation for Four-Anchor Rotator Cuff Repair Offer Decreased Waste Disposal Costs and Lower Waste-Related Carbon Emissions?

INTRODUCTION: Orthopaedic surgery is culpable, in part, for the excessive carbon emissions in health care partly due to the utilization of disposable instrumentation in most procedures, such as rotator cuff repair (RCR). To address growing concerns about hospital waste, some have considered replacing disposable instrumentation with reusable instrumentation. The purpose of this study was to estimate the cost and carbon footprint of waste disposal of RCR kits that use disposable instrumentation compared with reusable instrumentation. METHODS: The mass of the necessary materials and their packaging to complete a four-anchor RCR from four medical device companies that use disposable instrumentation and one that uses reusable instrumentation were recorded. Using the cost of medical waste disposal at our institution ($0.14 per kilogram) and reported values from the literature for carbon emissions produced from the low-temperature incineration of noninfectious waste (249 kgCO 2 e/t) and infectious waste (569 kgCO 2 e/t), we estimated the waste management cost and carbon footprint of waste disposal produced per RCR kit. RESULTS: The disposable systems of four commercial medical device companies had 783%, 570%, 1,051%, and 478%, respectively, greater mass and waste costs when compared with the reusable system. The cost of waste disposal for the reusable instrumentation system costs on average $0.14 less than the disposable instrumentation systems. The estimated contribution to the overall carbon footprint produced from the disposal of a RCR kit that uses reusable instrumentation was on average 0.37 kg CO2e less than the disposable instrumentation systems. CONCLUSION: According to our analysis, reusable instrumentation in four-anchor RCR leads to decreased waste and waste disposal costs and lower carbon emissions from waste disposal. Additional research should be done to assess the net benefit reusable systems may have on hospitals and the effect this may have on a long-term decrease in carbon footprint. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

The impact of insurance status on patient placement into inpatient and outpatient orthopaedic surgical centers.

BACKGROUND: Innovation has fueled the shift from inpatient to outpatient care for orthopaedic joint arthroplasty. Given this transformation, it becomes imperative to understand what factors help assign care-settings to specific patients for the same procedure. While the comorbidities suffered by patients are important considerations, recent research may point to a more complex determination. Differences in reimbursement structures and patient characteristics across various insurance statuses could potentially influence these decisions. METHODS: Retrospective binary logistic and ordinary least square (OLS) regression analyses were employed on de-identified inpatient and outpatient orthopaedic arthroplasty data from Albany Medical Center from 2018 to 2022. Data elements included surgical setting (inpatient vs. outpatient), covariates (age, sex, race, obesity, smoking status), Elixhauser comorbidity indices, and insurance status. RESULTS: Patients insured by Medicare were significantly more likely to be placed in inpatient care-settings for total hip, knee, and ankle arthroplasty when compared to their privately insured counterparts even after Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) removed each individual surgery from its inpatient-only-list (1.65 (p < 0.05), 1.27 (p < 0.05), and 12.93 (p < 0.05) times more likely respectively). When compared to patients insured by the other payers, Medicare patients did not have the most comorbidities (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Medicare patients were more likely to be placed in inpatient care-settings for hip, knee, and ankle arthroplasty. However, Medicaid patients were shown to have the most comorbidities. It is of value to note Medicare patients billed for outpatient services experience higher coinsurance rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Major Metropolitan Area COVID-19 - Positive Patients Undergoing Emergency and Elective Orthopaedic Surgeries: A Case-matched Control Study.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic affected surgical management in Orthopaedics. This study explores the effect of COVID-19-positive patients on time to surgery from admission, total time spent in preoperative preparation, costs of orthopaedic care, and inpatient days in COVID-19-positive patients. The authors' case-matched study was based on the surgeon, procedure type, and patient demographics. The authors reviewed 58 cases, 23 males and 35 females. The results for the COVID-19-positive and -negative groups are time to admission (362.9; 388.4), time in preparation (127.8; 122.3), inpatient days to surgery (0.2; 0.2), and orthopaedic cost ($81,938; $86,352). With available numbers, no significant difference could be detected for inpatient days until surgery, any associated time to surgery, or orthopaedic costs for operating on COVID-19-positive patients during the pandemic. Perceived increased time and cost of care of COVID-19-positive patients were not proven in this study. (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 33(1):014-016, 2024).

Direct Variable Cost Comparison of Endoscopic Versus Open Carpal Tunnel Release: A Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: To improve the delivery of value-based health care, a deeper understanding of the cost drivers in hand surgery is warranted. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) offers a more accurate estimation of resource utilization compared with top-down accounting methods. This study used TDABC to compare the facility costs of open carpal tunnel release (OCTR) and endoscopic carpal tunnel release (ECTR). METHODS: We identified 845 consecutive, unilateral carpal tunnel release (516 open, 329 endoscopic) surgeries performed at an orthopaedic specialty hospital between 2015 and 2021. Itemized facility costs were calculated using a TDABC algorithm. Patient demographics, comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and itemized costs were compared between OCTR and ECTR. Multivariate regression was used to determine the independent effect of endoscopic surgery on true facility costs. RESULTS: Total facility costs were $352 higher in ECTR compared with OCTR ($882 versus $530). ECTR cases had higher personnel costs ($499 versus $420), likely because of longer surgical time (15 versus 11 minutes) and total operating room time (35 versus 27 minutes). ECTR cases also had higher supply costs ($383 versus $110). Controlling for demographics and comorbidities, ECTR was associated with an increase in personnel costs of $35.74 (95% CI, $26.32 to $45.15), supply costs of $230.28 (95% CI, $205.17 to $255.39), and total facility costs of $265.99 (95% CI, $237.01 to $294.97) per case. DISCUSSION: Using TDABC, ECTR was 66% more costly to the facility compared with OCTR. To reduce the costs related to endoscopic surgery, efforts to decrease surgical time and negotiate lower ECTR-specific supply costs are warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis Level II.

Handling 'carbon footprint' in orthopaedics.

INTRODUCTION: The National Health Service contributes 4%-5% of England and Wales' greenhouse gases and a quarter of all public sector waste. Between 20% and 33% of healthcare waste originates from a hospital's operating room, and up to 90% of waste is sent for costly and unneeded hazardous waste processing. The goal of this study was to quantify the amount and type of waste produced during a selection of common trauma and elective orthopaedic operations, and to calculate the carbon footprint of processing the waste. METHODS: Waste generated for both elective and trauma procedures was separated primarily into clean and contaminated, paper or plastic, and then weighed. The annual carbon footprint for each operation at each site was subsequently calculated. RESULTS: Elective procedures can generate up to 16.5kg of plastic waste per procedure. Practices such as double-draping the patient contribute to increasing the quantity of waste. Over the procedures analysed, the mean total plastic waste at the hospital sites varied from 6 to 12kg. One hospital site undertook a pilot of switching disposable gowns for reusable ones with a subsequent reduction of 66% in the carbon footprint and a cost saving of £13,483.89. CONCLUSIONS: This study sheds new light on the environmental impact of waste produced during trauma and elective orthopaedic procedures. Mitigating the environmental impact of the operating room requires a collective drive for a culture change to sustainability and social responsibility. Each clinician can have an impact upon the carbon footprint of their operating theatre.

An In-Depth Analysis of Public and Private Research Funding in Orthopaedic Surgery from 2015 to 2021.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the trends and patterns of research funding can aid in enhancing growth and innovation in orthopaedic research. We sought to analyze financial trends in public orthopaedic surgery funding and characterize trends in private funding distribution among orthopaedic surgeons and hospitals to explore potential disparities across orthopaedic subspecialties. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of private and public orthopaedic research funding from 2015 to 2021 using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER through the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research, respectively. Institutions receiving funds from both the NIH and the private sector were classified separately as publicly funded and privately funded. Research payment characteristics were categorized according to their respective orthopaedic fellowship subspecialties. Descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, and Mann-Kendall tests were employed. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Over the study period, $348,428,969 in private and $701,078,031 in public research payments were reported. There were 2,229 unique surgeons receiving funding at 906 different institutions. The data showed that a total of 2,154 male orthopaedic surgeons received $342,939,782 and 75 female orthopaedic surgeons received $5,489,187 from 198 different private entities. The difference in the median payment size between male and female orthopaedic surgeons was not significant. The top 1% of all practicing orthopaedic surgeons received 99% of all private funding in 2021. The top 20 publicly and top 20 privately funded institutions received 77% of the public and 37% of the private funding, respectively. Private funding was greatest (31.5%) for projects exploring adult reconstruction. CONCLUSION: While the amount of public research funding was more than double the amount of private research funding, the distribution of public research funding was concentrated in fewer institutions when compared with private research funding. This suggests the formation of orthopaedic centers of excellence (CoEs), which are programs that have high concentrations of talent and resources. Furthermore, the similar median payment by gender is indicative of equitable payment size. In the future, orthopaedic funding should follow a distribution model that aligns with the existing approach, giving priority to a nondiscriminatory stance regarding gender, and allocate funds toward CoEs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Securing research funding is vital for driving innovation in orthopaedic surgery, which is crucial for enhancing clinical interventions. Thus, understanding the patterns and distribution of research funding can help orthopaedic surgeons tailor their future projects to better align with current funding trends, thereby increasing the likelihood of securing support for their work.

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.

Are Quality Scores in the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services Merit-based Incentive Payment System Associated With Outcomes After Outpatient Orthopaedic Surgery?

BACKGROUND: The Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) ties reimbursement incentives to clinician performance to improve healthcare quality. It is unclear whether the MIPS quality score can accurately distinguish between high-performing and low-performing clinicians. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What were the rates of unplanned hospital visits (emergency department visits, observation stays, or unplanned admissions) within 7, 30, and 90 days of outpatient orthopaedic surgery among Medicare beneficiaries? (2) Was there any association of MIPS quality scores with the risk of an unplanned hospital visit (emergency department visits, observation stays, or unplanned admissions)? METHODS: Between January 2018 and December 2019, a total of 605,946 outpatient orthopaedic surgeries were performed in New York State according to the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database. Of those, 56,772 patients were identified as Medicare beneficiaries and were therefore potentially eligible. A further 34% (19,037) were excluded because of missing surgeon identifier, age younger than 65 years, residency outside New York State, emergency department visit on the same day as outpatient surgery, observation stay on the same claim as outpatient surgery, and concomitant high-risk or eye procedures, leaving 37,735 patients for analysis. The database does not include a list of all state residents and thus does not allow for censoring of patients who move out of state. We chose this dataset because it includes nearly all hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers in a large geographic area (New York State) and hence is not limited by sampling bias. We included 37,735 outpatient orthopaedic surgical encounters among Medicare beneficiaries in New York State from 2018 to 2019. For the 37,735 outpatient orthopaedic surgical procedures included in our study, the mean ± standard deviation age of patients was 73 ± 7 years, 84% (31,550) were White, and 59% (22,071) were women. Our key independent variable was the MIPS quality score percentile (0 to 19th, 20th to 39th, 40th to 59th, or 60th to 100th) for orthopaedic surgeons. Clinicians in the MIPS program may receive a bonus or penalty based on the overall MIPS score, which ranges from 0 to 100 and is a weighted score based on four subscores: quality, promoting interoperability, improvement activities, and cost. The MIPS quality score, which attempts to reward clinicians providing superior quality of care, accounted for 50% and 45% of the overall MIPS score in 2018 and 2019, respectively. Our main outcome measures were 7-day, 30-day, and 90-day unplanned hospital visits after outpatient orthopaedic surgery. To determine the association between MIPS quality scores and unplanned hospital visits, we estimated multivariable hierarchical logistic regression models controlling for MIPS quality scores; patient-level (age, race and ethnicity, gender, and comorbidities), facility-level (such as bed size and teaching status), surgery and surgeon-level (such as surgical procedure and surgeon volume) covariates; and facility-level random effects. We then used these models to estimate the adjusted rates of unplanned hospital visits across MIPS quality score percentiles after adjusting for covariates in the multivariable models. RESULTS: In total, 2% (606 of 37,735), 2% (783 of 37,735), and 3% (1013 of 37,735) of encounters had an unplanned hospital visit within 7, 30, or 90 days of outpatient orthopaedic surgery, respectively. Most hospital visits within 7 days (95% [576 of 606]), 30 days (94% [733 of 783]), or 90 days (91% [924 of 1013]) were because of emergency department visits. We found very small differences in unplanned hospital visits by MIPS quality scores, with the 20th to 39th percentile of MIPS quality scores having 0.71% points (95% CI -1.19% to -0.22%; p = 0.004), 0.68% points (95% CI -1.26% to -0.11%; p = 0.02), and 0.75% points (95% CI -1.42% to -0.08%; p = 0.03) lower than the 0 to 19th percentile at 7, 30, and 90 days, respectively. There was no difference in adjusted rates of unplanned hospital visits between patients undergoing surgery with a surgeon in the 0 to 19th, 40th to 59th, or 60th to 100th percentiles at 7, 30, or 90 days. CONCLUSION: We found that the rates of unplanned hospital visits after outpatient orthopaedic surgery among Medicare beneficiaries were low and primarily driven by emergency department visits. We additionally found only a small association between MIPS quality scores for individual physicians and the risk of an unplanned hospital visit after outpatient orthopaedic surgery. These findings suggest that policies aimed at reducing postoperative emergency department visits may be the best target to reduce overall postoperative unplanned hospital visits and that the MIPS program should be eliminated or modified to more strongly link reimbursement to risk-adjusted patient outcomes, thereby better aligning incentives among patients, surgeons, and the Centers for Medicare ad Medicaid Services. Future work could seek to evaluate the association between MIPS scores and other surgical outcomes and evaluate whether annual changes in MIPS score weighting are independently associated with clinician performance in the MIPS and regarding clinical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

The economic and resource burden of e-scooter-related orthopaedic injuries: A district general hospital's experience.

PURPOSE: Electric scooters (e-scooters) are an increasingly popular method of transportation worldwide. However, there are concerns regarding their safety, specifically with regards to orthopaedic injuries. We aimed to investigate the overall burden and financial impact on orthopaedic services as a result of e-scooter-related orthopaedic injuries. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all e-scooter-related injuries requiring orthopaedic admission or surgical intervention in a large District General Hospital in England over a 16-month period between September 2020 and December 2021. Injuries sustained, surgical management, inpatient stay and resources used were calculated. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients presented with orthopaedic injuries as a result of e-scooter transportation with a mean age of 30.1 years (SD 11.6), of which 62 were males and 17 were females. A total of 86 individual orthopaedic injuries were sustained, with fractures being the most common type of injury. Of these, 23 patients required 28 individual surgical procedures. The combined theatre and recovery time of these procedures was 5500 min, while isolated operating time was 2088 min. The total cost of theatre running time for these patients was estimated at £77,000. A total of 17 patients required hospital admission under Trauma and Orthopaedics, which accounted for total combined stay of 99 days with a mean length of stay of 5.8 days. CONCLUSION: While there are potential environmental benefits to e-scooters, we demonstrate the risks of injury associated with their use and the associated increased burden to the healthcare system through additional emergency attendances, frequent outpatient clinic appointments, surgical procedures, and hospital inpatient admissions.

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.