Patient Out-of-Pocket Cost Burden With Elective Orthopaedic Surgery

Trends and postoperative outcomes of thyroidectomy after expansion and rise of health insurance deductibles in the fiscal year

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to evaluate a relationship between expansion of High Deductible Health Plans (HDHPs) and the number of thyroid surgery cases with associated postoperative outcomes in the fiscal year.

METHODS

Data from TriNetX was used to evaluate the trends in thyroid surgery from 2005 and 2021 between the end of the year (Quarter 4) and the beginning of the year (Quarter 1). Risk of postoperative outcomes were statistically interrogated.

RESULTS

The average rate of thyroid surgery in cases/year between Quarter 4 and Quarter 1 was similar after expansion of HDHPs (152; 146; p = 0.64). There was no increased risk of postoperative complications. The rate of surgery decreased significantly for patients with Medicare after implementation of the revised American Thyroid Association (ATA) guidelines (Quarter 4: p = 0.03; Quarter 1: p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients are less likely to delay thyroid surgery at the end of the year despite higher deductibles.

Editorial Commentary: Increasing Patient Out-of-Pocket Expense Does Not Increase Value of Outpatient Surgery

In a value-based care environment, a goal is to favor outpatient surgery to reduce costs. Unfortunately, while outpatient (as compared to inpatient) surgery reduces overall cost, recent research shows that by including patient out-of-pocket expense (POPE), the proportion of overall cost born by the patient can greatly increase, which is unjust. The primary contributors to high outpatient surgery POPE are out-of-network facilities, out-of-network surgeons, and high-deductible insurance. Although historical focus on outpatient surgical cost reductions has been toward surgeon fees, anesthesia fees, facility fees, and implant fees, we must also focus on POPE. In the interim, it is essential to provide patients with price transparency, so that they understand their anticipated expenses and are not blindsided by cost burden.

Factors influencing patient selection of orthopaedic surgeons for total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA)

INTRODUCTION

The importance of identifying how patients choose their healthcare providers has grown with the prevalence of consumer-centric health insurance plans. There is currently a lack of studies exploring the factors associated with how patients select their hip and knee joint arthroplasty surgeons. The purpose of this study was to determine how patients find their arthroplasty providers and the relative importance of various arthroplasty surgeon characteristics.

METHODS

An electronic mail survey was sent to 3522 patients who had visited our institution for an arthroplasty surgeon office visit between August 2022 and January 2023. The survey consisted of multiple-choice questions, which aimed to inquire about the patients' referral sources for their current arthroplasty surgeon. In addition, patients were requested to rate the significance of 22 surgeon-related factors, on a scale of 1 (Not Important At All) to 5 (Very Important), in choosing their arthroplasty surgeon.

RESULTS

Of the 3522 patients that received the survey, 538 patients responded (15.3%). The most common referral sources were physician referral (50.2%), family/friend referral (27.7%), and self-guided research (24.5%). Of those that were referred by a physician, 54.4% of respondents were referred by another orthopaedic provider. Patients rated board certification (4.72 ± 0.65), in-network insurance status (4.66 ± 0.71), fellowship training (4.50 ± 0.81), bedside manner/personality (4.32 ± 0.86), and facility appearance (4.26 ± 0.81) as the five most important factors in picking an arthroplasty surgeon. Television (1.42 ± 0.83), print (1.50 ± 0.88), and online (1.58 ± 0.93) advertisements, along with social media presence (1.83 ± 1.08), and practice group size (2.97 ± 1.13) were rated as the five least important factors.

CONCLUSION

Patients are most likely to select an arthroplasty surgeon based on referral from other physicians, namely orthopedic surgeons, in addition to board certification status, in-network insurance, and fellowship training. Overall, these findings highlight the importance of physician credentials and reputation within the orthopaedic community in order to attract and retain patients.

Trends in Costs and Professional Reimbursements for Revision Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

With increasing numbers of revision total hip and total knee arthroplasties (rTHAs and rTKAs), understanding trends in related out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, overall costs, and provider reimbursements is critical to improve patient access to care.

METHODS

A large database was used to identify 92,116 patients who underwent rTHA or rTKA between 2009 and 2018. The OOP costs associated with the surgery and related inpatient care were calculated as the sum of copayment, coinsurance, and deductible payments. Professional reimbursement was calculated as total payments to the principal physician. All monetary data were adjusted to 2018 dollars. Multivariate regressions evaluated the associations between costs and procedure type, insurance type, and region of service.

RESULTS

From 2009 to 2018, overall costs for rTHA significantly increased by 35.0% and overall costs for rTKA significantly increased by 32.3%. The OOP costs for rTHA had no significant changes, while OOP costs for rTKA increased by 20.1%, with patients on Medicare plans having the lowest OOP costs. Professional reimbursements, when measured as a percentage of overall costs, decreased significantly by 4.4% for rTHA and 4.0% for rTKA, with the lowest reimbursements from Medicare plans.

CONCLUSION

From 2009 to 2018, total costs related to rTHA and rTKA significantly increased. The OOP costs significantly increased for rTKA, and professional reimbursements for both rTHA and rTKA decreased relative to total costs. Overall, these trends may combine to create greater financial burden to patients and the healthcare system, as well as further limit patients' access to revision arthroplasty care.

How Have Patient Out-of-pocket Costs for Common Outpatient Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Surgical Procedures Changed Over Time? A Retrospective Study From 2010 to 2020

BACKGROUND

Out-of-pocket (OOP) costs can be substantial financial burdens for patients and may even cause patients to delay or forgo necessary medical procedures. Although overall healthcare costs are rising in the United States, recent trends in patient OOP costs for foot and ankle orthopaedic surgical procedures have not been reported. Fully understanding patient OOP costs for common orthopaedic surgical procedures, such as those performed on the foot and ankle, might help patients and professionals make informed decisions regarding treatment options and demonstrate to policymakers the growing unaffordability of these procedures.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) How do OOP costs for common outpatient foot and ankle surgical procedures for commercially insured patients compare between elective and trauma surgical procedures? (2) How do these OOP costs compare between patients enrolled in various insurance plan types? (3) How do these OOP costs compare between surgical procedures performed in hospital-based outpatient departments and ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs)? (4) How have these OOP costs changed over time?

METHODS

This was a retrospective, comparative study drawn from a large, longitudinally maintained database. Data on adult patients who underwent elective or trauma outpatient foot or ankle surgical procedures between 2010 and 2020 were extracted using the MarketScan Database, which contains well-delineated cost variables for all patient claims, which are particularly advantageous for assessing OOP costs. Of the 1,031,279 patient encounters initially identified, 41% (427,879) met the inclusion criteria. Demographic, procedural, and financial data were recorded. The median patient age was 50 years (IQR 39 to 57); 65% were women, and more than half of patients were enrolled in preferred provider organization insurance plans. Approximately 75% of surgical procedures were classified as elective (rather than trauma), and 69% of procedures were performed in hospital-based outpatient departments (rather than ASCs). The primary outcome was OOP costs incurred by the patient, which were defined as the sum of the deductible, coinsurance, and copayment paid for each episode of care. Monetary data were adjusted to 2020 USD. A general linear regression, the Kruskal-Wallis test, and the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test were used for analysis, as appropriate. Alpha was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

For foot and ankle indications, trauma surgical procedures generated higher median OOP costs than elective procedures (USD 942 [IQR USD 150 to 2052] versus USD 568 [IQR USD 51 to 1426], difference of medians USD 374; p < 0.001). Of the insurance plans studied, high-deductible health plans had the highest median OOP costs. OOP costs were lower for procedures performed in ASCs than in hospital-based outpatient departments (USD 645 [IQR USD 114 to 1447] versus USD 681 [IQR USD 64 to 1683], difference of medians USD 36; p < 0.001). This trend was driven by higher coinsurance for hospital-based outpatient departments than for ASCs (USD 391 [IQR USD 0 to 1136] versus USD 337 [IQR USD 0 to 797], difference of medians USD 54; p < 0.001). The median OOP costs for common outpatient foot and ankle surgical procedures increased by 102%, from USD 450 in 2010 to USD 907 in 2020.

CONCLUSION

Rapidly increasing OOP costs of common foot and ankle orthopaedic surgical procedures warrant a thorough investigation of potential cost-saving strategies and initiatives to enhance healthcare affordability for patients. In particular, measures should be taken to reduce underuse of necessary care for patients enrolled in high-deductible health plans, such as shorter-term deductible timespans and placing additional regulations on the implementation of these plans. Moreover, policymakers and physicians could consider finding ways to increase the proportion of procedures performed at ASCs for procedure types that have been shown to be equally safe and effective as in hospital-based outpatient departments. Future studies should extend this analysis to publicly insured patients and further investigate the health and financial effects of high-deductible health plans and ASCs, respectively.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, economic and decision analysis.

The Impact of Unexpected Billing in Spine Surgery and How the Price Calculator Can Improve Patient Care

STUDY DESIGN

Survey study.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the impact of unexpected in-network billing on the patient experience after spinal surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The average American household faces difficulty paying unexpected medical bills. Although legislative efforts have targeted price transparency and rising costs, elective surgical costs continue to rise significantly. Patients are therefore sometimes still responsible for unexpected medical costs, the impact of which is unknown in spine surgery.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elective spine surgery patients from January 2021 to January 2022 at a single institution were surveyed regarding their experience with the billing process. Demographic characteristics associated with unexpected billing situations, patient satisfaction, and financial distress, along with utilization and evaluation of the online price estimator, were collected.

RESULTS

Of 818 survey participants, 183 (22.4%) received an unexpected in-network bill, and these patients were younger (56.7 vs. 63.4 y, P <0.001). Patients who received an unexpected bill were more likely to feel uninformed about billing (41.2% vs. 21.7%, P <0.001) and to report that billing impacted surgical satisfaction (53.8% vs. 19.1%, P <0.001). However, both groups reported similar satisfaction postoperatively (Likert >3/5: 86.0% vs. 85.5%, P =0.856). Only 35 (4.3%) patients knew of the price estimator's existence. The price estimator was reported to be very easy or easy (N=18, 78.2%) to understand and very accurate (N=6, 35.3%) or somewhat accurate (N=8, 47.1%) in predicting costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite new regulations, a significant portion of patients received unexpected bills leading to financial distress and affecting their surgical experience. Although most patients were unaware of the price estimator, almost all patients who did know of it found it to be easy to use and accurate in cost prediction. Patients may benefit from targeted education efforts, including information on the price estimator to alleviate unexpected financial burden.

Association Between Hospital Monopoly Status, Patient Socioeconomic Disadvantage, and Total Joint Arthroplasty Price Disclosure

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, healthcare institutions and regulatory bodies have enacted cost transparency mandates for routine interventions such as total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty. However, disclosure rates remain low. This study examined the effect of financial characteristics of hospitals and the socioeconomic status of patients on price disclosure.

METHODS

Hospitals conducting total hip arthroplasty/total knee arthroplasty, their quality ratings, and procedural volumes were identified using the Leapfrog Hospital Survey and linked to procedure-specific prices. Financial performance and the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) were used to correlate disclosure rates with hospital and patient characteristics. Hospital financial, operational, and patient summary statistics were compared by price-disclosure status using two-sample t -tests for continuous variables and Pearson chi-square test for categorical variables. The association between total joint arthroplasty price disclosure and hospital ADI was further evaluated using modified Poisson regression.

RESULTS

A total of 1,425 hospitals certified by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services were identified in the United States. 50.5% (n = 721) of hospitals had no published payer-specific price information. Hospitals in an area of higher socioeconomic disadvantage were more likely to disclose prices of total joint arthroplasty (incidence rate ratio = 0.966, 95% CI: 0.937 to 0.995, P = 0.024). Hospitals that were considered monopolies or were for-profit were less likely to disclose prices (IRR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.030 to 1.280, P = 0.01; IRR = 1.256, 95% CI: 0.986 to 1.526, P = 0.038, respectively). When accounting for both ADI and monopoly status, hospitals with patients who had a higher ADI were more likely to disclose costs for a total joint arthroplasty, whereas for-profit hospitals or hospitals considered monopolies in their HSA were less likely to disclose prices.

DISCUSSION

For nonmonopoly hospitals, a higher ADI correlated with a higher likelihood of price disclosure. However, for monopoly hospitals, there was no significant association between ADI and price disclosure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Mark-Up Trends in Contemporary Medicare Primary and Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Understanding mark-up ratios (MRs), the ratio between a healthcare institution's submitted charge and the Medicare payment received, for high-volume orthopaedic procedures is imperative to inform policy about price transparency and reducing surprise billing. This analysis examined the MRs for primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) services to Medicare beneficiaries between 2013 and 2019 across healthcare settings and geographic regions.

METHODS

A large dataset was queried for all THA and TKA procedures performed by orthopaedic surgeons between 2013 and 2019, using Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (HCPCS) codes for the most frequently used services. Yearly MRs, service counts, average submitted charges, average allowed payments, and average Medicare payments were analyzed. Trends in MRs were assessed. We evaluated 9 THA HCPCS codes, averaging 159,297 procedures a year provided by a mean of 5,330 surgeons. We evaluated 6 TKA HCPCS codes, averaging 290,244 procedures a year provided by a mean of 7,308 surgeons.

RESULTS

For knee arthroplasty procedures, a decrease was noted for HCPCS code 27438 (patellar arthroplasty with prosthesis) over the study period (8.30 to 6.62; P = .016) and HCPCS code 27447 (TKA) had the highest median (interquartile range [IQR]) MR (4.73 [3.64 to 6.30]). For revision knee procedures, the highest median (IQR) MR was for HCPCS code 27488 (removal of knee prosthesis; 6.12 [3.83-8.22]). While no trends were noted for both primary and revision hip arthroplasty, median (IQR) MRs in 2019 for primary hip procedures ranged from 3.83 (hemiarthroplasty) to 5.06 (conversion of previous hip surgery to THA) and HCPCS code 27130 (total hip arthroplasty) had a median (IQR) MR of 4.66 (3.58-6.44). For revision hip procedures, MRs ranged from 3.79 (open treatment of femoral fracture or prosthetic arthroplasty) to 6.10 (revision of THA femoral component). Wisconsin had the highest median MR by state (>9) for primary knee, revision knee, and primary hip procedures.

CONCLUSION

The MRs for primary and revision THA and TKA procedures were strikingly high, as compared to nonorthopaedic procedures. These findings represent high levels of excess charges billed, which may pose serious financial burdens to patients and must be taken into consideration in future policy discussions to avoid price inflation.

Evaluation of Hospital Compliance With Federal Price Transparency Regulations and Variability of Negotiated Rates for Spinal Fusion

INTRODUCTION

To improve price transparency, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) requires hospitals to post accessible pricing data for common elective procedures along with all third-party-negotiated rates. We aimed to evaluate hospital compliance with CMS regulations for both price estimators and machine-readable files for spinal fusions and to evaluate factors contributing to variability in hospital-negotiated pricing.

METHODS

We reviewed the top 100 orthopaedic hospitals ranked by US News & World Report to assess compliance with CMS price transparency regulations for all spine diagnosis-related groups. We recorded gross inpatient charge, cash price, and deidentified maximum and minimum rates for the 11 spine diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). Variability was compared with geographic practice costs (GPCI), expected Medicare reimbursements, and poverty rate and median income ratio.

RESULTS

Only 72% of hospitals were fully compliant in reporting spinal fusions on their price estimator, and 39% were fully compliant in reporting all mandatory rates for spinal fusions. The overall estimated cash price was $96,979 ± $56,262 and $62,595 ± $40,307 for noncervical and cervical fusion, respectively. Cash prices at top 50 hospitals were higher for both noncervical and cervical fusions ( P = 0.0461 and P = 0.0341, respectively). The average minimum negotiated rates ranged from 0.88 to 1.15 times the expected Medicare reimbursement, while maximum and cash prices were 3.41 to 3.90 and 2.53 to 4.08 times greater than Medicare reimbursement. GPCI demonstrated little to no correlation with DRG pricing. However, minimum negotiated rates and cash prices demonstrated weak positive correlations with the median income ratio and weak negative correlations with the poverty rate.

DISCUSSION

Most US hospitals are not fully compliant with CMS price transparency regulations for spinal fusions despite increased overall utilization of price estimators and machine-readable files. Although higher ranked hospitals charged more for spinal fusions, DRG prices remain widely variable with little to no correlation with practice cost or socioeconomic parameters.