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

Aims

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most successful surgical procedures. The objectives of this study were to define whether there is a correlation between socioeconomic status (SES) and surgical complications after elective primary unilateral THA, and investigate whether access to elective THA differs within SES groups.

Aims

The optimal bearing surface design for medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of fixed-bearing (FB) and mobile-bearing (MB) UKAs from a single high-volume institution.

Aims

The present study aimed to investigate whether patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) undergoing joint arthroplasty have a higher incidence of adverse outcomes than those without IBD.

Aims

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) using the direct anterior approach (DAA) is undertaken with the patient in the supine position, creating an opportunity to replace both hips under one anaesthetic. Few studies have reported simultaneous bilateral DAA-THA. The aim of this study was to characterize a cohort of patients selected for this technique by a single, high-volume arthroplasty surgeon and to investigate their early postoperative clinical outcomes.

Aims

While preoperative bloodwork is routinely ordered, its value in determining which patients are at risk of postoperative readmission following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) is unclear. The objective of this study was to determine which routinely ordered preoperative blood markers have the strongest association with acute hospital readmission for patients undergoing elective TKA and THA.

Aims

The purpose is to determine the non-inferiority of a smartphone-based exercise educational care management system after primary knee arthroplasty compared with a traditional in-person physiotherapy rehabilitation model.

Aims

Advances in surgical technique and implant design may influence the incidence and mechanism of failure resulting in revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). The purpose of the current study was to characterize aetiologies requiring rTHA, and to determine whether temporal changes existed in these aetiologies over a ten-year period.

Aims

Aseptic loosening of the tibial component is a frequent cause of failure in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Management options include an isolated tibial revision or full component revision. A full component revision is frequently selected by surgeons unfamiliar with the existing implant or who simply wish to “start again”. This option adds morbidity compared with an isolated tibial revision. While isolated tibial revision has a lower morbidity, it is technically more challenging due to difficulties with exposure and maintaining prosthetic stability. This study was designed to compare these two reconstructive options.

Aims

It has been shown that the preoperative modification of risk factors associated with obesity may reduce complications after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, the optimal method of doing so remains unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate whether a preoperative Risk Stratification Tool (RST) devised in our institution could reduce unexpected intensive care unit (ICU) transfers and 90-day emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, and reoperations after TKA in obese patients.

Aims

The aim of this study was to analyze the true costs associated with preoperative CT scans performed for robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RATKA) planning and to determine the value of a formal radiologist’s report of these studies.

Aims

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is gaining popularity as a treatment for displaced femoral neck fractures (FNFs), especially in physiologically younger patients. While THA for osteoarthritis (OA) has demonstrated low complication rates and increased quality of life, results of THA for acute FNF are not as clear. Currently, a THA performed for FNF is included in an institutional arthroplasty bundle without adequate risk adjustment, potentially placing centres participating in fracture care at financial disadvantage. The purpose of this study is to report on perioperative complication rates after THA for FNF compared with elective THA performed for OA of the hip.

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the rate of perioperative complications following aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients aged ≥ 80 years with that in those aged < 80 years, and to identify risk factors for the incidence of serious adverse events in those aged ≥ 80 years using a large validated national database.

Aims

The aim of this study was to compare the actual cost of a cemented and cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedure.

Aims

The aim of this study was to observe the implications of withholding total joint arthroplasty (TJA) in morbidly obese patients

Aims

Medical comorbidities are a critical factor in the decision-making process for operative management and risk-stratification. The Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCC) risk adjustment model is a powerful measure of illness severity for patients treated by surgeons. The HCC is utilized by Medicare to predict medical expenditure risk and to reimburse physicians accordingly. HCC weighs comorbidities differently to calculate risk. This study determines the prevalence of medical comorbidities and the average HCC score in Medicare patients being evaluated by neurosurgeons and orthopaedic surgeon, as well as a subset of academic spine surgeons within both specialities, in the USA.

Modern healthcare contracting is shifting the responsibility for improving quality, enhancing community health and controlling the total cost of care for patient populations from payers to providers. Population-based contracting involves capitated risk taken across an entire population, such that any included services within the contract are paid for by the risk-bearing entity throughout the term of the agreement. Under such contracts, a risk-bearing entity, which may be a provider group, a hospital or another payer, administers the contract and assumes risk for contractually defined services. These contracts can be structured in various ways, from professional fee capitation to full global per member per month diagnosis-based risk. The entity contracting with the payer must have downstream network contracts to provide the care and facilities that it has agreed to provide. Population health is a very powerful model to reduce waste and costs. It requires a deep understanding of the nuances of such contracting and the appropriate infrastructure to manage both networks and risk.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1431–4.

Aims

To date, no study has demonstrated an improvement in postoperative outcomes following elective joint arthroplasty with a focus on nutritional intervention for patients with preoperative hypoalbuminaemia. In this prospective study, we evaluated differences in the hospital length of stay (LOS), rate of re-admission, and total patient charges for a malnourished patient study population who received a specific nutrition protocol before surgery.

‘Big data’ is a term for data sets that are so large or complex that traditional data processing applications are inadequate. Billions of dollars have been spent on attempts to build predictive tools from large sets of poorly controlled healthcare metadata. Companies often sell reports at a physician or facility level based on various flawed data sources, and comparative websites of ‘publicly reported data’ purport to educate the public. Physicians should be aware of concerns and pitfalls seen in such data definitions, data clarity, data relevance, data sources and data cleaning when evaluating analytic reports from metadata in health care.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1571–6.

Patient specific instrumentation (PSI) uses advanced imaging of the knee (CT or MRI) to generate individualised cutting blocks aimed to make the procedure of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) more accurate and efficient. However, in this era of healthcare cost consciousness, the value of new technologies needs to be critically evaluated. There have been several comparative studies looking at PSI versus standard instrumentation. Most compare PSI with conventional instrumentation in terms of alignment in the coronal plane, operative time and surgical efficiency, cost effectiveness and short-term outcomes. Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have also been published. PSI has not been shown to be superior compared with conventional instrumentation in its ability to restore traditional mechanical alignment in primary TKA. Most studies show comparative efficacy and no decrease in the number of outliers in either group. In terms of operative time and efficiency, PSI tended towards decreasing operative time, saving a mean of five minutes per patient (0 to 20). Furthermore, while some cost savings could be realised with less operative time and reduced instrumentation per patient, these savings were overcome by the cost of the CT/MRI and the cutting blocks. Finally, there was no evidence that PSI positively affected clinical outcomes at two days, two months, or two years. Consequently, current evidence does not support routine use of PSI in routine primary TKA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B(1 Suppl A):78–80.

The October 2015 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Smoking and complications in arthroplasty; Smoking cessation beneficial in arthroplasty; Intermediate care and arthroplasty; Do we still need cell salvage?; Femoroacetabular impingement in the Japanese population; Trunnionosis or taperosis and geometry; Decontamination for staphylococcus aureus works!; Policeman or opportunity? Quality improvement with registries; Death rates higher in readmission to other hospitals

The June 2015 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Cruciate substituting versus retaining knee replacement; What’s behind the psychology of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction?; Is there a difference in total knee arthroplasty risk of revision in highly crosslinked versus conventional polyethylene?; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: is age the missing variable?; Satisfaction rates following total knee arthroplasty; Is knee alignment dynamic?; Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: cemented or cementless?; Can revision knee services pay?