Surprise Out-of-Network Bills for Hand and Upper Extremity Trauma Patients

Timing of Type I Open Distal Radius Fracture Fixation Does Not Affect Early Complication Rates

Purpose

There is limited published evidence regarding the optimal management of type I open fractures of the distal radius. The purpose of this study was to compare short-term complication rates among open fractures of the distal radius, with attention to the timing of management of type I fractures. Our hypothesis was that there would not be a temporal association between treatment and infection for type I open distal radius fractures (DRFs).

Methods

A retrospective review of all open DRFs at a single level-1 trauma center over a 10-year period was performed. Patients were grouped based on Gustilo Anderson open fracture classification. The primary outcome measures were superficial and deep infection rates in all patients with a minimum of 6-month follow-up. A subgroup analysis was performed for Gustilo Anderson type I injuries with a 3-month follow-up based on time to surgery.

Results

Seventy-one patients with open DRFs were included for analysis with an average follow-up of 16.7 months. There was a higher rate of deep infection (30%) and average number of revision surgeries (3.0) in the type III cohort compared with both type II (4% and 0.6) and type I (0% and 0.39) cohorts. A subgroup analysis of 63 type I fractures with a minimum of 3-month follow-up revealed zero infections, with no difference in other complications or number of revision surgeries among patients definitively managed within 24 hours, 24-72 hours, and greater than 72 hours. Two patients were managed nonoperatively, without complication.

Conclusions

Type I open DRFs differ from higher grade DRFs with regard to demographics and injury characteristics, along with infection, complication, and reoperation rates. With no infections in the type I DRF cohort and no difference in complication rates based on time to debridement, our data suggest that it is safe to manage type I open DRFs similarly to closed injuries regarding surgical timing.

Type of study/level of evidence

Therapeutic III.

A feasibility model for restructuring the role of the hand surgeon taking call at a level I trauma center

Background

The discrepancy between the volume of hand-related consults and the concurrent lack of specialized hand surgeons available continues to strain an overburdened system. Recent attention has focused on the redistribution of this workload towards management in the outpatient realm.

Methods

This is a retrospective review of hand consults for the plastic surgery service over summer and winter intervals at a Level I trauma center. Consults were triaged with non-plastic surgery residents managing consults through remote direction of a plastic surgery resident. Demographic, clinical and outcomes data were analyzed to make inferences regarding care.

Results

There were 116 hand consults of which 94.8 ​% were managed acutely by non-plastic surgery clinicians. Lacerations and fractures were more common in the summer, while infections and dislocations were more common in the wintertime (p value ​= ​0.0029). The three most common procedures were reduction and splinting (41.4 ​%), suturing (28.4 ​%), and incision and drainage (6.0 ​%). 12.1 ​% were admitted for management of the hand-related issue. Average time to the OR was shortest for infections or compartment syndrome as compared to that for other acquired concerns (1.0 days versus 11.6 days, p ​= ​0.0027). There were two complications (1.7 ​%) involving an unplanned return to the OR, but neither resulted from a delay in treatment.

Conclusions

We propose a model of offloading the majority of hand consults through coverage by trainees with trauma experience knowledgeable in the basics of hand exams and general procedures. This model was safe and effective across a wide range of hand-related complaints.

Financial Toxicity Among Patients With Traumatic Finger Amputation: A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Patients face increasing financial toxicity (FT), defined as emotional distress due to the cost of medical treatment. However, little is known regarding FT in the context of upper extremity trauma.

METHODS

We surveyed patients who sustained traumatic finger amputation (October 21, 2011-January 1, 2021). We collected patient-reported financial distress using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST-11), where a lower score indicates worse FT. We also collected data of patients' perceptions regarding the costs of their treatment. We used linear regression to assess patient-level characteristics associated with FT as measured by the COST-11 score.

RESULTS

Of the 191 eligible patients, 46 patients completed the survey (response rate of 24%). A total of 41 respondents (89%) received an initial treatment of revision amputation, with the remaining patients receiving a semi-occlusive dressing. Patients with commercial insurance had significantly lower COST-11 scores (ie, worse FT) than patients with Medicare (β = 7.5, 95% CI: 0.5 to 14.5) and Worker's Compensation (β = 8.7, 95% CI: 1.8 to 15.6). Patients who were single/never married had significantly worse FT (β = -11.3, 95% CI: -18.7 to -3.9). Approximately 35% (n = 16) reported that the costs were higher than expected. More than a third of patients (39%) reported decreasing spending on basic items, such as food, at least once since surgery.

CONCLUSION

Patients face FT when obtaining surgery following traumatic finger amputation. Variation in the FT is associated with type of insurance and marriage status, highlighting how underinsurance and social support likely affect the overall economic well-being of patients.

Surprise Billing in Elective Shoulder Surgery and Its Effect on Patient Satisfaction

Patients often receive multiple bills following surgery, which may come as a surprise to them if they are not appropriately informed or educated prior to surgery. The purpose of this study was to identify whether surprise billing occurs following shoulder rotator cuff repair and its effect on patient satisfaction. The study surveyed adult patients who underwent elective rotator cuff repair from January 2020 to October 2021. Patients were asked if they received unexpected bills after their surgery, as well as about details regarding those bills. Additionally, patients were asked about their medical insurance carrier, knowledge of the billing process prior to surgery, and how they felt the process could be improved. Finally, patients were asked how these bills and the overall billing process affected their surgical satisfaction. Of the 158 responses, 25% of the patients stated they received at least one surprise bill following their rotator cuff surgery, with 57% of these bills being greater than $1000. Patients who received surprise bills reported being significantly less satisfied with their surgery (P<.001) and felt their billing experience affected their surgical satisfaction (64% vs 9%, P<.001). One in 4 patients undergoing elective rotator cuff repair received a surprise bill following surgery. These bills were monetarily substantial and significantly affected surgical satisfaction. Although surgeons may be unable to limit the amount of bills patients receive postoperatively, increased communication and education regarding the perioperative billing process may prove to be beneficial for both patient satisfaction and the physician-patient relationship. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(2):123-127.].

Site of Ambulance Origination and Billing for Out-of-Network Services

Importance

The No Surprises Act implemented in 2022 aims to protect patients from surprise out-of-network (OON) bills, but it does not include ground ambulance services. Understanding ground ambulance OON and balance billing patterns from previous years could guide legislation aimed to protect patients following ground ambulance use.

Objective

To characterize OON billing from ground ambulance services by evaluating whether OON billing risk differs by the site of ambulance origination (home, hospital, nonhospital medical facility, or scene of incident).

Design, Setting, and Participants

Cross-sectional study of the Merative MarketScan dataset between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, using claims-based data from employer-based private health insurance plans in the US. Participants included patients who utilized ground ambulances during the study period. Data were analyzed from June to December 2023.

Exposure

Medical encounter requiring ground ambulance transportation.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Ground ambulance OON billing prevalence was calcuated. Linear probability models adjusted for state-level mixed effects were fit to evaluate OON billing probability across ambulance origins. Secondary outcomes included the allowed payment, patient cost-sharing amounts, and potential balance bills for OON ambulances.

Results

Among 2 031 937 ground ambulance services (1 375 977 unique patients) meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 1 072 791 (52.8%) rides transported men, and the mean (SD) patient age was 41 (18) years. Of all services, 1 113 676 (54.8%) were billed OON. OON billing probabilities for ambulances originating from home or scene were higher by 12.0 percentage points (PP) (95% CI, 11.8-12.2 PP; P < .001 for home; 95% CI, 11.7-12.2 PP; P < .001 for scene) vs those originating from hospitals. Mean (SD) total financial burden, including cost-sharing and potential balance bills per ambulance service, was $434.70 ($415.99) per service billed OON vs $132.21 ($244.92) per service billed in-network.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of over 2 million ground ambulance services, ambulances originating from home, the scene of an incident, and nonhospital medical facilities were more likely to result in OON bills. Legislation is needed to protect patients from surprise billing following use of ground ambulances, more than half of which resulted in OON billing. Future legislation should at minimum offer protections for these subsets of patients often calling for an ambulance in urgent or emergent situations.