What is the Level of Evidence Substantiating Commercial Payers' Coverage Policies for Total Joint Arthroplasty?

Evaluating the References of Insurance Policies for Computer-Assisted Navigation in Total Knee Arthroplasty Compared With the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the quality and quantity of sources cited by insurance payers for computer-assisted navigation (CAN) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and to compare these sources with those cited by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

References were included from insurance payer policies on CAN that discussed the use of CAN in TKA, while every reference from the AAOS CPG for surgical navigation in TKA was included.

RESULTS

Fifty-four unique articles from insurance payers met criteria, with 68.5% being primary journal articles and 18.5% being reviews. The quality of cited studies was relatively evenly distributed between level of evidence (LOE) I/II (42.6%) and LOE III and below (50.0%). The 14 references cited in the AAOS CPG were 100% primary articles and 100% LOE I/II. Only 16.3% of cited insurance references were AAOS CPG articles. Nine of the 14 AAOS CPG studies were not cited by any of the insurance payer policies.

CONCLUSION

Compared with the AAOS CPG, insurance policies cited older articles with lower LOE. We recommend continued updating of the AAOS CPG and insurance policies as more research into the use of CAN in TKA is published. [Orthopedics. 202x;4x(x):xx-xx.].

Commercial Insurance Coverage Criteria for Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation Poorly Reflect Current Research

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to both quantify and qualify the way insurance companies justify their coverage policies for autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) and determine whether these policies align with recent research on the subject.

DESIGN

The top 11 national commercial health insurance payers for ACI were identified. Coverage policy documents were recovered for 8 payers. These documents were examined, and the type of reference and the level of evidence (LOE) were recorded for each applicable reference. Specific coverage criteria for each individual payer were then extracted and assessed for similarities among commercial payers. Finally, all references cited by each payer were examined to determine whether they mentioned the specific payer criteria.

RESULTS

This study found that the majority of cited references were primary journal articles (86, 58.1%) and that only 30 (20.2%) references were level I or level II evidence. This study also found significant homogeneity among payer coverage criteria. Cited sources inconsistently mentioned specific payer coverage criteria. In addition, payer criteria tended to be poorly supported by current evidence on ACI.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that commercial insurance payers' coverage policies for ACI poorly cite references, cite a majority of references with low LOE, and cite references which infrequently mention their specific coverage criteria. In addition, payer coverage policies have a high degree of homogeneity and many of their specific criteria are poorly supported by current research on ACI.

Prior Authorization Leads to Administrative Burden and Delays in Treatment in Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients

BACKGROUND

The prior authorization (PA) process is often criticized by physicians due to increased administrative burden and unnecessary delays in treatment. The effects of PA policies on total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have not been well described. The purpose of this study was to analyze the use of PA in a high-volume orthopaedic practice across 4 states.

METHODS

We prospectively collected data on 28,725 primary THAs and TKAs performed at our institution between 2020 and 2023. Data collected included patient demographics, payer approval or denial, time to approval or denial, the number of initial denials, the number of peer-to-peer (P2P) or addenda, and the reasons for denial.

RESULTS

Seven thousand five hundred twenty eight (56.4%) patients undergoing THA and 8,283 (54%) patients undergoing TKA required PA, with a mean time to approval of 26.3 ± 34.6 and 33.7 ± 41.5 days, respectively. Addenda were requested in 608 of 7,528 (4.6%) THA patients and 737 of 8,283 (8.9%) TKA patients. From a total of 312 (4.1%) THA patients who had an initial denial, a P2P was requested for 50 (0.7%) patients, and only 27 (0.4%) were upheld after the PA process. From a total of 509 (6.1%) TKA patients who had an initial denial, a P2P was requested for 55 (0.7%) patients, and only 26 (0.3%) were upheld after the PA process. The mean time to denial in the THA group was 64.7 ± 83.5, and the most common reasons for denial were poor clinical documentation (25.9%) and lack of coverage (25.9%). The mean time to denial in the TKA group was 63.4 ± 103.9 days, and the most common reason for denial was not specified by the payer (46.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of PA to approve elective THA and TKA led to increased surgical waiting times and a high administrative burden for surgeons and healthcare staff.

Nearly All Peer-to-Peer Reviews for CT and MRI Prior Authorization Denials for Orthopedic Specialists Are Approved

In the event of prior authorization denial, physicians may request peer-to-peer review, which may delay treatment and increase administrative burden. The purpose of this study was to quantify the approval rate of peer-to-peer review and evaluate its efficiency in the context of advanced imaging use in an orthopedic practice. Patients at a single outpatient orthopedic clinic initially receiving an insurance denial for computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging requiring peer-to-peer review from March to December 2022 were prospectively enrolled. Characteristics of the request, peer-to-peer review, and the reviewer and dates in the process were collected. If the study was approved after peer-to-peer review, the date of the imaging study and brief results were recorded. A total of 62 denials were included. One denial was approved prior to peer-to-peer review. Fifty-eight (of 61, 95.1%) reviews were approved, of which 51 (of 58, 87.9%) studies were completed by patients. Reviewers were always physicians (61 of 61, 100%), but of those whose specialty was known, none were orthopedic surgeons. Forty-four of 61 (72.1%) reviewers reported reviewing clinical notes in advance. The median number of days from visit to peer-to-peer review was 9.0 (interquartile range, 7.0-13.25). The median number of days from visit to imaging center appointment was 13.5 (interquartile range, 9.0-20.75) for approved studies. Of the 51 approved studies completed by patients, the results of 38 (74.5%) confirmed the suspected diagnosis. In an orthopedic specialty practice, almost all peer-to-peer reviews were approved, with the majority of the completed studies confirming the suspected diagnosis. Thus, patient care was delayed. Reform is crucial to improve the efficiency of the review process, especially in light of additional administrative and financial burden. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(3):141-146.].

Evidence Guiding Commercial Payer Coverage Criteria for Total Ankle Arthroplasty

Background

Total ankle arthroplasty (TAA), first developed as an alternative to ankle arthrodesis, has become an increasingly popular management option for end-stage ankle arthritis. Prior studies have shown commercial insurance payers base their coverage criteria on limited and low level of evidence research. This study aims to quantify and describe the evidence insurance companies use to support TAA coverage policies.

Methods

The top 11 national commercial health insurance payers for TAA were identified. A google search was performed to identify payer coverage policies. Policy documents were examined and cited references were classified by type of reference as well as reviewed for level of evidence (LOE). Specific coverage criteria for each individual payer were then extracted. Criteria were compared to assess for similarities among commercial payers. Finally, all references cited by each payer were examined to determine whether they mentioned the specific payer criteria.

Results

Six of the 11 payers had accessible coverage policies. The majority of cited references were primary journal articles (145, 60.9%) and the majority of references cited (179, 75.2%) were level III or level IV evidence. We found significant homogeneity in coverage criteria among payers. In addition, cited sources inconsistently mentioned specific payer coverage criteria.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that commercial insurance payers rely on the relatively low level of currently available scientific evidence when formulating coverage policies for TAA use and adopt criteria that have not been thoroughly analyzed in the literature. More high level of evidence research is needed to help clinicians and insurance companies further refine indications for TAA so that patients who might benefit from the procedure are adequately covered.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, review.

2023 American College of Rheumatology and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the Optimal Timing of Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Patients With Symptomatic Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis or Advanced Symptomatic Osteonecrosis With Secondary Arthritis for Whom Nonoperative Therapy Is Ineffective

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA).

METHODS

We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality.

CONCLUSION

This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

Poor evidence is used to support commercial payers' coverage policies for shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The incidence of shoulder arthroplasty has continued to increase over the past decade. In response, commercial payers have implemented strategies to control the medical requirement of these surgeries in attempt to contain the growing costs. For example, most payers require a prolonged trial of conservative management prior to shoulder arthroplasty for patients who may otherwise be surgical candidates. However, little is known regarding the evidence used to support these indications. The purpose of this study was to analyze the references used by commercial payers to substantiate their coverage policies for shoulder arthroplasty.

METHODS

Ten of the leading commercial payers for total shoulder arthroplasty were identified. Publicly available coverage policies were searched on the internet or requested directly from the payer via email or telephone. Cited references were reviewed independently by two authors for type of document, level of evidence, and mention of the efficacy of conservative management.

RESULTS

A total of 5 coverage policies were obtained with 118 references. The most common reference type was primary journal article (n = 70; 59.3%) followed by review or expert opinion articles (n = 35; 29.7%). Most references were of level IV evidence (n = 60; 52.2%), with only 6 (5.2%) of level I or II evidence. Only 4 (3.5%) references mentioned the efficacy of conservative management in patients who may be candidates for shoulder arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

The majority of references used to substantiate the coverage policies for shoulder arthroplasty among major commercial payers within the United States are of low scientific evidence and fail to demonstrate the success of required nonoperative intervention strategies. Our study underscores the need for high-quality, comparative trials that evaluate the outcomes of conservative management vs. shoulder arthroplasty in end-stage glenohumeral osteoarthritis patients in order to determine the most cost-effective treatment algorithm.

2023 American College of Rheumatology and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the Optimal Timing of Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Patients With Symptomatic Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis or Advanced Symptomatic Osteonecrosis With Secondary Arthritis for Whom Nonoperative Therapy Is Ineffective

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA).

METHODS

We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality.

CONCLUSION

This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

2023 American College of Rheumatology and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the Optimal Timing of Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Patients With Symptomatic Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis or Advanced Symptomatic Osteonecrosis With Secondary Arthritis for Whom Nonoperative Therapy Is Ineffective

OBJECTIVE

To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA).

METHODS

We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations.

RESULTS

The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality.

CONCLUSION

This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

Prior Authorization in Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Survey of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Membership

BACKGROUND

This study surveyed the impact that prior authorization has on the practices of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS).

METHODS

A 24-question survey was approved by the AAHKS Advocacy Committee and distributed to all 2,802 board-certified members of AAHKS.

RESULTS

There were 353 survey responses (13%). Ninety-five percent of surgeons noted a 5-year increase in prior authorization. A majority (71%) of practices employ at least 1 staff member to exclusively work on prior authorization. Average time spent on prior authorization was 15 h/wk (range, 1 to 125) and average number of claims peer week was 18 (range, 1 to 250). Surgeries (99%) were the most common denial. These were denied because nonoperative treatment had not been tried (71%) or had not been attempted for enough time (67%). Most (57%) prior authorization processes rarely/never changed the treatment provided. Most (56%) indicated that prior authorization rarely/never followed evidence-based guidelines. A majority (93%) expressed high administrative burden as well as negative clinical outcomes (87%) due to prior authorization including delays to access care (96%) at least sometimes.

DISCUSSION

Prior authorization has increased in the past 5 years resulting in high administrative burden. Prior authorizations were most common for TJA surgeries because certain nonoperative treatments were not attempted or not attempted for enough time. Surgeons indicated that prior authorization may be detrimental to high-value care and lead to potentially harmful delays in care without ultimately changing the management of the patient.

An Orthopaedic Surgeon's Guide to Billing and Coding

Understanding the nuances of musculoskeletal documentation, coding, and billing is an integral part of any orthopaedic practice, but these nuances are not actively taught in most orthopaedic residency programs. The paucity of medical billing education overwhelms many young orthopaedic surgeons as they begin their first job. In addition, not understanding how their value as a surgeon is calculated poses a significant disadvantage when negotiating employment contracts. The purpose of this review article is to educate orthopaedic residents, fellows, and new attendings on how to effectively document during clinical and surgical encounters to maximize value, understand basic orthopaedic coding, and introduce important billing concepts.