Search

Abstract: Health-care expenses have been projected to increase from 17.7% of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2014 to 19.6% in 2024. The unsustainable increase in health-care costs has contributed toward support for value-based health care (VBHC) reform. Contemporary VBHC reform programs relevant to orthopaedic surgery include the voluntary Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiatives (BPCI and BPCI-Advanced) and the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program, a mandatory bundled payment program.The purported benefits of transitioning from volume-based reimbursement to value-based reimbursement include moving from a fragmented provider-centered care model to a patient-centered model, with greater care coordination and alignment among providers focused on improving value. VBHC models allow innovative strategies to proactively invest resources to promote value (e.g., the use of nurse navigators) while eliminating unnecessary resources that do not promote value. However, major concerns regarding VBHC include the absence of medical and socioeconomic risk stratification as well as decreased access for higher-risk patients.This article identifies the benefits and potential unintended consequences of VBHC reform, with a focus on joint arthroplasty. We also discuss some potential strategies to promote innovation and improve value without compromising access for vulnerable patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the concept of value-based healthcare and emphasizes that cost containment does not necessarily equal value creation. The authors highlight the increasing healthcare expenditures in the United States and other countries, without a corresponding improvement in health-related outcomes. They argue that cost-cutting measures should be focused on increasing value for patients, rather than simply reducing expenses. The authors recommend three principles for orthopedic leaders to consider before engaging in cost-cutting: measuring health and well-being before and after cost-cutting initiatives, targeting low-value care for cuts, and building trust during the cost-cutting process. They emphasize the importance of considering health outcomes and the well-being of patients and care delivery teams when determining the most appropriate approach to cost containment. [Extracted from the article]

The article offers information on the value in healthcare being defined as health outcomes that effects patients divided by the cost incurred to attain the outcomes. It mentions that value is increased by improving health outcomes and reducing costs. It focuses on reducing trauma implant-related healthcare costs.

Background: The state of Massachusetts enacted universal health insurance in 2006. However it is unknown whether the increased access to care resulted in changes to surgical use or costs.Questions/purposes: We asked the following related research questions: compared with the United States as a whole, how did the (1) number of cases (as a percentage of the overall population, to account for changes in the overall population during the time surveyed), (2) payer mix, and (3) inpatient costs for arthroplasty change in Massachusetts after introduction of health insurance reform?Methods: We analyzed the use and cost of primary THAs and TKAs in Massachusetts using the State Inpatient Database (SID) between 2002 and 2011 compared with the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) during the same years. The SID captures 100% of inpatient procedures in Massachusetts, while the NIS is a nationally representative database of inpatient procedures for the United States. The SID and NIS are publicly available data sources from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and include information regarding procedure volumes, payer mixes, and costs. Inpatient costs were defined similarly in both databases by using hospital charges and an average cost-to-charge ratio that is unique for each hospital. The incidence of arthroplasties was calculated by dividing the procedure volume by the relevant population (either for Massachusetts or the entire country) based on public data from the United States Census bureau.Results: The incidence of THAs and TKAs performed in Massachusetts increased steadily throughout the study period, and paralleled a similar increase in the United States as a whole. In Massachusetts, the incidence of THAs increased by 59% between 2002 and 2011, and the incidence of TKAs likewise increased by 80%. The trends for the incidence in total joint arthroplasties were similar to those for Massachusetts for the United States as a whole. The period of health insurance reform in Massachusetts was associated with a greater proportion of patients covered by Medicaid, Commonwealth Care, or Health Safety Net for THAs and TKAs. By 2011, universal health insurance in Massachusetts covered 2.45% of primary THAs and 2.77% of primary TKAs. Coverage for Medicaid in Massachusetts increased from 3.23% and 3.04% of THAs and TKAs in 2002 to 4.06% and 4.34% respectively in 2011. On average, Medicaid coverage was greater for TKAs in Massachusetts than across the United States during the study period. The introduction of health insurance reform had a minimal effect on the cost of total joint arthroplasties in Massachusetts. Although the costs of total joint arthroplasties in the United States were higher than those in Massachusetts, this difference narrowed substantially from 2002 to 2011, with the Massachusetts cost trending upward and the overall United States cost trending downward.Conclusions: Despite extending insurance coverage to the entire state of Massachusetts, there was little change in actual utilization trends for joint replacement.Clinical Relevance: The enactment of universal health insurance coverage in Massachusetts appears to have been a nonevent insofar as the use and cost of total hip and knee surgeries is concerned in the state. Factors other than health insurance reform appear to be driving the growth in demand for arthroplasties in Massachusetts and are likely to do so as well in the United States under the Affordable Care Act of 2010. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cost estimates derived from traditional hospital cost accounting systems have inherent limitations that restrict their usefulness for measuring process and quality improvement. Newer approaches such as time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) may offer more precise estimates of true cost, but to our knowledge, the differences between this TDABC and more traditional approaches have not been explored systematically in arthroplasty surgery.Questions/purposes: The purposes of this study were to compare the costs associated with (1) primary total hip arthroplasty (THA); (2) primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA); and (3) three surgeons performing these total joint arthroplasties (TJAs) as measured using TDABC versus traditional hospital accounting (TA).Methods: Process maps were developed for each phase of care (preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative) for patients undergoing primary TJA performed by one of three surgeons at a tertiary care medical center. Personnel costs for each phase of care were measured using TDABC based on fully loaded labor rates, including physician compensation. Costs associated with consumables (including implants) were calculated based on direct purchase price. Total costs for 677 primary TJAs were aggregated over 17 months (January 2012 to May 2013) and organized into cost categories (room and board, implant, operating room services, drugs, supplies, other services). Costs derived using TDABC, based on actual time and intensity of resources used, were compared with costs derived using TA techniques based on activity-based costing and indirect costs calculated as a percentage of direct costs from the hospital decision support system.Results: Substantial differences between cost estimates using TDABC and TA were found for primary THA (USD 12,982 TDABC versus USD 23,915 TA), primary TKA (USD 13,661 TDABC versus USD 24,796 TA), and individually across all three surgeons for both (THA: TDABC = 49%-55% of TA total cost; TKA: TDABC = 53%-55% of TA total cost). Cost categories with the most variability between TA and TDABC estimates were operating room services and room and board.Conclusions: Traditional hospital cost accounting systems overestimate the costs associated with many surgical procedures, including primary TJA. TDABC provides a more accurate measure of true resource use associated with TJAs and can be used to identify high-cost/high-variability processes that can be targeted for process/quality improvement.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a study related to engaging orthopedic surgeons to make measures meaningful and improve clinical practice. Topics discussed include co-management agreements in orthopedic surgery; use of big data and technology in medicine; and identify high variability in clinical costs and outcomes and association with reduced cost and improved quality.

The article offers the author's insights regarding the benefits offered by standardization of care on the outcomes of health care and orthopaedics wherein standardization improves the value of patients. The author discusses the contribution of engineer W. Edward Deming on the growth in the economy of Japan wherein Deming's training and teachings on the Japanese manufacturing industry achieved high levels of quality.

Background: Hospital-based outpatient departments traditionally charge higher prices for ambulatory procedures, compared with freestanding surgery centers. Under emerging reference-based benefit designs, insurers establish a contribution limit that they will pay, requiring the patient to pay the difference between that contribution limit and the actual price charged by the facility. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of reference-based benefits on consumer choices, facility prices, employer spending, and surgical outcomes for orthopaedic procedures performed at ambulatory surgery centers.Methods: We obtained data on 3962 patients covered by the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) who underwent arthroscopy of the knee or shoulder in the three years prior to the implementation of reference-based benefits in January 2012 and on 2505 patients covered by CalPERS who underwent arthroscopy in the two years after implementation. Control group data were obtained on 57,791 patients who underwent arthroscopy and were not subject to reference-based benefits. The impact of reference-based benefits on consumer choices between hospital-based and freestanding facilities, facility prices, employer spending, and surgical complications was assessed with use of difference-in-differences multivariable regressions to adjust for patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and geographic location.Results: By the second year of the program, the shift to reference-based benefits was associated with an increase in the utilization of freestanding ambulatory surgery centers by 14.3 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 8.1 to 20.5 percentage points) for knee arthroscopy and by 9.9 percentage points (95% confidence interval, 3.2 to 16.7 percentage points) for shoulder arthroscopy and a corresponding decrease in the use of hospital-based facilities. The mean price paid by CalPERS fell by 17.6% (95% confidence interval, -24.9% to -9.6%) for knee procedures and by 17.0% (95% confidence interval, -29.3% to -2.5%) for shoulder procedures. The shift to reference-based benefits was not associated with a change in the rate of surgical complications. In the first two years after the implementation of reference-based benefits, CalPERS saved $2.3 million (13%) on these two orthopaedic procedures.Conclusions: Reference-based benefits increase consumer sensitivity to price differences between freestanding and hospital-based surgical facilities.Clinical Relevance: This study shows that the implementation of reference-based benefits does not result in a significant increase in measured complication rates for those subject to reference-based benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of large-scale national databases for observational research in orthopaedic surgery has grown substantially in the last decade, and the data sets can be grossly categorized as either administrative claims or clinical registries. Administrative claims data comprise the billing records associated with the delivery of health-care services. Orthopaedic researchers have used both government and private claims to describe temporal trends, geographic variation, disparities, complications, outcomes, and resource utilization associated with both musculoskeletal disease and treatment. Medicare claims comprise one of the most robust data sets used to perform orthopaedic research, with >45 million beneficiaries. The U.S. government, through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, often uses these data to drive changes in health policy. Private claims data used in orthopaedic research often comprise more heterogeneous patient demographic samples, but allow longitudinal analysis similar to that offered by Medicare claims. Discharge databases, such as the U.S. National Inpatient Sample, provide a wide national sampling of inpatient hospital stays from all payers and allow analysis of associated adverse events and resource utilization. Administrative claims data benefit from the high patient numbers obtained through a majority of hospitals. Using claims, it is possible to follow patients longitudinally throughout encounters irrespective of the location of the institution delivering health care. Some disadvantages include lack of precision of ICD-9 (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision) coding schemes. Much of these data are expensive to purchase, complicated to organize, and labor-intensive to manipulate-often requiring trained specialists for analysis. Given the changing health-care environment, it is likely that databases will provide valuable information that has the potential to influence clinical practice improvement and health policy for years to come. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Improving value in musculoskeletal health care has emerged as an important objective in both the United States and Canada. In order to achieve this objective, providers need to have a clear definition of value and an infrastructure for measuring outcomes of interest to patients and costs over the episode of care. Although national patient registries have been established in the United States and Canada, they nevertheless lag behind other registries worldwide in terms of collecting patient-reported outcomes and capturing data froma wide cross-section of hospitals and physicians.With the help of professional medical societies and the creation of national initiatives, patient-reported outcomes data collection on a large scale may be possible, but many challenges remain regarding implementation. Alternatives to the fee-for-service payment model, including pay-for-reporting and pay-for-performance, may help incentivize physicians and health-care providers to obtain and improve on patient-reported outcomes data collection. Other payment reforms, such as bundled payments, have been piloted in certain regions, but their sustainability and long-term success are unclear at this time. Novel health-care delivery strategies aimed at improving quality, coordinating multispecialty care, and enhancing patient participation in shared decision-making have shown promise in improving patient-centered outcomes, but delivery models continue to vary greatly throughout the United States and Canada. The current status of musculoskeletal health-care delivery requires substantial change before the goal of improving patient outcomes and lowering health-care costs can be achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores several ways for bringing transition to the value-based health care system in U.S. Topics discussed include advancement in biomedical science which allowed to achieve unprecedented success in diagnosing and treating human illness; issues with per capita spending on health care in U.S.; and need for transparent, actionable data on cost and outcomes of health care for delivering value to patients.

The article discusses the study on the enhancement for the value of musculoskeletal care, health outcomes, and reduction of the overall cost of care delivery, through alternative payment models by the end of 2018. It mentions that the move was conducted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The article discusses the need to increase and improve coordination, communication, and teamwork to tackle challenges faced by orthopaedic surgeons in providing high-quality health care. Topics discussed include include need for teaming in patient care by employing necessary motivational, communication and conflict-management skills by orthopaedic surgeons, inappropirate management structure as a reason for failure of most teams and various conflict-management strategies in health-care teaming.

Background: Intertrochanteric hip fractures are a major source of morbidity and financial burden, accounting for 7% of osteoporotic fractures and costing nearly $6 billion annually in the United States. Traditionally, ‘‘stable’’ fracture patterns have been treated with an extramedullary sliding hip screw whereas ‘‘unstable’’ patterns have been treated with the more expensive intramedullary nail. The purpose of this study was to identify parameters to guide cost-effective implant choices with use of decision-analysis techniques to model these common clinical scenarios. Methods: An expected-value decision-analysis model was constructed to estimate the total costs and health utility based on the choice of a sliding hip screw or an intramedullary nail for fixation of an intertrochanteric hip fracture. Values for critical parameters, such as fixation failure rate, were derived from the literature. Three scenarios were evaluated: (1) a clearly stable fracture (AO type 31-A1), (2) a clearly unstable fracture (A3), or (3) a fracture with questionable stability (A2). Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the validity of the model. Results: The fixation failure rate and implant cost were the most important factors in determining implant choice. When the incremental cost for the intramedullary nail was set at the median value ($1200), intramedullary nailing had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $50,000/quality-adjusted life year when the incremental failure rate of sliding hip screws was 1.9%. When the incremental failure rate of sliding hip screws was >5.0%, intramedullary nails dominated with lower cost and better health outcomes. The sliding hip screw was always more cost-effective for A1 fractures, and the intramedullary nail always dominated for A3 fractures. As for A2 fractures, the sliding hip screw was cost-effective in 70% of the cases, although this was highly sensitive to the failure rate. Conclusions: Sliding hip screw fixation is likely more cost-effective for stable intertrochanteric fractures (A1) or those with questionable stability (A2), whereas intramedullary nail fixation is more cost-effective for reverse obliquity fractures (A3). These conclusions are highly sensitive to the fixation failure rate, which was the major influence on the model results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores strategies to enhance the value of musculoskeletal care by improving health outcomes and reducing the overall cost of care delivery in orthopedic surgery. Topics include health outcomes of interest to patients such as quality of care delivered and the experience patients and their families go through when receiving their care, measurement of quality in terms of structure professional certification, and nurse-to-bed ratios, values associated with orthopedic interventions.

Background: An aim of the use of computer navigation is to reduce rates of revisions of total knee replacements by improving the alignment achieved at the surgery. However, the decision to adopt this technology may be difficult for some centers, especially low-volume centers, where the cost of purchasing this equipment may be high. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of hospital volume on the cost-effectiveness of this new technology in order to determine its feasibility and the level of evidence that should be sought prior to its adoption. Methods: A Markov decision model was used to evaluate the impact of hospital volume on the cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted knee arthroplasty in a theoretical cohort of sixty-five-year-old patients with end-stage arthritis of the knee to coincide with the peak incidence of knee arthroplasty in the United States. Results: Computer-assisted surgery becomes less cost-effective as the annual hospital volume decreases, as the cost of the navigation increases, and as the impact on revision rates decreases. Centers at which 250, 150, and twenty-five computer-navigated total knee arthroplasties are performed per year will require a reduction of the annual revision rate of 2%, 2.5%, and 13%, respectively, per year over a twenty-year period for computer navigation to be cost-effective. Conclusions: Computer navigation is less likely to be a cost-effective investment in health-care improvement in centers with a low volume of joint replacements, where its benefit is most likely to be realized. However, it may be a cost-effective technology for centers with a higher volume of joint replacements, where the decrease in the rate of knee revision needed to make the investment cost-effective is modest, if improvements in revision rates with the use of this technology can be realized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The United States health care system currently faces many challenges, including rising costs and variable quality. Health care purchasers and payers are demanding increased transparency and accountability for their health care dollars. Pay-for-performance (P4P) initiatives, which seek to link provider reimbursement to measures of quality and efficiency, have been introduced by both private and government payers. Despite their appeal over current provider reimbursement systems, which reward volume and intensity of services rather than quality and efficiency, P4P programs face numerous challenges in their implementation, including difficulty defining and measuring quality, high costs associated with collecting and analyzing performance data, problems with risk adjustment, lack of additional funding to reward quality, unintended consequences of provider gaming and patient deselection, and impact on low-tier, low-quality providers. Future efforts should involve collaboration among providers, payers, and policy makers to ensure that P4P programs are implemented safely and effectively. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: A multicenter retrospective cost-identification cohort study was undertaken to analyze clinical, demographic, and economic data for 4533 consecutive total hip arthroplasty (THA) and 3508 consecutive total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures performed during a 3-year period in 1 of 3 hospitals. Statistically significant differences were found between primary and revision procedures with respect to patient age, sex, payer type, mean total operative time, use of allograft, average length of hospital stay, discharge disposition, and hospital costs. Significant differences were also found between different types of revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA) procedures. Our findings could be used to help improve the accuracy of administrative claims data related to primary and revision TJA procedures to identify relevant differences in patient characteristics, procedure characteristics, and hospital resource use. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Discusses the basic principles and clinical applications of health care technology assessment in the U.S. Consideration of health care technology as an important driver of escalating health care spending; Scrutiny faced by orthopedic surgeons from hospitals and payers regarding the adoption and use of new technology for the treatment of patients with musculoskeletal disease; Multidisciplinary evaluation of clinical data on the basis of safety and efficacy as well as economic aspects of technology acquisition.

The past decade witnessed a rapid rise in the public reporting of surgeon- and hospital-specific quality-of-care measures. However, patients' interpretations of star ratings and their importance relative to other considerations (for example, cost, distance traveled) are poorly understood. We conducted a discrete choice experiment in an outpatient setting (an academic joint arthroplasty practice) to study trade-offs that patients are willing to make in choosing a provider for a hypothetical total joint arthroplasty. Two hundred consecutive new patients presenting for hip or knee pain in 2018 were included. The average patient was willing to pay $2,607 and $3,152 extra for an additional hospital or physician star, respectively, and an extra $11.45 to not travel an extra mile for arthroplasty care. History of prior surgery and prior experience with rating systems reduced the relative value of an incremental star by $539.25 and $934.50, respectively. Patients appear willing to accept significantly higher copayments for higher quality of care, and surgeon quality seems relatively more important than hospital quality. Further study is needed to understand the value and trust patients place in publicly reported hospital and surgeon quality ratings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]