Insurance status as a mediator of clinical presentation, type of intervention, and short-term outcomes for patients with metastatic spine disease

Racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic disparities in clinical trial reporting for metastatic spine tumors: An exploration of North American studies

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the reporting of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic data in clinical trials exploring the management of metastatic spine disease (MSD).

METHODS

We undertook a cross-sectional analysis of North American completed and published clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov exploring the management of patients with MSD. Data on patient demographics, trial characteristics, reporting of race and ethnicity, distribution of racial and ethnic groups, and reporting of socioeconomic measures was extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov and related publications identified through PubMed and Google Scholar searches. An exploratory data analysis was performed, followed by Pearson's Chi-square and binary logistic regression analyses to explore associations of covariates with racioethnic reporting.

RESULTS

Out of 158 completed trials, only 8% (12 of 158) met inclusion criteria with published results. These 12 trials included a total of 1,568 patients with a mean age of 61 years. Almost half (42%; (5 of 12)) of trials did not report race, while only 17% (2 of 12) of trials reported ethnicity. In trials reporting complete racial data (n = 5), 77% (377 of 493) patients were White, 15% (n = 73) Black or African American, and 4% (n = 19) Asian. American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander patients were severely underrepresented (0.4% and 0.2%, respectively). Of the two trials reporting ethnicity, 94% (479 of 514) patients were Not Hispanic or Latino. Sponsoring body of the trial, trial phase, intervention type, number of trial patients, or mean age of patients were not significantly associated with racioethnic reporting. Notably, no trial reported any measures of socioeconomic status.

CONCLUSION

Our review revealed significant gaps in the reporting of racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic data in MSD clinical trials, with substantial underrepresentation of minority groups. This underrepresentation limits the generalizability of trial findings and may perpetuate health disparities. Coordinated efforts from researchers, clinicians, policymakers, and funding bodies are needed to improve diversity in future trials. Strategies such as targeted outreach, community engagement, and more inclusive eligibility criteria should be implemented to ensure that trial populations better reflect the diversity of MSD patients in the general population.

Pediatric Scaphoid Nonunions: Does Insurance Status Play a Role?

OBJECTIVE

There are no studies that evaluate the effects that insurance or socioeconomic status may have on treatment and outcomes of scaphoid nonunions in children. We evaluated whether there is an association between insurance status and (1) time from injury to hand surgeon evaluation, (2) time from specialist evaluation to surgery, and (3) postoperative outcomes of scaphoid fracture nonunions in children.

METHODS

A chart review was performed for patients who underwent surgical treatment of scaphoid fracture nonunion from January 2015 and April 2021 at a large tertiary care pediatric hospital. Underinsured patients were defined as those with no medical insurance or Medicaid/state-funded insurance.

RESULTS

There were 21 privately insured patients and 17 patients who were underinsured. There was no difference in age, race, or fracture characteristics between the two groups. The mean time between injury and hand surgeon evaluation was 192 SD 195 days for the privately insured group compared with 155 SD 205 days for the underinsured group (P = 0.57). The mean time between specialist evaluation and surgical treatment was 35 SD 54 days for the privately insured group and 31 SD 31 days for the underinsured group (P = 0.82). Union was achieved in 80% of patients with private insurance compared with 88% of underinsured patients after primary surgery (P = 0.67). There was no difference detected in the proportion of patients who had residual pain (15% vs 19%), range of motion deficits (38% vs 40%), strength deficit (6% vs 7%), and return to activity (94% vs 93%) between privately insured and underinsured patients, respectively (P = 1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in time from injury to specialist evaluation, time from evaluation to surgery, or postoperative outcomes based on insurance status for pediatric patients with scaphoid fracture nonunions. Although insurance status was not associated with access to care for pediatric scaphoid fracture nonunions at our institution, this information may not be generalizable to other populations, including patients who sustain primary scaphoid fractures and who have not yet developed nonunions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III-retrospective cohort study.

The impact of socioeconomic determinants on the access to care and survival in patients with spinal chordomas- a national cancer database analysis

PURPOSE

Chordomas are rare malignant neoplasms primarily treated surgically. Disparities related to race and socioeconomic status, may affect patient outcomes. This study aims to identify prognostic factors for access to care and survival in patients with spinal chordomas.

METHODS

The NCDB database was queried between the years 2004 and 2017. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed to compare survival probabilities among different groups, based on race and socioeconomic determinents.

RESULTS

1769 patients were identified, with 87% being White, 5% Hispanic, 4% Black, and Asian each. The mean age was 61.3 years. Most patients received care at academic/research centers and lived in a large metropolitan area, with no difference between races. A significantly higher percentage of Black patients did not undergo surgery (p < 0.001), with no statistically significant difference in survival between races (p = 0.97). A higher survival probability was seen in patients with other government insurances (p < 0.0001), in higher income quartiles (p < 0.0001), in metropolitan areas (p = 0.023), and at an academic/research center (p < 0.0001). A lower survival probability was seen in patients who are uninsured, in rural areas, and at community cancer programs (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

This study highlights disparities in access to surgical intervention for patients with spinal chordomas, especially among Black individuals. It emphasizes the significant impact of insurance status and income on access to surgical care and highlights geographical and institutional variations in survival rates. Addressing socioeconomic differences is crucial for fostering equity in neurosurgical outcomes.

Does Elective Admission vs. Emergency Department Presentation Affect Surgical Outcomes in Metastatic Spine Surgery?

INTRODUCTION

Approximately 20% of patients with metastatic spine disease develop symptomatic spinal cord compression, and these patients can present urgently to the emergency department (ED) or, in a more organized fashion, to a clinic. In a cohort of patients undergoing metastatic spine surgery, we sought to (1) determine the rate of ED presentation, (2) identify preoperative and perioperative risk factors associated with ED presentation, and (3) evaluate whether ED vs. clinic presentation impacts long-term outcomes.

METHODS

A single-institution, multi-surgeon, retrospective cohort study was undertaken of patients undergoing metastatic spinal tumor surgery between 02/2010 and 01/2021. The primary exposure variable was presentation setting, dichotomized to the ED vs. clinic. The primary outcomes were postoperative functional status, measured with the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) and McCormick Scale (MMS), local recurrence (LR), and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes included complications and readmissions.

RESULTS

A total of 311 patients underwent metastatic spine surgery (51.7% ED vs. 48.3% clinic). Those presenting to the ED had higher rates of smoking (21.7% vs. 16.0%, p = 0.02), were more likely to have 2+ comorbidities (47.2% vs. 32.7%, p = 0.011), and were more likely to have public insurance (43.5% vs. 32.0%, p = 0.043). Preoperative KPS was lower in ED patients (p < 0.001), while the Bilsky score was higher (p = 0.049). ED patients had higher rates of oligometastatic disease (p = 0.049), higher total decompressed levels (p = 0.041), and higher rates of costotransversectomy (p = 0.031) compared to clinic patients. Length of stay was significantly longer for ED patients (7.7 ± 6.1 vs. 6.1 ± 5.8 days, p = 0.020), and they were less likely to be discharged home (52.2% vs. 69.3%, p = 0.025). ED presentation was significantly associated with shorter overall survival (HR =1.53 95% CI = 1.13-2.08, p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Of patients undergoing metastatic spine disease, approximately half presented through the ED vs. clinic. ED patients had higher rates of smoking, public insurance, and higher Bilsky score. ED patients also underwent more extensive surgery, had longer LOS, were less likely discharged home, and most importantly, had a shorter overall survival. These results suggest that initial presentation for patients undergoing surgery for metastatic spine disease significantly impacts outcomes, and signs/symptoms of metastatic spine disease should be recognized as soon as possible to prevent ED presentation.

Association of Socioeconomic Status With Worse Overall Survival in Patients With Bone and Joint Cancer

BACKGROUND

The effect of socioeconomic status (SES) on the outcomes of patients with metastatic cancer to bone has not been adequately studied. We analyzed the association between the Yost Index, a composite geocoded SES score, and overall survival among patients who underwent nonprimary surgical resection for bone metastases.

METHODS

This population-based study used data from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2010 to 2018). We categorized bone and joint sites using International Classification of Disease-O-3 recodes. The Yost Index was geocoded using a factor analysis and categorized into quintiles using census tract-level American Community Service 5-year estimates and seven measures: median household income, median house value, median rent, percent below 150% of the poverty line, education index, percent working class, and percent unemployed. Multivariate Cox regression models were used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios of overall survival and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

A total of 138,158 patients were included. Patients with the lowest SES had 34% higher risk of mortality compared with those with the highest SES (adjusted hazard ratio of 1.34, 95% confidence interval: 1.32 to 1.37, P < 0.001). Among patients who underwent nonprimary surgery of the distant bone tumor (n = 11,984), the age-adjusted mortality rate was 31.3% higher in the lowest SES patients compared with the highest SES patients (9.9 versus 6.8 per 100,000, P < 0.001). Patients in the lowest SES group showed more racial heterogeneity (63.0% White, 33.5% Black, 3.1% AAPI) compared with the highest SES group (83.9% White, 4.0% Black, 11.8% AAPI, P < 0.001). Higher SES patients are more likely to be married (77.5% versus 59.0%, P < 0.0001) and to live in metropolitan areas (99.6% versus 73.6%, P < 0.0001) compared with lower SES patients.

DISCUSSION

Our results may have implications for developing interventions to improve access and quality of care for patients from lower SES backgrounds, ultimately reducing disparities in orthopaedic surgery.

Is There Variation in Time to and Type of Treatment for Hip Osteoarthritis Based on Insurance?

BACKGROUND

Disparities in care access based on insurance exist for total hip arthroplasty (THA), but it is unclear if these lead to longer times to surgery. We evaluated whether rates of THA versus nonoperative interventions (NOI) and time to THA from initial hip osteoarthritis (OA) diagnosis vary by insurance type.

METHODS

Using a national claims database, patients who had hip OA undergoing THA or NOI from 2011 to 2019 were identified and divided by insurance type: Medicaid-managed care; Medicare Advantage; and commercial insurance. The primary outcome was THA incidence within 3 years after hip OA diagnosis. Multivariable logistic regression models were created to assess the association between THA and insurance type, adjusting for age, sex, region, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Medicaid patients had lower rates of THA within 3 years of initial diagnosis (7.4 versus 10.9 or 12.0%, respectively; P < .0001) and longer times to surgery (297 versus 215 or 261 days, respectively; P < .0001) compared to Medicare Advantage and commercially-insured patients. In multivariable analyses, Medicaid patients were also less likely to receive THA (odds ratio (OR) = 0.62 [95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.60 to 0.64] versus Medicare Advantage, OR = 0.63 [95% CI: 0.61 to 0.64] versus commercial) or NOI (OR = 0.92 [95% CI: 0.91 to 0.94] versus Medicare Advantage, OR = 0.81 [95% CI: 0.79 to 0.82] versus commercial).

CONCLUSIONS

Medicaid patients experienced lower rates of and longer times to THA than Medicare Advantage or commercially-insured patients. Further investigation into causes of these disparities, such as costs or access barriers, is necessary to ensure equitable care.

Procedures employing interbody devices and multi-level fusion require target price adjustment to build a sustainable lumbar fusion bundled payment model

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Bundled payment models require risk adjustment to ensure appropriate targets are set. While this may be standardized for many services, spine fusions demonstrate significant variability in approach, invasiveness, and use of implants, that may require further risk adjustment.

PURPOSE

To evaluate variability in costs of spinal fusion episodes in a private insurer bundle payment program and identify whether current procedural terminology (CPT) code modifications are necessary for sustainable implementation.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective single-institution cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

A total of 542 lumbar fusion episodes in a private insurer bundled payment program from October 2018 to December 2020.

OUTCOME MEASURES

A total of 120-day episode of care net surplus/deficit, 90-day readmissions, discharge disposition, and length of hospital stay.

METHODS

A review was conducted of all lumbar fusions in a single institution's payer database. Surgical characteristics (approach [posterior lumbar decompression and fusion (PLDF), transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), and circumferential fusion], levels fused, and primary vs revision) were collected from manual chart review. Episode of care cost data were collected as net surplus or deficit with respect to target prices. A multivariate linear regression model was constructed to measure the independent effects of primary versus revision, levels fused, and approach on the net cost savings.

RESULTS

Most procedures were PLDFs (N=312, 57.6%), single-level (N=416, 76.8%) and primary fusions (N=477, 88.0%). Overall, 197 (36.3%) resulted in a deficit, and were more likely to be three levels (7.11% vs 2.03%, p=.005), revisions (18.8% vs 8.12%, p<.001), and TLIF (47.7% vs 35.1%, p<.001) or circumferential fusions (p<.001). One-level PLDFs resulted in the greatest cost savings per episode ($6,883). Across both PLDFs and TLIFs, 3-level procedures resulted in significant deficit of -$23,040 and -$18,887, respectively. For circumferential fusions, 1-level fusions resulted in deficit of -$17,169 per case which rose to -$64,485 and -$49,222 for 2- and 3-level fusions. All 2- and 3-level circumferential spinal fusions resulted in a deficit. On multivariable regression, TLIF and circumferential fusions were independently associated with a deficit of -$7,378 (p=.004) and -$42,185 (p<.001), respectively. Three-level fusions were independently associated with an additional -$26,003 deficit compared to single-level fusions (p<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Interbody fusions, especially circumferential fusions, and multi-level procedures are not adequately risk adjusted by current bundled payment models. Health systems may not be able to financially support these alternative payment models with improved procedure-specific risk adjustment.