Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
Content I can access

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 102-B, Issue SUPP_9 | Pages 45 - 45
1 Oct 2020
Springer BD McInerney J
Full Access

Introduction

Bundled Payments (BP) were a revolutionary new experiment for CMS that tested whether risk sharing for an episode of care would improve quality and reduce costs. The initial success of BP accelerated their growth as evidence by the launch of both mandatory and commercial bundles. Success in BP is dependent on the target price and the opportunity to reduce avoidable costs during the episode of care. There is concern that the aggressive target pricing methodology in the new model (BPCI-Advanced) penalizes high performing groups that already achieved low episode costs through prior experience and investment in BP. We hypothesize that this methodology incorporates unsustainable downward trends on target prices to a point beyond reasonableness for efficient groups to reduce additional costs and will lead to a large percentage of groups opting out of BPCI-A in favor of a return to fee for service (FFS) reimbursement.

Methods

Using CMS data, we compared the target price factors for hospitals that participated in both BPCI classic (2013 –2018) and BPCI Advanced (beginning 10/2018), referred to as “legacy hospitals”, with hospitals that only participated in BPCI Advanced (beginning 10/2018). With the rebasing of BPCI-A target prices in Jan 2020 and the opportunity for participants to drop out of individual episode types or the program all together, we compared the retention of episode types that hospitals initially enrolled at the onset of BPCI-A with the current enrollment in 2020. Locally, we analyzed the BPCI-A target price factors across hospitals for a large orthopaedic practice that participated in BPCI Classic and the impact it had on the financial incentive/disincentive to remain in the lower extremity joint replacement episode type in 2020.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 85-B, Issue SUPP_I | Pages 35 - 35
1 Jan 2003
McInerney J Dias J Durham S Evans P
Full Access

A powered, randomised control trial was instigated to evaluate the advantages of subacromial injection of Methylprednisolone over conservative treatment in the management of partial rotator cuff injuries of the shoulder.

Consecutive patients with possible partial rotator cuff tears were reviewed at 1 week. Inclusion criteria for a diagnosis of partial rotator cuff tear included; traumatic mechanism, greater tuberosity tenderness, painful arc, and complete resolution of disability post-Bupivicaine block. Exclusion criteria included; age < 16 years, chronic shoulder disease, acromioclavicular tenderness, and abnormal shoulder radiograph. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either 1 immediate subacromial injection of 40mg Methylprednisolone (group S) or no injection (group N). Initial outcomes measured were; visual analogue pain score (0–10) and active abduction (nearest 5°), repeated at 3, 6, and 12 weeks. All patients were instructed in analgesia usage and given identical shoulder exercises.

Of 279 patients reviewed over 3 years, 90 met the inclusion criteria (6/90 patients were lost to follow-up). 50 patients were randomised to group S, 40 to group N. Mean pain score improvement at 12 weeks was comparable (S=4.95, N=4.44) (p> 0.1, CI=0.16–0.86). In patients aged > 40 years group S had significantly higher mean improvement in abduction at completion (64.28°) compared to group N (34.63°) (p< 0.02, CI 1.29–58.01). Conversely in patients aged < 40 years group S had lower mean improvements in abduction (40.55°) compared to group N (77.73°), though this was not statistically significant (p=0.1, CI 2.06–72.29)

Methylprednisolone injection is more efficacious than conservative treatment alone in some patients. This benefit appears age-dependent and consequently such treatment should be reserved for patients aged > 40 years.