Associations Between Relative Value Units and Patient-Reported Back Pain and Disability

The Cost of Doing Business: An Appraisal of Relative Value Units in Plastic Surgery and Other Surgical Subspecialties

BACKGROUND

The relationship between procedural complexity and relative value units (RVUs) awarded has been studied within some specialties, but it has not yet been compared across different surgical disciplines. This study aims to analyze the association of RVUs with operative time as a surrogate for complexity across surgical specialties, with a focus on plastic surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review of surgical cases was conducted with the 2019 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The top 10 most performed procedures per surgical specialty were identified based on case volume. Only cases with a single CPT code were analyzed. A subanalysis of plastic surgery procedures was also conducted to include unilateral and bilateral procedures with a frequency greater than 20.

RESULTS

Overall, operative time correlated strongly with work RVUs (R = 0.86). Orthopedic surgery had one of the shortest average operative times with the greatest work RVUs per hour, in contrast to plastic surgery, with the greatest average operative time and one of the lowest work RVUs per hour. Of the plastic surgery procedures analyzed, only five were valued on par with the average calculated from all other specialties. The most poorly rewarded procedure for time spent is unilateral free flap breast reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Of all the surgical specialties, plastic surgery has the lowest RVUs per hour and the highest average operative time, leading to severe potential undervaluation compared with other specialties. This study suggests that further reevaluation of the current RVU system is needed to account for complexity more equitably as well as encourage value-based care.

Association of Neurosurgical Work Relative Value Units with Objective Markers of Operative Complexity

OBJECTIVE

Relative value units (RVUs) form the backbone of health care service reimbursement calculation in the United States. However, it remains unclear how well RVUs align with objective measures of procedural complexity within neurosurgery.

METHODS

The 2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for neurosurgical procedures with >50 patients, using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Length of stay (LOS), operative time, mortality, and readmission and reoperation rates were collected for each code and a univariate correlation analysis was performed, with significant predictors entered into a multivariate logistic regression model, which generated predicted work RVUs, which were compared with actual RVUs to identify undervalued and overvalued procedures.

RESULTS

Among 64 CPT codes, LOS, operative time, mortality, readmission, and reoperation were significant independent predictors of work RVUs and together explained 76% of RVU variance in a multivariate model (R² = 0.76). Using a difference of >1.5 standard deviations from the mean, procedures associated with greater than predicted RVU included surgery for intracranial carotid circulation aneurysms (CPTs 61697 and 61700; residual RVU = 12.94 and 15.07, respectively), and infratemporal preauricular approaches to middle cranial fossa (CPT 61590; residual RVU = 15.39). Conversely, laminectomy/foraminotomy for decompression of additional spinal cord, cauda equina, and/or nerve root segments (CPT 63048; residual RVU = -21.30), transtemporal craniotomy for cerebellopontine angle tumor resection (CPT 61526; residual RVU = -9.95), and brachial plexus neuroplasty (CPT 64713; residual RVU = -11.29) were associated with lower than predicted RVU.

CONCLUSIONS

Work RVUs for neurosurgical procedures are largely predictive of objective measures of surgical complexity, with few notable exceptions.

Relative value units in health care: Friend, foe, or necessary evil?

The purpose of this article is to describe this use of relative value units (RVUs) among nurse practitioners (NP), including the challenges NPs may experience. Relative value units were developed as a means to determine reimbursement for health care based on time spent with the patient and skills required to complete the interaction, while addressing any disparities of reimbursement based on geography or insurance. Increasingly, providers such as NPs are being evaluated based in large part on how many RVUs they generate, which seems to prioritize productivity and may overlook many nonbillable aspects of the NP role such as emotional support or patient education. Nurse practitioners working in settings that require more invasive procedures may seem to be more productive on paper, regardless of the number of patients seen. Relative value units may not adequately reflect the skill and time taken to care for patients with chronic illness. Gender differences have been noted, both in terms of the number of RVUs generated for care of male or female patients, and those generated by male or female providers. If NPs are evaluated primarily based on productivity as measured by RVUs, we must consider how this might minimize or even invalidate the therapeutic relationship and holistic approach to patient care. Relative value units may negatively affect the willingness of NPs to serve as preceptors. Finally, as NPs experience less face-to-face time with patients and more demands for productivity, there may be a loss of quality care and professional integrity, which raises the risk of burnout among NPs.

Comparing the Performance of Comorbidity Indices in Predicting Functional Status, Health-Related Quality of Life, and Total Health Care Use in Older Adults With Back Pain

OBJECTIVE

To determine how well the functional comorbidity index (FCI) predicts outcomes in older adults with back pain compared to Quan's modification of the Charlson comorbidity index (Quan-Charlson comorbidity index) and the Elixhauser comorbidity index.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study.

METHODS

We included 5155 adults 65 years of age or older with new primary care visits for back pain. Comorbidity was measured using diagnosis codes 12 months prior to the new visit. Outcomes of functional limitation (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire), health-related quality of life (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions [EQ-5D]), and total health care use (sum of relative value units) were measured 12 months after the new visit. We compared multivariable models containing preselected prognostic factors.

RESULTS

Spearman correlation coefficients among the indices were 0.70 or greater. Multivariable models for the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire had similar R² and root-mean-square error (RMSE) of prediction when using the FCI (R² = 0.190; RMSE, 6.19), Quan-Charlson comorbidity index (R² = 0.185; RMSE, 6.20), or Elixhauser comorbidity index (R² = 0.189; RMSE, 6.19). Multivariable models for the EQ-5D score showed small differences in R² and RMSE when using the FCI (R² = 0.157; RMSE, 0.163), Quan-Charlson comorbidity index (R² = 0.148; RMSE, 0.164), or Elixhauser comorbidity index (R² = 0.154; RMSE, 0.163). Multivariable models for health care use had similar Akaike information criterion (AIC) values when using the FCI (AIC = 10.04), Quan-Charlson comorbidity index (AIC = 10.04), or Elixhauser comorbidity index (AIC = 10.01).

CONCLUSION

All indices performed similarly in predicting outcomes. There does not seem to be an advantage to using one index over another for older adults with back pain. There is still a need to develop better function-based risk-adjustment models that improve prediction of functional outcomes versus standard comorbidity indices. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(3):143-148. Epub 23 Jul 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.8764.

Long-term outcomes of a large, prospective observational cohort of older adults with back pain

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Although back pain is common among older adults, there is relatively little research on the course of back pain in this age group.

PURPOSE

Our primary goals were to report 2-year outcomes of older adults initiating primary care for back pain and to examine the relative importance of patient factors versus medical interventions in predicting 2-year disability and pain.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This study used a predictive model using data from a prospective, observational cohort from a primary care setting.

PATIENT SAMPLE

The study included patients aged ≥65 years at the time of new primary care visits for back pain.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-reported 2-year disability (Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]) and back pain (0-10 numerical rating scale [NRS]).

METHODS

We developed our models using a machine learning least absolute shrinkage and selection operator approach. We evaluated the predictive value of baseline characteristics and the incremental value of interventions that occurred between 0 and 90 days, and the change in patient disability and pain from 0 to 90 days. Limitations included confounding by indication and unmeasured confounding.

RESULTS

Of 4,665 patients (89%) with follow-up, both RDQ (from mean 9.6 [95% confidence interval {CI} 9.4-9.7] to mean 8.3 [95% CI 8.0-8.5]) and back pain NRS (from mean 5.0 [95% CI 4.9-5.1] to mean 3.5 [95% CI 3.4-3.6]) scores improved slightly. Only 16% (15%-18%) reported no back pain-related disability or back pain at 2 years after initial visits. Regression model parameters explained 40% of the variation (R²) in 2-year RDQ scores, and the addition of 0- to 3-month change in RDQ score and pain improved prediction (R²=51%). The most consistent predictors of 2-year RDQ scores and back pain NRS scores were 0- to 90-day change in each respective outcome and patient confidence in improvement. Patients experienced 50% and 43% improvement in back pain and disability, respectively, 2 years after their initial visit. However, fewer than 20% of patients had complete resolution of their back pain and disability at that time.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline patient factors were more important than early interventions in explaining disability and pain after 2 years.

Associations of Race and Ethnicity With Patient-Reported Outcomes and Health Care Utilization Among Older Adults Initiating a New Episode of Care for Back Pain

STUDY DESIGN

Secondary analysis of the Back Pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD) cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize associations of self-reported race/ethnicity with back pain (BP) patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and health care utilization among older adults with a new episode of care for BP.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

No prior longitudinal studies have characterized associations between multiple race/ethnicity groups, and BP-related PROs and health care utilization in the United States.

METHODS

This study included 5117 participants ≥65 years from three US health care systems. The primary BP-related PROs were BP intensity and back-related functional limitations over 24 months. Health care utilization measures included common diagnostic tests and treatments related to BP (spine imaging, spine-related relative value units [RVUs], and total RVUs) over 24 months. Analyses were adjusted for multiple potential confounders including sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, and study site.

RESULTS

Baseline BP ratings were significantly higher for blacks vs. whites (5.8 vs. 5.0; P < 0.001). Participants in all race/ethnicity groups showed statistically significant, but modest improvements in BP over 24 months. Blacks and Hispanics did not have statistically significant improvement in BP-related functional limitations over time, unlike whites, Asians, and non-Hispanics; however, the magnitude of differences in improvement between groups was small. Blacks had less spine-related health care utilization over 24 months than whites (spine-related RVU ratio of means 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.86). Hispanics had less spine-related health care utilization than non-Hispanics (spine-related RVU ratio of means 0.60; 95% CI 0.40-0.90).

CONCLUSION

Blacks and Hispanics had slightly less improvement in BP-related functional limitations over time, and less spine-related health care utilization, as compared to whites and non-Hispanics, respectively. Residual confounding may explain some of the association between race/ethnicity and health outcomes. Further studies are needed to understand the factors underlying these differences and which differences reflect disparities.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.