Introduction. Studies are being done comparing 1-stage vs. 2-stage protocols for PJI. 1-stage protocols take an extended period of time requiring 2 separate preps and sets of instruments in order to ensure optimal sterility. While intraoperative service time is one part of the reimbursement algorithm, reimbursement has lagged behind for single stage treatment. If 1-stage results are acceptable, but not reimbursed appropriately, surgeons may be discouraged from managing PJI in a 1-stage fashion. We ask, “What is the reimbursement and intraoperative service time for 1-stage procedures compared to primary surgery?”. Methods. Relative Value Unit's (RVU's), reimbursement and operative time for 50 PJI procedures were reviewed and compared to 250 primary (1°) THA and 250 primary (1°) TKA by four surgeons. Coding was done per AAOS guidelines. Results. Average work RVU's for 1-stage knees were 19.79 RVU's/hr. vs 23.47 for 1° TKA. Average reimbursement for a 1-stage knee was $2,597.08, with an average intraoperative service time of 259 minutes ($601.60/hr.). Average reimbursement for a 1° TKA was $2,435.00, with an average service time of 100 minutes ($1,461/ hr.). Average work RVU's for a 1-stage hip were 19.57/hr. vs 25.59 for a 1° THA. Average reimbursement for a 1-stage hip was $2,826.17, with an average intraoperative service time of 311 minutes ($545.24/ hr.). The average reimbursement for a 1° total hip was $2,754.71 with an average service time of 104 minutes ($1,589.26/ hr.). Conclusion. While RVUs/hr are similar between primaries and 1-stage procedures, 1-stage procedures for PJI are reimbursed at approximately 1/3 the hourly rate of a primary procedure. This may discourage surgeons from selecting this treatment alternative if studies confirm efficacy. Payers should be encouraged to reimburse physicians commensurate with the intraoperative service time needed to perform a 1-stage procedure as adoption will decrease morbidity and save the healthcare system financially

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) pose significant challenges to patients and healthcare systems worldwide. The aim of this study was to estimate the health-economic burden of reimbursement payment in Europe for PJIs following primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. The calculation was based on health-economic modelling using data on primary hip and knee arthroplasties for the year 2019 from the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat) and published infection rates to estimate the total number of hip and knee PJIs in 30 European countries. Revision procedures were stratified into: 1) debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR); 2) one-stage exchange; and 3) two-stage revision procedures. The cases were then multiplied by the respective healthcare system reimbursement payments. Payment data were acquired from a survey of 13 countries (Austria, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, Turkey, and the UK) and extrapolated for the remaining countries. Results. In 2019, a total of 2,048,778 primary total joint replacements were performed (total hip arthroplasty (THA) = 1,147,316 and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) = 901,462), with an estimated 20,416 cases of PJIs (11,131 hip and 9,285 knee) in Europe. This results in an estimated total reimbursement burden of €346,262,026 for European healthcare systems. The breakdown for hip PJI reimbursement was €197,230,953 (€9,751,962 for DAIR procedures, €45,135,894 for one-stage revisions, and €142,343,097 for two-stage revisions). For knee PJIs, the analysis yielded a total reimbursement of €149,031,073 (€9,335,075 for DAIR procedures, €48,058,479 for one-stage revisions, and €91,637,518 for two-stage revisions). Conclusion. This is the first study to evaluate the health-economic burden of PJIs in Europe, revealing a substantial impact on healthcare systems with an estimated case load of 20,414 cases and overall reimbursement of €346,262,026 for primary THAs and TKAs performed in 2019. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2025;6(3):298–311

Purpose: To review the existing coding for knee surgery and ascertain its appropriateness & accuracy for surgical procedures, associated co-morbidities and complications. Methods: A retrospective review of 100 consecutive knee surgeries (50 arthroplasties and 50 arthroscopies) performed between July-August 2007 was undertaken. The coding data excel sheet and comprehensive hospital records were analysed. Results: The accuracy of primary procedural codes was 100% & 88% respectively for arthroplasty & arthroscopy. However this respectively fell down to 56 & 60% when the accuracy for entire description of surgical procedure was taken into consideration. The procedural codes did not specifically reflect the surgery performed and lacked reproducibility esp. for arthroscopies. In arthroplasties, patients had similar codes irrespective of whether they had patellar resurfacing or not. Co-morbidities were coded appropriately in 24% of arthroplasty & 36% of arthroscopy patients. The common co-morbidities missed were drug allergies, hypercholesterolemia, heart conditions (IHD, MI, AF, valvular pathologies) and h/o malignancy & deep vein thrombosis. Post-op adverse events were coded in only 2/5 arthroplasties (40%) and 0/3 arthroscopies (0%) respectively. Conclusion: Coding is a universal language of communication amongst healthcare professionals. Its accuracy is important not just for reimbursement but also for data quality and audit. Coding database also serves as a powerful research tool. The financial implications with respect to generation of appropriate reimbursement i.e. healthcare resource group (HRG) codes (which are dictated by official population and census survey procedural [OPCS4.4] & international classification of diseases [ICD–10] co-morbidity codes) are discussed. The limitations of the existing coding system are highlighted and discussed. Literature emphasizes on the qualification of coders, legible & comprehensive documentation of surgeries & co-morbidities by treating physicians and regular interaction between coders and clinicians. Reimbursement for arthroscopy is less in the NHS unlike in BUPA where it is on par with open surgeries

Aim: Our aim was to determine the in-hospital costs of total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR), and compare them to their reimbursement under the national tariff system and to our North American colleagues. Methods: In 2004 an elective orthopaedic centre was set up in South West London which performs mainly primary lower limb arthroplasty. We used a retrospective analysis of financial statements from September 2004- December 2005 inclusive to establish operative costs (including implant), perioperative costs and post operative costs until discharge. Results: A consecutive series of 1538 primary TKR patients (mean age = 72.2) and 1118 primary THR patients (mean age = 70.8) was studied from September 2004 to December 2005 accounting for 88% of the workload. Average post operative stay was 6.5 days for TKRs and 5.7 for THRs and 66% of the patients were ASA grade III or over. The cost including implant of a THR was £6054, and for a TKR it was £6499. After adjustment to allow direct comparison to tariff, our THR cost is 2.3% less than and 1.0% more than the 2004/5 and 2005/6 tariffs respectively. Our adjusted TKR cost is 5.0 % and 4.2% less than the 2004/5 and 2005/6 tariffs respectively. Our cemented and uncemented THR costs are 8.0% less than and 6.6% more than their respective tariffs introduced for the first time in 2005/6. Overall there is no large discrepancy between our THR/TKR costs and tariff reimbursements. Discussion: Although in our unit our costs are similar to the re-imbursements used in the UK, we question the ability of general NHS hospitals in the UK to perform at these levels and prices for three reasons. Firstly, our high volume of joint replacement activity has enabled us to negotiate the most favourable implant prices in the UK. Secondly, length of stay in our unit is approximately 60% of national average. Thirdly, our unit is run without many of the infrastructure costs of a general hospital as well as the cost incurred by training junior staff and research and development. Costs were also found to be favourable compared with our American colleagues and similar to our Canadian colleagues. Conclusion: Our elective only orthopaedic centre provides a cost effect way of performing primary arthroplasty surgery while maintaining high standards of care and twenty-four hour intensive care cover. We believe this cost effectiveness may be unachievable in general NHS hospitals in the UK

Nationwide, proximal femoral fractures contribute a significant workload for the NHS and are the commonest trauma admission. Timely discharge from the acute hospital setting is beneficial to both patient and orthopaedic team. The Community Care Act 2003 formed part of Governmental strategy to reduce ‘bed blocking’. Introduced on 5 January 2004, the scheme enabled Trusts to charge Local Authorities £100 a day where there was delayed transfer of care due to lack of Social Service [SS] provision. The Act brought with it a £250 million package of funding over three years. We looked at patients admitted to Weston Area Healthcare Trust [WAHT] sustaining fractured neck of femur. These were pre-scheme group A, admitted 08/09/2003-06/10/2003 and post scheme group B, 08/03/2004 – 05/04/2003. Patient numbers, group ‘A’ 33 patients, group ‘B’ 28 patients. Average length of stay, ‘A’ 22.3 days, ‘B’ 16.1 days. The average time spent in hospital after being declared ‘medically fit’, ‘A’ 6.6 days, ‘B’ 2.3 days. Only 13 patients were referred to SS post scheme, with combined delayed discharge of 116 days. The impact of the scheme in reducing length of stay has not been proven. Few patients were referred to SS even after the implementation of the scheme; however, the delay in discharge for these patients would have amounted to £11600 of funding. To date, WAHT have not received any funds for patients in whom discharge was delayed. The Act states that lack of SS input must be the ‘sole reason’ for delay in discharge. The scheme is not applicable if delay is due to family choice, lack of equipment or lack of intermediate care package and for these reasons transfer of funds from SS to Trusts has become a multidisciplinary minefield. The impact of the reimbursement scheme will only become apparent if the Act is enforced

Introduction

As total knee arthroplasty incidence in the United States continues to increase, health care entities are looking to reform policy to decrease costs while improving efficiency and quality of care. The allocation of hospital and surgeon charges and payments is an important aspect of health care economics, but the trends and relationship between surgeon and hospital charges and payments for knee arthroplasty have not been well examined. The goal of this study is to report trends and variation in hospital charges and payments compared to surgeon charges and payments for total knee arthroplasty in a Medicare population.

Introduction

Alternative payment models, such as bundled payments, aim to control rising costs for total knee (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA). Without risk adjustment for patients who may utilize more resources, concerns exist about patient selection and access to care. The purpose of this study was to determine whether lower socioeconomic status (SES) was associated with increased resource utilization following TKA and THA.

Aims. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for patients with a proximal humerus fracture, using time-driven activity based costing (TDABC), and to compare treatment costs with reimbursement under the Healthcare Resource Groups (HRGs). Methods. TDABC analysis based on the principles outlined by Kaplan and a clinical pathway that has previously been validated for this institution was used. Staffing cost, consumables, implants, and overheads were updated to reflect 2019/2020 costs. This was compared with the HRG reimbursements. Results. The mean cost of a RSA is £7,007.46 (£6,130.67 to £8,824.67). Implants and staffing costs were the primary cost drivers, with implants (£2,824.80) making up 40% of the costs. Staffing costs made up £1,367.78 (19%) of overall costs. The total tariff, accounting for market force factors and high comorbidities, reimburses £4,629. If maximum cost and minimum reimbursement is applied the losses to the trust are £4,828.67. Conclusion. RSA may be an effective and appropriate surgical option in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures; however, a cost analysis at our centre has demonstrated the financial burden of this surgery. Given its increasing use in trauma, there is a need to work towards generating an HRG that adequately reimburses providers. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2020;1-12:731–736

Introduction. Management of complex fractures poses a significant challenge. Evolving research and changes to national guidelines suggest better outcomes are achieved by transfer to specialist centres. The development of Major Trauma Networks was accompanied by relevant financial arrangements. These do not apply to patients with closed fractures referred for specialist treatment by similar pathways. Despite a surge in cases transferred for care, there is little information available regarding the financial impact on receiving institutions. Materials & Methods. This retrospective study examines data from a Level 1 trauma centre. Patients were identified from our electronic referral system, used for all referrals. Transferred adult patients, undergoing definitive treatment of acute isolated closed tibial fractures, were included for a 2-year period. Data was collected using our clinical and Patient Level Information and Costing (PLICS) systems including coding, demographics, treatment, length of stay (LOS), total operative time, number of operations, direct healthcare costs, and NHS reimbursements. Results. 104 patients were identified, 23 patients were treated by internal fixation and 81 with circular frames. Patients required a median of 190 minutes of total operative time and 6 days of hospital stay at a median cost of £16,233 each, median reimbursement was £10,625. The total cost of treatment for all 104 patients was £2,205,611 and total reimbursement was £1,391463, the median deficit per patient being £5825. The overall deficit over the 2 years was £814,148. Conclusions. This study reveals a considerable economic burden associated with treating complex tibial fractures. It should be emphasised that these do not include patients referred for fracture-related infection or non-union, who may also incur similar deficits in recovered costs. These findings emphasise the importance of understanding and addressing the financial implications of managing tertiary referral orthopaedic trauma patients to ensure efficient and sustainable resource allocation

Aims. The burden of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) continues to grow. The surgery is complex and associated with significant costs. Regional rTHA networks have been proposed to improve outcomes and to reduce re-revisions, and therefore costs. The aim of this study was to accurately quantify the cost and reimbursement for a rTHA service, and to assess the financial impact of case complexity at a tertiary referral centre within the NHS. Methods. A retrospective analysis of all revision hip procedures was performed at this centre over two consecutive financial years (2018 to 2020). Cases were classified according to the Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) and whether they were infected or non-infected. Patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade ≥ III or BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. are considered “high risk” by the RHCC. Costs were calculated using the Patient Level Information and Costing System (PLICS), and remuneration based on Healthcare Resource Groups (HRG) data. The primary outcome was the financial difference between tariff and cost per patient episode. Results. In all, 199 revision episodes were identified in 168 patients: 25 (13%) least complex revisions (H1); 110 (55%) complex revisions (H2); and 64 (32%) most complex revisions (H3). Of the 199, 76 cases (38%) were due to infection, and 78 patients (39%) were “high risk”. Median length of stay increased significantly with case complexity from four days to six to eight days (p = 0.006) and for revisions performed for infection (9 days vs 5 days; p < 0.001). Cost per episode increased significantly between complexity groups (p < 0.001) and for infected revisions (p < 0.001). All groups demonstrated a mean deficit but this significantly increased with revision complexity (£97, £1,050, and £2,887 per case; p = 0.006) and for infected failure (£2,629 vs £635; p = 0.032). The total deficit to the NHS Trust over two years was £512,202. Conclusion. Current NHS reimbursement for rTHA is inadequate and should be more closely aligned to complexity. An increase in the most complex rTHAs at major revision centres will likely place a greater financial burden on these units. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(8):559–566

Aims. This observational cross-sectional study aimed to answer the following questions: 1) how has nonunion incidence developed from 2009 to 2019 in a nationwide cohort; 2) what is the age and sex distribution of nonunions for distinct anatomical nonunion localizations; and 3) how high were the costs for surgical nonunion treatment in a level 1 trauma centre in Germany?. Methods. Data consisting of annual International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 diagnosis codes from German medical institutions from 2009 to 2019, provided by the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (Destatis), were analyzed. Nonunion incidence was calculated for anatomical localization, sex, and age groups. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were determined and compared with a two-sample z-test. Diagnosis-related group (DRG)-reimbursement and length of hospital stay were retrospectively retrieved for each anatomical localization, considering 210 patients. Results. In 2019, a total of 11,840 nonunion cases (17.4/100,000 inhabitants) were treated. In comparison to 2018, the incidence of nonunion increased by 3% (IRR 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.99, p = 0.935). The incidence was higher for male cases (IRR female/male: 0.79, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.82, p = 0.484). Most nonunions occurred at the pelvic and hip region (3.6/100,000 inhabitants, 95% CI 3.5 to 3.8), followed by the ankle and foot as well as the hand (2.9/100,000 inhabitants each). Mean estimated DRG reimbursement for in-hospital treatment of nonunions was highest for nonunions at the pelvic and hip region (€8,319 (SD 2,410), p < 0.001). Conclusion. Despite attempts to improve fracture treatment in recent years, nonunions remain a problem for orthopaedic and trauma surgery, with a stable incidence throughout the last decade. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(8):541–547

Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) can be complex and associated with significant cost, with an increasing burden within the UK and globally. Regional rTHA networks have been proposed aiming to improve outcomes, reduce re-revisions and therefore costs. The aim of this study was to accurately quantify the cost and reimbursement for the rTHA service and to assess the financial impact of case complexity at a tertiary referral centre within the NHS. A retrospective analysis of all revision hip procedures was performed over two consecutive financial years (2018–2020). Cases were classified according to the Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) and by mode of failure; infected or non-infected. Patients of ASA grade of 3 or greater or BMI over 40 are considered “high-risk” by the RHCC. Costs were calculated using PLICS and remuneration based on the HRG data. The primary outcome was the financial difference between tariff and cost per episode per patient. Comparisons between groups were analysed using analysis of variance and two-tailed unpaired t-test. 199 revision episodes were identified in 168 patients: 25 (13%) least complex revisions (H1), 110 (55%) complex revisions (H2) and 64 (32%) most complex revisions (H3). 76 (38%) cases were due to infection. 78 (39%) of patients were in the “high-risk” group. Median length of stay increased with case complexity from 4, to 6 to 8 days (p=0.17) and significantly for revisions performed for infection (9 vs 5 days; p=0.01). Cost per episode increased significantly between complexity groups (p=0.0002) and for infected revisions (p=0.003). All groups demonstrated a mean deficit, but this significantly increased with revision complexity (£301, £1,820 and £4,757 per case; p=0.02) and for infected failure (£4,023 vs £1,679; p=0.02). The total deficit to the trust for the two-years was £512,202. Current NHS reimbursement for rTHA is inadequate and should be more closely aligned to complexity. An increase in the most complex rTHA at major revision centres (MRC) will likely place a greater financial burden on these units

Introduction. In November 2017, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized the 2018 Medicare Outpatient Prospective Payment System rule that removed total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures from the Medicare inpatient-only (IPO) list of procedures. This action had significant and unexpected consequences. For several years, CMS has utilized a rule called the “Two-Midnight Rule” to define outpatient status for all procedures not on the IPO list. CMS made TKA subject to the “Two-Midnight Rule” in conjunction with the decision to move TKA off the IPO list. According to the “Two-Midnight Rule,” a hospital admission should be expected to span at least two midnights in order to be covered as an inpatient procedure. If it can be reliably expected that the patient will not require at least two midnights in the hospital, the “Two-Midnight Rule” suggests that the patient is considered an outpatient and is therefore subject to outpatient payment policies. Under prior guidance related to the “Two-Midnight Rule;” however, CMS also states that Medicare may treat some admissions spanning less than two midnights as inpatient procedures if the patient record contains documentation of medical need. The final rule was clear in stating CMS's expectation was that the great majority of TKAs would continue to be provided in an inpatient setting. Methods. We looked at 3 different levels of the IPO rule impact on TKA for Medicare beneficiaries: a national comparison of fee for service (FFS) inpatient and outpatient classification for 2017 vs 2018; a survey of AAHKS surgeons completed in April of 2019; and an in-depth analysis of a large academic medical center experience. An analysis of change in inpatient classification of TKA patients over time, number of Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) audits, compliance solutions of organizations for the new rule and cost implications of those compliance solutions were evaluated. Results. Hospital reimbursement averages $10,122 in an outpatient facility (includes implant, other supplies, ancillary staff, etc.) but does NOT include the physician payment. Average hospital reimbursement in the inpatient setting is $11,760. The difference in reimbursement to hospitals varies widely however due to nuances in the CMS reimbursement formula (90. th. percentile decrease, $6,725 vs 10th percentile $2,048). Physician payments are the same in both settings (avg $1,403). TKA patients not designated for in-patient admissions are not eligible for bundle payment programs thus removing the healthiest, most predictable patients from the program. Patients designated as outpatients are subject to higher out of pocket expenses. Patients may have an annual Medicare Part B Deductible ($185) and a 20% copay as well as prescription and durable medical equipment costs. A survey of AAHKS surgeons demonstrated that 44.74% were doing inpatient designation only, 17.89% were doing outpatient designation only, 25.53 % designated patients as necessary, and 10% were designated by the hospital. This survey showed that 66/374 (17.65%) of AAHKS responders had undergone a QIO audit as a result of issues with the IPO rule. An evaluation of a large academic medical center demonstrated that since January 1, 2018, 470/690 (68.1%) of CMS TKA patients left the institution in less than 2 midnights. During this time period the institution was subjected to 2 QIO audits. All CMS patients had been designated as inpatients prior to May 2019. Conclusions. There are many unintended consequences to the IPO rule application to TKA. Clearly, more study is needed to provide better guidelines to knee replacement surgeons. A well-defined outpatient TKA bundle would allow CMS and TKA surgeons to better serve their patients. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

INTRODUCTION. Evolving payment models create new opportunities for assessment of patient care based on total cost over a defined period of time. These models allow for analyses of economic data that was previously unavailable and well beyond our familiar studies which typically include length of stay, surgical complications, and post-operative clinical and radiographic assessments. In the United States, the new Federal program entitled TheBundled Payment for Care Initiative created new opportunities for the assessment of surgical interventions. The purpose of the reported study was to assess the total reimbursement for care as a function of surgical technique in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS. The total reimbursement for services performed following primary THA for patients insured by Medicare was analyzed for a group of patients at a single institution during the fiscal years of 2013 and 2014. The population included data on 356 patients who had surgery performed by seven surgeons who used the same pre-operative education, OR, PACU, PT, nursing, and case management. A total of 38 “pre-selected” patients underwent THA by an anterior exposure, 219 had surgery performed by a posterior exposure, and 99 had surgery performed by the superior exposure utilizing mechanical surgical navigation (HipXpert System, Surgical Planning Associates, Boston, MA). Reimbursement for all in-patient and out-patient services performed over the initial 90-day period from sugeical admission was compared across surgical techniques. Reimbursement includes the sum of all payments including the hospital, physicians, skilled nursing facilities, home care, out-patient care, and readmission. RESULTS. The authors previously reported that primary THA cases performed using the superior approach have shorter average length of stay, a lower complication rate, higher percentage of acetabular components within the “safe zone” when compared to the other approaches and higer rate of patients discharged directly to home. An average reimbursement of $24,848 for THA performed using posterior exposure, $21,446 for the selected anterior exposure, and $20,268 for the superior exposure with navigation. The cost of care for treatment by the superior exposure with navigation was statistically significantly less than the posterior exposure (p<0.001) but not significantly less than the selected anterior exposure patients (p=0.287). Medicare in-patient reimbursements for patients treated by the superior exposure with mechanical surgical navigation was significantly less than the selected anterior exposure group (p<0.002) and the posterior exposure group (p<0.001). Overall, 84% of patients with the superior exposure were discharged directly to home versus 69% in the selected anterior group and 60% in the posterior group thus minimizing the out-patient Medicare cost burden in THA performed using the superior exposure over the other techniques. CONCLUSION. The current study demonstrates the influence of surgical technique on the direct reimbursement for the continuum of care, indicative of incurred costs, across the first 90-day post-operative period. The superior exposure combined with surgical navigation demonstrates the potential for significantly reduced total cost burden in Medicare patients when compared to two of the most common surgical approaches used for primary THA

Introduction. Bundled reimbursement models for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have resulted in an effort to decrease the cost of care. However, these models may incentivize bias in patient selection to avoid excess cost of care. We sought to determine the impact of the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model at a single center. Methods. This is a retrospective review of primary TKA patients from July 2015-December 2017. Patients were stratified by whether or not their surgery was performed before or after implementation of the CJR bundle. Patient demographic data including age, sex, and BMI were collected in addition to Elixhauser comorbidities and ASA score. In-hospital outcomes were then examined including surgery duration, length of stay, discharge disposition, and direct cost of care. Results. 1,248 TKA patients (546 Medicare and 702 Commercial Insurance) were evaluated, with 27.0% undergoing surgery prior to the start of the bundle. Compared to patients following implementation of the bundle, there was no significant difference in age, gender, or BMI. However, pre-CJR Medicare patients were more likely to have fewer Elixhauser comorbidities (p<0.001), prolonged length of stay (p<0.001), and greater discharges to inpatient facilities (p=0.019). There was no significant difference in direct hospital costs or operative service time comparing pre and post bundle patients. Conclusions. Implementation of the bundled reimbursement model did not result in biased patient selection at our institution; importantly, it also did not result in decreased hospital costs despite apparent improvement in value-based outcome metrics. This should be taken into consideration as future adaptations to reimbursement are made by CMS. For figures, tables, or references, please contact authors directly

Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of common medical comorbidities on the reimbursements of different shoulder arthroplasty procedures. Methods. We conducted a retrospective query of a private payer insurance claims database of prospectively collected data (PealDiver). Our search included the Current Procedural Terminology Codes (CPT) and International Classification of Disease (ICD) ninth edition codes for Total Shoulder Arthroplasty (TSA), Hemiarthroplasty (HA) and Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty (RSA). Medical comorbidities were also searched for through ICD codes. The comorbidities selected for analysis were obesity, morbid obesity, hypertension, smoking, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, atrial fibrillation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cirrhosis, depression and chronic kidney disease (CKD) (excluding end stage renal disease). The study period comprised claims from 2010 to 2014. The reimbursement charges of the day of surgery, 90-day global period and 90-day period excluding the initial surgical day of each comorbidity were analyzed and compared. Statistical analysis was conducted trough analysis of variance (ANOVA) when the data was normally distributed or through Kruskal-Wallis comparison when it was not. An alpha value of less than 0.05 was deemed as significant. Results. Comorbidities did not have a significant effect on same day reimbursements (Figure 1), but instead caused a significant effect on the 90-day global period reimbursements in the TSA and RSA cohorts (figure 2). For TSA and RSA the highest reimbursed patients at the 90-day period following surgery were the ones that had a diagnosis of Hepatitis C followed by atrial fibrillation and later COPD. For HA the same was true in the following order: Hepatitis C, Cirrhosis and atrial fibrillation (Figure 3). Conclusion. Shoulder arthroplasty reimbursements are significantly affected by comorbidities at time intervals following the initial surgical day. For figures/tables, please contact authors directly.

At our tertiary, large, academic healthcare system, we have access to an academic medical center (AMC), a community based, orthopedic friendly, efficient hospital (CBH) and several ambulatory care centers (ASC) which are being prepared to provide same day discharge (SDD) TJA and UKA. We had a near-capacity AMC with an excellent ability to care for medically and technically complicated TJA patients. However, efficiency was less than desired regardless of case complexity with an average effective case time of 4 hours. Concurrently, the orthopaedically, under-utilized community-based hospital (CBH) wanted to increase volume, improve margins, and become a TJA Center of Excellence with the ability to provide an efficient Hospital Outpatient Department (HOPD) and SDD TJA surgery experience. Methods. The CBH had a main operating floor and a separate floor of four OR suites which were repurposed with the goal of utilizing these rooms for TJA four days per week with an average of 3.5 cases per room per day. We preferentially performed primary, uncomplicated TJA, UKA, and minimally invasive TJA at the CBH. Revision surgeries, patients with extensive medical comorbidities, and complex primary surgeries would be performed at the AMC. Our goals were to decrease costs, readmissions, length of stay, and increase margins at the CBH while increasing efficiency, revenue and volume. Protocols were developed to facilitate SDD UKA and THA at both hospitals as well as rapid recovery protocols for TKA at both hospitals with the understanding that the CBH would perform more of these cases but the efficiency could also be implemented at the AMC when possible. We also needed a strategy to deal with TKA and eventually THA being removed from the Inpatient Only (IPO) list. CMS has utilized the “Two-Midnight Rule” to define outpatient status for both THA and TKA. This has distinct financial implications for the facility's reimbursement with outpatient being $10,123 on average versus $12,380 for inpatient status. A protocol-based system was put in place to make both hospitals compliant with the removal of TKA from the IPO List in order to avoid Quality Improvement Organization (QIO) and Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) after implementation. Results. Comparing FY 2018 to FY 2019, volume increased 26.4% at the CBH. Outpatient case volume rose substantially from 14 cases to 243. Volumes were slightly decreased at the AMC (−4.57%) resulting in a substantial increase in margin contribution for the parent enterprise. Quality metrics at the CBH (surgical site infections (SSI), length of stay (LOS), readmissions, and mortality) were improved. LOS improved from 52% to 71% discharge before 48 hours. The LOS decreased 12% for THA and 8.1% for TKA. CBH readmission rates decreased from 1.38% to 0.9% with no deaths. Surgeon satisfaction is greatly improved as their volume, efficiency, quality metrics, and finances were enhanced. Financial performance was improved in aggregate and per case for the CBH. Although the CBH per-case revenue was 80.3% and 74.4% of the AMC for THA and TKA: the net margins were 3.6% and 18.8% higher for THA and TKA, respectively. The increased efficiency, lower hospital cost and higher volume at the CBH allowed for an increase in revenue despite lower reimbursement per case. Conclusions. A shifting reimbursement landscape, value-based payment initiatives, and increasing volume have challenged traditional TJA delivery systems. This demonstrates one strategy to help hospital systems improve net margins while improving patient care despite lower net revenue per TJA episode. These strategies will become increasingly important going forward with the transition of higher numbers of TJA patients to outpatient settings including ambulatory surgery centers which will be subjected to even further decreases in net revenue per patient

Abstract. Introduction. People from ethnic minority backgrounds are underserved in healthcare and research. We co-developed a checklist to promote good practice for inclusive community patient and public involvement (PPI). Methods. We worked with three community groups in Bristol to develop the checklist – Dhek Bhal (South Asian community), Malcolm X Elders (African Caribbean community) and My Friday Coffee Morning (predominantly Somali women). We worked with group leaders to better understand the needs of the groups. We visited each group at least three times and used informal and open discussions tailored to how each group preferred to work. We paid for community leaders’ time, interpretation and transport where needed, as well as contributing towards activities and catering as suggested by group leaders. Results. The checklist covers 4 broad themes:. Link building – understand the community, gauge interest in topic, build trust and relationships, visit regularly and return to update. Practicalities – visit the communities in their usual space, understand most appropriate meeting formats, consider translation and transport. 3. During the meeting – avoid jargon, be informal and flexible, build in social time, provide culturally preferred food. 4. Giving back – acknowledge the value of people's time, identify preferences for reimbursement, look for opportunities to give back. To complement the checklist, we produced a visual output in the form of an illustration created by a local artist. Discussion. We hope this checklist will facilitate meaningful involvement of people from underserved communities in all stages of research, including identifying research priorities, co-design, research management and dissemination

To assess concordance between hospital coding and clinician coding for patients undergoing spinal instrumentation procedures and determine if our coding systems result in accurate financial reimbursement from the primary care trust (PCT). We conducted a one year retrospective review of 41 patients who underwent spinal instrumentation procedures. Data collected from IT systems included: operation description, clinician procedure code, hospital procedure code, Hospital Health Resource grouping (HRG), clinician HRG, instrumentation costs and PCT reimbursement fees. From this data we compared coding based re-imbursement fees and actual surgical costs, taking into account exact instrumentation prices. In all cases the primary hospital and clinician coding values differed. Using the clinician code would have altered the HRG group in 16 patients. Using solely clinician coding would have generated less financial reimbursement than using hospital coding. In 23 patients undergoing complex spinal procedures, instrumentation costs represented a significant proportion of the final fee obtained from the PCT, thus leaving a small proportion for the associated hospital stay costs. This suggests instrumentation costs are inadequately reimbursed from the PCT. Hospital coding appears more accurate than clinician coding and results in greater financial reimbursement. On the whole, we found there to be insufficient reimbursement from the PCT. The variable and sometimes substantial cost of spinal instrumentation procedures results in inadequate reimbursement for many procedures. We feel the payment by results (PBR) scheme is suboptimal for such procedures and adequate reimbursement can only be achieved by direct billing on an individual case basis

With the ever increasing rate of total hip replacement and life span of these patients, there has been an upward trend towards the incidence of peri-prosthetic fractures. Previous studies does suggest the implant cost to as high as 30% of the total reimbursement in primary hip arthroplasty but this figure is much higher in periprosthetic fractures where long stem revisions are commonly used. A prospective comparative study analyzing the total cost of hospital stay for a cohort of 52 consecutive patients with peri-prosthetic fractures of long bones treated in two hospitals from October 2007 to march 2009 was conducted. Demographic data, fracture classification and method of surgical treatment along with the length of hospital stay were recorded in detail. The total cost calculated was then compared to the range of reimbursement price based on HRG (human Resource Group) coding. The implant cost was determined from the buying cost by each institution. 52 patients were available for review. Average age of the patients operated was 78.5 years. 69 percent of the peri-prosthetic fractures in our series were around the proximal femur. The average cost of stay was £ 16453 (£ 1425- 26345). The reimbursement to the hospital ranged from £ 1983 to £ 8735. Hospital source utilization for peri prosthetic fractures is quite high compared to the reimbursement being given to hospitals for treating such patients. This can be as low as £ 1500 as acute phase tariff to £ 9100 for elective revisions and the implant cost can vary from 50% to 200% of the total reimbursement cost. Current recording system for peri-prosthetic fracture is unclear resulting in discrepancy between resource utilization and reimbursement thus resulting in substantial financial losses for hospitals that perform these procedures