Hip Arthroscopy Trends: Increasing Patient Out-of-Pocket Costs, Lower Surgeon Reimbursement, and Cost Reduction With Utilization of Ambulatory Surgery Centers

Ambulatory Surgery Center versus Outpatient Hospitals: A Comparison of Reimbursements for Patients Undergoing Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

While some studies have demonstrated that ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) are associated with reduced costs of orthopedic procedures, there is no consensus in the current literature as to the impact of ASCs versus hospital-based outpatient departments (HOPDs) on anterior cervical discectomies and fusions (ACDFs).

PURPOSE

This study sought to 1) compare immediate procedure reimbursements, patient out-of-pocket expenditures, and surgeon reimbursements for ACDFs performed at ASCs versus HOPDs and 2) identify factors predicting facility utilization.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cross-sectional study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

We identified ACDF procedures performed at an ASC or HOPD in commercially-insured patients aged 18-64.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Payment variables were calculated from claims within 3 days preoperatively and postoperatively.

METHODS

Multivariable regression models assessed a) associations between the surgery setting and payment variables and b) factors associated with the surgery setting.

RESULTS

We included 18,191 ACDFs (14.8% ASC, 85.2% HOPD). In multivariable analyses, ACDFs performed in an ASC (versus HOPD) were associated with 9.8% higher immediate procedure reimbursements (95% CI:7.5-12.2%), 17.2% higher patient out-of-pocket expenditures (95% CI:11.8-22.8), and 11.7% higher surgeon reimbursements (95% CI:9.18-14.2; all P<0.01) (all P<0.001). Surgery setting utilization varied by region, insurance-related factors, comorbidities, and procedural complexity.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that ASCs had significantly higher reimbursements compared to HOPDs. Regional variations in ASC utilization imply there are opportunities for standardization of care.

Ambulatory Surgery Centers Reduce Patient Out-of-Pocket Expenditures for Isolated Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair, but Patient Out-of-Pocket Expenditures Are Increasing at a Faster Rate Than Total Healthcare Utilization Reimbursement From Payers

PURPOSE

To categorize and trend annual out-of-pocket expenditures for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) patients relative to total healthcare utilization (THU) reimbursement and compare drivers of patient out-of-pocket expenditures (POPE) in a granular fashion via analyses by insurance type and surgical setting.

METHODS

Patients who underwent outpatient arthroscopic RCR in the United States from 2013 to 2018 were identified from the IBM MarketScan Database. Primary outcome variables were total POPE and THU reimbursement, which were calculated for all claims in the 9-month perioperative period. Trends in outcome variables over time and differences across insurance types were analyzed. Multivariable analysis was performed to investigate drivers of POPE.

RESULTS

A total of 52,330 arthroscopic RCR patients were identified. Between 2013 and 2018, median POPE increased by 47.5% ($917 to $1,353), and median THU increased by 9.3% ($11,964 to $13,076). Patients with high deductible insurance plans paid $1,910 toward their THU, 52.5% more than patients with preferred provider plans ($1,253, P = .001) and 280.5% more than patients with managed care plans ($502, P = .001). All components of POPE increased over the study period, with the largest observed increase being POPE for the immediate procedure (P = .001). On multivariable analysis, out-of-network facility, out-of-network surgeon, and high-deductible insurance most significantly increased POPE.

CONCLUSIONS

POPE for arthroscopic RCR increased at a higher rate than THU over the study period, demonstrating that patients are paying an increasing proportion of RCR costs. A large percentage of this increase comes from increasing POPE for the immediate procedure. Out-of-network facility status increased POPE 3 times more than out-of-network surgeon status, and future cost-optimization strategies should focus on facility-specific reimbursements in particular. Last, ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) significantly reduced POPE, so performing arthroscopic RCRs at ASCs is beneficial to cost-minimization efforts.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study highlights that although payers have increased reimbursement for RCR, patient out-of-pocket expenditures have increased at a much higher rate. Furthermore, this study elucidates trends in and drivers of patient out-of-pocket payments for RCR, providing evidence for development of cost-optimization strategies and counseling of patients undergoing RCR.

Editorial Commentary: Improved Operating Room Efficiency Is the Best Way to Control Orthopaedic Costs

Current procedural terminology codes and assigned relative value units associated with arthroscopic hip surgery lag behind other joints in accurately describing, and often undervaluing, what surgery entails. Hip arthroscopy is expensive, and, to address inequity, procedural cost drivers require review. Consumable implants and operating room (OR) time drive the costs associated with the procedure. Hospitals, healthcare payors, patients, and surgeons all benefit from increasing OR efficiency and reducing equipment cost. However, the patient loses if financial strategy supersedes care delivery, and it is wrong to cut necessary use of consumables to save money. Fewer anchors is not the answer (yet we should use reusable, nonimplantable supplies when feasible). The greater opportunity to lower costs is improved OR efficiency, requiring a team approach with buy-in from perioperative, anesthesia, surgical staff, and administrators. OR time is a consistent driver of cost across every type of orthopaedic surgery. Studies evaluating strategies for OR efficiency in hip arthroscopy will benefit the field. By leading this effort, surgeons could be best positioned to address inadequate relative value units.

Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing Analysis Identifies Use of Consumables and Operating Room Time as Factors Associated With Increased Cost of Outpatient Primary Hip Arthroscopic Labral Repair

PURPOSE

To use time-driven, activity-based costing (TDABC) methodology to investigate drivers of cost variation and to elucidate preoperative and intraoperative factors associated with increased cost of outpatient arthroscopic hip labral repair.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data from January 2020 to October 2021 was performed. Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for labral repair in the outpatient setting were included. Indexed TDABC data from Avant-garde Health's analytics platform were used to represent cost-of-care breakdowns. Patients in the top decile of cost were defined as high cost, and cost category variance was determined as a percent increase between high and low cost. Analyses tested for associations between preoperative and perioperative factors with total cost. Surgical procedures performed concomitantly to labral repair were included in subanalyses.

RESULTS

Data from 151 patients were analyzed. Consumables made up 61% of total outpatient cost with surgical personnel costs (30%) being the second largest category. The average total cost was 19% higher for patients in the top decile of cost compared to the remainder of the cohort. Factors contributing to this difference were implants (36% higher), surgical personnel (20% higher), and operating room (OR) consumables (15% higher). Multivariate linear regression modeling indicated that OR time (Standardized β = 0.504; P < .001) and anchor quantity (standardized β = 0.443; P < .001) were significant predictors of increased cost. Femoroplasty (Unstandardized β = 15.274; P = .010), chondroplasty (Unstandardized β = 8.860; P = .009), excision of os acetabuli (unstandardized β = 13.619; P = .041), and trochanteric bursectomy (Unstandardized β = 21.176; P = .009) were also all independently associated with increasing operating time.

CONCLUSIONS

TDABC analysis showed that OR consumables and implants were the largest drivers of cost for the procedure. OR time was also shown to be a significant predictor of increased costs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, economic analysis.

Similar Clinical Outcomes for Arthroscopic Labral Reconstruction in Irreparable Cases Using the Indirect Head of the Rectus Femoris Tendon With an All-Inside Technique for Small Defects and the Iliotibial Band for Large Defects

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical outcomes and satisfaction rate of patients who underwent arthroscopic labral reconstruction for an irreparable labral tear with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. Additionally, this study aimed to compare 2 different reconstructive techniques for small and large labral defects: the indirect head of the rectus femoris tendon (IHRFT) autograft with an all-inside technique used to repair small defects (≤3 hours) and the iliotibial band (ITB) autograft for large defects (>3 hours).

METHODS

A total of 24 hips treated with the IHRFT were compared with 24 hips treated with the ITB. All patients underwent clinical evaluation before surgery and during the most recent follow-up (42 ± 18 months). The evaluation included patient satisfaction, the modified Harris Hip Score, the Non-Arthritic Hip Score, the Hip Outcome Score, the Hip Outcome Score-sport subscale, the 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool, and the visual analog scale pain score.

RESULTS

All clinical scores were significantly improved (P < .001) at the latest follow-up in both groups. The final satisfaction was 7.1 ± 2.8 and 8.8 ± 1.6 for the IHRFT and ITB groups, respectively (P = .006). There was a significant difference in age (41.2 ± 6.0 years for the IHRFT group and 33 ± 8.5 for the ITB group; P = .004) and in surgery time (147.3 ± 39.4 minutes for the ITB group and 105.3 ± 25.7 for the IHRFT group; P < .001). One patient (4.2%) in the IHRFT group underwent total hip arthroplasty after 21.3 months (P = .999).

CONCLUSIONS

At the 2-year follow-up, treating small defects using IHRFT and larger defects using ITB resulted in good patient-reported outcome measures with a low rate of complications and failures. The ITB group reported a higher level of satisfaction at the final follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Increased rate of out-of-network surgeon selection for hip arthroscopy compared to more common orthopedic sports procedures

Background

Demand for hip arthroscopy (HA) has increased, but shortfalls in HA training may create disparities in care access. This analysis aimed to (1) compare out-of-network (OON) surgeon utilization for HA with that of more common orthopedics sports procedures, including rotator cuff repair (RCR), partial meniscectomy (PM), and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), (2) compare the HA OON surgeon rate with another less commonly performed procedure, meniscus allograft transplant (MAT), and (3) analyze trends and predictors of OON surgeon utilization.

Methods

The 2013-2017 IBM MarketScan database identified patients under 65 who underwent HA, RCR, PM, ACLR, or MAT. Demographic differences were determined using standardized differences. Cochran-Armitage tests analyzed trends in OON surgeon utilization. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of OON surgeon utilization. Statistical significance was set to p < 0.05 and significant standardized differences were >0.1.

Results

410,487 patients were identified, of which 12,636 patients underwent HA, 87,607 RCR, 233,241 PM, 76,700 ACLR, and 303 MAT. OON surgeon utilization increased for HA, rising from 7.98 % in 2013 to 9.37 % in 2017 (p = 0.026). Compared to RCR, PM, and ACLR, HA was associated with higher likelihood of OON surgeon utilization. Usage of ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) was predictive of higher OON surgeon rates along with procedure year, insurance plan type, and geographic region. HA performed in an ASC was 13 % less likely to have an OON surgeon (p = 0.047).

Conclusion

OON surgeon utilization generally declined but increased for HA. HA was a predictor of OON surgeon status, possibly because HA is a technically complicated procedure with fewer trained in-network providers. Other predictors of OON surgeon status included ASC usage, PPO/EPO plan type, and Northeast geographic region. There is a need to improve access to experienced HA providers-perhaps with prioritization of HA training in residency and fellowship programs-in order to address rising OON surgeon utilization.

Editorial Commentary: Cost Savings Related to Ambulatory Surgery Center Use Almost Exclusively Benefit the Payor

Use of ambulatory surgery centers for orthopaedic procedures has been on the rise. The cost of any given ambulatory procedure tends to be less at an ambulatory surgery center than at a hospital outpatient department. People may assume that these cost savings benefit the patient, but recent research using claims and reimbursement databases shows minimal patient out-of-pocket cost reduction, and this minimal reduction is gradually increasing. The research also shows lower surgeon and facility reimbursement. The payor primarily benefits. The explanation probably lies in the fact that for procedures such as hip arthroscopy, patients are likely to meet their deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums regardless of venue, and any cost reduction for these types of procedures almost exclusively benefits the payor. Compounding this, increasing deductibles and copayment requirements, as have been prevalent in recent years, likely contribute to overall increased patient out-of-pocket expenditures seen over time.