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

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.

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

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

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.

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

Aim. To evaluate the costs of performing revision hip and knee surgery at a District General Hospital. Methods. A retrospective review of all revision hip and knee surgery between October 2004 and October 2006 was performed. Information was obtained from the notes and theatre log books. Each case was fully costed. The breakdown costs included implant choice, theatre time, length of stay, allograft, blood products and post-operative physiotherapy/OT. The costs were obtained from the hospital financial department and theatre invoices. Payment to the hospital is based on a specific tariff which in turn is determined by coding each patient episode. We individually coded every case, using the OPCS 4.3 coding system, and applied the appropriate tariff. The tariffs that the financial department had applied to each case were also available. A comparison was made between actual costs incurred, the expected reimbursement (from our study coding) and the actual reimbursement received (from finance department). Results. 167 revision procedures were performed (108 hips and 59 knees). The total incurred cost of revision hip surgery was £930,156 (mean £8,613 per case). The expected total reimbursement according to our coding was £938,325 (mean £8,688). The total reimbursement actually received was £806,836 (mean £7,471). The total incurred cost of revision knee surgery was £493,357 (mean £8,362). The expected total reimbursement according to our coding was £499,042 (mean £8,458). The total reimbursement was £419,157 (mean £7,104). Conclusions. Inadequate coding results in reduced income. If strict coding practices are adhered to then performing revision hip and knee surgery should be financially viable at a district general hospital

Background. Operative treatment of complex proximal humerus fractures remains controversial. The transition to value-based health care demands a better understanding of the costs associated with surgery. The purpose of this study was to examine the 90-day costs of three common surgical treatments for proximal humerus fractures and non-operative treatment and compare the costs associated with the initial-day and subsequent 89-days of care. Methods. A query of the Humana insurance claims database was performed through the PearlDiver Supercomputer (Warsaw, IN) from 2010 to 2014 using the diagnosis codes for proximal humerus fractures together with current procedural terminology codes (CPT) for hemiarthroplasties (HA), open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) and nonoperative treatment (NO). Reimbursement from the insurance claims database was used as a marker for costs. The same day, subsequent 89-day, and ninety day costs were analyzed trough the use of descriptive and comparative statistical analysis. Results. RSA was the most costly procedure for the same-day and 90-day costs (p<0.001) (Figure 1). Mean initial-day reimbursement costs were significantly different amongst treatment groups, with the highest costs seen with RSA ($16,151), followed by HA ($9,348), ORIF ($6,745) and lastly, NO ($1,932). Subsequent 89-day reimbursement costs were not significantly different for RSA, HA and ORIF (p=0.112) (Figure 1 and 2); however, NO treatment incurred significantly lower costs (p=0.008) (Figure 3). Conclusion. The 90-day costs for the surgical treatment of proximal humerus fractures are driven by the initial-day costs. RSA was associated with the highest cost, followed by HA and ORIF. NO management incurred the lowest costs

Introduction. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a significant challenge to the orthopedic surgeon, patient, hospital, and insurance provider. As the number of total hip and knee replacements has increased, the number of revision procedures has also increased. Revisions for infection require a greater amount of hospital and surgeon resources than noninfectious revisions. Our study compares the financial information for all two-stage revision surgeries performed at our tertiary referral center for hip or knee PJI over the last four years, separating them into two groups: referral versus self-originating cases. Methods. We performed a review of all patients who underwent two-stage revision hip or knee arthroplasty for infection between 2008 and 2013 at our facility. We collected detailed financial information for patients and separated them into referral versus self-originating cases, indicating whether index surgery was performed at an outside facility or at our facility, respectively. Only those patients who underwent full two-stage procedure at our facility were included. Results. We found an increasing number of referrals over the study period. There was a non-statistical increased cost of treating hips over knees (p=0.24). We found a continued financial incentive, with no statistical difference between referral and self-originating groups, in treating hip (p=0.89) and knee (p=0.84) PJIs (Figure 1). Despite no difference in payer status, there was a non-statistical trend for a much lower reimbursement (p=0.15) in the referral hip group. We found that referral knee PJIs overall reimbursement (p=0.65), and in turn revenue (p=0.55), was non-statistically higher than that of self-originating knee PJIs. There is a significant financial disincentive in treating hip PJI referrals if the antibiotic spacer has already been placed (p=0.036) (Figure 2). We found a non-significant decreased reimbursement for treating referral knee PJIs if the antibiotic spacer has been placed prior to referral (p=0.81). Conclusion. To our knowledge, our study is the first to extensively compare the financial implications of treating an institution's own PJIs of the knee and hip versus treating referred infections. In the modern era of referral centers accepting more of the burden of PJIs, we show there is continued financial incentive to treating one's own PJIs and referral PJIs, given the antibiotic spacer was not placed at an outside facility

Aims. To establish the cost of primary hip (THR) and knee (TKR) arthroplasty in an elective orthopaedic centre in the UK and to compare it with current government reimbursement to NHS hospitals and the costs in North America. 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-June 2005 inclusive to establish operative costs (including implant), perioperative costs and post-operative costs until discharge. Results. A total of 691 THRs and 897 TKRs were performed during this period accounting for 76% of the workload. Average post-operative stay was 6.5 days for TKRs and 5.7 for THRs. Average cost for a TKR was £6651 and for a THR £5990. Costs are favourable compared with our American colleagues and similar to our Canadian colleagues. Reimbursement in the NHS was set up in 2003-4 by the DH in the form of national tariffs. Our costs are similar to these reimbursements. 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. Conclusion. Our elective-only orthopaedic centre provides a cost effective 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

Patients over 70 years old have subclinical or impending rotator cuff dysfunction, raising concern about TSA in this population. The purpose of this study is to examine whether reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) should be considered for the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis in the presence of an intact rotator cuff (GHOA+IRC in patients older than 70 years of age. Twenty-five elderly (>70 years) patients at least one year status-post RTSA for GHOA+IRC were matched via age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, and whether the procedure involved the dominant extremity with 25 GHOA+IRC patients who received anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Standardised outcome measures, range of motion, and treatment costs were compared between the two groups. Treatment cost was assessed using implant and physical therapy costs as well as reimbursement. Patients who received RTSA for GHO+IRC had significantly lower pre-operative active forward elevation (AFE, 69° vs. 98°, p <0.001) and experienced a greater change in AFE (p=0.01), but had equivalent AFE at final follow-up (140° vs. 142°, p=0.71). Outcomes were otherwise equivalent between groups with no differences. In both those patients who underwent TSA and those that underwent RTSA, significant improvements between pre-operative and final follow-up were seen in all standardised outcome measures and in AFE (p<0.001 in all cases). RTSA provided these outcomes at a cost savings of $2,025 in Medicare reimbursement due to decreased physical therapy costs. In patients over the age of 70 with GHOA+IRC, RTSA provides similar improvement in clinical outcomes to TSA at a reduced cost while avoiding issues related to the potential for subclinical or impending rotator cuff dysfunction

The aim of the study is to determine reimbursement cost of treating periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in Poland, the rate of THR and TKA septisc revisions in the years 2009–2013, the type of revision, comparison of the costs of septic and aseptic revisions. Data published on the website of the National Health Fund (NHF) were analysed on revision arthroplasty for aseptic and septic recisions in the years 2009–2013. To calculate the cost of revision NHF report for 2013 was analysed giving the average cost of the group of septic and aseptic revision. According to NHF „point system”, in therapy of PJI three types of revisions can by choosen: partial revision (305 points), one-stage revision (490 points), and two-stage revision with spacer (728 points for two stages). In the years 2009–2013 a total of 260030 THR and TKA were performer, including 23027 revisions. There were 4221 septic revisions: 1677 hips and 1430 knees. In 2013 septic revisions stated 1.38% (556 of 40152) of all hip and 2.56% (325 of 12654) of all knee replacements. Septic revisions constituted 14.67% of all hip revisions and 30.23% of all knee revisions. The average refund of the NHF for a minor revision for PJI in 2013 was 3889 Euro and the average cost for hospital was 4127 Euro. The average refund of the NHF for a one-stege revision (for any reason) in 2013 was 6124 Euro, and the average cost for hospital was 6339 Euro. The average refund of the NHF for a two-stage revision (for two stages) in 2013 was 10013 Euro, and the average cost for hospital was 10466 Euro for two hospital stays. Data revealed that in 2013 all 921 revisions performed for PJI were reimbursed as „minor revisions” for 3889 Euro. In 2013 the difference between the average cost incurred by the hospital and the refund of the NHF for septic revision was at least 238 Euro and for the entire year undervalued refund for treatment of 921 infected prostheses was at least 219198 Euros. The reimbursement for revision due to infection encourages surgeons to perform two-stage septic revision instead of debridement or one-step, because two-step treatment in the final bill is better paid

Background. Fifteen to twenty percent of patients presenting for total hip arthroplasty (THA) have bilateral disease. While simultaneous bilateral THA is of interest to patients and surgeons, debate persists regarding its merits. The majority of previous reports on simultaneous bilateral THA involve patients in the lateral decubitus position, which require repositioning, prepping and draping, and exposure of a fresh wound to pressure and manipulation for the contralateral THA. The purpose of this study was to compare complications, component position, and financial parameters for simultaneous versus staged bilateral THAs using the direct anterior approach (DAA). Methods. Medical records were reviewed for patient demographics, medical history, operative time, estimated blood loss (EBL), change in hemoglobin, transfusion, tranexamic acid (TXA) use, length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, leg length discrepancy, acetabular cup position, and perioperative complications. Cost and reimbursement data were analyzed. Results. Forty-four patients were included in the sequential group and fifteen patients in the simultaneous group (Figure 1). Operative time was significantly longer for simultaneous DAA THA, with procedures lasting 260 +/− 48 minutes compared to 132 +/− 30 minutes for a single arthroplasty in the sequential group (p<0.001). Patients undergoing simultaneous bilateral DAA THA also had a significantly higher EBL (p<0.001), hemoglobin drop (p<0.001), and blood transfusion rate (p<0.01) compared to parameters for a single arthroplasty in the sequential group. This was despite TXA being used in a significantly higher proportion of simultaneous procedures compared to sequential procedures (p<0.01). The LOS was significantly longer in patients undergoing simultaneous bilateral DAA THA (2.9 +/− 1.0 days) compared to sequential (2.2 +/− 0.6 days) (p<0.001). No deep venous thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE) was detected in either group during the observation period. No significant difference was detected regarding perioperative complications or whether patients were able to be discharged home instead of to a post-inpatient facility (Figure 2). There was no significant difference in component position, complications, or readmissions between groups. Total cost per hip was significantly less for the simultaneous ($15,565 +/− 1,470) compared to the sequential group ($19,602 +/− 3,094) (p<0.001). There was no significant difference in total payments between the simultaneous group ($25,717 +/− 4,404) and the sequential group ($24,926 +/− 8,203) (p=0.93). Thus, with lower cost and similar reimbursement, profit per hip was significantly higher for the simultaneous ($9,606 +/− 5,060) compared to the sequential group ($5,324 +/− 7,997) (p<0.05). (Figure 3). Conclusions. Significant data regarding simultaneous bilateral THA has been published but results are conflicting and different surgical approaches were used. To our knowledge only four previous reports have been published examining simultaneous bilateral THA performed via the DAA. While simultaneous DAA THA presents challenges, our results suggest that simultaneous DAA THA may add value to the healthcare system without resulting in increased complications compared to sequential hip arthroplasty

Background. In surgeon controlled bundled payment and service models, the goal is to reduce cost but preserve quality. The surgeon not only takes on risk for the surgery, but all costs during 90 days after the procedure. If savings are achieved over a previous target price, the surgeon can receive a monetary bonus. The surgeon is placed in a position to optimize the patients preoperatively to minimize expensive postoperative readmissions in a high risk population. Traditionally, surgeons request that primary care providers medically clear the patient for surgery with cardiology consultation at their discretion, and without dictating specific testing. Our participation in the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) program for total hip and knee replacement surgeries since 1/1/15 has demonstrated a significant number of patients having costly readmissions for cardiac events. Objective. To determine the medical effectiveness and cost savings of instituting a new innovative cardiac screening program (Preventive Cardio-Orthopaedics) for total hip and knee replacement patients in the BPCI program and to compare result to those managed in the more traditional fashion. Methods. The new screening program was instituted on 11/1/17 directed by an advanced cardiac imaging cardiologist (EH). Testing included an electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, carotid and abdominal ultrasound, and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). If needed, a 3 day cardiac rhythm monitor was also performed. Four of the ten physicians in our group performing hip and knee replacement surgeries participated. Charts of readmitted patients were reviewed to determine past medical history, method of cardiac clearance, length and cost of readmission. Results. 2,459 patients had total hip or knee replacement in the BPCI program between 1/1/15 and 10/31/17 prior to instituting the new program. All had complete 90 day postoperative readmission data supplied by the CMS, with 25 (1%) of these patients having readmissions for cardiac events for a total cost of readmissions of %149,686. 14 of 25 had a preoperative clearance by a cardiologist. In 19 of the 25 patients, the only preoperative cardiac screening tool performed was an electrocardiogram. Since instituting the new program, 842 additional surgeries were performed, 463 by the four surgeons involved. 126 patients were agreeable to be evaluated through the Preventive Cardio-Orthopaedics program. 4 patients of the four physicians still screened via the traditional cardiac program had a cardiac event readmission. The average readmission hospital stay was 3.33 days at a total cost of %42,321. 2 patients of the four physicians evaluated by the Preventive Cardio-Orthopaedics program had a cardiac related readmission, at an average hospital stay of 2 days, and at a total cost of %10,091. Conclusions. Risk sharing programs have forced surgeons to take a more active role in optimizing their patients medically; otherwise they will be penalized with a decreased reimbursement. Traditionally, we have abdicated this responsibility to primary care and cardiology physicians but have noted a high cardiac readmission risk. In response, we have begun using a unique cardiac screening model. Our preliminary experience predicts fewer cardiac readmissions thereby improving care, and at a lower cost

New technology in joint replacement design and materials adds cost which must be documented by improved outcomes. This is not always the case as the recent metal/metal data has shown. The current economics of arthroplasty surgery have put increasing financial pressure on hospitals and will progress under new health care legislation. New technology must be cost effective and this will be increasingly difficult in an era of outstanding long term results with current designs. Cost may necessitate less expensive alternatives, e.g. generic implants, in arthroplasty patients. Joint replacement surgery has evolved over the past four decades into a highly successful surgical procedure. Earlier designs and materials which demonstrated inferior functional and long term results have disappeared in a Darwinian fashion. Through this evolutionary process many of the current designs have proven efficacy and durability. Current outcome data indicates that hip and knee designs demonstrate 90–95% success rates at 15 year follow-up. Technologic advances are necessary to improve implant design and materials, however, in an environment of reduced reimbursement to hospitals can the increase cost be justified. The rationale that technology in medicine would be expensive at the outset yet be cost effective eventually has in many areas not been the case. Currently about one half of the rapid increase in health care costs in relation to GNP may be attributed to technology. Uwe Reinhardt, an economist at Princeton University, in referring to new technology has stated that the health care system provides misaligned incentives that create over-utilisation or misutilisation of everything that is new. It is now common knowledge among health care economists that if the cost of health care is to be controlled the growth of technology must be constrained. Increasingly as new technology emerges the question will be: what is the cost-benefit analysis. A new era of comparative effectiveness research is being launched and will become predominant in medicine and arthroplasty surgery in the future. What is the newest may not always be the best. According to Reinhardt there is a need for comparative effectiveness studies of emerging and existing technology so that the new can be priced in a way that reflects its incremental value. New technology must demonstrate its benefit to justify its cost, often in arthroplasty there is little data available to document these better outcomes. In a recent study by Bozic the cost effectiveness of new technologies were evaluated. Based on the authors' findings for an alternative bearing with an incremental cost of $2000 to be cost saving for a 50 year old there would have to be a 19% reduction in 20 year failure rates. The likelihood of cost savings for these alternate bearings in patients 63 or older is highly unlikely at current costs. Newer biomaterials (metal/metal, ceramic/ceramic, highly cross linked polyethylene) also have limited outcome analysis in patients beyond short to mid-term follow-up evaluation and all of these technologies add significant cost to the implant. With diminishing reimbursement careful analysis of utilisation of these newer technologies must be weighed if hospitals are to maintain economic viability. The pharmaceutical, airline, and food industries have all moved toward generic products which are less costly and this will be the trend in the future in prosthetic implants as well. Newer technologies must demonstrate their efficacy in long term follow-up and be clearly superior to conventional implants. This is not always the case as new data on metal-metal implants is demonstrating. Change is not always progress

Introduction. Current CMS reimbursement policy for total joint replacement is aligned with more cost effective, higher quality care. Upon implementation of a standardized evidenced-based care pathway, we evaluated overall procedural costs and clinical outcomes over the 90-day episode of care period for patients undergoing TKA with either conventional (Conv.) or robotic-assisted (RAS) instrumentation. Methods. In a retrospective review of the first seven consecutive quarters of Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) Model 2 participation beginning January 2014, we compared 90-day readmission rates, Length of Stay (LOS), discharge disposition, gains per episode in relation to target prices and overall episode costs for surgeons who performed either RAS-TKA (3 surgeons, 147 patients) or Conv. TKA (3 surgeons, 85 patients) at a single institution. All Medicare patients from all surgeons performing more than two TKA's within the study period were included. An evidence-based clinical care pathway was implemented prior to the start of the study that standardized pre-operative patient education, anesthesia, pain management, blood management, and physical/occupational therapy throughout the LOS for all patients. Physician specific target prices were established from institutional historical payment data over a prior three year period. Results. RAS and Conv-TKA procedures exhibited an average gain per episode of $7,600 and $5,579, respectively. The average total cost per 90-day episode was $2,085 lower for patients receiving RAS-TKA ($28,943 versus $31,028), with the majority of cost savings in reduced SNF usage ($1,481) and readmissions ($944). Discharge to home versus Sub-acute Rehabilitation Facilities (SAR's) was 14% higher in the RAS group (62% vs 48%, p<0.05). Conclusions. Implementation of a standardized care pathway across all service departments and physicians resulted in a reduction in overall episode of care costs, with further reductions in cost and discharge to SARs observed with the use of RAS

Background. The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) was developed by the US Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) to evaluate a payment and service delivery model to reduce cost but preserve quality. 90 day postoperative expenditures are reconciled against a target price, allowing for a monetary bonus to the provider if savings were achieved. The surgeon is placed in a position to optimize the patients preoperatively to minimize expensive postoperative cardiovascular readmissions in a high risk population. Traditionally, surgeons request that primary care providers medically clear the patient for surgery with or without additional cardiology consultation, without dictating specific testing. Typical screening includes an EKG, occasionally an echocardiogram and nuclear stress test, and rarely a cardiac catheterization. Our participation in the BPCI program for total hip and knee replacement surgeries since 1/1/15 has demonstrated a significant number of patients having readmissions for cardiac events. Objective. To determine the medical effectiveness and cost savings of instituting a new innovative cardiac screening program (Preventive Cardio-Orthopaedics) for total hip and knee replacement patients in the BPCI program and to compare result to those managed in the more traditional fashion. Methods. The new screening program was instituted on 11/1/17 directed by an advanced cardiac imaging cardiologist (EH). Testing included an electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, carotid and abdominal ultrasound, and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). If needed, a 3 day cardiac rhythm monitor was also performed. Four of the ten physicians in our group performing hip and knee replacement surgeries participated. Charts of readmitted patients were reviewed to determine past medical history, method of cardiac clearance, length and cost of readmission. Results. 1,361 patients had total hip or knee replacement in the BPCI program between 1/1/15 and 1/28/18 and all had complete 90 day postoperative readmission data supplied by the CMS, with 25 of these patients evaluated through the Preventive Cardio- Orthopaedics program. 12 (0.90%) screened via the traditional cardiac program had a cardiac event readmission. The average readmission hospital stay was 3.67 days at a total cost of $69,378. 7 of 12 had a preoperative clearance by a cardiologist. In 9 of the 12 patients, the only preoperative cardiac screening tool performed was an electrocardiogram. None of these 25 patients evaluated through the new program has been readmitted. 84 more patients have been evaluated in this program since 1/28/18, but 90 day readmission data is still incomplete. Preliminary data suggests that the highest risk in these patients is not severe coronary artery disease, but atrial fibrillation, hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy, and cardiac plaques with ulceration. Conclusions. Risk sharing programs have forced joint replacement surgeons to take a more active role in optimizing their patients medically; otherwise they will be penalized with a decreased reimbursement. Traditionally, we have abdicated this responsibility to primary care and cardiology physicians but have noted a high readmission risk with a cardiac event. In response, we have begun using a unique cardiac screening model. Our preliminary experience predicts fewer cardiac readmissions thereby improving care, and at a lower cost

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is currently one of the most common elective surgical procedures in the United States. The increase in the proportion of younger patients in receipt of surgery, in concert with a dramatic rise in the incidence of obesity, has contributed to the on-going, exponential increase in the number of arthroplasties performed annually. Despite materials advances for implants, the U.S. revision burden has remained static for the last decade. According to the 2013 CMS MEDPAR file the typical CMS reimbursement falls far short of costs incurred by the hospital, resulting in an average net loss of revenue of $9,539; and over 90% of hospitals lose money for every revision case performed. Today, approximately 5% of all primaries performed will result in an early revision (< 3 years). In order to understand ways with which to mitigate the incidence of early revision due to mechanical complications, a multicentric group of sensor-assisted patients was follow-up out to 3 years. In this study, 278 sensor-assisted patients were followed out to 3 years. The intraoperative devices used in this study contain microsensors and a processing unit. Kinetic and center of load location data are projected, in real-time, to a screen. Because of the wireless nature of the intraoperative sensors, the patella can be reduced, and kinematic data can be evaluated through the range of motion. For each patient, the soft-tissue envelope was balanced to within a mediolateral differential of 15 lbf., through the ROM, as per the suggestion of previously reported literature. The average patient profile indicates: age = 69.7 years, BMI = 30.4, gender distribution = 36% male/64% female. Any adverse event within the 3-year follow-up interval was captured. By 3 years, 1 patient in this population has required revision surgeon due to mechanical complicatons. Overall adverse events included: pain in hip (3), pain in contralateral knee (2), wound drainage (3), DVT (1), death (1), stiffness in operative knee (2), infection (3), global pain (2), back pain (2). Based on the average reported number of early revisions that occur in the U.S. (5% of primaries), it was anticipated for this patient group to require approximately 13 revisions by the 3-year follow-up interval. Using 2013 CMS MEDPAR data, these 13 revisions would have resulted in $124,007 cost-to-hospital. However, only 1 revision (0.4%) was observered, therefore $114,468 in additional costs were spared for the aggregate of participating hospitals. This data suggests that the incorporation of kinetic sensors in TKA may assist the surgeon in achieving soft-tissue balance and thereby avoiding adverse mechanical complications that require surgical intervention

Arthroscopic intervention for early symptoms of arthrosis of the knee was a well-established procedure until Moseley cited his study showing no difference in outcomes when compared to “sham” surgery. Now there is no opportunity for reimbursement with arthroscopic debridement unless mechanical internal derangement can be documented. There are, however, several specific lesions of arthrosis which respond well to arthroscopic intervention and are reimbursed by third party payers. Arthroscopic three compartment microfracture with non-weight bearing and passive motion for eight weeks post- op has significantly relieved symptoms. Second look biopsies have confirmed type II hyaline cartilage and increased joint interval. Proper patient selection is paramount and guidelines will be discussed. Isolated severe patellofemoral arthrosis with patella subluxation responds to arthroscopic patella lateral facetectomy. Jones has reported significant pain relief up to two years with this excellent option for a difficult patient problem. The technique and results will be presented in detail. Loss of terminal extension in the arthritic knee can accelerate deterioration and force earlier decision for TKA. Parson's third tubercle is an osteophyte that forms just anterior to the ACL insertion on the tibia and is the frequent cause of extension loss. Arthroscopic resection of the tubercle results in increased extension and diminishes the stress concentration assuring better longevity for the native knee. The diagnostic characteristics, resection techniques and results of the Dallas series will be presented

Open tibial fractures have a high infection risk making treatment difficult and expensive. Delayed skin closure (beyond 7 days) has been shown to increase the infection rate in several studies (1). We aim to calculate the cost of infection as a complication of open tibial fractures and to determine the effect of delayed skin closure on this cost. We retrospectively reviewed all records of patients treated with a free flap in our institution for an open tibial fracture from 2002 to 2013. We calculated direct costs of treatment by the DRG-values (2014 figures), based on length of stay (LOS), diagnosis, orthopaedic and plastic surgical procedures and the corresponding reimbursement. The primary goal was to establish the extra cost incurred by an infection, compared to treating an uninfected open tibial fracture. The cost efficiency saving of early soft tissue cover was also investigated. We analysed 45 injuries in 44 patients. All patients were treated with debridement, stabilization, prophylactic antibiotics and free flap cover. Infection increased the mean total LOS in hospital from 28.0 to 63.8 days. The presence of an infection increased the cost of treatment from a mean of €49.301 for uninfected fractures compared to a mean of €67.958 for infected fractures. Achieving skin cover within 7 days of injury decreased the infection rate from 60% to 27% (total series rate 48%). The provision of early soft tissue cover (before 7 days) for all patients would have saved an average of €18.658 per patient. The development of an infection after a severe open tibial fracture greatly increases the cost of treatment. Early soft tissue cover is one aspect of care which has been shown to improve clinical outcomes. This study confirms that it will also reduce the cost of treating these complex fractures – underscoring the need for rapid referral and an ortho-plastic setup to handle them. We have only calculated the direct costs of treatment. Infected fractures will also consume extra costs in rehabilitation and absenteeism from later infection recurrence and non-union. Therefore, our estimate of the potential saving is likely to be conservative