Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Hip

NO CHANGES IN PATIENT SELECTION AND VALUE-BASED METRICS FOR TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY AFTER CJR BUNDLE IMPLEMENTATION AT A SINGLE CENTER

The Hip Society (THS) 2019 Summer Meeting, Kohler, WI, USA, 25–27 September 2019.



Abstract

Introduction

Alternative payment models for total hip arthroplasty (THA) were initiated by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to decrease overall healthcare cost by optimizing healthcare delivery. The associated shift of financial risk to participating institutions has been criticized to introduce patient selection in order to avoid potentially high cost of care. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model on patient selection, care delivery and hospital costs at a single care center.

Methods

This is a retrospective review of THA patient from July 2015-December 2017 was performed. Patient were stratified by insurance type (Medicare and commercial insurance) and whether care was provided before or after implementation of the CJR bundle. Patient age, gender, and BMI, as well as Elixhauser comorbidities and ASA scores were analyzed. Delivery of care variables including surgery duration, discharge disposition, length of stay, and direct hospital costs were compared before and after CJR implementation.

Results

751 THA patients (273 Medicare and 478 Commercial Insurance) were evaluated before (29%) and after (71%) CJR bundle implementation. There was no difference in patient demographics (age, gender, or BMI); however, commercially insured patients had less Elxihauser comorbidies pre-bundle (p=0.033). After CJR implementation length of stay (p=0.010) for Medicare patients was reduced with a trend toward discharge to home (p=0.019). However, surgical time and OR service time as well as direct hospital costs were similar before and after the CJR bundle initiation.

Conclusions

There was no differential patient selection after CJR bundle implementation, and value-based metrics (surgical time, OR service time) were not affected. Patients were discharged sooner and more often to home. However, overall direct hospital expenses remained unchanged revealing that any cost savings were for insurance providers, not participating hospitals.

For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly.