Do all outpatient spine surgeries cost the same? Comparison of economic outcomes data from a state-level database for outpatient lumbar decompression performed in an ambulatory surgery center or hospital outpatient setting

One year patient reported outcomes after single-level lumbar fusion at orthopedic specialty hospital compared to tertiary referral center

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Lumbar spinal fusion is an increasingly common operation to treat symptoms related to degenerative disorders of the spine including radiculopathy and pain. As the volume of spine surgeries grows, it is becoming increasingly common for procedures to take place in nontertiary care centers, including orthopaedic specialty hospitals (OSH). While previous research demonstrates that surgical outcomes at an OSH are noninferior to those at a tertiary referral center (TRC), the implications of this difference on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have not been sufficiently assessed.

PURPOSE

The objectives of this study were (1) to determine if changes in patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) after elective lumbar spinal fusion surgery differ between patients who undergo surgery at an orthopedic specialty hospital (OSH) and those who undergo surgery at a tertiary referral center (TRC) and (2) to characterize differences in short-term outcomes between hospitals.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Adult patients (≥18 years old) who underwent primary, elective single-level posterior lumbar decompression and fusion between January 2014 and December 2021 at a tertiary referral center or an orthopaedic specialty hospital.

OUTCOME MEASURES

PROMs: Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), Short-form 12 (SF12) Mental Component Summary (MCS); SF12 Physical Component Summary (PCS); Visual Analogue Back and Leg (VAS Back/Leg) METHODS: PROMs were collected preoperatively, 6 months after surgery, and 1 year after surgery. Six-month and 1-year delta PROM values were calculated by subtracting the preoperative PROM score from the 6-month or 1-year score, respectively. Multivariable linear regression analyses were conducted to assess the independent effect of hospital location on postoperative PROM scores.

RESULTS

A total of 288 patients were identified as part of the study cohort including 205 patients who underwent surgery at the tertiary hospital and 83 patients who underwent surgery at the OSH. OSH patients had shorter length of stay (1.57±0.72 vs. 3.28±1.32, p<.001), however there was no difference in discharge disposition or 90-day readmission rates between hospitals (p>.05). At 6 months, having surgery at the specialty hospital was associated with higher PCS (estimate=2.96, confidence interval: 0.21-5.71, p=.035). At 1-year postoperatively, the location of surgery no longer demonstrated significant associations with PROM scores. Preoperative PROM scores demonstrated significant associations with 6-month and 1-year scores for each PROM (p<.05) except VAS leg at 6 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge, this is one of the largest studies investigating PROMs at OSH versus TRCs for single-level lumbar fusions. We demonstrated that at 1-year follow-up, there is not a significant difference in PROM improvement between patients who undergo surgery at a TRC and patients who do so at an OSH.

2020 CMS prior authorization for hospital outpatient departments: Associated surgical volume impact

BACKGROUND

Prior authorization is common for privately administered Medicare Advantage plans but is rarely used for surgical care when considering publicly administered plans. A 2020 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services (CMS) policy, CMS-1717-FC, requires prior authorization for Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries undergoing select procedures (blepharoplasty, abdominoplasty, botulinum toxin injection, rhinoplasty, and vein ablation) in hospital outpatient departments. The impact of this policy on surgical volume at hospital outpatient departments and shifts in care to ambulatory surgery centers is unknown.

METHODS

This study used a segmented interrupted time series and pre-post logistic regression model. This study was a retrospective cohort study using data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project state ambulatory surgery database and state inpatient database.

RESULTS

From 2016 through 2021, a total of 272,879 patients underwent the affected procedures. Pre-CMS-1717-FC, a trend of decreasing hospital outpatient department utilization was found for Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries (-10.82, 95% confidence interval: -18.32 to -3.33, P = .01). In the post-implementation period, no change in the rate of decreasing hospital outpatient department utilization was found for Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries (-3.45, 95% confidence interval: -36.15 to 29.25, P = .83). In the pre-policy period, Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries were 46% less likely to use freestanding ambulatory surgery centers but 27% less likely to use hospital-owned ambulatory surgery centers.

CONCLUSION

CMS-1717-FC was not associated with significant changes in hospital outpatient department volume beyond baseline trends. Policy aiming to right-size prior authorization for these procedures and considering site-of-service will balance the need to ensure medical necessity while constraining costs.

Lumbar Decompression With and Without Fusion for Lumbar Stenosis With Spondylolisthesis: A Cost Utility Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Markov model.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cost-effectiveness of lumbar decompression alone (DA) with lumbar decompression with fusion (DF) for the management of adults undergoing surgery for lumbar stenosis with associated degenerative spondylolisthesis.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Rates of lumbar fusion have increased for all indications in the United States over the last 20 years. Recent randomized controlled trial data, however, have suggested comparable functional outcomes and lower reoperation rates for lumbar decompression and fusion as compared with DA in the treatment of lumbar stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multistate Markov model was constructed from the US payer perspective of a hypothetical cohort of patients with lumbar stenosis with associated spondylolisthesis requiring surgery. Data regarding clinical improvement, costs, and reoperation were generated from contemporary randomized trial evidence, meta-analyses of recent prospective studies, and large retrospective cohorts. Base case, one-way sensitivity analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted, and the results were compared with a WTP threshold of $100,000 (in 2022 USD) over a two-year time horizon. A discount rate of 3% was utilized.

RESULTS

The incremental cost and utility of DF relative to DA were $12,778 and 0.00529 aggregated quality adjusted life years. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $2,416,281 far exceeded the willingness to pay threshold of $100,000. In sensitivity analysis, the results varied the most with respect to rate of improvement after DA, rate of improvement after lumbar decompression and fusion, and odds ratio of reoperation between the two groups. Zero percent of one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses achieved cost-effectiveness at the willingness-to-pay threshold.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the context of contemporary surgical data, DF is not cost-effective compared with DA in the surgical management of lumbar stenosis with associated spondylolisthesis over a two-year time horizon.

Site of Service Disparities Exist for Total Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The rate of outpatient total joint arthroplasty procedures, including those performed at ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) and hospital outpatient departments, is increasing. The purpose of this study was to analyze if type of insurance is associated with site of service (in-patient vs outpatient) for total joint arthroplasty and adverse outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), or total hip arthroplasty (THA) using Current Procedural Terminology codes in a national administrative claims database. Eligible patients were stratified by type of insurance (Medicaid, Medicare, private). The primary outcome was site of service. Secondary outcomes included general complications, procedural complications, and revision procedures. We evaluated the associations using adjusted multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

We identified 951,568 patients for analysis; 46,703 (4.9%) patients underwent UKA, 607,221 (63.8%) underwent TKA, and 297,644 (31.3%) underwent THA. Overall, 9.6% of procedures were outpatient. Patients with Medicaid were less likely than privately insured patients to receive outpatient UKA or THA (UKA: odds ratio [OR], 0.729 [95% CI, 0.640-0.829]; THA: OR, 0.625 [95% CI, 0.557-0.702]) but more likely than patients with Medicare to receive outpatient TKA or THA (TKA: OR, 1.391 [95% CI, 1.315-1.472]; THA: OR, 1.327 [95% CI, 1.166-1.506]). Patients with Medicaid were more likely to experience complications and revision procedures.

CONCLUSION

Differences in site of service and complication rates following hip and knee arthroplasty exist based on type of insurance, suggesting a disparity in care. Further exploration of drivers of this disparity is warranted and can inform interventions (eg, progressive value-based payments) to support equity in orthopedic services. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(3):179-184.].

Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in the Ambulatory Surgery Center Versus Inpatient Setting: A 1-Year Comparative Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) have emerged as an alternative setting for surgical care as part of the national effort to lower health care costs. The literature regarding the safety of minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MIS TLIF) in the ASC setting is limited to few small case series.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the safety and efficacy of MIS TLIF performed in the ASC vs inpatient hospital setting.

METHODS

A total of 775 patients prospectively enrolled in the Quality Outcomes Database undergoing single-level MIS TLIF at a single ASC (100) or the inpatient hospital setting (675) were compared. Propensity matching generated 200 patients for analysis (100 per cohort). Demographic data, resource utilization, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and patient satisfaction were assessed.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences regarding baseline demographic data, clinical history, or comorbidities after propensity matching. Only 1 patient required inpatient transfer from the ASC because of intractable pain. All other patients were discharged home within 23 hours of surgery. The rates of 90-day readmission (2.0%) and reoperation (0%) were equivalent between groups. Both groups experienced significant improvements in all PROMs (Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol-5D, back pain, and leg pain) at 3 months that were maintained at 1 year. PROMs did not differ between groups at any time point. Patient satisfaction was similar between groups at 3 and 12 months after surgery.

CONCLUSION

In carefully selected patients, MIS TLIF may be performed safely in the ASC setting with no statistically significant difference in safety or efficacy in comparison with the inpatient setting.

Time of Discharge and 30-Day Re-Presentation to an Acute Care Setting After Elective Lumbar Decompression Surgery

BACKGROUND

Evidence regarding the consequence of efforts to increase patient throughput and decrease length of stay in the context of elective spine surgery is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether early time of discharge results in increased rates of hospital readmission or return to emergency department for patients admitted after elective, posterior, lumbar decompression surgery.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 779 patients admitted to hospital after undergoing elective, posterior, lumbar decompression surgery. Multiple logistic regression evaluated the relationship between time of discharge and the primary outcome of return to acute care within 30 days, while controlling for sociodemographic, procedural, and discharge characteristics.

RESULTS

In multiple logistic regression, time of discharge earlier in the day was not associated with increased odds of return to acute care within 30 days (odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% CI 0.92-1.52, P = .19). Weekend discharge (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.04-3.79, P = .04) increased the likelihood of return to acute care. Surgeon experience (<1 year of attending practice, OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.19-1.00, P = .05 and 2-5 years of attending practice, OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25-1.01, P = .054), weekend discharge (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27-0.89, P = .02), and physical therapy evaluation (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.12-0.33, P < .001) decreased the likelihood of discharge before noon.

CONCLUSION

Time of discharge is not associated with risk of readmission or presentation to the emergency department after elective lumbar decompression. Weekend discharge is independently associated with increased risk of readmission and decreased likelihood of prenoon discharge.

Development and internal validation of predictive models to assess risk of post-acute care facility discharge in adults undergoing multi-level instrumented fusions for lumbar degenerative pathology and spinal deformity

PURPOSE

To develop a model for factors predictive of Post-Acute Care Facility (PACF) discharge in adult patients undergoing elective multi-level (≥ 3 segments) lumbar/thoracolumbar spinal instrumented fusions.

METHODS

The State Inpatient Databases acquired from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project from 2005 to 2013 were queried for adult patients who underwent elective multi-level thoracolumbar fusions for spinal deformity. Outcome variables were classified as discharge to home or PACF. Predictive variables included demographic, pre-operative, and operative factors. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses informed development of a logistic regression-based predictive model using seven selected variables. Performance metrics included area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity.

RESULTS

Included for analysis were 8866 patients. The logistic model including significant variables from multivariate analysis yielded an AUC of 0.75. Stepwise logistic regression was used to simplify the model and assess number of variables needed to reach peak AUC, which included seven selected predictors (insurance, interspaces fused, gender, age, surgical region, CCI, and revision surgery) and had an AUC of 0.74. Model cut-off for predictive PACF discharge was 0.41, yielding a sensitivity of 75% and specificity of 59%.

CONCLUSIONS

The seven variables associated significantly with PACF discharge (age > 60, female gender, non-private insurance, primary operations, instrumented fusion involving 8+ interspaces, thoracolumbar region, and higher CCI scores) may aid in identification of adults at risk for discharge to a PACF following elective multi-level lumbar/thoracolumbar spinal fusions for spinal deformity. This may in turn inform discharge planning and expectation management.

Assessment of Spine Patient Preferences for the Location of Surgery Between a Hospital and an Ambulatory Surgical Center in the Time of COVID-19: An Analysis of Patient Surveys

Introduction There has been a recent increase in the number of spinal procedures that can be performed in ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs). Studies have found that patients who undergo procedures at ASCs tend to have lower complication rates following procedures, including lower infection rates. Furthermore, ASCs offer significantly lower costs of procedures to patients and health insurance companies as compared to the costs of procedures performed in a hospital. Despite precautions and screening in place by ASCs, patients may be hesitant to undergo procedures outside of the hospital. Conversely, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has created hesitancy for many to go to the hospital for care due to the presence of COVID patients.  Objective To assess patient preferences in the location of elective spine procedures between ASCs and hospitals, the authors conducted a survey of spine surgery candidates in a single practice. Methods A survey measuring patient age, vaccination status, fear of contracting COVID-19, and preference of surgery location was given to spinal surgery candidates at a single practice between fall 2021 and winter 2022. Statistical differences between the means of response groups were measured by a two-sample Z-score test. Results A total of 58 surveys were completed by patients. No difference in preference was observed by age. A difference was observed between genders, with 66% of females preferring ASCs to 40% of males (α=0.03). Patients with a fear of contracting COVID-19 preferred to have their procedure performed in an ASC. No difference was observed in location due to vaccination status, but unvaccinated patients had a significantly lower fear of contracting COVID-19 (α=0.02). Conclusion The differences in patient preferences have no clear cause, highlighting the need for better patient education in regard to the risks and benefits of each location of surgery. The fear of contracting COVID-19 on the day of surgery appears to be more ideological than rational for unvaccinated patients, who had less fear of contracting COVID-19 than vaccinated patients, despite being more likely to contract COVID-19 than vaccinated patients.