Dataset Information

Similar Cost Savings of Bundled Payment Initiatives Applied to Lower Extremity Total Joint Arthroplasty Can Be Achieved Applying Both Models 2 and 3.

ABSTRACT: In an effort to control cost and increase value, Medicare is transitioning from fee-for-service to value-based alternative payment models (APMs). The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative represents one such voluntary APM. BPCI offers four different bundling options: model 1 covers all Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) and Models 2-4 cover 48 clinical episodes, including 186 separate DRGs.The purpose of this investigation is to analyze and compare the cost savings achieved by two different BPCI program participants, provider A and provider B, enrolled in different models of BPCI (Models 2 and 3) for lower extremity joint replacements (LEJRs).We analyzed the BPCI cost savings for Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Groups (MS-DRGs) 469 and 470 (lower extremity joint replacement) of two different BPCI program participants. One (provider A) participated in Model 2 while the other (provider B) participated in Model 3. Retrospective payments were based upon savings generated by decreased actual expenses reconciled against target pricing for the episode of care in Models 2 and 3.The Model 2 participant reduced the average cost of all episodes by 18.45%, with all of the savings occurring in the post acute phase. The Model 3 participant reduced episode costs by 16.73%.Both BPCI providers achieved similar cost savings despite participating in different BPCI models. These cost savings all occurred in the post acute setting. The Model 2 provider achieved post acute savings through decreasing overall discharges to institutional post acute care (PAC) providers and decreasing readmissions, while the Model 3 provider decreased costs largely by decreasing the LOS for the institutional PAC providers and decreasing readmissions.

SUBMITTER: Alfonso A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5617826 | biostudies-other | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Similar Cost Savings of Bundled Payment Initiatives Applied to Lower Extremity Total Joint Arthroplasty Can Be Achieved Applying Both Models 2 and 3.

Alfonso Allyson A Hutzler Lorraine L Robb Bill B Beste Chad C Blom André A Bosco Joseph J

HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery 20170818 3

<h4>Background</h4>In an effort to control cost and increase value, Medicare is transitioning from fee-for-service to value-based alternative payment models (APMs). The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative represents one such voluntary APM. BPCI offers four different bundling options: model 1 covers all Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) and Models 2-4 cover 48 clinical episodes, including 186 separate DRGs.<h4>Questions/purposes</h4>The purpose of this investigation is to analyz ...[more]

PMID: 28983220

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceMuch of the evidence for bundled payments has been drawn from models in the traditional Medicare program. Although private insurers are increasingly offering bundled payment programs, it is not known whether they are associated with changes in episode spending and quality.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether a voluntary bundled payment program offered by a national Medicare Advantage insurer was associated with changes in episode spending or quality of care for beneficiaries receiving lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) surgery.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study of 23 034 LEJR surgical episodes that emulated a stepped-wedge design by using the time-varying, geographically staggered rollout of the bundled payment program from January 1, 2012, to September 30, 2019. Episode-level multivariable regression models were estimated within practice to compare changes before and after program participation, using episodes at physician practices that had not yet begun participating in the program during a given time period (but would go on to do so) as the control. Data analyses were performed from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022.ExposuresPhysician practice participation in the bundled payment program.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was episode spending (plan and beneficiary). Secondary outcomes included postacute care use (skilled nursing facility and home health care), surgical setting (inpatient vs outpatient), and quality (90-day complications [including deep vein thrombosis, wound infection, fracture, or dislocation] and readmissions).ResultsThe final analytic sample included 23 034 LEJR episodes (6355 bundled episodes and 16 679 control episodes) from 109 physician practices participating in the program. Of the beneficiaries, 7730 were male and 15 304 were female, 3057 were Black, 19 351 were White, 447 were of other race or ethnicity (assessed according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services beneficiary race and ethnicity code, which reflects data reported to the Social Security Administration), and 179 were of unknown race and ethnicity. The mean (SD) age was 70.9 (7.2) years. Participation in the bundled payment program was associated with a 2.7% (95% CI, 1.3%-4.1%) decrease in spending per episode (mean episodic spending, $21 964 [95% CI, $21 636-$22 296] vs $22 562 [95% CI, $22 346-$22 779]), as well as reductions in skilled nursing facility use after discharge (21.3% for bundled episodes vs 25.0% for control episodes; odds ratio [OR], 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67-0.98]) and increased use of the outpatient surgical setting (14.1% for bundled episodes vs 8.4% for control episodes; OR, 1.79 [95% CI, 1.53-2.09]). The program was not associated with changes in quality outcomes, including 90-day complications (8.8% for bundled episodes vs 8.6% for control episodes; OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.86-1.20]) and readmissions (4.3% for bundled episodes vs 4.6% for control episodes; OR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.75-1.13]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study of an LEJR bundled payment program offered by a national Medicare Advantage insurer, findings suggest that physician practice participation in the program was associated with a decrease in episode spending without changes in quality. Bundled payments offered by private insurers, including Medicare Advantage plans, are an alternate payment option to fee for service that may reduce spending for LEJR episodes while maintaining quality of care.

Project description:Background:Obesity is an independent risk factor for osteoarthritis and has been associated with increased rate of complications following lower-extremity total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Bariatric surgery (BS) is a surgical option for weight loss and for reducing obesity-related comorbidities in morbidly obese patients. Purpose/Questions:The goal of this systematic review was to answer the following questions: (1) Does BS prior to TJA correlate with lower post-operative complication rates in morbidly obese patients undergoing TJA? (2) Does BS have an impact on revision rates following TJA? Methods:Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and checklist, a systematic review of medical databases (PubMed/ MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Clinicaltrials.gov) was undertaken for articles published in English from January 1990 to September 2018. Inclusion criteria were studies that included at least ten patients who underwent BS prior to TJA, collected data on complications or other outcomes, and followed patients for at least 90 days after TJA. A descriptive and critical analysis of the results was performed. Results:From 799 studies, 13 met inclusion criteria. A total of 11,770 patients who had undergone bariatric surgery prior to TJA were analyzed. The quality of the evidence ranged between moderate and high. There was no consensus on the effect of previous BS on early- to short-term outcomes reported after TJA. Conclusion:The literature remains conflicted on the impact of BS prior to TJA on early, short-term, and long-term complications after TJA. Additional well-matched, observational studies may further our understanding of the impact of BS prior to TJA on outcomes. In particular the effect of various types of BS prior to TJA on outcomes has yet to be elucidated. Ideally, prospective studies with higher level of evidence will be more definitive on the effects of BS prior to TJA.Prospero Registration Number: CRD42016043025.

Project description:Policy Points Evidence suggests that bundled payment contracting can slow the growth of payer costs relative to fee-for-service contracting, although bundled payment models may not reduce absolute costs. Bundled payments may be more effective than fee-for-service payments in containing costs for certain medical conditions. For the most part, Medicare's bundled payment initiatives have not been associated with a worsening of quality in terms of readmissions, emergency department use, and mortality. Some evidence suggests a worsening of other quality measures for certain medical conditions. Bundled payment contracting involves trade-offs: Expanding a bundle's scope and duration may better contain costs, but a more comprehensive bundle may be less attractive to providers, reducing their willingness to accept it as an alternative to fee-for-service payment.ContextBundled payments have been promoted as an alternative to fee-for-service payments that can mitigate the incentives for service volume under the fee-for-service model. As Medicare has gained experience with bundled payments, it has widened their scope and increased their duration. However, there have been few reviews of the empirical literature on the impact of Medicare's bundled payment programs on cost, resource use, utilization, and quality.MethodsWe examined the history and features of 16 of Medicare's bundled payment programs involving hospital-initiated episodes of care and conducted a literature review of articles about those programs. Database and additional searches yielded 1,479 articles. We evaluate the studies' methodological quality and summarize the quantitative findings about Medicare expenditures and quality of care from 37 studies that used higher-quality research designs.FindingsMedicare's bundled payment initiatives have varied in their design features, such as episode scope and duration. Many initiatives were associated with little to no reduction in Medicare expenditures, unless large pricing discounts for providers were negotiated in advance. Initiatives that included post-acute care services were associated with lower expenditures for certain conditions. Hospitals may have been able to reduce internal production costs with help from physicians via gainsharing. Most initiatives were not associated with significant changes in quality of care, as measured by readmission and mortality rates. Of the significant changes in readmission rates, the results were mixed, showing increases and decreases associated with bundled payments. Some evidence suggested that worse patient outcomes were associated bundled payments, although most results were not statistically significant. Results on case-mix selection were mixed: Several initiatives were associated with reductions in episode severity, whereas others were associated with little change.ConclusionsBundled payments for hospital-initiated episodes may be a good alternative to fee-for-service payments. Bundled payments can help slow the growth of payer spending, although they do not necessarily reduce absolute spending. They are associated with lower provider production costs, and there is no overwhelming evidence of compromised quality. However, designing a bundled payment contract that is attractive to both providers and payers proves to be a challenge.

Project description:ImportanceMedicare's Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) surgery has been associated with a reduction in episode spending and stable-to-improved quality. However, BPCI may create unintended effects by prompting participating hospitals to increase the overall volume of episodes paid for by Medicare, which could potentially eliminate program-related savings or prompt them to shift case mix to lower-risk patients.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether hospital BPCI participation for LEJR was associated with changes in overall volume and case mix.Design, setting, and participantsObservational study using Medicare claims data and a difference-in-differences method to compare 131 markets (hospital referral regions) with at least 1 BPCI participant hospital (n = 322) and 175 markets with no participating hospitals (n = 1340), accounting for 580 043 Medicare beneficiaries treated before (January 2011-September 2013) and 462 161 after (October 2013-December 2015) establishing the BPCI initiative. Hospital-level case-mix changes were assessed by comparing 265 participating hospitals with a 1:1 propensity-matched set of nonparticipating hospitals from non-BPCI markets.ExposuresHospital BPCI participation.Main outcomes and measuresChanges in market-level LEJR volume in the before vs after BPCI periods and changes in hospital-level case mix based on demographic, socioeconomic, clinical, and utilization factors.ResultsAmong the 1 717 243 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent LEJR (mean age, 75 years; 64% women; and 95% nonblack race/ethnicity), BPCI participation was not significantly associated with a change in overall market-level volume. The mean quarterly market volume in non-BPCI markets increased 3.8% from 3.8 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries before BPCI to 3.9 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries after BPCI was launched. For BPCI markets, the mean quarterly market volume increased 4.4% from 3.6 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries before BPCI to 3.8 episodes per 1000 beneficiaries after BPCI was launched. The adjusted difference-in-differences estimate between the market types was 0.32% (95% CI, -0.06% to 0.69%; P = .10). Among 20 demographic, socioeconomic, clinical, and utilization factors, BPCI participation was associated with differential changes in hospital-level case mix for only 1 factor, prior skilled nursing facility use (adjusted difference-in-differences estimate, -0.53%; 95% CI, -0.96% to -0.10%; P = .01) in BPCI vs non-BPCI markets.Conclusions and relevanceIn this observational study of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent LEJR, hospital participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement was not associated with changes in market-level lower extremity joint replacement volume and largely was not associated with changes in hospital case mix. These findings may provide reassurance regarding 2 potential unintended effects associated with bundled payments for LEJR.

Project description:Background: Lung cancer (LC) care is resource and cost intensive. We launched a Multidisciplinary LC Clinic (MDC), where patients with a new LC diagnosis received concurrent oncology consultation, resulting in improved time to LC assessment and treatment. Here, we evaluate the impact of MDC on health resource utilization, patient and caregiver costs, and secondary patient benefits. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients in a rapid assessment clinic with a new LC diagnosis pre-MDC (September 2016-February 2017) and post-MDC implementation (February 2017-December 2018). Data are reported as means; unpaired t-tests and ANOVA were used to assess for significance. We also conducted a cost analysis. Resource utilization, out-of-pocket costs, procedure-related costs, and indirect costs were evaluated from the societal perspective and presented in 2019 Canadian dollars (CAD); multi-way worst/best case and threshold sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: We reviewed 428 patients (78 traditional model, 350 MDC). Patients in the MDC model required significantly fewer oncology visits from LC diagnosis to first LC treatment (1.62 vs. 2.68, p < 0.001), which was significant for patients with stage 1, 3, and 4 disease. Compared with the traditional model, there was no change in mean biopsies/patient (1.32 traditional vs. 1.17 MDC, p = 0.18) or staging investigations/patient (2.24 traditional vs. 2.02 MDC, p = 0.20). Post-MDC, there was an increase in invasive mediastinal staging for patients with stage 2/3 LC (15.0% vs. 60.0%, p < 0.001). Over 22 months, MDC resulted in savings of CAD 48,389 including CAD 24,167 CAD in direct patient out-of-pocket expenses. For the threshold analyses, MDC was estimated to cost CAD 25,708 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), considered to be below current willingness to pay thresholds (at CAD 80,000 per QALY). MDC also facilitated oncology assessment for 29 non-LC patients. Conclusions: An MDC led to a reduction in patient visits and direct patient and caregiver costs.

Project description:Background One of the most significant challenges of implementing a multi-provider bundled payment contract is to determine an appropriate, casemix-adjusted total bundle price. The most frequently used approach is to leverage historic care utilization based on claims data. However, those claims data may not accurately reflect appropriate care (e.g. due to supplier induced demand and moral hazard effects). This study aims to examine variation in claims-based costs of post-discharge primary care physical therapy (PT) utilization after total knee and hip arthroplasties (TKA/THA) for osteoarthritis patients. Methods This retrospective cohort study used multilevel linear regression analyses to predict the factors that explain the variation in the utilization of post-discharge PT after TKA or THA for osteoarthritis patients, based on the historic (2015–2018) claims data of a large Dutch health insurer. The factors were structured as predisposing, enabling or need factors according to the behavioral model of Andersen. Results The 15,309 TKA and 14,325 THA patients included in this study received an average of 20.7 (SD 11.3) and 16.7 (SD 10.1) post-discharge PT sessions, respectively. Results showed that the enabling factor ‘presence of supplementary insurance’ was the strongest predictor for post-discharge PT utilization in both groups (TKA: β = 7.46, SE = 0.498, p-value< 0.001; THA: β = 5.72, SE = 0.515, p-value< 0.001). There were also some statistically significant predisposing and need factors, but their effects were smaller. Conclusions This study shows that if enabling factors (such as supplementary insurance coverage or co-payments) are not taken into account in risk-adjustment of the bundle price, they may cause historic claims-based pricing methods to over- or underestimate appropriate post-discharge primary care PT use, which would result in a bundle price that is either too high or too low. Not adjusting bundle prices for all relevant casemix factors is a risk because it can hamper the successful implementation of bundled payment contracts and the desired changes in care delivery it aims to support. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08410-7.

Project description:BackgroundPoor pain and function outcomes are undesirable after an elective surgery such as total hip or knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA). Recent studies have indicated that the presence of contralateral joint influences outcomes of THA/TKA, however the impact of ipsilateral knee/hip involvement on THA/TKA outcomes has not been explored. The objective of this study was to assess the association of ipsilateral knee/hip joint involvement on short-term and medium-term pain and function outcomes after THA/TKA.MethodsIn this retrospective study of prospectively collected data, we used the data from the Mayo Clinic Total Joint Registry to assess the association of ipsilateral knee or hip joint involvement with moderate to severe pain and moderate to severe activity limitation at 2-year and 5-year follow-up after primary and revision THA and TKA using multivariable-adjusted logistic regression analyses.ResultsAt 2 years, 3,823 primary THA, 4,701 primary TKA, 1,218 revision THA and 725 revision TKA procedures were studied. After adjusting for multiple covariates, ipsilateral knee pain was significantly associated with outcomes after primary THA (all P values <0.01): (1) moderate to severe pain: at 2 years, odds ratio (OR), 2.3 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5 to 3.6); at 5 years, OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.7); (2) moderate to severe activity limitation: at 2 years, OR 3.1 (95% CI 2.3 to 4.3); at 5 years, OR 3.6 (95% CI 2.6 to 5.0). Ipsilateral hip pain was significantly associated with outcomes after primary TKA (all P values <0.01): (1) moderate to severe pain: at 2 years, OR 3.3 (95% CI 2.3 to 4.7); at 5 years, OR 1.8 (95% CI 1.1 to 2.7); (2) moderate to severe activity limitation: at 2 years, OR 3.6 (95% CI 2.6 to 4.9); at 5 years, OR 2.2 (95% CI 1.6 to 3.2). Similar associations were noted for revision THA and TKA patients.ConclusionsTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first study showing that the presence of ipsilateral joint involvement after THA or TKA is strongly associated with poor pain and function outcomes. A potential way to improve outcomes is to address ipsilateral lower extremity joint involvement.

Dataset Information

Similar Cost Savings of Bundled Payment Initiatives Applied to Lower Extremity Total Joint Arthroplasty Can Be Achieved Applying Both Models 2 and 3.

Publications

Similar Cost Savings of Bundled Payment Initiatives Applied to Lower Extremity Total Joint Arthroplasty Can Be Achieved Applying Both Models 2 and 3.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets