Search

Competing Interests: The author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Background: Critical access hospitals (CAHs) play an important role in providing access to care for many patients in rural communities. Prior studies have shown that these facilities are able to provide timely and quality care for patients who undergo various elective and emergency general surgical procedures. However, little is known about the quality and reimbursement of surgical care for patients undergoing surgery for hip fractures at CAHs compared with non-CAH facilities., Questions/purposes: Are there any differences in 90-day complications, readmissions, mortality, and Medicare payments between patients undergoing surgery for hip fractures at CAHs and those undergoing surgery at non-CAHs?, Methods: The 2005 to 2014 Medicare 100% Standard Analytical Files were queried using ICD-9 procedure codes to identify Medicare-eligible beneficiaries undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (79.15, 79.35, and 78.55), hemiarthroplasty (81.52), and THA (81.51) for isolated closed hip fractures. This database was selected because the claims capture inpatient diagnoses, procedures, charged amounts and paid claims, as well as hospital-level information of the care, of Medicare patients across the nation. Patients with concurrent fixation of an upper extremity, lower extremity, and/or polytrauma were excluded from the study to ensure an isolated cohort of hip fractures was captured. The study cohort was divided into two groups based on where the surgery took place: CAHs and non-CAHs. A 1:1 propensity score match, adjusting for baseline demographics (age, gender, Census Bureau-designated region, and Elixhauser comorbidity index), clinical characteristics (fixation type and time to surgery), and hospital characteristics (whether the hospital was located in a rural ZIP code, the average annual procedure volume of the operating facility, hospital bed size, hospital ownership and teaching status), was used to control for the presence of baseline differences in patients presenting at CAHs and those presenting at non-CAHs. A total of 1,467,482 patients with hip fractures were included, 29,058 of whom underwent surgery in a CAH. After propensity score matching, each cohort (CAH and non-CAH) contained 29,058 patients. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess for differences in 90-day complications, readmissions, and mortality between the two matched cohorts. As funding policies of CAHs are regulated by Medicare, an evaluation of costs-of-care (by using Medicare payments as a proxy) was conducted. Generalized linear regression modeling was used to assess the 90-day Medicare payments among patients undergoing surgery in a CAH, while controlling for differences in baseline demographics and clinical characteristics., Results: Patients undergoing surgery for hip fractures were less likely to experience many serious complications at a critical access hospital (CAH) than at a non-CAH. In particular, after controlling for patient demographics, hospital-level factors and procedural characteristics, patients treated at a CAH were less likely to experience: myocardial infarction (3% (916 of 29,058) versus 4% (1126 of 29,058); OR 0.80 [95% CI 0.74 to 0.88]; p < 0.001), sepsis (3% (765 of 29,058) versus 4% (1084 of 29,058); OR 0.69 [95% CI 0.63 to 0.78]; p < 0.001), acute renal failure (6% (1605 of 29,058) versus 8% (2353 of 29,058); OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.61 to 0.69]; p < 0.001), and Clostridium difficile infections (1% (367 of 29,058) versus 2% (473 of 29,058); OR 0.77 [95% CI 0.67 to 0.88]; p < 0.001) than undergoing surgery in a non-CAH. CAHs also had lower rates of all-cause 90-day readmissions (18% (5133 of 29,058) versus 20% (5931 of 29,058); OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.86]; p < 0.001) and 90-day mortality (4% (1273 of 29,058) versus 5% (1437 of 29,058); OR 0.88 [95% CI 0.82 to 0.95]; p = 0.001) than non-CAHs. Further, CAHs also had risk-adjusted lower 90-day Medicare payments than non-CAHs (USD 800, standard error 89; p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Patients who received hip fracture surgical care at CAHs had a lower risk of major medical and surgical complications than those who had surgery at non-CAHs, even though Medicare reimbursements were lower as well. Although there may be some degree of patient selection at CAHs, these facilities appear to provide high-value care to rural communities. These findings provide evidence for policymakers evaluating the impact of the CAH program and allocating funding resources, as well as for community members seeking emergent care at local CAH facilities., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study., Competing Interests: Each author certifies that neither he or she, nor any member of his or her immediate family, has funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article. All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2020 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Background: The advent of value-based care, in which surgeons and hospitals accept more responsibility for clinical and financial results, has increased the focus on surgeon- and hospital-specific outcomes. However, methods to identify high-quality, low-cost surgeons are not well developed., Questions/purposes: (1) Is there an association between surgeon THA volume and 90-day Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Part A payments, readmissions, or mortality? (2) What proportion of THAs in the United States is performed by low- and high-volume surgeons?, Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of the CMS Limited Data Set on all primary elective THAs performed in the United States (except Maryland) between January 2013 and June 2016 on patients insured by Medicare. This represented 409,844 THAs totaling more than USD 7.7 billion in direct CMS expenditures. Surgeons were divided into five groups based on annualized volume of CMS elective THAs over the study period. Using linear and logistic regression, we calculated and compared 90-day CMS Part A payments, readmissions, and mortality among the groups. For each episode, demographic information (age, sex, and race), geographic location, and Elixhauser comorbidities were calculated to control for major confounding factors in the regression., Results: When compared with the highest volume group, each lower volume group had increased payments, increased readmission rates, and increased mortality rates in a stepwise fashion when controlling for patient-specific variables including Elixhauser comorbidity index, demographic information, region, and background trend. The lowest volume group resulted in 27.2% more CMS payments per case (p < 0.001; 95% confidence interval [CI], 26.6%-27.8%), had an increased readmission odds ratio (OR) of 1.8 (p < 0.001; 95% CI, 1.7-1.9), and an increased mortality OR of 4.7 (p < 0.001; 95% CI, 4.0-5.5) when compared with the highest volume group. There was also variation within volume groups: some lower volume surgeons had lower payments, readmissions, and mortality than some higher volume surgeons despite the general trend. In terms of CMS volume, surgeons who were at least moderate volume (11+ annual cases) performed 78% of THAs and represented 26% of operating surgeons. The low- and lowest volume surgeons (10 or fewer annual cases) performed only 22% of THAs in the United States while representing 74% of unique operating surgeons., Conclusions: There is a strong association between a surgeon's Medicare volume and lower CMS payments, readmissions, and mortality. Furthermore, the majority of Medicare THAs in the United States are performed by surgeons who perform > 10 CMS operations annually. Compared with previous work, these results suggest a trend toward higher volume surgeons in the Medicare population. The results also suggest a benefit to the shift toward higher volume surgeons in reducing payments, readmissions, and mortality for elective THA in the United States. However, given that payments, readmission, and mortality of surgeons varied widely, it is important to note that available individual CMS data can be used to directly evaluate each individual surgeon based on their actual results well as through association with volume., Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

Background: Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is one of the most widely performed elective procedures; however, there are wide variations in cost and quality among facilities where the procedure is performed., Questions/purposes: The purposes of this study were to (1) develop a generalizable clinical care pathway for primary TJA using inputs from clinical, academic, and patient stakeholders; and (2) identify system- and patient-level processes to provide safe, effective, efficient, and patient-centered care for patients undergoing TJA., Methods: We used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to design a care pathway that spans 14 months beginning with the presurgical office visit and concluding 12 months after discharge. We derived care suggestions from interviews with 16 hospitals selected based on readmission rates, cost, and quality (n = 10) and author opinion (n = 6). A 32-member multistakeholder panel refined the pathway during a 1-day workshop. Participants were selected based on leadership in orthopaedic (n = 4) and anesthesia (n = 1) specialty societies; involvement in organizations specializing in safety and high reliability care (n = 3), lean production/consumption of care (n = 3), and patient experience of care (n = 3); membership in an interdisciplinary care team of a hospital selected for interviewing (n = 8); recent receipt of a TJA (n = 1); and participation in the pathway development team (n = 9)., Results: The care pathway includes 40 suggested processes to improve care, 37 techniques to reduce waste, and 55 techniques to improve communication. Central themes include standardization and process improvement, interdisciplinary communication and collaboration, and patient/family engagement and education. Selected recommendations include standardizing care protocols and staff roles; aligning information flow with patient and process flow; identifying a role accountable for care delivery and communication; managing patient expectations; and stratifying patients into the most appropriate care level., Conclusions: We developed a multidisciplinary clinical care pathway for patients undergoing TJA based on principles of high-value care. The pathway is ready for clinical testing and context-specific adaptation., Level of Evidence: Level V, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: An emphasis on "value" over volume in health care is driving new healthcare measurement, delivery, and payment models. Orthopaedic surgery is a major contributor to healthcare spending and, as such, is the focus of many of these new models. WHERE ARE WE NOW?: An evaluation of "value" in orthopaedics requires information that has not traditionally been collected as part of routine clinical practice. If value is defined as patient outcomes in relation to healthcare costs, we need to collect information about both. In orthopaedics, patient-reported functional status is not routinely measured, and a poor understanding of the costs associated with the provision of musculoskeletal care limits our ability to quantify and report on financial measures. WHERE DO WE NEED TO GO?: To improve the value of musculoskeletal care, we need to focus on both improving outcomes and controlling costs. To improve outcomes, orthopaedists must agree on a set of outcome measures for appropriate care and advocate for their collection through the use of registries. Orthopaedic registries in several countries provide best practices for this information collection and sharing. In the United States, we should make comparable investments in registries to measure patient-reported outcomes. To address escalating costs, we need to improve the accuracy of cost data by applying modern cost accounting processes. HOW DO WE GET THERE?: Orthopaedists should take a leadership position in the promotion and implementation of value-based health care by advocating for the use of registries to measure risk-adjusted patient specific outcomes, negotiating with payors for value-based payment incentives and applying modern cost accounting processes to control costs rather than waiting for public and private payors to define components of the value equation that will affect how orthopaedic surgeons are evaluated and compensated in the future.

As US healthcare expenditures continue to rise, reform has shifted from spending controls to value-based purchasing. This paradigm shift is a drastic change on how health care is delivered and reimbursed. For the shift to work, policymakers and physicians must restructure the present system by using initiatives such as process reengineering, insurance and payment reforms, physician reeducation, data and quality measurements, and technology assessments. Value, as defined in economic terms, will be a critical concept in modern healthcare reform. We summarize the conclusions of this ABJS Carl T. Brighton Workshop on healthcare reform.

While all of medicine is under pressure to increase transparency and accountability, joint replacement subspecialists will face special scrutiny. Disclosures of questionable consulting fees, a demographic shift to younger patients, and uncertainty about the marginal benefits of product innovation in a time of great cost pressure invite a serious and progressive response from the profession. Current efforts to standardize measures by the National Quality Forum and PQRI will not address the concerns of purchasers, payors, or policy makers. Instead, they will ask the profession to document its commitment to appropriateness, stewardship of resources, coordination of care, and patient-centeredness. One mechanism for addressing these expectations is voluntary development of a uniform national registry for joint replacements that includes capture of preoperative appropriateness indicators, device monitoring information, revision rates, and structured postoperative patient followup. A national registry should support performance feedback and quality improvement activity, but it must also be designed to satisfy payor, purchaser, policymaker, and patient needs for information. Professional societies in orthopaedics should lead a collaborative process to develop metrics, infrastructure, and reporting formats that support continuous improvement and public accountability.