Drivers of lower inpatient hospital costs and greater improvements in health-related quality of life for patients undergoing total shoulder and ream-and-run arthroplasty

Scoping Review: Anesthesiologist Involvement in Alternative Payment Models, Value Measurement, and Nonclinical Capabilities for Success in the United States of America

The US healthcare sector is undergoing significant payment reforms, leading to the emergence of Alternative Payment Models (APMs) aimed at improving clinical outcomes and patient experiences while reducing costs. This scoping review provides an overview of the involvement of anesthesiologists in APMs as found in published literature. It specifically aims to categorize and understand the breadth and depth of their participation, revolving around 3 main axes or "Aims": (1) shaping APMs through design and implementation, (2) gauging the value and quality of care provided by anesthesiologists within these models, and (3) enhancing nonclinical abilities of anesthesiologists for promoting more value in care. To map out the existing literature, a comprehensive search of relevant electronic databases was conducted, yielding a total of 2173 articles, of which 24 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 21 prospective or retrospective cohort studies, 2 surveys, and 1 case-control cohort study. Eleven publications (45%) discussed value-based, bundled, or episode-based payments, whereas the rest discussed non-payment-based models, such as Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (7 articles, 29%), Perioperative Surgical Home (4 articles, 17%), or other models (3 articles, 13%).The review identified key themes related to each aim. The most prominent themes for aim 1 included protocol standardization (16 articles, 67%), design and implementation leadership (8 articles, 33%), multidisciplinary collaboration (7 articles, 29%), and role expansion (5 articles, 21%). For aim 2, the common themes were Process-Based & Patient-Centric Metrics (1 article, 4%), Shared Accountability (3 articles, 13%), and Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC) (3 articles, 13%). Furthermore, we identified a wide range of quality metrics, spanning 8 domains that were used in these studies to evaluate anesthesiologists' performance. For aim 3, the main extracted themes included Education on Healthcare Transformation and Policies (3 articles, 13%), Exploring Collaborative Leadership Skills (5 articles, 21%), and Embracing Advanced Analytics and Data Transparency (4 articles, 17%).Findings revealed the pivotal role of anesthesiologists in the design, implementation, and refinement of these emerging delivery and payment models. Our results highlight that while payment models are shifting toward value, patient-centered metrics have yet to be widely accepted for use in measuring quality and affecting payment for anesthesiologists. Gaps remain in understanding how anesthesiologists assess their direct impact and strategies for enhancing the sustainability of anesthesia practices. This review underscores the need for future research contributing to the successful adaptation of clinical practices in this new era of healthcare delivery.

Implant breakage after shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of data from worldwide arthroplasty registries and clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Implant breakage after shoulder arthroplasty is a rare complication after aseptic loosening, infection or persistent pain, resulting in malfunction of the components requiring revision surgery. This correlates with a high burden for the patient and increasing costs. Specific data of complication rates and implant breakage are available in detailed arthroplasty registries, but due to the rare occurrence and possibly underestimated value rarely described in published studies. The aim of this systematic review was to point out the frequency of implant breakage after shoulder arthroplasty. We hypothesized that worldwide arthroplasty registry datasets record higher rates of implant breakage than clinical trials.

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database were utilized for this systematic review using the items "(implant fracture/complication/breakage) OR (glenoid/baseplate complication/breakage) AND (shoulder arthroplasty)" according to the PRISMA guidelines on July 3rd, 2023. Study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction were conducted according to the Cochrane standards. Case reports and experimental studies were excluded to reduce bias. The breakage rate per 100,000 observed component years was used to compare data from national arthroplasty registries and clinical trials, published in peer-reviewed journals. Relevant types of shoulder prosthetics were analyzed and differences in implant breakage were considered.

RESULTS

Data of 5 registries and 15 studies were included. Rates of implant breakage after shoulder arthroplasty were reported with 0.06-0.86% in registries versus 0.01-6.65% in clinical studies. The breakage rate per 100,000 observed component years was 10 in clinical studies and 9 in registries. There was a revision rate of 0.09% for registry data and 0.1% for clinical studies within a 10-year period. The most frequently affected component in connection with implant fracture was the glenoid insert.

CONCLUSION

Clinical studies revealed a similar incidence of implant failure compared to data of worldwide arthroplasty registries. These complications arise mainly due to breakage of screws and glenospheres and there seems to be a direct correlation to loosening. Periprosthetic joint infection might be associated with loosening of the prosthesis and subsequent material breakage. We believe that this analysis can help physicians to advise patients on potential risks after shoulder arthroplasty.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Drivers of inpatient hospitalization costs, joint-specific patient-reported outcomes, and health-related quality of life in shoulder arthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy

BACKGROUND

Cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) can be successfully treated with various types of shoulder arthroplasty. While reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is commonly used to treat CTA, CTA hemiarthroplasty (CTA-H, hemiarthroplasty with an extended humeral articular surface) can also be effective in patients with preserved glenohumeral elevation and an intact coracoacromial (CA) arch. As the value of arthroplasty is being increasingly scrutinized, cost containment has become a priority. The objective of this study was to assess hospitalization costs and improvements in joint-specific measures and health-related quality of life for these two types of shoulder arthroplasty in the management of CTA.

METHODS

Seventy-two patients (39 CTA-H and 33 RSA) were treated during the study time period using different selection criteria for each of the two procedures: CTA-H was selected in patients with retained active elevation, an intact CA arch, and an intact subscapularis, while RSA was selected in patients with pseudoparalysis or glenohumeral instability. The Simple Shoulder Test (SST) was used as a joint-specific patient-reported outcome measure. Improvement in quality-adjusted life years was measured using the Short Form 36. Costs associated with inpatient care were collected from hospital financial records. Univariate and multivariate analyses focused on determining predictors of hospitalization costs and improvements in patient-reported outcomes.

RESULTS

Significant improvements in SST and Short Form 36 physical component scores were seen in both groups. Inpatient hospitalization costs were significantly higher in the RSA group than that in the CTA-H group ($15,074 ± $1614 vs. $10,389 ± $1948, P < .001), driven primarily by supplies including the cost of the prosthesis ($9005 ± $2521 vs. $4715 ± $2091, P < .001). The diagnosis of diabetes was an independent predictor of higher inpatient hospitalization costs for both groups. There were no independent predictors for quality-adjusted life year improvements. SST improvement in the CTA-H group was significantly higher in patients with lower preoperative SST scores.

CONCLUSION

Using a standard algorithm of CTA-H for shoulders with retained active elevation and an intact CA arch and RSA for poor active elevation or glenohumeral instability, both procedures led to significant improvements in health-related quality of life and joint-specific measures. Costs were significantly lower for patients meeting the selection criteria for CTA-H. Further value analytics are needed to compare the relative cost effectiveness of RSA and CTA-H for patients with CTA having retained active elevation, intact CA arch, and intact subscapularis.

Prediction of total healthcare cost following total shoulder arthroplasty utilizing machine learning

BACKGROUND

Given the increase in demand in treatment of glenohumeral arthritis with anatomic total (aTSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), it is imperative to improve quality of patient care while controlling costs as private and federal insurers continue its gradual transition toward bundled payment models. Big data analytics with machine learning shows promise in predicting health care costs. This is significant as cost prediction may help control cost by enabling health care systems to appropriately allocate resources that help mitigate the cause of increased cost.

METHODS

The Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) was accessed in 2018. The database was queried for all primary aTSA and RTSA by International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) procedure codes: 0RRJ0JZ and 0RRK0JZ for aTSA and 0RRK00Z and 0RRJ00Z for RTSA. Procedures were categorized by diagnoses: osteoarthritis (OA), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), avascular necrosis (AVN), fracture, and rotator cuff arthropathy (RCA). Costs were calculated by utilizing the total hospital charge and each hospital's cost-to-charge ratio. Hospital characteristics were included, such as volume of procedures performed by the respective hospital for the calendar year and wage index, which represents the relative average hospital wage for the respective geographic area. Unplanned readmissions within 90 days were calculated using unique patient identifiers, and cost of readmissions was added to the total admission cost to represent the short-term perioperative health care cost. Machine learning algorithms were used to predict patients with immediate postoperative admission costs greater than 1 standard deviation from the mean, and readmissions.

RESULTS

A total of 49,354 patients were isolated for analysis, with an average patient age of 69.9 ± 9.6 years. The average perioperative cost of care was $18,843 ± $10,165. In total, there were 4279 all-cause readmissions, resulting in an average cost of $13,871.00 ± $14,301.06 per readmission. Wage index, hospital volume, patient age, readmissions, and diagnosis-related group severity were the factors most correlated with the total cost of care. The logistic regression and random forest algorithms were equivalent in predicting the total cost of care (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.83).

CONCLUSION

After shoulder arthroplasty, there is significant variability in cumulative hospital costs, and this is largely affected by readmissions. Hospital characteristics, such as geographic area and volume, are key determinants of overall health care cost. When accounting for this, machine learning algorithms may predict cases with high likelihood of increased resource utilization and/or readmission.