Posterior lumbar fusions at physician-owned hospitals - is it time to reconsider the restrictions of the Affordable Care Act?

Understanding the Influence of Hospital Volume on Inpatient Outcomes Following Hospitalization for Status Epilepticus

BACKGROUND

Prior studies show hospital admission volume to be associated with poor outcomes following elective procedures and inpatient medical hospitalizations. However, it is unknown whether hospital volume impacts Inpatient outcomes for status epilepticus (SE) hospitalizations. In this study, we aimed to assess the impact of hospital volume on the outcome of patients with SE and related inpatient medical complications.

METHODS

The 2005 to 2013 National Inpatient Sample database was queried using International Classification of Diseases 9th Edition diagnosis code 345.3 to identify patients undergoing acute hospitalization for SE. The National Inpatient Sample hospital identifier was used as a unique facility identifier to calculate the average volume of patients with SE seen in a year. The study cohort was divided into three groups: low volume (0-7 patients with SE per year), medium volume (8-22 patients with SE per year), and high volume (> 22 patients with SE per year). Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess whether medium or high hospital volume had lower rates of inpatient medical complications compared with low-volume hospitals.

RESULTS

A total of 137,410 patients with SE were included in the analysis. Most patients (n = 50,939; 37%) were treated in a low-volume hospital, 31% (n = 42,724) were treated in a medium-volume facility, and 18% (n = 25,207) were treated in a high-volume hospital. Patients undergoing treatment at medium-volume hospitals (vs. low-volume hospitals) had higher odds of pulmonary complications (odds ratio [OR] 1.18 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.12-1.25]; p < 0.001), sepsis (OR 1.24 [95% CI 1.08-1.43] p = 0.002), and length of stay (OR 1.13 [95% CI 1.0 -1.19] p < 0.001). High-volume hospitals had significantly higher odds of urinary tract infections (OR 1.21 [95% CI 1.11-1.33] p < 0.001), pulmonary complications (OR 1.19 [95% CI 1.10-1.28], p < 0.001), thrombosis (OR 2.13 [95% CI 1.44-3.14], p < 0.001), and renal complications (OR 1.21 [95% CI 1.07-1.37], p = 0.002). In addition, high-volume hospitals had lower odds of metabolic (OR 0.81 [95% CI 0.72-0.91], p < 0.001), neurological complications (OR 0.80 [95% CI 0.69-0.93], p = 0.004), and disposition to a facility (OR 0.89 [95% CI 0.82-0.96], p < 0.001) compared with lower-volume hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates certain associations between hospital volume and outcomes for SE hospitalizations. Further studies using more granular data about the type, severity, and duration of SE and types of treatment are warranted to better understand how hospital volume may impact care and prognosis of patients.

Orthopedic Specialty Hospitals Are Associated With Lower Rates of Deep Surgical Site Infection Compared With Tertiary Medical Centers

Orthopedic specialty hospitals may allow for more streamlined and efficient care, resulting in shorter lengths of stay, lower costs, and fewer complications. Surgical site infection can be a devastating complication of orthopedic procedures and is difficult to treat successfully, requiring substantial cost and resources. The goal of this study was to determine whether specialty hospitals had lower rates of infection than tertiary care institutions. Records were reviewed for patients undergoing primary total hip, knee, or shoulder arthroplasty and single-level lumbar fusion from 2010 to 2017 at 2 academic tertiary hospitals and 2 specialty hospitals. Patient demographic information, comorbidities, and the development of deep surgical site infection within 1 year of the index procedure were recorded and compared between the groups. Multivariate analysis identified variables that significantly correlated with infection rates. A total of 20,264 patients (73.9%) underwent surgery at a tertiary hospital, and 7169 (26.1%) underwent a procedure at a specialty hospital. Patients treated at orthopedic specialty hospitals had lower rates of infection at 1 year (0.6% vs 0.2%, P<.0001). Of the infections, 42 (32.3%) occurred in the knee, 50 (38.5%) in the hip, 24 (18.5%) in the spine, and 12 (10.8%) in the shoulder. When controlling for a healthier patient population, procedures performed at specialty hospitals were an independent predictor of infection within 1 year (odds ratio, 0.3693; P=.0012). Although tertiary hospitals care for older patients with more medical comorbidities, patients undergoing orthopedic procedures at a specialty hospital may be at lower risk for infection. Further study is needed to identify the processes associated with reduced infection rates and to determine whether they can be adopted at tertiary centers. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(4):e521-e526.].

Understanding the Value of Total Shoulder Arthroplasties at Physician-Owned Hospitals

BACKGROUND

Owing to concerns regarding higher cost, low quality of care and cherry-picking in physician-owned hospitals (POHs), the Affordable Care Act imposed sanctions that prevented the formation of new POHs. With an increasing utilization of total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs), there is a need for re-evaluation and assessment of quality and cost of TSAs performed at these POHs.

METHODS

The 2011 to 2014 Medicare 100% Standard Analytical Files was used to identify patients undergoing a reverse TSA or anatomic TSA at POHs and non-POHs. Multivariate regression analyses were used to assess differences in 90-day and 1-year outcomes between the two groups.

RESULTS

A total of 1,626 (2.2%) patients received a TSA at a POH (N = 50). No notable differences were noted between POH versus non-POHs regarding 90-day surgical site infections (P = 0.645), dislocation (P = 0.068), periprosthetic fractures (P = 0.556), revision arthroplasty (P = 0.114), pulmonary embolism (P = 0.155), deep vein thrombosis (P = 0.208), acute myocardial infarction (P = 0.219), sepsis (P = 0.288), urinary tract infections (P = 0.186), all-cause readmissions (P = 0.427), 1-year dislocations (P = 0.475), 1-year periprosthetic fractures (P = 0.697), and 1-year revision arthroplasties (P = 0.225). TSAs performed at POHs had higher odds of postoperative stiffness at 90-day (odds ratio 1.39; P < 0.001) and 1-year follow-up points (odds ratio 1.51; P < 0.001). TSAs at POHs had markedly lower risk-adjusted 90-day charges (-$8,904) and 90-day costs (-$1,659).

CONCLUSION

Apart from slightly higher rates of stiffness and renal complications, patients undergoing TSAs at POHs seem to have similar outcomes as compared to non-POHs, while having lower costs of care. The findings suggest a need for further research, evaluating the value of care at POHs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Cost Drivers Associated With Anterior Shoulder Stabilization Surgery

Background:

Arthroscopic Bankart repair, open Bankart repair, and the Latarjet procedure are common treatments for anterior shoulder instability; however, little is known of costs by patient- and surgeon-specific factors. This study aimed to identify areas where cost reduction may be achieved.

Hypothesis:

Increased total charges will be associated with low-volume surgeons and surgical facilities, hospital-owned facilities, open surgical techniques, and patients with at least 1 comorbidity.

Study Design:

Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

The 2014 State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases from 6 states were utilized. There were 3 Current Procedural Terminology codes (23455, 23462, 29806) used to identify open Bankart repair, the Latarjet procedure, and arthroscopic Bankart repair, respectively. Patient demographic and surgical variables were evaluated on a univariate basis, and all significant factors were then included in the multiple linear regression to determine which factors had the largest effect on cost. Total charges billed for the encounter were used as a proxy for cost of surgery.

Results:

For open Bankart repair, arthroscopic Bankart repair, and the Latarjet procedure, longer operative times increased costs, and high-volume surgical facilities had decreased charges. For the arthroscopic Bankart group, additional factors that increased charges included postoperative hospital admission (US$11,516; P < .001), patient residence in a ZIP code with a below-median income (US$2909; P < .001), presence of a comorbidity (US$1982; P < .001), male sex (US$1545; P = .003), Hispanic race (US$2493; P = .005), and use of regional anesthesia (US$1898; P = .025). Additional cost drivers for the Latarjet procedure included postoperative hospital admission (US$7028; P = .022) and older age (US$187/y; P = .039).

Conclusion:

Postoperative admission to the hospital was the largest cost driver for arthroscopic Bankart repair and the Latarjet procedure. Low-volume facilities were the largest cost driver for open Bankart repair. High-volume surgery centers had lower costs when compared with low-volume surgery centers. Regional anesthesia increased costs in the arthroscopic Bankart group. These findings may help to show where cost savings can be achieved, particularly considering increasing trends toward bundled health care payments.

High-Volume and Privately Owned Ambulatory Surgical Centers Reduce Costs in Achilles Tendon Repair

Background:

While Achilles tendon repairs are common, little data exist characterizing the cost drivers of this surgery.

Purpose:

To examine cases of primary Achilles tendon repair, primary repair with graft, and secondary repair to find patient characteristics and surgical variables that significantly drive costs.

Study Design:

Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

A total of 5955 repairs from 6 states were pulled from the 2014 State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Database under the Current Procedural Terminology codes 27650, 27652, and 27654. Cases were analyzed under univariate analysis to select the key variables driving cost. Variables deemed close to significance (P < .10) were then examined under generalized linear models (GLMs) and evaluated for statistical significance (P < .05).

Results:

The average cost was $14,951 for primary repair, $23,861 for primary repair with graft, and $20,115 for secondary repair (P < .001). In the GLMs, high-volume ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) showed a cost savings of $16,987 and $2854 in both the primary with graft and secondary repair groups, respectively (both P < .001). However, for primary repairs, high-volume ASCs had $2264 more in costs than low-volume ASCs (P < .001). In addition, privately owned ASCs showed cost savings compared with hospital-owned ASCs for both primary Achilles repair ($2450; P < .001) and primary repair with graft ($11,072; P = .019). Time in the operating room was also a significant cost, with each minute adding $36 of cost in primary repair and $31 in secondary repair (both P < .001).

Conclusion:

Private ASCs are associated with lower costs for patients undergoing primary Achilles repair, both with and without a graft. Patients undergoing the more complex secondary and primary with graft Achilles repairs had lower costs in facilities with greater caseload.

Evaluation of costs and outcomes of physician-owned hospitals across common surgical procedures

INTRODUCTION

The Affordable Care Act introduced restrictions on the creation of new physician-owned hospitals (POH). We sought to define whether POH status was associated with differences in care.

METHODS

Patients undergoing one of ten surgical procedures were identified using Medicare Standard Analytic Files. Patient and hospital-level characteristics and outcomes between POH and non-POH were compared.

RESULTS

Among 1,255,442 patients identified, 14,560 (1.2%) were treated at POH. A majority of POHs were in urban areas (n = 30, 90.9%) and none were in low socioeconomic status areas. Patients at POH were slightly younger (POH:72, IQR:68-77 vs. non-POH:73, IQR:69-79) and healthier (CCI; POH:2; IQR: 1-3 vs. non-POH: 3; IQR: 1-4). Patients at non-POH had higher odds of postoperative complications (OR:1.67, 95%CI:1.55-1.80) and slightly higher medical expenditures (POH:$11,347, IQR:$11,139-$11,936 vs. non-POH:$13,389, IQR:$11,381-$19,592).

CONCLUSIONS

POH were more likely to be located in socioeconomic advantaged areas, treat healthier patients and have lower associated expenditures.