Preparing for participation in the centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' bundle care payment initiative-advanced for major bowel surgery

Association Between Modified Frailty Index and Postoperative Outcomes of Tracheostomies

OBJECTIVE

The 5-item modified frailty index (mFI-5) has been used to stratify patients based on the risk of postoperative complications in several surgical procedures but has not yet been done in tracheostomies. This study investigates the association between the mFI-5 score and tracheostomy complications.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective database review.

SETTING

United States hospitals.

METHODS

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for tracheostomy patients between 2005 and 2018. The mFI-5 was calculated for each patient by assigning 1 point for each of the following comorbidities: diabetes mellitus, hypertension, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and functionally dependent health status. Univariate and multivariable analyses were conducted to determine associations between the mFI-5 score and postoperative complications.

RESULTS

A total of 4438 patients undergoing tracheostomies were queried and stratified into the following groups: mFI = 0 (N = 1741 [39.2%], mFI = 1 (N = 1720 [38.8%]), mFI = 2 (N = 726 [16.4%]), and mFI of 3 or higher (N = 251 [5.7%]). Univariate analysis showed that patients with higher mFI-5 scores had a greater proportion of smoking, dyspnea, obesity, steroid use, emergency cases, complications, reoperations, and mortality (P < .001). Multivariable analyses found associations between mFI-5 score and any complication (odds ratio [OR]: 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.03-2.16, P = .035), mortality (OR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.15-4.68, P = .019), and any medical complication (OR: 2.75, 95% CI: 1.88-4.02, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests an association between the mFI-5 score and postoperative complications in tracheostomies. mFI-5 score can be used to stratify tracheostomy patients by operative risk.

Early Experiences With Bundled Payments for Care Improvement for Major Bowel Surgery

BACKGROUND

Bundled Payment (BP) models are becoming more common in surgery. We share our early experiences with Bundled Payments for Care Improvement for major bowel surgery.

METHODS

Patients undergoing major bowel surgery between January and October 2021 were identified using Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) codes. Major drivers of cost in a BP model are reported and compared to the Fee-For-Service (FFS) payment model.

RESULTS

A total of 202 cases (173 FFS vs 29 BP) were analyzed. The mean BP cost per Clinical Episode was $28,340. Eleven patients (38%) in the BP model had costs greater than the Target Price. The drivers of cost in the BP model were 59% acute care facility, 17% physician services, 9% post-acute care facilities, 8% other, and 7% readmissions. Clinical Episode of care costs varied considerably by MS-DRG case complexity. Robotic surgery increased costs by 35% (mean increase $3724, P < .01). The 90-day readmission rate was 17% for a mean cost of $11,332 per readmission. Three patients (10%) were discharged to a skilled nursing facility at an average cost of $11,009, while fifteen patients (52%) received home health services at a mean cost of $2947. Acute care facility costs were similar in the BP vs FFS groups (mean difference $1333, P = .22).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing major bowel surgery are a heterogeneous population. Physicians are ideally positioned to deliver high-value, patient-centered care and are crucial to the success of a BP model. The post-acute care setting is a key component of improving efficiency and quality of care.

Association of bundled payments with spending, utilization, and quality for surgical conditions: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

To assess the body of literature examining episode-based bundled payment models effect on health care spending, utilization, and quality of care for surgical conditions.

BACKGROUND SUMMARY

Episode-based bundled payments were developed as a strategy to lower healthcare spending and improve coordination across phases of healthcare. Surgical conditions may be well-suited targets for bundled payments because they often have defined periods of care and widely variable healthcare spending. In bundled payment models, hospitals receive financial incentives to reduce spending on care provided to patients during a predefined clinical episode. Despite the recent proliferation of bundles for surgical conditions, a collective understanding of their effect is not yet clear.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted, and four databases were queried from inception through September 27, 2021, with search strings for bundled payments and surgery. All studies were screened independently by two authors for inclusion.

RESULTS

Our search strategy yielded a total of 879 unique articles of which 222 underwent a full-text review and 28 met final inclusion criteria. Of these studies, most (23 of 28) evaluated the impact of voluntary bundled payments in orthopedic surgery and found that bundled payments are associated with reduced spending on total care episodes, attributed primarily to decreases in post-acute care spending. Despite reduced spending, clinical outcomes (e.g., readmissions, complications, and mortality) were not worsened by participation. Evidence supporting the effects of bundled payments on cost and clinical outcomes in other non-orthopedic surgical conditions remains limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Present evaluations of bundled payments primarily focus on orthopedic conditions and demonstrate cost savings without compromising clinical outcomes. Evidence for the effect of bundles on other surgical conditions and implications for quality and access to care remain limited.