Barriers to Revision Total Hip Service Lines: A Surgeon's Perspective Through a Deterministic Financial Model

Epidemiology of total hip arthroplasty: demographics, comorbidities and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Primary THA (THA) is a successful procedure for end-stage hip osteoarthritis. In the setting of a failed THA, revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) acts as a salvage procedure. This procedure has increased risks, including sepsis, infection, prolonged surgery time, blood loss, and increased length of stay. Increasing focus on understanding of demographics, comorbidities, and inpatient outcomes can lead to better perioperative optimization and post-operative outcomes. This epidemiological registry study aimed to compare the demographics, comorbidity profiles, and outcomes of patients undergoing THA and rTHA.

METHODS

A retrospective review of discharge data reported from 2006 to the third quarter of 2015 using the National Inpatient Sample registry was performed. The study included adult patients aged 40 and older who underwent either THA or rTHA. A total of 2,838,742 THA patients and 400,974 rTHA patients were identified.

RESULTS

The primary reimbursement for both THA and rTHA was dispensed by Medicare at 53.51% and 65.36% of cases respectively. Complications arose in 27.32% of THA and 39.46% of rTHA cases. Postoperative anemia was the most common complication in groups (25.20% and 35.69%). Common comorbidities in both groups were hypertension and chronic pulmonary disease. rTHA indications included dislocation/instability (21.85%) followed by mechanical loosening (19.74%), other mechanical complications (17.38%), and infection (15.10%).

CONCLUSION

Our data demonstrated a 69.50% increase in patients receiving THA and a 28.50% increase in rTHA from the years 2006 to 2014. The data demonstrated 27.32% and 39.46% complication rate with THA and rTHA, with postoperative anemia as the most common cause. Common comorbidities were hypertension and chronic pulmonary disease. Future analyses into preoperative optimizations, such as prior consultation with medical specialists or improved primary hip protocol, should be considered to prevent/reduce postoperative complications amongst a progressive expansion in patients receiving both THA and rTHA.

Surgeons Experience More Physiologic Stress and Strain During Revision Than Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) procedures are more complex than primary TKA and THA, but their physiologic burden to the surgeon has not been quantified. While rTKA and rTHA have longer operative times, it is unknown whether differences exist in stress and strain compared to primary TKA and primary THA. The study was conducted to elicit whether differences exist in surgeon physiological response while performing rTKA and rTKA compared to primary TKA and primary THA.

METHODS

We evaluated a prospective cohort study of 70 consecutive cases (23 primary TKAs, 12 primary THAs, 16 rTKAs, and 19 rTHAs). Two high-volume fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons wore a smart vest that recorded cardiorespiratory data while performing primary THA, primary TKA, rTHA, and rTKA. Heart rate (beats/minute), stress index (correlates with sympathetic activation), respiratory rate (respirations/minute), minute ventilation (L/min), and energy expenditure (Calories) were collected for every case, along with patient body mass index (kilograms/meter²) and working operative time (minutes). T-tests were used to assess for differences between the two groups.

RESULTS

Compared to primary TKA, performing rTKAs had a significantly higher surgeon stress index (17 versus 15; P = .035), heart rate (104 versus 99; P = .007), energy expenditure per case (409 versus 297; P = .002), and a significantly lower heart rate variability (11 versus 12; P = .006). Compared to primary THA, performing rTHA had a significantly higher energy expenditure per case (431 versus 307; P = .007) and trended towards having a higher surgeon stress index (16 versus 14; P = .272) and a lower heart rate variability (11 versus 12; P = .185), although it did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Surgeons experience higher physiological stress and strain when performing rTKA and rTHA compared to primary TKA and primary THA. This study provides objective data on what many surgeons feel and should promote further research on the specific stress and strain felt by surgeons who perform revision arthroplasty procedures.

Are Trends in Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty Sustainable? Declining Inflation-Adjusted Medicare Reimbursement for Hospitalizations

BACKGROUND

While the burden of revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA) procedures increases within the United States, it is unclear whether health care resource allocation for these complex cases has kept pace. This study examined the trends in hospital-level reimbursements for revision TJA hospitalizations.

METHODS

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) inpatient utilization and payment public use files from 2014 to 2019 were queried for diagnostic-related groups (DRGs) for revision TJA: DRG 467 (revision of hip or knee arthroplasty with complication or comorbidity [CC]) and DRG 468 (revision of hip or knee arthroplasty without CC or major CC). From 2014 to 2019, 170,808 revision TJA hospitalizations were billed to Medicare, and revision TJA procedures increased by 3,121 (10.7%). After adjusting to 2019 US dollars with the consumer price index, a multiple linear mixed-model regression analysis was performed. Analysis of covariance compared regressions from 2014 to 2019 for mean-adjusted Medicare payment and mean- adjusted charge were submitted for these DRGs.

RESULTS

Mean-adjusted average Medicare payment for DRG 467 decreased by $804.37 (-3.5%) from 2014 to 2019, whereas, that for DRG 468 decreased by $647.33 (-3.6%). The average inflation-adjusted Medicare payment for DRG 467 decreased at a greater rate during the study period, compared to that for DRG 468 (P = .02).

CONCLUSION

The decline in reimbursement for DRGs 467 and 468 reveals decreasing incentives for revision TJA hospitalizations. Further research should assess the efficacy of current Medicare payment algorithms and identify modifications which may provide for fair hospital level reimbursements.

A Retrospective Review of Reimbursement in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Disparity Between Case Complexity and RVU Compensation

BACKGROUND

Revision total hip arthroplasties (THA) are time-consuming, expensive, and technically challenging. Today's Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes and relative value units (RVU) may in fact disincentivize surgeons to perform revision THAs. Our study reviewed labor and time investments for each component-specific revision THA and analyzed the gap between procedural value billed and final reimbursement.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 165 primary and revision THAs were validated using operative notes and billing records. We stratified revision THAs by standard CPT coding (with modifiers) as single acetabular component, single femoral component, femoral head plus polyethylene liner (head/liner) exchange, all-components, and spacer placement for infection. Operative time, RVUs, total charges, deductions, and final reimbursement data was collected. Mann-Whitney U tests studied final reimbursement per minute vs per RVU in revision and primary THAs.

RESULTS

Our cohort consisted of 27 primary THAs, 26 acetabular component revisions, 32 head/liner exchanges, 26 femoral component revisions, 27 all-component revisions, and 27 spacer placements. Compared to primary THAs, every revision subgroup except for head/liner exchanges were found to reimburse less per minute and all revision subgroups reimbursed less per RVU (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Physicians face less reimbursement per minute and per RVU for revision THAs. With cuts in reimbursement set forth by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and insurers, revisions may be financially unfavorable. This ultimately will lead to an impending access to care problem in the future. Our study supports the need to re-examine the RVU allocation amongst revision THAs and evaluate changes to the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) coding system.

Factors associated with RVU generation in common sports medicine procedures

INTRODUCTION

Relative value units (RVUs) are integral to the U.S. physician compensation system used by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The use of 'work RVUs' (herein, wRVUs) is intended to reimburse physicians according to the amount of expertise and effort needed to safely and effectively perform a procedure. Our purpose was to determine: 1) the number of wRVUs/hour generated by common sports medicine surgical procedures; and 2) how patient characteristics, surgical approach, and practice setting are associated with the number of wRVUs/hour. This analysis was performed to infer whether wRVUs are assigned appropriately according to the factors on which they are purported to be based.

METHODS

We queried the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database for common sports medicine surgical procedures performed in 2018. Data from 19,877 patients (8,258 women) with a mean age of 48 years (range, 18-90) who underwent a surgical sports medicine procedure were analyzed. Work RVUs and operative time were used to calculate work RVUs/hour for each surgical procedure. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to assess correlations between patient characteristics and wRVUs/hour.

RESULTS

Knee chondroplasty generated the most mean (± standard deviation) wRVUs/hour at 22 ± 0.5, whereas 'open tenodesis of biceps tendon, long head' generated the least at 9.6 ± 0.25 wRVUs/hour. Factors associated with a greater mean number of wRVUs/hour were younger patient age, female sex, arthroscopic approach, and outpatient setting. Arthroscopic procedures also generated more wRVUs/hour than the same procedures performed through an open approach. wRVUs were not correlated with case complexity or surgical time.

CONCLUSION

wRVUs/hour in surgical sports medicine procedures vary widely depending on the procedure type, patient characteristics, surgical approach, and practice setting.

Revision ACL reconstruction has higher incidence of 30-day hospital readmission, reoperation, and surgical complications relative to primary procedures

PURPOSE

Although there has been substantial improvement in ACL reconstructive surgery, graft failure remains a devastating complication for some patients. Revision procedures are inherently more complex and technically challenging. The purpose of this study is to determine the incidence of short-term complications after these procedures and to compare trends in operative length, relative valuation, and reimbursement after primary versus revision ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

Primary and revision arthroscopic ACL reconstruction cases were identified on the American College of Surgeons' NSQIP database using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) and International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2017. Demographics, patient variables, and surgical variables were compared between primary and revision groups using Chi-squared tests. Logistic regression was used to identify independent risk factors for revision ACL reconstruction. Various 30-day outcome measures were compared between the primary and revision ACL reconstruction groups. Various measures of valuation-including total relative value units (RVU) and reimbursement per minute-were calculated and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 8292 patients-8135 primary and 157 revision procedures-were included in the final cohort. Higher ASA scores were associated with revision ACL reconstructions. Patients undergoing revision procedures were less likely to have an ASA score of 1 (p < 0.001) and more likely to have an ASA score of 2 (p = 0.004) or 3 (p = 0.020). Revision ACL reconstruction was associated with higher rates of poor 30-day outcome measures, including unplanned readmission (p = 0.029), reoperation (p = 0.012), return to the OR (p = 0.012), and surgical complications (p = 0.021). The total RVUs and reimbursement for revision procedures were significantly greater than those for primary procedures (p < 0.001). However, when accounting for operative time, the RVU/minute and reimbursement/minute were similar between the two groups (n.s.).

CONCLUSIONS

Relative to primary ACL reconstruction, revision ACL procedures are associated with worse short-term outcomes-including unplanned readmission, reoperation, return to the OR, and surgical complications. A greater ASA score was independently predictive of revision ACL surgery. The current RVU system undervalues revision ACL procedures, considering the increased operative time and complexity of such procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Primary versus revision total shoulder arthroplasty: comparing relative value and reimbursement trends

Background

Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment for multiple shoulder pathologies. The purpose of our study was to compare the relative value units (RVUs) per minute of surgical time for primary and revision TSA.

Methods

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried to identify patients that underwent primary TSA, one-component revision TSA, and two-component revision TSA between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017 using current procedure terminology codes. RVUs were divided by mean operative time for each procedure to determine the amount of revenue generated per minute. Rates were compared between the groups using a one-way analysis of variance with post-hoc Tukey test. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.

Results

When dividing compensation by surgical time, we found that two-component revision generated more compensation per minute compared to primary TSA (0.284±0.114 vs. 0.239±0.278 RVU per minute or $10.25±$4.11 vs. $8.64±$10.05 per minute, respectively; p=0.001).

Conclusions

The relative value of revision TSA procedures is weighted to account for the increased technical challenges and time associated with these procedures. This study confirms that reimbursement is higher for revision TSA compared to primary TSA.

Modelling Stakeholder Valuation: An Example Using the Surgical Treatments for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease

Background

Assessing the value of a treatment is of great importance. Typical methods are directed toward policy decisions. However, individual stakeholders will have different valuation based on their interests.

Methods

Formulas were developed to quantify the value of a treatment from the patient, surgeon, hospital, and private third-party payer. These formulas are based on observed factors that go into treatment decision-making for each stakeholder. Using the example of four surgical treatment options for gastroesophageal reflux disease, values for each factor were obtained from publically available documents or were arbitrarily estimated.

Results

From the patient perspective, the laparoscopic Nissen fundoplication (LNF) provided the best value at 2.99 quality-adjusted life years per $1,000 spent. From the surgeon perspective, it provided the best value at $752.20 earned per hour effort. From the hospital perspective, LNP provided the best value at $3,446 earned per episode of care. Lastly, from the third-party payer perspective, total incisionless fundoplication provided the best value at $13,336 per year.

Conclusions

Because value is measured differently for each stakeholder, there will be conflicts as to how treatment options are valued.

Financial Burden of Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty at an Orthopedic Specialty Hospital: Higher Costs and Unequal Reimbursements

BACKGROUND

As demand for primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) continues to grow, a proportionate increase in revision TJA (rTJA) is expected. It is essential to understand costs and reimbursement of rTJA as our country moves to bundled payment models. We aimed (1) to characterize implant and total hospital costs, (2) assess reimbursement, and (3) determine revenue for rTJA in comparison with primary TJA.

METHODS

The average implant and total hospital cost of all primary and rTJA procedures by diagnosis-related group (DRG) was calculated using time-driven activity-based costing at an orthopedic hospital from 2018 to 2020. Average reimbursement and payer type were assessed by DRG. Revenue was calculated by deducting average time-driven activity-based costing total costs from reimbursement.

RESULTS

13,946 arthroplasties were included in the study. Implant cost comprised 55.8% of total hospital costs for rTJA DRG 468, compared with 43.6% of total hospital costs for primary TJA DRG 470. Total hospital costs for DRG 468 were 61.1% more than DRG 470. Reimbursement for rTJA was 1.23x more than primary TJA. Private payers paid 23.2% more than Medicare for rTJA. Margin for DRG 468 was 1.5% less than primary DRG 470.

CONCLUSION

rTJA requires more hospital resources and costs than primaries, yet hospital reimbursement may be inadequate with the additional expenditures necessary to provide optimal care. If hospitals cannot perform revision services under the current reimbursement model, patient access may be limited. Implant costs are a major contributor to overall rTJA cost. Strategies are needed to reduce revision implant costs to improve value of care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, economic and decision analysis.