Payments for outpatient joint replacement surgery: A comparison of hospital outpatient departments and ambulatory surgery centers.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To compare commercial insurance payments for outpatient total knee and hip replacement surgeries performed in hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) and in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs).Data sources
A large national claims database that contains information on actual prices paid to providers over the period 2014-2017.Data collection
We identified all patients receiving total knee replacement surgery and total hip replacement surgery in HOPDs and in ASCs for each of the 4 years.Study design
For each year, we conducted descriptive and statistical patient-level analyses of the facility component of payments to HOPDs and to ASCs.Principal findings
For each procedure and for each year, ASC payments exceeded HOPD payments by a wide margin; however, the gap across settings declined over time. In 2014, knee replacement payments to HOPDs (n = 67) were $6016 compared to $23 244 in ASCs (n = 68). By 2017, payments to HOPDs (n = 223) had grown to $10 060 compared to $18 234 in ASCs (n = 602). Similarly, for hip replacements, HOPD payments (n = 43) rose from $6980 in 2014 to $11 139 in 2017 (n = 206) and in ASCs fell from $28 485 in 2014 (n = 82) to $18 595 in 2017 (n = 465).Conclusions
Results suggest that for total joint replacement, common perceptions of cost savings from transition of services from hospitals to ASCs may be misguided.
SUBMITTER: Carey K
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7080380 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundFor several years, many orthopedic surgeons have been performing total joint replacements in hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) and more recently in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). In a recent shift, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services began reimbursing for total knee replacement surgery in HOPDs. Some observers have expressed concerns over patient safety for the Medicare population particularly if Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services extends the policy to include total hip replacement surgery and coverage in ASCs.MethodsThis study used a large claims database of non-Medicare patients to examine inpatient and outpatient total knee replacement and total hip replacement surgery performed on a near-elderly population during 2014-2016. We applied propensity score methods to match inpatients with ASC patients and HOPD patients with ASC patients adjusting for risk using the HHS Hierarchical Condition Categories risk adjustment model. We conducted statistical tests comparing clinical outcomes across the 3 settings and examined relative costs.ResultsReadmissions, postsurgical complications, and payments were lower for outpatients than for inpatients. Within outpatient settings, readmissions and postsurgical complications were lower in ASCs than in HOPDs but payments for ASC patients were higher than payments for HOPD patients.ConclusionOur findings support the argument that outpatient total joint replacement is appropriate for select patients treated in both HOPDs and ASCs, although in the commercially insured population, the latter services may come at a cost. Until further study of outpatient total joint replacement in the Medicare population becomes available, how this will extrapolate to the Medicare population is unknown.
| S-EPMC6910922 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Research objectiveTo compare quality outcomes from surgical procedures performed at freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) and hospital-based outpatient departments (HOPDs).Data sourcesPatient-level ambulatory surgery (1997-2004), hospital discharge (1997-2004), and vital statistics data (1997-2004) for the state of Florida were assembled and analyzed.Study designWe used a pooled, cross-sectional design. Logistic regressions with time fixed-effects were estimated separately for the 12 most common ambulatory surgical procedures. Our quality outcomes were risk-adjusted 7-day and 30-day mortality and 7-day and 30-day unexpected hospitalizations. Risk-adjustment for patient demographic characteristics and severity of illness were calculated using the DCG/HCC methodology adjusting for primary diagnosis only and separately for all available diagnoses.Principal findingsAlthough neither ASCs nor HOPDs performed better overall, we found some difference by procedure that varied based on the risk-adjustment approach used.ConclusionsThere appear to be important variations in quality outcomes for certain procedures, which may be related to differences in organizational structure, processes, and strategies between ASCs and HOPDs. The study also confirms the importance of risk-adjustment for comorbidities when using administrative data, particularly for procedures that are sensitive to differences in severity.
| S-EPMC2653888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the impact of ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) on rates of hospital-based outpatient procedures and adverse events.Data sourcesTwenty percent national sample of Medicare beneficiaries.Study designA retrospective study of beneficiaries undergoing outpatient surgery between 2001 and 2010. Health care markets were sorted into three groups-those with ASCs, those without ASCs, and those where one opened for the first time. Generalized linear mixed models were used to assess the impact of ASC opening on rates of hospital-based outpatient surgery, perioperative mortality, and hospital admission.Principal findingsAdjusted hospital-based outpatient surgery rates declined by 7 percent, or from 2,333 to 2,163 procedures per 10,000 beneficiaries, in markets where an ASC opened for the first time (p < .001 for test between slopes). Within these markets, procedure use at ASCs outpaced the decline observed in the hospital setting. Perioperative mortality and admission rates remained flat after ASC opening (both p > .4 for test between slopes).ConclusionsThe opening of an ASC in a Hospital Service Area resulted in a decline in hospital-based outpatient surgery without increasing mortality or admission. In markets where facilities opened, procedure growth at ASCs was greater than the decline in outpatient surgery use at their respective hospitals.
| S-EPMC4600358 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There has been a strong push to move outpatient surgery from hospital settings to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). Despite the efficiency advantages of ASCs, many are concerned that these facilities could increase overall utilization.To assess the impact of ASC opening on rates of outpatient surgery.This was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing outpatient surgery between 2001 and 2010. We compared population-based rates of outpatient surgery in Hospital Service Areas (HSAs) with freestanding ASCs to those without. After adjusting for differences using multiple propensity score methods, we assessed the impact of ASC opening in an HSA previously without one on rates of outpatient surgery.Patients included were Medicare beneficiaries with Part B eligibility.Adjusted HSA-level rates of outpatient surgery.Adjusted outpatient surgery rates increased from 2806 to 3940 per 10,000 and the number of ASC operating rooms grew from 7036 to 11,223 (both P<0.001 for trend). By the fourth year after opening, rates of outpatient surgery increased by 10.9% (from 3338 to 3701 per 10,000) in HSAs adding an ASC for the first time. In contrast, outpatient surgery rates grew by only 2.4% and 0.6% in HSAs where an ASC was always or never present, respectively (P<0.001 for test between 3 slopes).Rather than redistributing patients from one setting to another, the opening of ASCs increases outpatient surgery use. However, the 10.9% increase is more modest than previously suggested by state-level data.
| S-EPMC4163137 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceIn 2018, Medicare removed total knee arthroplasty from the list of inpatient-only procedures, resulting in a new pool of patients eligible for outpatient total knee arthroplasty. How this change was associated with the characteristics of patients undergoing outpatient knee arthroplasty at hospital-owned surgery centers (HOSCs) vs freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (FASCs) is unknown.ObjectivesTo describe the characteristics of patients undergoing outpatient, elective total and partial knee arthroplasty in 2017 and 2018 and to compare the cohorts receiving treatment at FASCs and HOSCs.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational retrospective cohort study included 5657 patients having elective, outpatient partial and total knee arthroplasty in the Florida and Wisconsin State Ambulatory Surgery Databases in 2017 and 2018. Prior admissions were identified in the State Inpatient Database. Statistical analysis was performed from March to June 2022.Main outcomes and measuresCharacteristics of patients undergoing surgery at a FASC vs a HOSC in 2017 and 2018 were compared.ResultsA total of 5657 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.2 [9.9] years; 2907 women [51.4%]) were included in the study. Outpatient knee arthroplasties increased from 1910 in 2017 to 3747 in 2018 and were associated with an increase in total knee arthroplasties (474 in 2017 vs 2065 in 2018). The influx of patients undergoing outpatient knee arthroplasty was associated with an amplification of differences between the patients treated at FASCs and the patients treated at HOSCs. Patients with private payer insurance seen at FASCs increased from 63.4% in 2017 (550 of 867) to 72.7% in 2018 (1272 of 1749) (P < .001), while the percentage of patients with private payer insurance seen at HOSCs increased, but to a lesser extent (41.6% [427 of 1027] in 2017 vs 46.4% [625 of 1346] in 2018; P < .001). In 2017, the percentages of White patients seen at FASCs and HOSCs were similar (85.0% [737 of 867] vs 88.2% [906 of 1027], respectively); in 2018, the percentage of White patients seen at FASCs had increased and was significantly different from the percentage of White patients seen at HOSCs (90.6% [1585 of 1749] vs 87.9% [1183 of 1346]; P = .01). Both types of facilities saw an increase from 2017 to 2018 in the percentage of patients from communities of low social vulnerability, but this increase was greater for FASCs (FASCs: 6.7% [58 of 867] in 2017 vs 33.9% [593 of 1749] in 2018; HOSCs: 7.6% [78 of 1027] in 2017 vs 21.2% [285 of 1346] in 2018). Finally, while FASCs and HOSCs had cared for a similar portion of patients with prior admissions in 2017 (7.8% [68 of 867] vs 9.4% [97 of 1027], respectively; P = .25), in 2018, FASCs cared for fewer patients with prior admissions than HOSCs (4.0% [70 of 1749] vs 8.1% [109 of 1346]; P < .001).ConclusionsThis study suggests that the increase in the number of patients undergoing outpatient knee arthroplasty in 2018 corresponded to FASCs treating a greater share of patients who were White, covered by private payer insurance, and healthier. These findings raise a concern that as more operations transition to the outpatient setting, variability in access to FASCs may increase, leaving hospital-owned centers to bear a greater share of the burden of caring for more vulnerable patients with more severe illness.
| S-EPMC10415959 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAn increasing number of hospitals have participated in Medicare's bundled payment and accountable care organization (ACO) programs. Although participation in bundled payments has been associated with savings for lower-extremity joint replacement (LEJR) surgery, simultaneous participation in ACOs may be associated with different outcomes given the prevalence of LEJR among patients receiving care at ACO participant organizations and potential overlap in care redesign strategies adopted under the 2 payment models.ObjectiveTo examine whether simultaneous participation in a Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) ACO affects the association between hospitals' participation in LEJR episodes under the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative and patient outcomes compared with participation in the BPCI initiative alone.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study, conducted from January 1 to May 31, 2019, used 2011 to 2016 Medicare claims data and incorporated an instrumental variable with a difference-in-differences method among 483 008 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries undergoing LEJR surgery at 212 bundled payment participant hospitals, 105 coparticipant hospitals, and 1413 nonparticipant hospitals in the United States.ExposuresHospital participation in both the BPCI initiative and the MSSP (coparticipants), BPCI only (bundled payment participants), or neither (nonparticipants).Main outcomes and measuresChanges in clinical outcomes and mean LEJR episode spending.ResultsA total of 483 008 patients (mean [SD] age, 73.0 [8.4] years; 308 173 [63.8%] female) were included in the study. No differential changes were found in patient and hospital characteristics across participation groups. In adjusted analysis, coparticipants had 1.5% (95% CI, 0.7%-2.2%; P < .001) more unplanned readmissions than did bundled payment participants. Compared with bundled payment participants, coparticipants also had differentially greater decreases in hospital length of stay (adjusted difference-in-differences value, -5.3%; 95% CI, -7.1% to -3.5%; P < .001) and home health care use (adjusted difference-in-differences value, -3.4%; 95% CI, -4.5% to -2.3%; P < .001) and greater increases in postdischarge outpatient follow-up (adjusted difference-in-differences value, 2.1%; 95% CI, 0.9%-3.3%; P < .001). Coparticipants and bundled payment participants did not have differential changes in episode spending (adjusted difference-in-differences value, 0.4%; 95% CI, -0.7% to 1.6%; P = .46), although both groups had more decreased spending compared with nonparticipants.Conclusions and relevanceAmong bundled payment participants, coparticipation in ACOs was not associated with LEJR episode savings but was associated with differential changes in postacute care use patterns and unplanned readmissions. These findings support the longer-term benefits of LEJR bundles and suggest that coparticipants may adopt care redesign strategies that differ from hospitals with bundled payments only.
| S-EPMC6777392 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Outpatient surgery has been shown safe and effective for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), and more recently, for 1-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA). The purpose of this analysis is to compare the safety and efficiency of 1-level and 2-level CDA performed in an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) and in a hospital setting. Methods:The study was a retrospective collection and analysis of data from consecutive CDA patients treated in ASCs compared to a historical control group of patients treated in hospital settings who were classified as outpatient (0 or 1-night stay) or inpatient (2 or more nights). Surgery time, blood loss, return to work, adverse events (AEs), and subsequent surgeries were compared. Results:The sample consisted of 145 ASC patients, 348 hospital outpatients, and 65 hospital inpatients. A greater proportion of 2-level surgeries were performed in hospital than ASC. Surgery times were significantly shorter in ASCs than outpatient or inpatient 1-level (63.6 ± 21.6, 86.5 ± 35.8, and 116.7 ± 48.4 minutes, respectively) and 2-level (92.4 ± 37.3, 126.7 ± 43.8, and 140.3 ± 54.5 minutes, respectively) surgeries. Estimated blood loss was also significantly less in ASC than outpatient and inpatient 1-level (18.5 ± 30.6, 43.7 ± 35.9, and 85.7 ± 98.0 mL, respectively) and 2-level (21.1 ± 12.3, 67.8 ± 94.9, and 64.9 ± 66.1 mL). There were no hospital admissions and no subsequent surgeries among ASC patients. ASC patients had 1 AE (0.7%) and hospital patients had 10 AEs (2.4%). Working patients returned to work after a similar number of days off, but fewer ASC patients had returned to work by the end of the 90-day period. Conclusions:Both 1- and 2-level CDA may be performed safely in an ASC. Surgeries in ASCs are of shorter duration and performed with less blood loss without increased AEs.
| S-EPMC6198634 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the relationship between Medicare's site-based outpatient billing policy and hospital-physician integration.Data sourcesNational Medicare claims data from 2010 to 2016.Study designFor each physician-year, we calculated the disparity between Medicare reimbursement under hospital ownership and under physician ownership. Using logistic regression analysis, we estimated the relationship between these payment differences and hospital-physician integration, adjusting for region, market concentration, and time fixed effects. We measured integration status using claims data and legal tax names.Data collectionThe study included integrated and non-integrated physicians who billed Medicare between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2016 (n = 2 137 245 physician-year observations).Principal findingsMedicare reimbursement for physician services would have been $114 000 higher per physician per year if a physician were integrated compared to being non-integrated. Primary care physicians faced a 78% increase, medical specialists 74%, and surgeons 224%. These payment differences exhibited a modest positive relationship to hospital-physician vertical integration. An increase in this outpatient payment differential equivalent to moving from the 25th to 75th percentile was associated with a 0.20 percentage point increase in the probability of integrating with a hospital (95% CI: 0.0.10-0.30). This effect was slightly larger among primary care physicians (0.27, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.35) and medical specialists (0.26, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.48), while not significantly different from zero among surgeons (-0.02; 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.22).ConclusionsThe payment differences between outpatient settings were large and grew over time. Even routine annual outpatient payment updates from Medicare may prompt some hospital-physician vertical integration, particularly among primary care physicians and medical specialists.
| S-EPMC7839648 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:In 2016, Medicare implemented Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR), a national mandatory bundled-payment model for hip or knee replacement in randomly selected metropolitan statistical areas. Hospitals in such areas receive bonuses or pay penalties based on Medicare spending per hip- or knee-replacement episode (defined as the hospitalization plus 90 days after discharge). METHODS:We conducted difference-in-differences analyses using Medicare claims from 2015 through 2017, encompassing the first 2 years of bundled payments in the CJR program. We evaluated hip- or knee-replacement episodes in 75 metropolitan statistical areas randomly assigned to mandatory participation in the CJR program (bundled-payment metropolitan statistical areas, hereafter referred to as "treatment" areas) as compared with those in 121 control areas, before and after implementation of the CJR model. The primary outcomes were institutional spending per hip- or knee-replacement episode (i.e., Medicare payments to institutions, primarily to hospitals and post-acute care facilities), rates of postsurgical complications, and the percentage of "high-risk" patients (i.e., patients for whom there was an elevated risk of spending - a measure of patient selection). Analyses were adjusted for the hospital and characteristics of the patients and procedures. RESULTS:From 2015 through 2017, there were 280,161 hip- or knee-replacement procedures in 803 hospitals in treatment areas and 377,278 procedures in 962 hospitals in control areas. After the initiation of the CJR model, there were greater decreases in institutional spending per joint-replacement episode in treatment areas than in control areas (differential change [i.e., the between-group difference in the change from the period before the CJR model], -$812, or a -3.1% differential decrease relative to the treatment-group baseline; P<0.001). The differential reduction was driven largely by a 5.9% relative decrease in the percentage of episodes in which patients were discharged to post-acute care facilities. The CJR program did not have a significant differential effect on the composite rate of complications (P=0.67) or on the percentage of joint-replacement procedures performed in high-risk patients (P=0.81). CONCLUSIONS:In the first 2 years of the CJR program, there was a modest reduction in spending per hip- or knee-replacement episode, without an increase in rates of complications. (Funded by the Commonwealth Fund and the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health.).
| S-EPMC6504974 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The cost implications associated with offloading outpatient surgery from hospitals to ambulatory surgery centers and the physician office remain poorly defined. Therefore, we determined whether payments for outpatient surgery vary by location of care.Using national Medicare claims from 1998 to 2006, we identified elderly patients who underwent 1 of 22 common outpatient urological procedures. For each procedure we measured all relevant payments (in United States dollars) made during the 30-day claims window that encompassed the procedure date. We then categorized payment types (hospital, physician and outpatient facility). Finally, we used multivariable regression to compare price standardized payments across hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers and the physician office.Average total payments for outpatient surgery episodes varied widely from $200 for urethral dilation in the physician office to $5,688 for hospital based shock wave lithotripsy. For all but 2 procedure groups, ambulatory surgery centers and physician offices were associated with lower overall episode payments than hospitals. For instance, average total payments for urodynamic procedures performed at ambulatory surgery centers were less than a third of those done at hospitals (p <0.001). Compared to hospitals, office based prostate biopsies were nearly 75% less costly (p <0.001). Outpatient facility payments were the biggest driver of these differences.These data support policies that encourage the provision of outpatient surgery in less resource intensive settings.
| S-EPMC4008316 | biostudies-literature