Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: The frequency of total joint arthroplasties (TJAs) performed in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) is increasing. However, not all TJA patients are healthy enough to safely undergo these procedures in an ambulatory setting. We examined the percentage of arthroplasty patients who would be eligible to have the procedure performed in a free-standing ASC and the distribution of comorbidities making patients ASC-ineligible. METHODS: We reviewed the charts of 3444 patients undergoing TJA and assigned ASC eligibility based on American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status, a set of exclusion criteria, and any existing comorbidities. RESULTS: Overall, 70.03% of all patients undergoing TJA were eligible for ASC. Of the ASA class 3 patients who did not meet any exclusion criteria but had systemic disease (51.11% of all ASA class 3 patients), 53.69% were deemed ASC-eligible because of sufficiently low severity of comorbidities. The most frequent reasons for ineligibility were body mass index >40 kg/m2 (32.66% of ineligible patients), severity of comorbidities (28.00%), and untreated obstructive sleep apnea (25.19%). CONCLUSION: A large proportion of TJA patients were found to be eligible for surgery in an ASC, including over one-third of ASA class 3 patients. ASC performed TJA provides an opportunity for increased patient satisfaction and decreased costs, selecting the right candidates for the ambulatory setting is critical to maintain patient safety and avoid postoperative complications.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The population of patients in the USA over the age of 65 is expected to significantly increase over the next 40 years. These patients are at increased risk for hip fractures and will pose a burden to providers in the near future. In order to provide high value care, providers will need to maintain positive outcomes, mitigate complications, and reduce overall cost burdens. This study was designed to investigate the safety and efficacy of a patient transfer protocol between a large academic medical center and a single specialty orthopaedic institution. The protocol was, in turn, designed to provide high value care to the patients by safely redirecting a large volume of patients to the single specialty institution. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Over one calendar year, data was prospectively gathered on all patients admitted to our academic center's ER with hip fractures. Patients were then triaged to high or low risk for transfer according to an established set of medical criteria. Patients deemed low risk for transfer were sent to our single specialty orthopaedic institution for management. Data capture and analysis were completed using MS Excel and SPSS, respectively. RESULTS:Patients treated at the single specialty orthopaedic institution experienced shorter overall hospital stays and were more likely to be discharged to home than a rehabilitation facility (6.35 versus 8.79 days, p < 0.0001; 22% versus 4%, p = 0.49). There was no significant delay in time to surgery for patients that were transferred (65 versus 79 hours, p = 0.18). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The transfer protocol was both safe and effective for patients with hip fractures. Transferring patients for treatment at single specialty institutions has the potential to significantly reduce hospital stays and is more likely to result in discharge to home than a rehabilitation facility, thus successfully providing high value care to patients.

Background/UNASSIGNED:Implant price has been identified as a significant contributing factor to high costs associated with revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). The goal of this study is to analyze the cost of implants used in rTKAs and to compare this pricing with 2 alternative pricing models. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Using our institutional database, we identified 52 patients from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014. Average cost of components for each case was calculated and compared to the total hospital cost for that admission. Costs for an all-component revision were then compared to a proposed "direct to hospital" (DTH) standardized pricing model and a fixed price revision option. Potential savings were calculated from these figures. Results/UNASSIGNED:On average, 28% of the total hospital cost was spent on implants for rTKA. The average cost for revision of all components was $13,640 and ranged from $3000 to $28,000. On average, this represented 32.7% of the total hospital cost. Direct to hospital implant pricing could potentially save approximately $7000 per rTKA, and the fixed pricing model could provide a further $1000 reduction per rTKA-potentially saving $8000 per case on implants alone. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Alternative implant pricing models could help lower the total cost of rTKA, which would allow hospitals to achieve significant cost containment.

STUDY DESIGN: Observational database review. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of patient severity of illness (SOI) on the cost of spine surgery among New York state hospitals. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: National health care spending has risen at an unsustainable rate with musculoskeletal care, and spine surgery in particular, accounting for a significant portion of this expenditure. In an effort towards cost-containment, health care payers are exploring novel payment models some of which reward cost savings but penalize excessive spending. To mitigate risk to health care institutions, accurate cost forecasting is essential. No studies have evaluated the effect of SOI on costs within spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The New York State Hospital Inpatient Cost Transparency Database was reviewed to determine the costs of 69,831 hospital discharges between 2009 and 2011 comprising the 3 most commonly performed spine surgeries in the state. These costs were then analyzed in the context of the specific all patient refined diagnosis-related group (DRG) SOI modifier to determine this index's effect on overall costs. RESULTS: Overall, hospital-reported cost increases with the patient's SOI class and patients with worse baseline health incur greater hospital costs (P<0.001). Moreover, these costs are increasingly variable for each worsening SOI class (P<0.001). This trend of increasing costs is persistent for all 3 DRGs across all 3 years studied (2009-2011), within each of the 7 New York state regions, and occurs irrespective of the hospital's teaching status or size. CONCLUSIONS: Using the 3M all patient refined-DRG SOI index as a measure of patient's health status, a significant increase in cost for spine surgery for patients with higher SOI index was found. This study confirms the greater cost and variability of spine surgery for sicker patients and illustrates the inherent unpredictability in cost forecasting and budgeting for these same patients.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to control cost and increase value, Medicare is transitioning from fee-for-service to value-based alternative payment models (APMs). The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative represents one such voluntary APM. BPCI offers four different bundling options: model 1 covers all Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) and Models 2-4 cover 48 clinical episodes, including 186 separate DRGs. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this investigation is to analyze and compare the cost savings achieved by two different BPCI program participants, provider A and provider B, enrolled in different models of BPCI (Models 2 and 3) for lower extremity joint replacements (LEJRs). METHODS: We analyzed the BPCI cost savings for Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Groups (MS-DRGs) 469 and 470 (lower extremity joint replacement) of two different BPCI program participants. One (provider A) participated in Model 2 while the other (provider B) participated in Model 3. Retrospective payments were based upon savings generated by decreased actual expenses reconciled against target pricing for the episode of care in Models 2 and 3. RESULTS: The Model 2 participant reduced the average cost of all episodes by 18.45%, with all of the savings occurring in the post acute phase. The Model 3 participant reduced episode costs by 16.73%. CONCLUSION: Both BPCI providers achieved similar cost savings despite participating in different BPCI models. These cost savings all occurred in the post acute setting. The Model 2 provider achieved post acute savings through decreasing overall discharges to institutional post acute care (PAC) providers and decreasing readmissions, while the Model 3 provider decreased costs largely by decreasing the LOS for the institutional PAC providers and decreasing readmissions.

Background/UNASSIGNED:As medical management continues to improve, orthopaedic surgeons are likely to encounter a greater proportion of patients who have coinfection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis-C virus (HCV). Methods/UNASSIGNED:The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database was used to identify patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty between 2010 and 2014. Patients were stratified into 4 groups on the basis of HCV and HIV status. Differences regarding baseline demographics, length of stay, total charges, discharge disposition, in-hospital complications and mortality, and 90-day hospital readmission were calculated. Results/UNASSIGNED:Between 2010 and 2014, a total of 137,801 patients underwent total knee arthroplasty. Of those, 99.13% (136,604) of the population were not infected, 0.62% (851) had HCV monoinfection, 0.20% (278) had HIV monoinfection, and 0.05% (68) were coinfected with both HCV and HIV. Coinfected patients were more likely to be younger, female, a member of a minority group, homeless, and insured by Medicare or Medicaid, and to have a history of substance abuse. HCV and HIV coinfection was a significant independent risk factor for increased length of hospital stay (odds ratio [OR], 2.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75 to 4.81), total hospital charges in the 90th percentile (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.12 to 3.67), ≥2 in-hospital complications (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.04 to 3.97), and 90-day hospital readmission (OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 2.02 to 6.18). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Patients coinfected with both HCV and HIV represent a rare but increasing population of individuals undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Recognition of unique baseline demographics in these patients that may lead to suboptimal outcomes will allow appropriate preoperative management and multidisciplinary coordination to reduce morbidity and mortality while containing costs. Level of Evidence/UNASSIGNED:Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

BACKGROUND: A large component of the cost of revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is the cost of the implants. We examined the pricing of revision THA implants to determine the possible savings of different pricing models. METHODS: From our institutional database, all revision THAs done from 9/1/2013 to 8/31/2014 were identified. The cost of the implants was analyzed as a percentage of the total cost of the hospitalization and compared to direct to hospital and fixed implant pricing models. RESULTS: Of 153 revision THAs analyzed, the cost of implants amounted to 36% of the total hospital cost. The direct to hospital cost and fixed implant pricing models would reduce the cost of an all-component revision to $4395 (saving $8962 per case) and $5000 (saving $8357 per case). CONCLUSION: Both fixed implant pricing and the direct to hospital pricing models would result in a decrease in revision implant costs.

INTRODUCTION: Orthopaedic care is shifting to alternative payment models. We examined whether New York University Langone Medical Center achieved savings under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative. METHODS: This study was a difference-in-differences study of Medicare fee-for-service patients hospitalized from April 2011 to June 2012 and October 2013 to December 2014 for lower extremity joint arthroplasty, cardiac valve procedures, or spine surgery (intervention groups), or for congestive heart failure, major bowel procedures, medical peripheral vascular disorders, medical noninfectious orthopaedic care, or stroke (control group). We examined total episode costs and costs by service category. RESULTS: We included 2,940 intervention episodes and 1,474 control episodes. Relative to the trend in the control group, lower extremity joint arthroplasty episodes achieved the greatest savings: adjusted average episode cost during the intervention period decreased by $3,017 (95% confidence interval [CI], -$6,066 to $31). For cardiac procedures, the adjusted average episode cost decreased by $2,999 (95% CI, -$8,103 to $2,105), and for spinal fusion, it increased by $8,291 (95% CI, $2,879 to $13,703). Savings were driven predominantly by shifting postdischarge care from inpatient rehabilitation facilities to home. Spinal fusion index admission costs increased because of changes in surgical technique. DISCUSSION: Under bundled payment, New York University Langone Medical Center decreased total episode costs in patients undergoing lower extremity joint arthroplasty. For patients undergoing cardiac valve procedures, evidence of savings was not as strong, and for patients undergoing spinal fusion, total episode costs increased. For all three conditions, the proportion of patients referred to inpatient rehabilitation facilities upon discharge decreased. These changes were not associated with an increase in index hospital length of stay or readmission rate. CONCLUSION: Opportunities for savings under bundled payment may be greater for lower extremity joint arthroplasty than for other conditions.

BACKGROUND: Significant attempts have been made to adopt practices to minimize blood transfusion after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) because of transfusion cost and potential negative clinical consequences including allergic reactions, transfusion-related lung injuries, and immunomodulatory effects. We aimed to evaluate risk factors for blood transfusion in a large cohort of TJA patients. METHODS: We used the all-payer California Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project data from 2006 to 2011 to examine the trends in utilization of blood transfusion among arthroplasty patients (n = 320,746). We performed descriptive analyses and multivariate logistic regression clustered by hospital, controlling for Deyo-Charlson comorbidity index, age, insurance type (Medicaid vs others), gender, procedure year, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Eighteen percent (n = 59,038) of TJA patients underwent blood transfusion during their surgery, from 15% with single knee to 45% for bilateral hip arthroplasty. Multivariate analysis indicated that compared with the referent category of single knee arthroplasty, single hip had a significantly higher odds of blood transfusion (odds ratio [OR], 1.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.68-1.83), as did bilateral knee (OR, 3.57; 95% CI, 3.20-3.98) and bilateral hip arthroplasty (OR, 6.17; 95% CI, 4.85-7.85). Increasing age (eg, age >/=80 years; OR, 2.99; 95% CI, 2.82-3.17), Medicaid insurance (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.27-1.45), higher comorbidity index (eg, score of >/=3; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 2.22-2.45), and females (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.70-1.80) all had significantly higher odds of blood transfusion after TJA. CONCLUSION: Primary hip arthroplasties have significantly greater risk of transfusion than knee arthroplasties, and bilateral procedures have even greater risk, especially for hips. These factors should be considered when evaluating the risk for blood transfusions.