Patient Perception of Value in Bundled Payments for Total Joint Arthroplasty

Patient Perception of Orthopedic Surgeon Reimbursement

Significant attention has been directed at evaluating reimbursement rates to orthopedic surgeons for various surgical procedures. To evaluate patients' understanding of the surgeon reimbursement process, studies using patient surveys have been conducted to determine patients' perceptions of orthopedic surgeon compensation. To date, there has been no systematic review to consolidate the data of these studies. This study aimed to synthesize the findings of these individual studies across multiple subspecialties of orthopedic surgery to evaluate the potential discrepancy between how much patients believe orthopedic surgeons are reimbursed and the actual reimbursement rate. We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies that report findings of patient perceptions of orthopedic surgeon reimbursement for various procedures. Searches were conducted using MEDLINE through PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. Summary estimates of reimbursement discrepancies across subspecialties and overall were reported as unweighted averages of the individual study results within each group. Twelve studies were identified that met inclusion criteria, constituting 4309 surveys. These survey studies measured patients' perceptions of how much orthopedic surgeons are reimbursed for common procedures, including anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, arthroscopic meniscectomy, carpal tunnel release, rotator cuff repair, multiple spine procedures and total shoulder, hip, and knee arthroplasty. It was found that patients reported reasonable surgeon's fees to be 11.2 times more than actual Medicare reimbursement. Among individual studies, the largest discrepancies were seen in total hip arthroplasty (26 times), whereas the smallest difference was in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (1.6 times). On average, patients estimated Medicare reimbursement rates to be 5.9 times higher than the actual surgeon reimbursement. Patients consistently overestimate how much orthopedic surgeons are reimbursed for common orthopedic procedures. The results of this systematic review suggest that patients may value these procedures more than what Medicare reimburses. Such information may help educate the public, direct policy, and increase transparency between orthopedic surgeons and patients.

Contingent Valuation Studies in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Health Economic Review

BACKGROUND

A greater emphasis on providing high-value orthopaedic interventions has resulted in increased health economic reporting. The contingent-valuation method (CVM) is used to determine consumer valuation of the benefits provided by healthcare interventions. CVM is an important value-based health economic tool that is underutilized in orthopaedic surgery.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

The purpose of this study was to (1) identify previously published CVM studies in the orthopaedic literature, (2) assess the methodologies used for CVM research, and (3) understand how CVM has been used in the orthopaedic cost-benefit analysis framework.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature using the MEDLINE database was performed to compile CVM studies. Search terms incorporated the phrase willingness to pay (WTP) or willingness to accept (WTA) in combination with orthopaedic clinical key terms. Study methodology was appraised using previously defined empirical and conceptual criteria for CVM studies.

RESULTS

Of the 160 studies retrieved, 22 (13.8%) met our inclusion criteria. The economics of joint arthroplasty (n = 6, 27.3%) and non-operative osteoarthritis care (n = 4, 18.2%) were the most common topics. Most studies used CVM for pricing and/or demand forecasting (n = 16, 72.7%); very few studies used CVM for program evaluation (n = 6). WTP was used in all included studies, and one study used both WTP and WTA. Otherwise, there was little consistency among included studies in terms of CVM methodology. Open-ended questioning was used by only ten studies (45.5%), a significant number of studies did not perform a sensitivity analysis (n = 9, 40.9%), and none of the studies accounted for the risk preference of subjects. Only two of the included studies applied CVM within a cost-benefit analysis framework.

CONCLUSION

CVM is not commonly reported in orthopaedic surgery and is seldom used in the context of cost-benefit analysis. There is wide variability in the methods used to perform CVM. We propose that CVM is an appropriate and underappreciated method for understanding the value of orthopaedic interventions. Increased attention should be paid to consumer valuations for orthopaedic interventions.

Fall Risk Score at the Time of Discharge Predicts Readmission Following Total Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Readmission among Medicare recipients is a leading driver of healthcare expenditure. To date, most predictive tools are too coarse for direct clinical application. Our objective in this study is to determine if a pre-existing tool to identify patients at increased risk for inpatient falls, the Hendrich Fall Risk Score, could be used to accurately identify Medicare patients at increased risk for readmission following arthroplasty, regardless of whether the readmission was due to a fall.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective cohort study. We identified 2437 Medicare patients who underwent a primary elective total joint arthroplasty (TJA) of the hip or knee for osteoarthritis between 2011 and 2014. The Hendrich Fall Risk score was recorded for each patient preoperatively and postoperatively. Our main outcome measure was hospital readmission within 30 days of discharge.

RESULTS

Of 2437 eligible TJA recipients, there were 226 (9.3%) patients who had a score ≥6. These patients were more likely to have an unplanned readmission (unadjusted odds ratio 2.84, 95% confidence interval 1.70-4.76, P < .0001), were more likely to have a length of stay >3 days (49.6% vs 36.6%, P = .0001), and were less likely to be sent home after discharge (20.8% vs 35.8%, P < .0001). The effect of a score ≥6 on readmission remained significant (adjusted odds ratio 2.44, 95% confidence interval 1.44-4.13, P = .0009) after controlling for age, paralysis, and the presence of a major psychiatric disorder.

CONCLUSION

Increased Hendrich fall risk score after TJA is strongly associated with unplanned readmission. Application of this tool will allow hospitals to identify these patients and plan their discharge.

Bundled payments in total joint arthroplasty and spine surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The goal of this manuscript is to provide an overview and analysis of bundled payment models for joint replacement and select spine procedures. Advantages and disadvantages of bundled payment models will be discussed.

RECENT FINDINGS

In select populations, bundled payment models have been shown to reduce costs while maintaining satisfactory outcomes. These models have not been tested with complex patient cohorts, such as older adults with fragility hip fractures, and limited data exist with bundled payment analysis in spine procedures. The reduction of healthcare costs, satisfactory patient outcomes, and favorable payments to healthcare systems can be achieved through bundled payments. Modifications of existing bundled payment models should be critically tested prior to implementation across higher risk populations. Bundled payment models will also require healthcare systems to define what services are necessary for an episode of care regarding a specific condition or disease.