Aims. Currently, the US Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) has been testing bundled payments for revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA) through the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) programme. Under the BPCI, bundled payments for revision TJAs are defined on the basis of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). However, these DRG-based bundled payment models may not be adequate to account appropriately for the varying case-complexity seen in revision TJAs. Methods. The 2008-2014 Medicare 5% Standard Analytical Files (SAF5) were used to identify patients undergoing revision TJA under DRG codes 466, 467, or 468. Generalized linear regression models were built to assess the independent marginal cost-impact of patient, procedural, and geographic characteristics on 90-day costs. Results. A total of 9,263 patients (DRG-466 = 838, DRG-467 = 4,573, and DRG-468 = 3,842) undergoing revision TJA from 2008 to 2014 were included in the study. Undergoing revision for a dislocation (+$1,221), periprosthetic fracture (+$4,454), and prosthetic joint infection (+$5,268) were associated with higher 90-day costs. Among comorbidities, malnutrition (+$10,927), chronic liver disease (+$3,894), congestive heart failure (+$3,292), anaemia (+$3,149), and coagulopathy (+$2,997) had the highest marginal cost-increase. The five US states with the highest 90-day costs were Alaska (+$14,751), Maryland (+$13,343), New York (+$7,428), Nevada (+$6,775), and California (+$6,731). Conclusion. Under the proposed DRG-based bundled payment methodology, surgeons would be reimbursed the same amount of money for revision TJAs, regardless of the indication (periprosthetic fracture, prosthetic joint infection, mechanical loosening) and/or patient complexity. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):959–964

Aims. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of the removal of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) from the Medicare Inpatient Only (IPO) list on our Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) Initiative in 2018. Methods. We examined our institutional database to identify all Medicare patients who underwent primary TKA from 2017 to 2018. Hospital inpatient or outpatient status was cross-referenced with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) claims data. Demographics, comorbidities, and outcomes were compared between patients classified as ‘outpatient’ and ‘inpatient’ TKA. Episode-of-care BPCI costs were then compared from 2017 to 2018. Results. Of the 2,135 primary TKA patients in 2018, 908 (43%) were classified as an outpatient and were excluded from BPCI. Inpatient classified patients had longer mean length of stay (1.9 (SD 1.4) vs 1.4 (SD 1.7) days, p < 0.001) and higher rates of discharge to rehabilitation (17% vs 3%, p < 0.001). Post-acute care costs increased when comparing the BPCI patients from 2017 to 2018, ($5,037 (SD $7,792) vs $5793 (SD $8,311), p = 0.010). The removal of TKA from the IPO list turned a net savings of $53,805 in 2017 into a loss of $219,747 in 2018 for our BPCI programme. Conclusions. Following the removal of TKA from the IPO list, nearly half of the patients at our institution were inappropriately classified as an outpatient. Our target price was increased and our institution realized a substantial loss in 2018 BPCI despite strong quality metrics. CMS should address its negative implications on bundled payment programmes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):19–23

Aims. The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative has identified pathways for improving the value of care. However, patient-specific modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors may increase costs beyond the target payment. We sought to identify risk factors for exceeding our institution’s target payment, the so-called ‘bundle busters’. Patients and Methods. Using our data warehouse and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data we identified all 412 patients who underwent total joint arthroplasty and qualified for our institution’s BPCI model, between July 2015 and May 2017. Episodes where CMS payments exceeded the target payment were considered ‘busters’ (n = 123). Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using a modified Poisson regression analysis. Results. An increased risk of exceeding the target payment was significantly associated with increasing age (adjusted RR 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.06) and body mass index (adjusted RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.003 to 1.06). Eight comorbid risk factors were also identified (all p < 0.05), only two of which were considered to be potentially modifiable (diabetes with complications and preoperative anaemia). An American Society of Anesthesiologist physical status classification system (ASA) score ≥ 3 (adjusted RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.18) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≥ 3 (adjusted RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.60) were risk factors for bundle busting. Conclusion. Non-modifiable preoperative risk factors can increase costs and exceed the target payment. Future bundled payment models should incorporate the stratification of risk. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7 Supple C):64–69

Aims. There is concern that aggressive target pricing in the new Bundled Payment for Care Improvement Advanced (BPCI-A) penalizes high-performing groups that had achieved low costs through prior experience in bundled payments. We hypothesize that this methodology incorporates unsustainable downward trends on Target Prices and will lead to groups opting out of BPCI Advanced in favour of a traditional fee for service. Methods. Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data, we compared the Target Price factors for hospitals and physician groups that participated in both BPCI Classic and BPCI Advanced (legacy groups), with groups that only participated in BPCI Advanced (non-legacy). With rebasing of Target Prices in 2020 and opportunity for participants to drop out, we compared retention rates of hospitals and physician groups enrolled at the onset of BPCI Advanced with current enrolment in 2020. Results. At its peak in July 2015, 342 acute care hospitals and physician groups participated in Lower Extremity Joint Replacement (LEJR) in BPCI Classic. At its peak in March 2019, 534 acute care hospitals and physician groups participated in LEJR in BPCI Advanced. In January 2020, only 14.5% of legacy hospitals and physician groups opted to stay in BPCI Advanced for LEJR. Analysis of Target Price factors by legacy hospitals during both programmes demonstrates that participants in BPCI Classic received larger negative adjustments on the Target Price than non-legacy hospitals. Conclusion. BPCI Advanced provides little opportunity for a reduction in cost to offset a reduced Target Price for efficient providers, as made evident by the 85.5% withdrawal rate for BPCI Advanced. Efficient providers in BPCI Advanced are challenged by the programme’s application of trend and efficiency factors that presumes their cost reduction can continue to decline at the same rate as non-efficient providers. It remains to be seen if reverting back to Medicare fee for service will support the same level of care and quality achieved in historical bundled payment programmes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):119–125

Episodic, or bundled payments, is a concept now familiar to most in the healthcare arena, but the models are often misunderstood. Under a traditional fee-for-service model, each provider bills separately for their services which creates financial incentives to maximise volumes. Under a bundled payment, a single entity, often referred to as a convener (maybe the hospital, the physician group, or a third party) assumes the risk through a payer contract for all services provided within a defined episode of care, and receives a single (bundled) payment for all services provided for that episode. The time frame around the intervention is variable, but defined in advance, as are included and excluded costs. Timing of the actual payment in a bundle may either be before the episode occurs (prospective payment model), or after the end of the episode through a reconciliation (retrospective payment model). In either case, the defined costs over the defined time frame are borne by the convener. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1280–5

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in 30-day outcomes between patients undergoing revision for an infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) compared with an aseptic revision THA. Patients and Methods. This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) database, between 2012 and 2017, using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for patients undergoing a revision THA (27134, 27137, 27138). International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision/Tenth Revision (ICD-9-CM, ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes for infection of an implant or device were used to identify patients undergoing an infected revision THA. CPT-27132 coupled with ICD-9-CM/ICD-10-CM codes for infection were used to identify patients undergoing a two-stage revision. A total of 13 556 patients were included; 1606 (11.8%) underwent a revision THA due to infection and there were 11 951 (88.2%) aseptic revisions. Results. Patients undergoing an infected revision had a significantly greater length of stay of more than three days (p < 0.001), higher odds of any 30-day complication (p < 0.001), readmission within 30 days (p < 0.001), 30-day reoperations (p < 0.001), and discharge to a destination other than the patient’s home (p < 0.001). Conclusion. The findings suggest the need for enhanced risk adjustment based on the indication of revision THA prior to setting prices in bundled payment models of total joint arthroplasty. This risk adjustment should be used to reduce the chance of financial disincentives in clinical practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:547–551

Introduction. Cardiac events have been found to occur with increased frequency in total joint arthroplasty (TJA) patients >65 y/o without known coronary artery disease (CAD). Avoidance of readmissions for cardiac events is paramount with bundled payment programs. It has been thought that many of these patients may have undiagnosed CAD because of sedentary life styles brought on by chronic osteoarthritis. The purpose of this study is to assess with Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography (CCTA) the prevalence and severity of CAD in patients >65 y/o for elective TJA. Methods. 126 elective patients that were part of a total hip and knee bundled payment program were referred for cardiac evaluation with CCTA if they were >65 but <70 y/o with a history of heart disease or 2 risk factors or were >70 y/o. CCTA was acquired on all patients unless they had a history of a severe allergic reaction to contrast, GFR <50 ml/min., the presence of atrial fibrillation, or declined the test. All images were evaluated by an experienced reader. Arterial narrowing of 70% diameter or greater was classified as significant CAD. Intermediate lesions <70% were reclassified as significant if CT-FFR (Functional flow reserve) was < or = 0.80. Results. Excluding the 12 patients with known CAD who had stents or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), the remaining 114 patients were classified into three groups. 34/114 (29.8%) had no CAD (Group A). 75/114 (65.8%) had (Group B). 5/114 (4.4%) had > or = 70% stenosis. Group C included one patient who had <70% stenosis but had CT-FFR <80%. Of 17 patients with known CAD with >70% or heart CT-FFR <80%, or prior stents/CABG, one patient was predicted to be high risk of a cardiac event because of a complex plaque with an ulcer, history of suppressed paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, and withdrawal from apixaban. He was nurse navigated throughout his hospital course and post discharge only to be recalled to the hospital to be rescued with cardiac stenting. Conclusion. Patients >65 y/o having TJA without a cardiac history were found to have a 4.4% prevalence of significant CAD. When added to the patients with known CAD, the overall prevalence was 13.5%. One patient had complex plaque predictive of a cardiac event. As the US population ages and TJA becomes more prevalent with greater pressure to reduce costs by bundling and shifting to outpatient surgery, further data needs to be collected to better understand CAD in TJA patients >65 y/o

Introduction. Bundled budgeting of payments for joint replacement services has become increasing common in an effort to improve quality while lowering cost. In the US, some Medicare bundled payment programs are voluntary whereas some now are mandatory. Large medical care and medical management organizations have largely been assigned or seized control of management of these programs, leaving the surgeon in a subordinate role. The current abstract describes an experience where surgeons provide leadership and accept responsibility in bundled payment program. Methods. We engaged a collective of 16 different private company orthopedic physician groups to apply to become episode initiators under under the Medicare Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) models 2 and 3. The application process itself provided historical. cost data, enabling each group to independently decide whether or not to proceed with the BPCI. Results. Ultimately, 7 of the private orthopedic groups decided to continue with the BPCI initiative. At the first quarter reconciliation, savings ranged from 9% to 17% across the participating groups. Conclusion. It is possible and potentially preferable for surgeons to take a primary role in accepting responsibility and leadership in the comprehensive care of joint replacement patients. The surgeons are those who determine the indications for and perform the surgery, accept much of the risk, and typically maintain a career long relationship with the patient. As such, the surgeon is also in the best position to achieve the ultimate goals of improved quality which simultaneously controlling cost. Our experience thus far supports that view that the more leadership surgeons provide in value base care provision, the more our patients and health care system will benefit from optimization of care delivery

The high and ever increasing cost of medical care worldwide has driven a trend toward new payment models. Event based models (such as bundled payment for surgical events) have shown a greater potential for care and cost improvement than population-based models (such as accountable care organizations). Since joint replacement is among the most frequent and costly surgical events in medicine, bundled payments for joint replacement episodes have been at the forefront of evolution from fee-for-service to value-based care models and episode-based healthcare reform in general. Our education as surgeons in medical school, residency, fellowship, and in continuing education has been almost entirely non-economic in focus. Yet, we surgeons are now evolving from being primarily responsive for our patients' medical care to being also responsible for all expenditures associated with our patients' care. Similarly, while the cost of our patients' care was not even available to us, every dollar of expenditure for a patient's episode of care is now available to us in some circumstances. For example, a typical primary joint replacement episode may cost $30,000 for a patient insured by Medicare in the US. A surgeon performing 400 joint replacements per year is therefore authorizing upwards of $12M a year in health care spending by making the decisions to perform reconstructive procedures on those patients. The risk for value-based surgical episodes of care can be born by various entities including hospital systems or the surgeons themselves. Recent evidence demonstrates that quality improves and cost decreases more rapidly when surgeons take primary responsibility and risk for episodes of care as compared to when a hospital system or third party takes primary responsibility and risk. Yet, as surgeons, our education in the field of medical economics, value-based episodes of care, and payment reform is only just beginning. The more we understand about the cost and value of the services that we order for our patients, the more leadership can provide as healthcare evolves. The current presentation will describe the specific cost of care for the primary joint replacement patient preliminary experience with accepting risk and responsibility for these patients. It is likely that our patients will be best served if we surgeons provide as much leadership as possible in their care, both medically and economically

Background. The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model was implemented in April-2016 to standardize cost and improve quality of care for two of the most commonly billed inpatient procedures for Medicare patients, total knee and total hip arthroplasty. The purpose of this study is to compare one institution's predicted savings and losses under the CJR model with actual savings and losses after two years of implementation and discuss new methods to maintain savings. Methods. Using our institution's data, we calculated the mean cost per episode of care. We calculated the percent reduction in target price and percent savings or losses per case for the CJR and Bundle Payment Care Initiative (BPCI) for each Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) using mean cost per episode and CJR and BPCI target prices. We compared the target prices, annual savings, and losses per episode of care for both CJR and BPCI. All CJR savings, projected and actual, were computed by comparing CJR savings to that of 2018 BPCI savings. Results. We found an average savings of 2.32% under CJR compared to the projected loss of −11.6% for MS-DRG 469 with fracture. There was a 7.97% savings for MS-DRG 470 without fracture compared to the projected 1.9%, a 20.94% savings for MS-DRG 470 with fracture compared to the projected 23.7%, and a loss of −3.98% for MS-DRG 469 without fracture compared to the projected 2.5% savings. Conclusions. The CJR target prices are lower than that of BPCI and this makes maintaining an episode of care at or below the target price increasingly difficult. Discharge disposition and readmission are well established factors that increase hospital cost [7]. However, reduction of these does not seem enough to maintain savings under the CJR model. New cost savings mechanisms such as identification of patients eligible for SDD, and reduction of unnecessary home services resulted in smaller losses of positive margins, though these were still significantly less for CJR than BPCI

Wound closure is not often an area that is discussed by orthopaedic surgeons. We commonly attend meetings and talks related to different types of implants and surgical technique but in reality the wound and how we close it maybe one of the most important aspects of a surgical procedure. The avoidance of wound complications such as unplanned clinic visits, readmissions, reoperations and deep infections are very important as we move into a world of bundled payments and public reporting of complications. Not to mention the poor results for the patients when wound complications occur. Often there is little thought about how wound closure and surgical dressings could affect surgical site healing. We all have a common belief that blisters, drainage and surgical site infections are rare. In the literature it has been shown that the method of wound closure can influence skin and soft tissue perfusion. Which closure techniques can achieve physiologic blood flow, which may improve wound healing? This talk will cover topics related to reducing the dead space, avoidance of hematoma formation and what the literature says regarding different types of wound closure materials

Introduction. The purpose of bundled payment programs is to reduce cost via risk sharing, while still maintaining quality. If savings are achieved under a historic target price, the orthopedic surgeon will receive a monetary bonus. If costs are higher, a portion is deducted from payment to the orthopedic surgeon. The purpose of this study was to evaluate our experience with the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Program (BPCI) when run by an orthopedic surgeon group to determine patient safety and who benefited the most financially. Methods. This program ran from January 2015 through September 2018. 3,186 Medicare total hip and knee replacements, elective (DRG 470) and for fracture (DRG 469), performed by our group were included. 90 day hospital and all postoperative expenditures were reconciled against our historic cost. All patients were medically optimized with discharge plans established preoperatively. We developed preferred skilled nursing facilities and home health care agencies with synergistic medical providers so that discharges were recommended as soon as appropriate. We hired two full-time case managers to have direct contact with patients pre-and post-operatively. Waiver assistance such as house and pet sitters were used if necessary at our expense. 35% of savings went to the convener, who acted as a liaison between our group and CMS. Expenditures for the 90-day period for all patients were calculated to determine where savings occurred and which entity benefitted financially. Results. There was an average 9.2% reduction in hospital readmissions. An estimated total savings of $5,100,000 occurred. There was a 17% reduction in hospital costs, a 12.1% reduction in admissions to skilled nursing facilities with a 34% reduction in length of stay, and a 5% reduction in admissions to inpatient rehabilitation facilities. There was a 35% reduction in home health visits, but no change in outpatient physical therapy visits. After group expenses, final bonus to the orthopedic provider was on average $262 per patient. Conclusion. The physician managed program was very successful from Medicare's standpoint, achieving significant monetary savings without reducing quality of care. However, the bonus to the providing and managing physicians was nominal. It also does not take into consideration the 50 plus hours spent in meetings to develop this program. Participation could be considered a defensive posture so as not to lose more reimbursement. However, experience was gained which will be valuable for future gain sharing programs. Physicians and physician organizations need to sit at the head of the table to manage future payment bundles and perhaps also act as the convener. We deserve this, as a result of demonstrating high safety and cost savings. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Introduction. In the era of alternative payment models, providers and healthcare systems must understand the implications of potentially-modifiable risk factors on outcomes that affect overall cost. High BMI is associated with increased rates of complications (infection, loosening) in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), but less is known about its impact on cost. In addition, the effects of low BMI on outcomes and cost are less-understood. This study sought to evaluate the relationship between BMI and length of stay (LOS), complications, thirty-day readmissions, inpatient cost, and need for post-acute services. Methods. A retrospective database analysis was conducted of 34,679 primary THAs performed between 2013–2017 in 29 hospitals in an integrated health system. Patient BMI was compared with operative time, LOS, complication rate, thirty-day readmission rate, inpatient cost, and post discharge disposition. Logistic regression was performed treating complications and readmission as outcomes and controlling for age. Results. Operative time increased linearly with BMI and cut-to close time for the highest BMI cohort was approximately twice that of the lowest. Average inpatient cost did not vary significantly with BMI. Length of stay was greatest at the extremes of BMI (4.0 days for BMI 10–15; 3.75 days for BMI >50) and approximately twice that of normal BMI patients. Risk of complications and thirty-day readmissions were greatest in the highest BMI cohort compared to normal BMI (OR 3.7 and 4.9 respectively) and significantly increased in the lowest BMI cohort (OR 2.2 and 3.0 respectively). Post discharge utilization of home health care and skilled nursing increased at the extremes of BMI. The rate of discharge to skilled nursing in the lowest BMI cohort was 50%, approximately five times that of normal BMI. Conclusions. LOS, complications, thirty-day readmissions, and need for post-acute home health or skilled nursing services all increased geometrically at the extremes of BMI and were significantly greater than those of patients with normal BMI. In a bundled payment model, there are significant cost pressures at both ends of the BMI spectrum given the added risk of complications, readmissions, and post-acute costs. In addition, increased complications and readmissions could result in a failure to meet quality measures in CMS bundle programs and thereby jeopardize payment of gainshares. Patients with extreme BMI should be counseled about the increased risk of complications after THA, and nutritional status/ obesity optimized pre-operatively if possible. Payors must recognize the increased risks and costs associated with THA in these patients and adjust payments accordingly to maintain access for those unable to achieve a normal BMI. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

Introduction. Hip fractures are a common pathology treated by Orthopaedic surgeons. The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model utilizes risk stratification to set target prices for these patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty (THA). We hypothesized that sub-specialty arthroplasty surgeons would be able to treat patients at a lower cost compared to surgeons of other specialties during cases performed while on call. Methods. Patients with hemiarthroplasty or THA for hip fractures were retrospectively collected from June, 2013, to May, 2017, from a single tertiary referral center. Demographic information and outcomes based on length of stay (LOS), net payment, and target payment were collected. Patients were then stratified by surgeon subspecialty (arthroplasty trained vs. other specialty). Univariable and multivariable analysis for payment based on treating surgeon was then performed. Results. 197 hip fracture patients were included through the collection period. 40 patients were treated by arthroplasty surgeons and 157 patients were not. There was no difference in LOS, however, when treated by arthroplasty trained surgeons, they were significantly more likely to have a lower net payment (32,507 vs. 42,518; p=0.001) with cost of care below the target payment (80.0% vs 51.6%; p=0.001), partially stemming from decreased discharges to skilled nursing facilities (p=0.008). In multivariable regression controlling for age, sex, BMI, ASA score, and procedure, arthroplasty surgeons were more likely to perform under the target price, which approached statistical significance (OR 2.177; 95% CI 0.866–5.474; p=0.098). Discussion and Conclusion. Hip fracture patients are commonly treated by on-call surgeons given the need to expedite their care. However, given the bundled payment model implemented by CJR, there must be special consideration to fracture stratification, implant selection, and surgeon experience. If feasible, our data suggests that an arthroplasty surgeon may contribute to decreased cost of care; a larger multicenter study is required

Background. In surgeon controlled bundled payment and service models, the goal is to reduce cost but preserve quality. The surgeon not only takes on risk for the surgery, but all costs during 90 days after the procedure. If savings are achieved over a previous target price, the surgeon can receive a monetary bonus. The surgeon is placed in a position to optimize the patients preoperatively to minimize expensive postoperative readmissions in a high risk population. Traditionally, surgeons request that primary care providers medically clear the patient for surgery with cardiology consultation at their discretion, and without dictating specific testing. Our participation in the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program for total hip and knee replacement surgeries since 1/1/15 has demonstrated a significant number of patients having costly readmissions for cardiac events. Objective. To determine the medical effectiveness and cost savings of instituting a new innovative cardiac screening program (Preventive Cardio-Orthopaedics) for total hip and knee replacement patients in the BPCI program and to compare result to those managed in the more traditional fashion. Methods. The new screening program was instituted on 11/1/17 directed by an advanced cardiac imaging cardiologist (EH). Testing included an electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, carotid and abdominal ultrasound, and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). If needed, a 3 day cardiac rhythm monitor was also performed. Four of the ten physicians in our group performing hip and knee replacement surgeries participated. Charts of readmitted patients were reviewed to determine past medical history, method of cardiac clearance, length and cost of readmission. Results. 2,459 patients had total hip or knee replacement in the BPCI program between 1/1/15 and 10/31/17 prior to instituting the new program. All had complete 90 day postoperative readmission data supplied by the CMS, with 25 (1%) of these patients having readmissions for cardiac events for a total cost of readmissions of %149,686. 14 of 25 had a preoperative clearance by a cardiologist. In 19 of the 25 patients, the only preoperative cardiac screening tool performed was an electrocardiogram. Since instituting the new program, 842 additional surgeries were performed, 463 by the four surgeons involved. 126 patients were agreeable to be evaluated through the Preventive Cardio-Orthopaedics program. 4 patients of the four physicians still screened via the traditional cardiac program had a cardiac event readmission. The average readmission hospital stay was 3.33 days at a total cost of %42,321. 2 patients of the four physicians evaluated by the Preventive Cardio-Orthopaedics program had a cardiac related readmission, at an average hospital stay of 2 days, and at a total cost of %10,091. Conclusions. Risk sharing programs have forced surgeons to take a more active role in optimizing their patients medically; otherwise they will be penalized with a decreased reimbursement. Traditionally, we have abdicated this responsibility to primary care and cardiology physicians but have noted a high cardiac readmission risk. In response, we have begun using a unique cardiac screening model. Our preliminary experience predicts fewer cardiac readmissions thereby improving care, and at a lower cost

Introduction. Close to 30% of the surgical causes of readmission within 90 days post-total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and nearly half of those occurring in the first 2 years are caused by instability, arthrofibrosis, and malalignment, all of which may be addressed by improving knee balance. Furthermore, the recently launched Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) initiative mandates that any increase in post-acute care costs through 90-days post-discharge will come directly from the bundle payment paid to providers. Post-discharge costs, including the cost of readmissions for complications are one of the largest drivers of the 90-day cost of care. It is hypothesized that balanced knees post-TKA will lower the true provider costs within the 90-day bundle. Methods. Cost, outcomes and resource utilization data were collected from three independent surgeons pre- and post- adoption of intraoperative technology developed to provide real-time, quantitative load data within the knee. In addition, data were collected from Medicare claims, hospital records, electronic medical records (EMR), clinical, and specialty databases. The cohorts consisted of 932 patients in the pre-adoption group and 709 patients in the post-adoption group. These 2 groups were compared to the CMS national average data from 291,201 cases. The groups were controlled for age, sex, state, and BMI with no major differences between cohorts. The cost factors considered were the length of hospital stay, physician visits and physical therapy visits in addition to post-operative complications (e.g., manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) and aseptic revision). Results. After adoption of technology to improve ligament balancing intra-operatively, all three surgeons decreased their patients’ hospital stay (3.0 days to 2.6 days), number of physician visits (2.3 to 2.1), number of outpatient physical therapy visits (14.9 to 10.6) and MUA rate (2.3% to 1.8%). These clinical benefits subsequently lowered the 90-day net cost of TKA an average of $443 per case. When compared to the national average, this cost savings was $725 per case. Conclusions. Appropriately balancing TKA patients intra-operatively might help mitigate costs associated with TKA procedures within the 90-day bundle. In this study, it was found that using new joint balancing technology generated a substantial cost-savings post-discharge, primarily due to patients requiring less outpatient physical therapy

Introduction. Inpatient rehabilitation services following joint replacement have been estimated to cost over $3 billion/ yr. A shift in reimbursement strategies to bundle payments with the goal of decreasing cost and improving quality has given discharge disposition after joint replacement a front row seat. Our objectives were (1) to establish a correlation between the accuracy of current tools utilized to predict discharge location and (2) compare preoperative and postoperative patient oriented outcomes (POO's) according to discharge disposition. Methods. 188 consecutive total hip arthroplasty (THA) surgeries performed by a single surgeon were prospectively studied. Pre-intervention assessment of the probable and preferred discharge disposition was performed using one of 5 tools (1) experienced surgical coordinator evaluation (2) Risk Assessment and Prediction Tool (RAPT); (3) Charlson Score; (4) ASA Score; and (5) Patient Self-Reported Health Status. Demographic characteristics, Visual Analogue Scale, QWB-7, SF-36, WOMAC, clinical scores were recorded before and after surgery. Correlation between final discharge disposition (home vs rehab) and its predictors was performed. Preoperative and postoperative outcomes were compared, p<0.05 was considered significant. Results. Most accurate predictor of discharge disposition was determined by our experienced surgical coordinator (OR: 11.05; 95% CI of 2.21 to 55.32; p<0.001), followed by the RAPT (OR: 1.56; 95% CI of 1.29 to 1.90; p=0.01). We found a significant difference in age (Rehab: 72.4 SE 1.2 vs Home: 70.3 SE 1.0; p=0.01) and length of stay (Rehab: 3.6 SE 0.01 vs Home: 3.14 SE 0.07; p<0.001) between those discharged to rehab than those discharged home. Mean follow-up time was 2.22 years (range 1–4 years). There was a significant difference between groups on most outcome measures preoperatively (rehab worse than home; p<0.001). Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in all patient perceived outcome measures after THA, but those discharged to rehab continue to report worse scores for the QWB (Rehab: 0.62 SE 0.02 vs Home: 0.67 SE 0.01; p=0.02) and Hip Harris Score (Rehab: 83.07 SE 1.75 vs Home: 88.65 SE 1.31; p=0.01). Discussion. Clinical intuition and personal interaction proved to be the best predictor for discharge disposition. Worse outcomes were observed in patients being discharged to rehab. For any tables or figures, please contact the authors directly

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. Results. At its peak in July 2015, 423 acute care hospitals participated in one or more episode type in BPCI Classic. At its peak in March 2019, 715 acute care hospitals participated in one or more episode types in BPCI-Advanced. 130 (18%) of the hospitals in BPCI Advanced were also legacy participants in BPCI Classic, enrolling in 414 of the same episode types during both programs. In 2020, 251 (61%) of the episode types that hospitals were in enrolled in for both BPCI Classic and BPCI Advanced were dropped, suggesting prior experience in BPCI influences a participant's opportunity for success in BPCI Advanced. Furthermore, an analysis of the target price factors for episode types enrolled in by legacy hospitals during both programs suggests that prior participation in BPCI Classic is correlated with more aggressive target prices. A comparison of target price factors of similar hospitals reveals that legacy BPCI Classic hospitals that participated in lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) BPCI Advanced received a larger negative adjustment on the target price (0.11 lower on average as a product of the Peer Adjusted Trend factor and ACH Efficiency factor) than non-legacy hospitals that participated in BPCI Advanced. Furthermore, analysis of the hospital targets for a large, high-performing legacy Physician Group Practice in BPCI Classic for LEJR revealed even greater negative adjustment on the target price than non-legacy participants. Comparing participants of similar peer groups on the Peer Adjusted Trend and ACH Efficiency factors suggests that CMS expects costs to decline more for legacy hospitals that have achieved efficiency than hospitals with no prior BP experience and higher baseline spend. Conclusions. BPCI Advanced provides little to no opportunity for a reduction in cost for already efficient TJA providers, as evident by the 55% dropout rate for BPCI-A participants in LEJR between model years 1 and 3. Efficient TJA providers in BPCI Advanced are challenged by the program's utilization of a peer adjusted trend factor and efficiency factor that presumes their costs will decline at the same aggressive rate or more than nonefficient TJA providers. It remains to be seen if reverting to Medicare fee for service will support the same level of care coordination, cost and quality achieved in historical TJA bundled payment programs

Introduction. Bundle payment models have clinical and economic impacts on providers. Despite efforts made to improve care, experience has shown that a few episodes with costs well above a target (bundle busters) can reduce or negate positive performances. The purpose of this study was to identify both the primary episode drivers of cost and patient factors that led to episodes above target. Methods. A retrospective study of 10,000 joint replacement episodes from a large healthcare system in CJR and a private orthopedic practice in BPCI was conducted. Episodes with costs greater than target price (TP) were designated as bundle busters and sub-divided into 4 groups:. 1). < 1 standard deviation (SD) above TP (n=1700). 2). > 1 to 2 SD above TP (n=240). 3). > 2 to 3 SD above TP (n=70). 4). > 3 SD above TP (n=70). Bundle busters were compared to the control that were at/below the TP (n= 7500). For the CJR/BPCI cohorts, one SD was defined as $10,700/$13,000, respectively. Two linear regressions assessed the likelihood of factors predicting a bundle buster and the total episode cost. These variables included demographics, acuity classifications, comorbidities, length of stay, readmissions, discharge disposition, post-acute utilization, and episode costs. Results. Group 1 had 66% higher total episode costs than the control group, 13% higher hospital costs, and 144% higher SNF costs. Costs for Group 2 were at least double that of Group 1. Significant predictors for bundle busters included, race, age, comorbidities, BMI, and LOS. (P<0.01) Significant predictors for total episode costs included, gender, age, ROM, SOI, comorbidities, and BMI. (P<0.1). Discussion. Age, Comorbidities, and BMI are among significant predictors of higher total episode costs. Identifying drivers and factors that impact bundle busters supports the importance of care model improvements that mitigate risks associated with these patients

Introduction. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are variably collected before and after total hip/knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA). We assessed the generalizability of incentivized, prospectively collected PRO data for THA/TKA patient-reported outcome performance measure (PRO-PM) development. Methods. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) received PRO data voluntarily submitted by hospitals in a bundled payment model for THA/TKA procedures. Participating hospitals who collected and successfully submitted these data received an increase in their overall quality score, possibly resulting in a positive impact on model reconciliation payments. PRO data were collected from Medicare Fee-For-Service beneficiaries >= 65 years undergoing elective primary THA/TKA procedures from July 1 to August 31, 2016 at hospitals participating in the model. Pre-operative PRO and risk variable data were collected 0 – 90 days prior to surgery, while post-operative PRO data were collected 270 – 365 days following elective THA/TKA. PRO pre-op and post-op data were matched to Medicare claims data for determination of clinically eligible procedures and clinical comorbidities. We compared the characteristics of patients submitting PRO data to other elective primary THA/TKA recipients in the US. Results. Four patient characteristics were associated with HOOS Jr. mean change scores (sex, narcotic use in past 90 days, other joint pain, and back pain) and four with KOOS Jr. mean change scores (sex, Hispanic ethnicity, other joint pain, and back pain). The frequency of simultaneous bilateral procedures, dementia, trauma, and dialysis were statistically significantly lower in patients submitting PRO data compared to other US Medicare beneficiaries undergoing elective primary THA/TKA, but no difference was greater than 1.5% absolute percentage points between groups. Conclusions. Offering financial incentives in alternative payment models to encourage PRO data collection and submission can produce generalizable data for PRO measure development. The possibility of non-respondent biases will need to be specifically considered in measure development