Search

Background: Demand for platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for osteoarthritis has dramatically increased in recent years despite conflicting evidence regarding its efficacy and highly variable pricing in the top orthopaedic centers in the United States, because PRP is typically not covered by insurance. A previous study investigating the mean price of PRP injections obtained information only from centers advertising online the availability of PRP injections. Thus, there is a need for further clarification of the overall availability and variability in cost of PRP injections in the orthopaedic community as well as an analysis of relevant regional demographic and hospital characteristics that could be associated with PRP pricing. Questions/purposes: Our study purposes were to (1) report the availability and price variation of knee PRP injections at top-ranked United States orthopaedic centers, (2) characterize the availability of pricing information for a PRP injection over the telephone, (3) determine whether hospital characteristics (Orthopaedic Score [ U. S. News & World Report measure of hospital orthopaedic department performance], size, teaching status, and rural-urban status) were associated with PRP injection availability and pricing, and (4) characterize the price variation, if it exists, of PRP injections in three metropolitan areas and individual institutions. Methods: In this prospective study, a scripted telephone call to publicly listed clinic telephone numbers was used to determine the availability and price estimate (amount to be paid by the patient) of a PRP injection for knee osteoarthritis from the top 25 hospitals from each United States Census region selected from the U.S. News & World Report ranking of best hospitals for orthopaedics. Univariable analyses examined factors associated with PRP injection availability and willingness to disclose pricing, differences across regions, and the association between hospital characteristics (Orthopaedic Score, size, teaching status, and rural-urban status) and pricing. The Orthopaedic Score is a score assigned to each hospital by U. S. News & World Report as a measure of hospital performance based partly on patient outcomes, with higher scores indicating better outcomes. Results: Overall, 87% (87 of 100) of respondents stated they offered PRP injections. Pricing ranged from USD 350 to USD 2815 (median USD 800) per injection, with the highest prices in the Northeast. The largest price range was in the Midwest, where more than two-thirds of PRP injections given at hospitals that disclosed pricing cost USD 500 to USD 1000. Of the hospitals that offered PRP injections, 68% (59 of 87) were willing to disclose price information over the telephone. PRP injection pricing was inversely correlated with hospital Orthopaedic Score (-3% price change [95% CI -5% to -1%]; p = 0.01) and not associated with any of the other hospital characteristics that were studied, such as patient population median income and total hospital expenses. An intracity analysis revealed wide variations in PRP pricing in all metropolitan areas that were analyzed, ranging from a minimum of USD 300 within 10 miles of metropolitan area B to a maximum of USD 1269 within 20 miles of metropolitan area C. Conclusion: We found that although PRP injections are widely available, pricing continues to be a substantial financial burden on patients, with large price variability among institutions. We also found that if patients are willing to shop around in a metropolitan area, there is potential to save a meaningful amount of money. Clinical Relevance: As public interest in biologics in orthopaedic surgery increases, knowledge of its pricing should be clarified to consumers. The debated efficacy of PRP injections, combined with our findings that it is an expensive out-of-pocket procedure, suggests that PRP has limited cost-effectiveness, with variable, discrete pricing. As such, the price of PRP injections should be clearly disclosed to patients so they can make informed healthcare decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is currently unknown to what extent routine histological examination of joint arthroplasty specimens occurs across hospitals nationwide. Although this practice is neither supported nor refuted by the available evidence, given the increasing demand for joint arthroplasties, it is crucial to study overall utilization as well as its main drivers.Questions/purposes: Using national data on joint replacements, we aimed to evaluate: (1) What is the current use of routine histological examination of joint arthroplasty specimens? (2) Does the use vary by geographic location and hospital characteristics? (3) Has use changed over time?Methods: From the Premier Healthcare database (2006-2016) we included claims data from 87,667 shoulder (595 hospitals, median age 70 years, 16% nonwhite), 564,577 hip (629 hospitals, median age 65 years, 21% nonwhite), and 1,131,323 (630 hospitals, median age 66 years, 24% nonwhite) knee arthroplasties (all elective). Our study group has extensive experience with this data set, which contains information on 20% to 25% of all US hospitalizations. Included hospitals are mainly concentrated in the South (approximately 40%) with equal distributions among the Northeast, West, and Midwest (approximately 20% each). Moreover, the Premier data set has detailed billing information, which allows for evaluations of real-world clinical practice. There was no missing information on the main variables of interest for this specific study. We assessed frequency of histology examination (defined by Current Procedural Terminology codes) overall as well as by hospital characteristics (urban/rural, bed size, teaching status, arthroplasty volume), geographic region (Northeast, South, Midwest, West), and year. Given the large sample size, instead of p values, standardized differences were applied in assessing group differences where a standardized difference of > 0.1 (or 10%) was assumed to represent a meaningful difference between groups. For significance of trends, p values were applied. Percentages provided represent proportions of individual procedures.Results: In most hospitals, histology testing was either rare (1%-10%, used in 187 of 595, 189 of 629, and 254 of 630 hospitals) or ubiquitous (91%-100%, used in 121 of 595, 220 of 629, and 195 of 630 hospitals) for shoulder, hip, and knee arthroplasties, respectively. Overall, histology testing occurred more often in smaller hospitals (37%-53% compared with 26%-45% in larger hospitals) and those located in the Northeast (59%-68% compared with 22%-44% in other regions) and urban areas (32%-49% compared with 20%-31% in rural areas), all with standardized differences > 10%. Histologic examination is slowly decreasing over time: from 2006 to 2016, it decreased from 34% to 30% for shoulder arthroplasty, from 50% to 45% for THAs, and from 43% to 38% for TKAs (all p < 0.001).Conclusions: Although overall use is decreasing, a substantial number of hospitals still routinely perform histology testing of arthroplasty specimens. Moreover, variation between regions and hospital types suggests that this practice is driven by a variety of factors. This is the first study addressing national utilization, which will be helpful for individual hospitals to assess how they compare with national utilization patterns. Moreover, the findings have clear implications for followup studies, which may be necessary given the exponentially growing demand for arthroplasties.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]