Association Between Hospital Participation in Value-Based Programs and Timely Initiation of Post-Acute Home Health Care, Functional Recovery, and Hospital Readmission After Joint Replacement.

OBJECTIVES: This study examined the association between hospital participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) or Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) and the timely initiation of home health rehabilitation services for lower extremity joint replacements. Furthermore, this study examined the association between the timely initiation of home health rehabilitation services with improvement in self-care, mobility, and 90-day hospital readmission. METHOD: This retrospective cohort study used Medicare inpatient claims and home health assessment data from 2016 to 2017 for older adults discharged to home with home health following hospitalization after joint replacement. Multilevel multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the association between hospital participation in BPCI or CJR programs and timely initiation of home health rehabilitation service. A 2-staged generalized boosted model was used to examine the association between delay in home health initiation and improvement in self-care, mobility, and 90-day risk-adjusted hospital readmission. RESULTS: Compared with patients discharged from hospitals that did not have BPCI or CJR, patients discharged from hospitals with these programs had a lower likelihood of delayed initiation of home health rehabilitation services for both knees and hip replacement. Using propensity scores as the inverse probability of treatment weights, delay in the initiation of home health rehabilitation services was associated with lower improvement in self-care (odds ratio [OR] = 1.23; 95% CI = 1.20-1.26), mobility (OR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.13-1.18), and higher rate of 90-day hospital readmission (OR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.15-1.24) for knee replacement. Likewise, delayed initiation of home health rehabilitation services was associated with lower improvement in self-care (OR = 1.16; 95% CI = 1.13-1.20) and mobility (OR = 1.26; 95% CI = 1.22-1.30) for hip replacement. CONCLUSION: Hospital participation in BPCI or comprehensive CJR was associated with early home health rehabilitation care initiation, which was further associated with significant increases in functional recovery and lower risks of hospital readmission. IMPACT: Policy makers may consider incentivizing health care providers to initiate early home health services and care coordination in value-based payment models.

Geriatric Distal Femur Fractures Treated With Distal Femoral Replacement Are Associated With Higher Rates of Readmissions and Complications.

OBJECTIVE: Compare mortality and complications of distal femur fracture repair among elderly patients who receive operative fixation versus distal femur replacement (DFR). DESIGN: Retrospective comparison. SETTING: Medicare beneficiaries. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Patients 65 years of age and older with distal femur fracture identified using Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services data from 2016 to 2019. INTERVENTION: Operative fixation (open reduction with plating or intramedullary nail) or DFR. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Mortality, readmissions, perioperative complications, and 90-day cost were compared between groups using Mahalanobis nearest-neighbor matching to account for differences in age, sex, race, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index. RESULTS: Most patients (90%, 28,251/31,380) received operative fixation. Patients in the fixation group were significantly older (81.1 vs. 80.4 years, P < 0.001), and there were more an open fractures (1.6% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001). There were no differences in 90-day (difference: 1.2% [-0.5% to 3%], P = 0.16), 6-month (difference: 0.6% [-1.5% to 2.7%], P = 0.59), and 1-year mortality (difference: -3.3% [-2.9 to 2.3], P = 0.80). DFR had greater 90-day (difference: 5.4% [2.8%-8.1%], P < 0.001), 6-month (difference: 6.5% [3.1%-9.9%], P < 0.001), and 1-year readmission (difference: 5.5% [2.2-8.7], P = 0.001). DFR had significantly greater rates of infection, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and device-related complication within 1 year from surgery. DFR ($57,894) was significantly more expensive than operative fixation ($46,016; P < 0.001) during the total 90-day episode. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients with distal femur fracture have a 22.5% 1-year mortality rate. DFR was associated with significantly greater infection, device-related complication, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, cost, and readmission within 90 days, 6 months, and 1 year of surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

No Increased Risk of Nonunion with Bisphosphonate Use in a Medicare Claims Cohort Following Operatively Treated Long-Bone Fractures.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of a fragility fracture represents an important intervention event for the initiation of medical osteoporosis treatments. However, it is unclear if osteoporosis medications increase the risk of nonunion if administered in the setting of acute fracture. The purpose of the present study was to investigate whether bisphosphonates or selective estrogen receptor modulators/hormone replacement therapy (SERM/HRT) are associated with nonunion following fracture in a Medicare population. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of Medicare claims from 2016 to 2019 was performed to identify patients ≥65 years of age who had a surgically treated long-bone fracture as identified with Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes. Successive claims were linked for each beneficiary through 1 year following the fracture to determine fracture union status. Multivariable logistic regression models were specified to identify the association between medications and fracture union status while controlling for age, sex, race, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), and fracture type. RESULTS: Of the 111,343 included fractures, 10,452 (9.4%) were associated with a diagnosis of nonunion within 1 year. The nonunion group was younger (79.8 ± 8.3 versus 80.6 ± 8.4 years; p < 0.001), more likely to be White (92.4% versus 90.9%; p < 0.001), and more likely to have a CCI of ≥2 (50.9% versus 49.4%; p < 0.001). Bisphosphonate use was more common in the nonunion group (12.2% versus 11.4%; p = 0.017). When controlling for race, age, sex, and CCI, neither bisphosphonates (OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.99 to 1.12]; p = 0.101) nor SERM/HRT (OR, 1.13 [0.93 to 1.36]; p = 0.218) were associated with nonunion. Bisphosphonate use within 90 days post-fracture was not significantly associated with nonunion (OR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.86 to 1.03]; p = 0.175), and the timing of medication administration did not influence fracture union status. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of nonunion after operatively treated long-bone fractures was 9.4%. In this cohort, use of a bisphosphonate or SERM/HRT was not associated with fracture union status at 1 year. Orthopaedic surgeons should not withhold or delay initiating medical therapies for osteoporosis in the setting of acute fracture out of concern for nonunion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

How Does the Effect of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model Vary Based on Surgical Volume and Costs of Care?

BACKGROUND: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation revised the comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program, a mandatory 90-day bundled payment for lower extremity joint replacement, in December 2017, retaining 34 of the original 67 metropolitan statistical areas with higher volume and historic episode payments. OBJECTIVES: We describe differences in costs, quality, and patient selection between hospitals that continued to participate compared with those that withdrew from CJR before and after the implementation of CJR. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used a triple difference approach to compare the magnitude of the policy effect for elective admissions between hospitals that were retained in the CJR revision or not, before and after the implementation of CJR, and compared with hospitals in nonparticipant metropolitan statistical areas. SUBJECTS: 694,275 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing elective lower extremity joint replacement from January 1, 2013 to August 31, 2017. MEASURES: The treatment effect heterogeneity of CJR. RESULTS: Hospitals retained in the CJR policy revision had a greater reduction in 90-day episode-of-care cost compared with those that were allowed to discontinue (-$846, 95% CI: -$1,338, -$435) and had greater cost reductions in the more recent year (2017). We also found evidence that retained CJR hospitals disproportionately reduced treating patients who were older than 85 years. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals that continued to participate in CJR after the policy revision achieved a greater cost reduction. However, the cost reductions were partly attributed to avoiding potential higher - cost patients, suggesting that a bundled payment policy might induce disparities in care delivery.

Do Community-level Disadvantages Account for Racial Disparities in the Safety of Spine Surgery? A Large Database Study Based on Medicare Claims.

BACKGROUND: Racial health disparities across orthopaedic surgery subspecialties, including spine surgery, are well established. However, the underlying causes of these disparities, particularly relating to social determinants of health, are not fully understood. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is there a racial difference in 90-day mortality, readmission, and complication rates ("safety outcomes") among Medicare beneficiaries after spine surgery? (2) To what degree does the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), a community-level marker of social determinants of health, account for racial disparities in safety outcomes? METHODS: To examine racial differences in 90-day mortality, readmission, and complications after spine surgery, we retrospectively identified all 419,533 Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 or older who underwent inpatient spine surgery from 2015 to 2019; we excluded 181,588 patients with endstage renal disease or Social Security disability insurance entitlements, who were on Medicare HMO, or who had missing SVI data. Because of the nearly universal coverage of those age 65 or older, Medicare data offer a large cohort that is broadly generalizable, provides improved precision for relatively rare safety outcomes, and is free of confounding from differential insurance access across races. The Master Beneficiary Summary File includes enrollees' self-reported race based on a restrictive list of mutually exclusive options. Even though this does not fully capture the entirety of racial diversity, it is self-reported by patients. Identification of spine surgery was based on five Diagnosis Related Groups labeled "cervical fusion," "fusion, except cervical," "anterior-posterior combined fusion," "complex fusion," and "back or neck, except fusion." Although heterogeneous, these cohorts do not reflect inherently different biology that would lead us to expect differences in safety outcomes by race. We report specific types of complications that did and did not involve readmission. Although complications vary in severity, we report them as composite measures while being cognizant of the inherent limitations of making inferences based on aggregate measures. The SVI was chosen as the mediating variable because it aggregates important social determinants of health and has been shown to be a marker of high risk of poor public health response to external stressors. Patients were categorized into three groups based on a ranking of the four SVI themes: socioeconomic status, household composition, minority status and language, and housing and transportation. We report the "average race effects" among Black patients compared with White patients using nearest-neighbor Mahalanobis matching by age, gender, comorbidities, and spine surgery type. Mahalanobis matching provided the best balance among propensity-type matching methods. Before matching, Black patients in Medicare undergoing spine surgery were disproportionately younger with more comorbidities and were less likely to undergo cervical fusion. To estimate the contribution of the SVI on racial disparities in safety outcomes, we report the average race effect between models with and without the addition of the four SVI themes. RESULTS: After matching on age, gender, comorbidities, and spine surgery type, Black patients were on average more likely than White patients to be readmitted (difference of 1.5% [95% CI 0.9% to 2.1%]; p < 0.001) and have complications with (difference of 1.2% [95% CI 0.5% to 1.9%]; p = 0.002) or without readmission (difference of 3.6% [95% CI 2.9% to 4.3%]; p < 0.001). Adding the SVI to the model attenuated these differences, explaining 17% to 49% of the racial differences in safety, depending on the outcome. An observed higher rate of 90-day mortality among Black patients was explained entirely by matching using non-SVI patient demographics (difference of 0.00% [95% CI -0.3% to 0.3%]; p = 0.99). However, even after adjusting for the SVI, Black patients had more readmissions and complications. CONCLUSION: Social disadvantage explains up to nearly 50% of the disparities in safety outcomes between Black and White Medicare patients after spine surgery. This argument highlights an important contribution of socioeconomic circumstances and societal barriers to achieving equal outcomes. But even after accounting for the SVI, there remained persistently unequal safety outcomes among Black patients compared with White patients, suggesting that other unmeasured factors contribute to the disparities. This is consistent with evidence documenting Black patients' disadvantages within a system of seemingly equal access and resources. Research on racial health disparities in orthopaedics should account for the SVI to avoid suggesting that race causes any observed differences in complications among patients when other factors related to social deprivation are more likely to be determinative. Focused social policies aiming to rectify structural disadvantages faced by disadvantaged communities may lead to a meaningful reduction in racial health disparities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Patient-reported outcomes following cemented versus cementless primary total knee arthroplasty: a comparative analysis based on propensity score matching.

BACKGROUND: Existing studies of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) based on fixation methods (cemented vs cementless) are limited to single centers with small sample sizes. Using multicentered data,, we compared baseline and early post-operative global and condition-specific PROs between patients undergoing cemented versus cementless TKA. METHODS: With PROs prospectively collected through Comparative Effectiveness Pulmonary Embolism Prevention After Hip and Knee Replacement (PEPPER) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02810704), we examined pre- and post-operative (1, 3, and 6-months) outcomes in 5,961 patients undergoing primary TKA enrolled by 28 medical centers between December 2016 and August 2021. Outcomes included the short-form of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-Jr.), the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Health (PROMIS-PH), and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS). To minimize selection bias, we performed a 1-to-1 propensity score matched analysis to assess relative pre- to post-operative change in outcomes within and between cemented and cementless TKA groups. RESULTS: With greater than 90% follow-up, significant pre to- post-operative improvements were observed in both groups. At 6 months, the cemented TKA group achieved a 3.3 point (55% of the Minimum Clinically Important Difference) greater improvement in the mean KOOS-Jr. (95%CI: 0.36, 6.30; P = 0.028) than did the cementless group with no significant between-group differences in PROMIS-PH and NPRS. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of primary TKAs, patients with cemented fixation reported early incremental benefit in KOOS-Jr. over those with cementless TKA. Future studies are warranted to capture longer follow-up of PROs.

Increased Complications and Cost Associated With Hip Arthroplasty for Femoral Neck Fracture: Evaluation of 576,119 Medicare Patients Treated With Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of total hip arthroplasty (THA) for treatment of osteoarthritis (OA) and femoral neck fractures (FNFs) in the geriatric population is well established. We compare perioperative complications and cost of THA for treatment of OA to hemiarthroplasty (HA) and THA for treatment of FNF. METHODS: Data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services were used to identify all patients 65 years and older undergoing primary hip arthroplasty between 2013 and 2017. Patients were divided into 3 cohorts: THA for OA (n = 326,313), HA for FNF (n = 223,811), and THA for FNF (n = 25,995). Generalized regressions were used to compare group mortality, 90-day readmission, thromboembolic events, and 90-day episode costs, controlling for age, gender, race, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Compared to patients treated for OA, FNF patients were older and had significantly more comorbidities (all P < .001). Even among the youngest age group (65-69 years) without comorbidities, FNF was associated with a greater risk of mortality at 90 days (THA-FNF odds ratio [OR] 9.3, HA-FNF OR 27.0, P < .001), 1 year (THA-FNF OR 7.8, HA-FNF OR 19.0, P < .001) and 5 years (THA-FNF hazard ratio 4.5, HA-FNF hazard ratio 10.0, P < .001). The average 90-day direct cost was $12,479 and $14,036 greater among THA and HA for FNF respectively compared to THA for OA (all P < .001). CONCLUSION: Among Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services hip arthroplasty patients, those with an FNF had significantly higher rates of mortality, thromboembolic events, readmission, and greater direct cost. Reimbursement models for arthroplasty should account for the distinctly different perioperative complication and resource utilization for FNF patients.

Patient selection in the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement model.

OBJECTIVE: To understand whether the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program induces participating hospitals to (1) preferentially select lower risk patients, (2) reduce 90-day episode-of-care costs, (3) improve quality of care, and (4) achieve greater cost reduction during its second year, when downside financial risk was applied. DATA SOURCES: We identified beneficiaries of age 65 years or older undergoing hip or knee joint replacement in the 100% sample of Medicare fee-for-service inpatient (Part A) claims from January 1, 2013 to August 31, 2017. Cases were linked to subsequent outpatient, Part B, home health agency, and skilled nursing facility claims, as well as publicly available participation status for CJR. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated the effect of CJR for hospitals in the 67 metropolitan statistical areas (MSA) selected to participate in CJR (785 hospitals), compared to those in 104 non-CJR MSAs (962 hospitals; maintaining fee-for-service). A difference-in-differences approach was used to detect patient selection, as well as to compare 90-day episode-of-care costs and quality of care between CJR and non-CJR hospitals over the first two performance years. DATA COLLECTION: We excluded 172 hospitals from our analysis due to their preexisting BPCI participation. We focused on elective admissions in the main analysis. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: While reductions in 90-day episode-of-care costs were greater among CJR hospitals (-$902, 95% CI: -$1305, -$499), largely driven by a 16.8% (p < 0.01) decline in 90-day spending in skilled nursing facilities, CJR hospitals significantly reduced the 90-day readmission rate (-3.9%; p < 0.05) and preferentially avoided patients aged 85 years or older (-5.9%; p < 0.01) and Black (-7.0%; p < 0.01). Cost reduction was greater in 2017 than in 2016, corresponding to the start of downside risk. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in CJR was associated with a modest cost reduction and a reduction in 90-day readmission rates; however, we also observed evidence of preferential avoidance of older patients perceived as being higher risk among CJR hospitals.

Is Discretionary Care Associated with Safety Among Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Spine Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Spine surgery and its corresponding costs have increased in recent years and are variable across geographic regions. Discretionary care is the component of spending variation that is independent of illness severity, age, and regional pricing. It is unknown whether greater discretionary care is associated with improved safety for patients undergoing spine surgery, as we would expect from value-based health care. METHODS: We conducted an analysis of 5 spine surgery cohorts based on Medicare claims from 2013 to 2017. Patients were grouped into quintiles based on the Dartmouth Atlas End-of-Life Inpatient Care Index (EOL), reflecting regional spending variation attributed to discretionary care. Multivariable regression examined the association between discretionary care and safety measures while controlling for age, sex, race, comorbidity, and hospital features. RESULTS: We observed a threefold to fourfold variation in 90-day episode-of-care cost across regions, depending on the cohort. Spine-specific spending was correlated with EOL quintile, confirming that spending variation is due more to discretionary care than it is to pricing, age, or illness severity. Greater spending across EOL quintiles was not associated with improved safety, and, in fact, was associated with poorer safety in some cohorts. For example, all-cause readmission was greater in the high-spending EOL quintile relative to the low-spending EOL quintile among the "fusion, except cervical" cohort (14.2% vs. 13.1%; OR = 1.10; 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.20), the "complex fusion" cohort (28.0% vs. 25.4%; OR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.30), and the "cervical fusion" cohort (15.0% vs. 13.6%; OR = 1.12; 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.20). CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation in spending was not explained by differences in illness severity, age, or pricing, and increased discretionary care did not enhance safety. These findings point to inefficient use of health-care resources, a potential focus of reform. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Patients' use of physical therapy for lower back pain: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify factors that influence a patient's decision to use physical therapy (PT) services for a low back pain (LBP) complaint. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative phone interviews were conducted with patients who were offered an early outpatient PT visit secondary to patients' primary appointment for LBP with a non-operative sports medicine specialist physician. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed to identify themes using an iterative process. RESULTS: Forty participants were interviewed; 20 accepted early PT services, and 20 did not. Patients' decisions were influenced by perceived provider training, costs, doctor recommendations, wait times, symptoms, and a desire for a diagnosis. Patients preferred the care of non-operative sports medicine doctors over physical therapists for LBP due to their beliefs that favored doctors' diagnosis and management of LBP. Patients perceived exercise as an effective treatment for back pain. Physical therapists were viewed as an adjunct service, despite positive comments about PT and the belief that exercise is one of the most effective treatments for LBP. CONCLUSION: Barriers including costs, patient preferences, and knowledge about physical therapists limited patients' use of PT. Value-based care strategies aimed at improving the management of LBP increasingly promote the early use of PT. For these strategies to be effective, it is critical that patient perceptions and the influence of barriers on PT use are further understood. This study highlights the need to promote confidence in physical therapists' expertise in the management and diagnosis of lower back pain.

The Impact of Halting Elective Admissions in Anticipation of a Demand Surge Due to the Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: In anticipation of a demand surge for hospital beds attributed to the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) many US states have mandated that hospitals postpone elective admissions. OBJECTIVES: To estimate excess demand for hospital beds due to COVID-19, the net financial impact of eliminating elective admissions in order to meet demand, and to explore the scenario when demand remains below capacity. RESEARCH DESIGN: An economic simulation to estimate the net financial impact of halting elective admissions, combining epidemiological reports, the US Census, American Hospital Association Annual Survey, and the National Inpatient Sample. Deterministic sensitivity analyses explored the results while varying assumptions for demand and capacity. SUBJECTS: Inputs regarding disease prevalence and inpatient utilization were representative of the US population. Our base case relied on a hospital admission rate reported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention of 137.6 per 100,000, with the highest rates in people aged 65 years and older (378.8 per 100,000) and 50-64 years (207.4 per 100,000). On average, elective admissions accounted for 20% of total hospital admissions, and the average rate of unoccupied beds across hospitals was 30%. MEASURES: Net financial impact of halting elective admissions. RESULTS: On average, hospitals COVID-19 demand for hospital bed-days fell well short of hospital capacity, resulting in a substantial financial loss. The net financial impact of a 90-day COVID surge on a hospital was only favorable under a narrow circumstance when capacity was filled by a high proportion of COVID-19 cases among hospitals with low rates of elective admissions. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals that restricted elective care took on a substantial financial risk, potentially threatening viability. A sustainable public policy should therefore consider support to hospitals that responsibly served their communities through the crisis.

Effect of Patient Use of Physical Therapy After Referral for Musculoskeletal Conditions on Future Medical Utilization: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether physical therapy use influenced subsequent use of musculoskeletal-related surgeries, injections, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and other imaging. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients aged 18 to 64 years who had an ambulatory care visit at the University of Utah system, after implementation of the 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems with adequate data collection in the system at the time of the data pull, between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2018. We identified patients (n = 85 186) who received care for a musculoskeletal condition (lower back pain, cervical, knee, shoulder, hip, elbow, ankle, wrist/hand, thoracic, and arthritis diagnoses). Regression analyses were used to evaluate the association between physical therapy use and medical care use while controlling for relevant factors. RESULTS: In patients referred to physical therapy (n = 15 870), physical therapy use (n = 3812) was associated with increased MRI use (incidence rate ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.33; P < .001) and surgery use (incidence rate ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.23; P < .001). Several other factors were also associated with increased health care use, including being referred by an orthopedic provider, obesity, non-lower back pain diagnoses, and having 1 or more comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Outpatient physical therapy use for musculoskeletal conditions in adult patients younger than 65 years at the University of Utah system, a mountain west United States academic health care system, was associated with increased rates of MRI and surgery. This finding is contrary to prior research suggesting that physical therapy improves outcomes in some diagnosis groups. A referral from an orthopedic provider, non-lower back pain diagnoses, and obesity were also associated with increased medical care utilization.

Identifying patients who access musculoskeletal physical therapy: a retrospective cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal conditions are common and cause high levels of disability and costs. Physical therapy is recommended for many musculoskeletal conditions. Past research suggests that referral rates appear to have increased over time, but the rate of accessing a physical therapist appears unchanged. OBJECTIVE: Our retrospective cohort study describes the rate of physical therapy use after referral for a variety of musculoskeletal diagnoses while comparing users and non-users of physical therapy services after referral. METHODS: The study sample included patients in the University of Utah Health system who received care from a medical provider for a musculoskeletal condition. We included a comprehensive set of variables available in the electronic data warehouse possibly associated with attending physical therapy. Our primary analysis compared differences in patient factors between physical therapy users and non-users using Poisson regression. RESULTS: 15 877 (16%) patients had a referral to physical therapy, and 3812 (24%) of these patients accessed physical therapy after referral. Most of the factors included in the model were associated with physical therapy use except for sex and number of comorbidities. The receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.63 suggesting poor predictability of the model but it is likely related to the heterogeneity of the sample. CONCLUSIONS: We found that obesity, ethnicity, public insurance and urgent care referrals were associated with poor adherence to physical therapy referral. However, the limited predictive power of our model suggests a need for a deeper examination into factors that influence patients access to a physical therapist.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Comparing Proximal Row Carpectomy and Four-Corner Arthrodesis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal surgical treatment for scapholunate advanced collapse (SLAC) and scaphoid nonunion advanced collapse (SNAC) remains unclear. To inform clinical decision-makers, we conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing proximal row carpectomy (PRC) and four-corner arthrodesis (FCA). METHODS: A Markov microsimulation model was used to compare clinical outcomes, costs, and health utilities between PRC and FCA. The model used a 10-year time horizon and a 1-month cycle length, and it was evaluated from the societal perspective. Utilities and clinical parameters including transition probabilities for debridement for infection, removal of implants, conversion to total wrist arthrodesis, revision FCA, and revision total wrist arthrodesis were obtained from published literature. Timing of complications was estimated from the literature. Direct medical costs were derived from Medicare ambulatory surgical cost data, and indirect costs for missed work due to surgical procedures and complications were included. The effectiveness outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and 1-way threshold analysis for utilities were performed. RESULTS: In the base-case model, PRC dominated FCA (i.e., PRC had lower cost and greater effectiveness). The mean (and standard deviation) for the total cost and QALYs per patient were $30,970 ± $5,931 and 8.24 ± 1.28, respectively, for PRC and $44,526 ± $11,205 and 8.23 ± 1.26, respectively, for FCA. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, PRC dominated FCA in 57% of the 1 million iterations. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve indicated that PRC is the most cost-effective strategy regardless of the willingness-to-pay threshold up to $100,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: PRC dominated FCA in the base-case analysis and in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis. These results suggest that PRC is the optimal strategy for Stage-I or II SLAC and for SNAC in patients ≥55 years of age. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The Effects of Bundled Payment Programs for Hip and Knee Arthroplasty on Patient-Reported Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes are essential to demonstrate the value of hip and knee arthroplasty, a common target for payment reforms. We compare patient-reported global and condition-specific outcomes after hip and knee arthroplasty based on hospital participation in Medicare's bundled payment programs. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study using the Comparative Effectiveness of Pulmonary Embolism Prevention after Hip and Knee Replacement trial. Differences in patient-reported outcomes through 6 months were compared between bundle and nonbundle hospitals using mixed-effects regression, controlling for baseline patient characteristics. Outcomes were the brief Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score or the brief Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Health Score, and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale, measures of joint function, overall health, and pain, respectively. RESULTS: Relative to nonbundled hospitals, arthroplasty patients at bundled hospitals had slightly lower improvement in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (-1.8 point relative difference at 6 months; 95% confidence interval -3.2 to -0.4; P = .011) and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (-2.3 point relative difference at 6 months; 95% confidence interval -4.0 to -0.5; P = .010). However, these effects were small, and the proportions of patients who achieved a minimum clinically important difference were similar. Preoperative to postoperative change in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Health Score and Numeric Pain Rating Scale demonstrated a similar pattern of slightly worse outcomes at bundled hospitals with similar rates of achieving a minimum clinically important difference. CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving care at hospitals participating in Medicare's bundled payment programs do not have meaningfully worse improvements in patient-reported measures of function, health, or pain after hip or knee arthroplasty.

Potential Selection Bias in Observational Studies Comparing Cervical Disc Arthroplasty to Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study using a national administrative database. OBJECTIVE: To define the cohort differences in patient characteristics between patients undergoing cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in a large national sample, and to describe the impact of those baseline patient characteristics on analyses of costs and complications. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: CDA was initially studied in high quality, randomized trials with strict inclusion criteria. Recently a number of non-randomized, observational studies have been published an attempt to expand CDA indications. These trials are predisposed to falsely attributing differences in outcomes to an intervention due to selection bias. METHODS: Adults undergoing ACDF or CDA between 2004 and 2014 were identified using International Classification of Diseases, 9, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis and procedure codes. Perioperative demographics, comorbidities, complications, and costs were queried. Patient characteristics were compared via chi-square and t tests. Cost, mortality, and complications were compared between ACDF and CDA cohorts using models that adjusted for demographics and comorbidities, as well as "naïve" models that did not. RESULTS: A total of 290,419 procedures, 98.2% ACDF and 1.8% CDA, were included in the sample. Compared with ACDF patients, CDA patients were younger, healthier as evidenced by number of comorbidities, and had an improved socioeconomic status as measured by income and insurance. The naïve logistic regression model showed that hospital costs for CDA were $549 lower than ACDF. In the fully specified model, CDA was $574 more expensive. The naïve model for medical complications suggests a protective advantage for CDA over ACDF, odds ratio of 0.627, P < 0.01. No statistically significant difference was found in the fully specified model in terms of complications. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing CDA were younger and healthier with higher socioeconomic statuses compared with ACDF patients. Accounting for these baseline differences significantly attenuated the apparent benefit for CDR on costs and medical complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Multicenter Comparison Based on Surgical Approaches.

BACKGROUND: Comparisons of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) based on surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the United States are limited to series from single surgeons or institutions. Using prospective data from a large, multicenter study, we compare preoperative to postoperative changes in PROs between posterior, transgluteal, and anterior surgical approaches to THA. METHODS: Patient-reported function, global health, and pain were systematically collected preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively from patients undergoing primary THA at 26 sites participating in the Comparative Effectiveness of Pulmonary Embolism Prevention After Hip and Knee Replacement (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02810704). Outcomes consisted of the brief Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Health score, and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Operative approaches were grouped by surgical plane relative to the abductor musculature as being either anterior, transgluteal, or posterior. RESULTS: Between 12/12/2016 and 08/31/2019, outcomes from 3018 eligible participants were examined. At 1 month, the transgluteal cohort had a 2.2-point lower improvement in Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (95% confidence interval, 0.40-4.06; P = .017) and a 1.3-point lower improvement in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Health score (95% confidence interval, 0.48-2.04; P = .002) compared to posterior approaches. There was no significant difference in improvement between anterior and posterior approaches. At 3 and 6 months, no clinically significant differences in PRO improvement were observed between groups. CONCLUSION: PROs 6 months following THA dramatically improved regardless of the plane of surgical approach, suggesting that choice of surgical approach can be left to the discretion of surgeons and patients without fear of differential early outcomes.