The impact of physician-owned specialty orthopaedic hospitals on surgical volume and case complexity in competing hospitals

Orthopedic Specialty Hospitals Are Associated With Lower Rates of Deep Surgical Site Infection Compared With Tertiary Medical Centers

Orthopedic specialty hospitals may allow for more streamlined and efficient care, resulting in shorter lengths of stay, lower costs, and fewer complications. Surgical site infection can be a devastating complication of orthopedic procedures and is difficult to treat successfully, requiring substantial cost and resources. The goal of this study was to determine whether specialty hospitals had lower rates of infection than tertiary care institutions. Records were reviewed for patients undergoing primary total hip, knee, or shoulder arthroplasty and single-level lumbar fusion from 2010 to 2017 at 2 academic tertiary hospitals and 2 specialty hospitals. Patient demographic information, comorbidities, and the development of deep surgical site infection within 1 year of the index procedure were recorded and compared between the groups. Multivariate analysis identified variables that significantly correlated with infection rates. A total of 20,264 patients (73.9%) underwent surgery at a tertiary hospital, and 7169 (26.1%) underwent a procedure at a specialty hospital. Patients treated at orthopedic specialty hospitals had lower rates of infection at 1 year (0.6% vs 0.2%, P<.0001). Of the infections, 42 (32.3%) occurred in the knee, 50 (38.5%) in the hip, 24 (18.5%) in the spine, and 12 (10.8%) in the shoulder. When controlling for a healthier patient population, procedures performed at specialty hospitals were an independent predictor of infection within 1 year (odds ratio, 0.3693; P=.0012). Although tertiary hospitals care for older patients with more medical comorbidities, patients undergoing orthopedic procedures at a specialty hospital may be at lower risk for infection. Further study is needed to identify the processes associated with reduced infection rates and to determine whether they can be adopted at tertiary centers. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(4):e521-e526.].

Access, quality, and costs of care at physician owned hospitals in the United States: observational study

OBJECTIVE

To compare physician owned hospitals (POHs) with non-POHs on metrics around patient populations, quality of care, costs, and payments.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

Acute care hospitals in 95 hospital referral regions in the United States, 2010.

PARTICIPANTS

2186 US acute care hospitals (219 POHs and 1967 non-POHs).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportions of patients using Medicaid and those from ethnic and racial minority groups; hospital performance on patient experience metrics, care processes, risk adjusted 30 day mortality, and readmission rates; costs of care; care payments; and Medicare market share.

RESULTS

The 219 POHs were more often small (<100 beds), for profit, and in urban areas. 120 of these POHs were general (non-specialty) hospitals. Compared with patients from non-POHs, those from POHs were younger (77.4 v 78.4 years, P<0.001), less likely to be admitted through an emergency department (23.2% v. 29.0%, P<0.001), equally likely to be black (5.1% v 5.5%, P=0.85) or to use Medicaid (14.9% v 15.4%, P=0.75), and had similar numbers of chronic diseases and predicted mortality scores. POHs and non-POHs performed similarly on patient experience scores, processes of care, risk adjusted 30 day mortality, 30 day readmission rates, costs, and payments for acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and pneumonia.

CONCLUSION

Although POHs may treat slightly healthier patients, they do not seem to systematically select more profitable or less disadvantaged patients or to provide lower value care.

Effects of physician-owned specialized facilities in health care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Multiple studies have investigated physician-owned specialized facilities (specialized hospitals and ambulatory surgery centres). However, the evidence is fragmented and the literature lacks cohesion.

OBJECTIVES

To provide a comprehensive overview of the effects of physician-owned specialized facilities by synthesizing the findings of published empirical studies.

METHODS

Two reviewers independently researched relevant studies using a standardized search strategy. The Institute of Medicine's quality framework (safe, effective, equitable, efficient, patient-centred, and accessible care) was applied in order to evaluate the performance of such facilities. In addition, the impact on the performance of full-service general hospitals was assessed.

RESULTS

Forty-six studies were included in the systematic review. Overall, the quality of the included studies was satisfactory. Our results show that little evidence exists to confirm the advantages attributed to physician-owned specialized facilities, and their impact on full-service general hospitals remains limited.

CONCLUSION

Although data is available on a wide variety of effects, the evidence base is surprisingly thin. There is no compelling evidence available demonstrating the added value of physician-owned specialized facilities in terms of quality or cost of the delivered care. More research is necessary on the relative merits of physician-owned specialized facilities. In addition, their corresponding impact on full-service general hospitals remains unclear. The development of physician-owned specialized facilities should thus be monitored carefully.

Orthopedic specialty hospitals: centers of excellence or greed machines?

Orthopedic specialty hospitals have recently been the subject of debate. They are patient-centered, physician-friendly health care alternatives that take advantage of the economic efficiencies of specialization. Medically, they provide a higher quality of care and increase patient and physician satisfaction. Economically, they are more efficient and profitable than general hospitals. They also positively affect society through the taxes they pay and the beneficial aspects of the competition they provide to general hospitals. Their ability to provide a disruptive innovation to the existing hospital industry will lead to lower costs and greater access to health care. However, critics say that physician ownership presents potential conflicts of interest and leads to overuse of medical care. Some general hospitals are suffering as a result of unfair specialty hospital practices, and a few drastic medical complications have occurred at specialty hospitals. Specialty hospitals have been scrutinized for increasing the inequality of health care and continue to be a target of government regulations. In this article, the pros and cons are examined, and the Emory Orthopaedics and Spine Hospital is analyzed as an example. Orthopedic specialty hospitals provide excellent care and are great assets to society. Competition between specialty and general hospitals has provided added value to patients and taxpayers. However, physicians must take more responsibility in their appropriate and ethical leadership. It is critical to recognize financial conflicts of interest, disclose ownership, and act ethically. Patient care cannot be compromised. With thoughtful and efficient leadership, specialty hospitals can be an integral part of improving health care in the long term.

Physician-owned hospitals, neurosurgeons, and disclosure: lessons from law and the literature

Physician ownership of hospitals has been a subject of controversy for years. Opponents claim that physician ownership and the hospital profits that result from imaging, laboratory tests, and procedures create a conflict of interest for physicians in providing impartial patient care. Proponents argue that having an ownership stake in a hospital means that physicians can have control over all facets of the patient experience, which leads potentially to better patient satisfaction and outcomes. With passage of health reform legislation, physician-owned specialty hospitals have been under renewed attack and now face more restrictive limitations on their growth and expansion. The following review explores the history of physician-owned specialty hospitals, the controversy surrounding physician ownership, and the scope of neurosurgeon ownership in specialty hospitals and offers 2 models for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest.

The impact of new hospital orthopaedic surgery programs on total joint arthroplasty utilization

BACKGROUND

Utilization of arthroplasty is increasing, but there are little data exploring the causes of this increase. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between new programs for arthroplasty of the lower extremity joints and the utilization of arthroplasty.

METHODS

We identified twenty-four markets (hospital referral regions) that experienced the entry of new physician-owned specialty hospitals, using 1991 to 2005 Medicare data. We matched each market with a new specialty hospital to two different control markets (one market with a new arthroplasty program in a general hospital and one market without a new arthroplasty program), using a propensity score that accounted for market supply and demand for orthopaedic surgery and the regulatory environment. We compared the utilization of arthroplasty of the lower extremity joints (total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty) in each group of markets over a five-year window, extending from two years before to three years after the entry of new orthopaedic surgery programs.

RESULTS

The twenty-four markets with new specialty orthopaedic hospitals had higher utilization of arthroplasty at baseline (10.9 arthroplasties per 1000 Medicare beneficiaries per year) and follow-up (12.7 per 1000 beneficiaries) compared with the twenty-four markets with new arthroplasty programs in general hospitals (9.7 and 11.4, respectively) and the twenty-four markets with no new programs (9.9 and 11.3), although the differences were not significant (p > 0.05). Growth in the utilization of arthroplasty was similar in markets with new specialty hospitals before (an increase of 0.63 procedure per 1000 beneficiaries per year) and after the entry of new specialty hospitals (an increase of 0.39) compared with markets with new surgery programs in general hospitals (an increase of 0.24 before and 0.43 after) and markets with no new programs (an increase of 0.38 before and 0.33 after the entry of new specialty hospitals) (p > 0.05 for all comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

The utilization of arthroplasty is increasing at similar rates in markets with and without new arthroplasty programs.