Impact of Race/Ethnicity on Hospital Resource Utilization After Elective Anterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion for Degenerative Myelopathy

Isolated decompression for degenerative spondylolisthesis is less costly than fusion even with high revision rates

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Isolated decompression and decompression with instrumented fusion are accepted surgical treatments for lumbar spondylolisthesis. Although isolated decompression is a less costly solution with similar patient-reported outcomes, it is associated with higher rates of reoperation than primary fusion.

PURPOSE

To determine the costs associated with primary decompression, primary fusion, and decompression and fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. We further sought to establish at what revision rate is primary decompression still a less costly surgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

A retrospective database study of the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) limited data set.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients who underwent single-level fusion or decompression for degenerative spondylolisthesis.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost of surgical care.

METHODS

All inpatient stays that underwent surgery for single-level lumbar/lumbosacral degenerative spondylolisthesis in the 2019 calendar year (n=6,653) were queried from the MEDPAR limited data set. Patients were stratified into three cohorts: primary decompression (n=300), primary fusion (n=5,757), and revision fusion (n=566). Univariate analysis was conducted to determine cost differences between these groups and results were confirmed with multivariable regression. An economic analysis was then done to determine at what revision rate would primary decompression still be a less costly treatment choice.

RESULTS

on univariate analysis, the cost of primary single-level decompression for spondylolisthesis was $14,690±9,484, the cost of primary single-level fusion was $26,376±11,967, and revision fusion was $26,686±11,309 (p<0.001). on multivariate analysis, primary fusion was associated with an increased cost of $3,751, and revision fusion was associated with increased cost of $7,502 (95%ci: 2,990-4,512, p<0.001). economic analysis found that a revision rate less than or equal to 43.8% would still result in primary decompression being less costly for a practice than primary fusion for all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Isolated decompression for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis is a less costly treatment choice even with rates of revision fusion as high as 43.8%. This was true even with an assumed revision rate of 0% after primary fusion. This study solely looks at cost data, however, and many patients may still benefit from primary fusion when appropriately indicated.

Elective THA for Indications Other Than Osteoarthritis Is Associated With Increased Cost and Resource Use: A Medicare Database Study of 135,194 Claims

BACKGROUND

Under Medicare's fee-for-service and bundled payment models, the basic unit of hospital payment for inpatient hospitalizations is determined by the Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) coding system. Primary total joint arthroplasties (hip and knee) are coded under MS-DRG code 469 for hospitalizations with a major complication or comorbidity and MS-DRG code 470 for those without a major complication or comorbidity. However, these codes do not account for the indication for surgery, which may influence the cost of care.Questions/purposes We sought to (1) quantify the differences in hospital costs associated with six of the most common diagnostic indications for THA (osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, avascular necrosis, hip dysplasia, posttraumatic arthritis, and conversion arthroplasty), (2) assess the primary drivers of cost variation using comparisons of hospital charge data for the diagnostic indications of interest, and (3) analyze the median length of stay, discharge destination, and intensive care unit use associated with these indications.

METHODS

This study used the 2019 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Set. Patients undergoing primary elective THA were identified using MS-DRG codes and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Procedure Coding System codes. Exclusion criteria included non-fee-for-service hospitalizations, nonelective procedures, patients with missing data, and THAs performed for indications other than the six indications of interest. A total of 713,535 primary THAs and TKAs were identified in the dataset. After exclusions were applied, a total of 135,194 elective THAs were available for analysis. Hospital costs were estimated using cost-to-charge ratios calculated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The primary benefit of using cost-to-charge ratios was that it allowed us to analyze a large national dataset and to mitigate the random cost variation resulting from unique hospitals' practices and patient populations. As an investigation into matters of health policy, we believe that assessing the surgical cost borne by the "average" hospital was most appropriate. To analyze estimated hospital costs, we performed a multivariable generalized linear model controlling for patient demographics (gender, age, and race), preoperative health status, and hospital characteristics (hospital setting [urban versus rural], geography, size, resident-to-bed ratio, and wage index). We assessed the principal drivers of cost variation by analyzing the median hospital charges arising from 30 different hospital revenue centers using descriptive statistics. Length of stay, intensive care use, and discharge to a nonhome location were analyzed using multivariable binomial logistic regression.

RESULTS

The cost of THA for avascular necrosis was 1.050 times (95% confidence interval 1.042 to 1.069; p < 0.001), or 5% greater than, the cost of THA for osteoarthritis; the cost of hip dysplasia was 1.132 times (95% CI 1.113 to 1.152; p < 0.001), or 13% greater; the cost of posttraumatic arthritis was 1.220 times (95% CI 1.193 to 1.246; p < 0.001), or 22% greater; and the cost of conversion arthroplasty was 1.403 times (95% CI 1.386 to 1.419; p < 0.001), or 40% greater. Importantly, none of these CIs overlap, indicating a discernable hierarchy of cost associated with these diagnostic indications for surgery. Rheumatoid arthritis was not associated with an increase in cost. Medical or surgical supplies and operating room charges represented the greatest increase in charges for each of the surgical indications examined, suggesting that increased use of medical and surgical supplies and operating room resources were the primary drivers of increased cost. All of the orthopaedic conditions we investigated demonstrated increased odds that a patient would experience a prolonged length of stay and be discharged to a nonhome location compared with patients undergoing THA for osteoarthritis. Avascular necrosis, posttraumatic arthritis, and conversion arthroplasty were also associated with increased intensive care unit use. Posttraumatic arthritis and conversion arthroplasty demonstrated the largest increase in resource use among all the orthopaedic conditions analyzed.

CONCLUSION

Compared with THA for osteoarthritis, THA for avascular necrosis, hip dysplasia, posttraumatic arthritis, and conversion arthroplasty is independently associated with stepwise increases in resource use. These cost increases are predominantly driven by greater requirements for medical and surgical supplies and operating room resources. Posttraumatic arthritis and conversion arthroplasty demonstrated substantially increased costs, which can result in financial losses in the setting of fixed prospective payments. These findings underscore the inability of MS-DRG coding to adequately reflect the wide range of surgical complexity and resource use of primary THAs. Hospitals performing a high volume of THAs for indications other than osteoarthritis should budget for an anticipated increase in costs, and orthopaedic surgeons should advocate for improved MS-DRG coding to appropriately reimburse hospitals for the financial and clinical risk of these surgeries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, economic and decision analysis.

Conversion THA With Concomitant Removal of Orthopaedic Hardware Should Be Reclassified as a Revision Surgery in the Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group Coding Scheme: An Analysis of Cost and Resource Use

BACKGROUND

Conversion THA, which we defined for this study as THA with concomitant removal of preexisting orthopaedic hardware, has been associated with increased hospital costs and perioperative complications compared with primary THA. Yet, conversion THA is classified as a primary procedure under the Medicare Severity Diagnosis-Related Group coding scheme, and hospitals are reimbursed based on the resource use expected for a routine primary surgery. Prior authors have argued for conversion THA to be reclassified as a revision procedure. Although prior research has focused on comparisons between conversion THAs and primary arthroplasties, little is known about the resource use of conversion THA compared with that of revision THA.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Do inpatient hospital costs, estimated using cost-to-charge ratios, differ between conversion THA and revision THA? (2) Do the median length of stay, intensive care unit use, and likelihood of discharge to home differ between conversion and revision THA?

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Set for 2019. A total of 713,535 primary and 74,791 revision THAs and TKAs were identified initially. Exclusion criteria then were applied; these included non-fee-for-service hospitalizations, nonelective admissions, and patients with missing data. Approximately 37% (263,545 of 713,535) of primary and 34% (25,530 of 74,791) of revision arthroplasties were excluded as non-fee-for-service hospitalizations. Two percent (13,159 of 713,535) of primaries and 11% (8159 of 74,791) of revisions were excluded because they were nonelective procedures. Among the remaining 436,831 primary and 41,102 revision procedures, 31% (136,748 of 436,831) were primary THAs and 36% (14,774 of 41,102) were revision THAs. Two percent (2761 of 136,748) of primary THAs involved intraoperative removal of hardware and were classified as conversion THAs. After claims with missing data were excluded, there were 2759 conversion THAs and 14,764 revision THAs available for analysis. Propensity scores were generated using a multivariate logistic regression model using the following variables as covariates: gender, age, race, van Walraven index, hospital setting, geography, hospital size, resident-to-bed ratio, and wage index. After matching, 2734 conversion THAs and 5294 revision THAs were available for analysis. The van Walraven index, which is a weighted score of patient preoperative comorbidities, was used to measure patient health status. Hospital costs were estimated by multiplying cost-to-charge ratios obtained from the 2019 Impact File by total hospital charges. This methodology enabled the use of a large national database to mitigate the random effects of individual hospitals' unique practices and patient populations. Multivariable regression was performed after matching to determine the independent effects of surgery type (that is, conversion versus revision THA) on hospital cost, length of stay greater than 2 days, intensive care unit use, and discharge to home.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the estimated hospital cost between conversion THA and revision THA (β = 0.96 [95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.01]; p = 0.13). Patients undergoing conversion THA had increased odds of staying in the hospital for more than 2 days (odds ratio 1.12 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.23]; p = 0.01), increased odds of using the intensive care unit (OR 1.24 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.48]; p = 0.02), and decreased odds of being discharged to home (OR 0.74 [95% CI 0.67 to 0.80]; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The inpatient hospital cost of conversion THA is no different from that of revision THA, although patients undergoing conversion surgery have modestly increased odds of prolonged length of stay, intensive care unit use, and discharge to a nonhome location. These findings support the conclusion that reclassification of conversion THA is warranted. Orthopaedic surgeons must advocate for the reclassification of conversion THA using data-backed evidence or run the risk that orthopaedic procedures will be given decreased reimbursement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, economic and decision analysis.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities Among Patients Undergoing Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion or Posterior Cervical Decompression and Fusion for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy: A National Administrative Database Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of racial disparities on surgical outcomes for cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM).

METHODS

Adult patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or posterior cervical decompression and fusion (PCDF) for CSM were identified from the 2016 to 019 National Inpatient Sample Database using the International Classification of Diseases codes. Patients were categorized based on approach (ACDF or PCDF) and race/ethnicity (White, Black, Hispanic). Patient demographics, comorbidities, operative characteristics, adverse events, and health care resource utilization were assessed. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of extended length of stay (LOS), nonroutine discharge (NRD), and exorbitant costs.

RESULTS

A total of 46,500 patients were identified, of which 36,015 (77.5%) were White, 7465 (16.0%) were Black, and 3020 (6.5%) were Hispanic. Black and Hispanic patients had a greater comorbidity burden compared to White patients (P = 0.001) and a greater incidence of any postoperative complication (P = 0.001). Healthcare resource utilization were greater in the PCDF cohort than the ACDF cohort and greater in Black and Hispanic patients compared to White patients (P < 0.001). Black and Hispanic patient race were significantly associated with extended hospital LOS ([Black] odds ratio [OR]: 2.24, P < 0.001; [Hispanic] OR: 1.64, P < 0.001) and NRD ([Black] OR: 2.33, P < 0.001; [Hispanic] OR: 1.49, P = 0.016). Among patients who underwent PCDF, Black race was independently associated with extended hospital LOS ([Black] OR: 1.77, P < 0.001; [Hispanic] OR: 1.47, P = 0.167) and NRD ([Black] OR: 1.82, P < 0.001; [Hispanic] OR: 1.38, P = 0.052).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that patient race may influence patient outcomes and healthcare resource utilization following ACDF or PCDF for CSM.

What Are the Differences in Hospital Cost Associated With the Use of Cemented Versus Cementless Femoral Stems in Hemiarthroplasty and Total Hip Arthroplasty for the Treatment of Femoral Neck Fracture?

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine if there is a difference in hospital costs associated with the use of cemented versus cementless femoral stems in hemiarthroplasty (HA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) for the treatment of femoral neck fracture (FNF).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study utilizes the 2019 Medicare Provider Analysis and Review Limited Data Set. Patients undergoing arthroplasty for the treatment of FNF were identified. Patients were grouped by cemented or cementless femoral stem fixation. There were 16,148 patients who underwent arthroplasty for FNF available: 4,913 THAs (3,705 patients who had cementless femoral stems and 1,208 patients who had cemented femoral stems) and 11,235 HAs (6,099 patients who had cementless femoral stems and 5,136 who had cemented femoral stems). Index hospital costs were estimated by multiplying total charges by cost-to-charge ratios. Costs were analyzed using univariable and multivariable generalized linear models.

RESULTS

Cemented femoral stem THA generated 1.080 times (95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 1.10; P < .001), or 8.0%, greater index hospital costs than cementless femoral stem THA, and cemented femoral stem HA generated 1.042 times (95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 1.05; P < .001), or 4.2%, greater index hospital costs than cementless femoral stem HA.

CONCLUSIONS

Cemented femoral stems for FNF treated with either THA or HA are associated with only a small portion of increased cost compared to cementless femoral stems. Providers may choose the method of arthroplasty stem fixation for the treatment of FNF based on what they deem most appropriate for the specific patient.