Lessons Learned From the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model at an Academic Tertiary Center: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Abstract

BackgroundOur institution participated in the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model from 2016 to 2020. Here we review lessons learned from a total joint arthroplasty (TJA) care redesign at a tertiary academic center amid changing: (1) CJR rules; (2) inpatient only rules; and (3) outpatient trends. MethodsQuality, financial, and patient demographic data from the years prior to and during participation in CJR were obtained from institutional and Medicare reconciled CJR performance data. ResultsDespite an increase in true outpatients and new challenges that arose from changing inpatient-only rules, there was significant improvement in quality metrics: decreased length of stay (3.48-1.52 days, P < .001), increased home discharge rate (70.2-85.5%, P < .001), decreased readmission rate (17.7%-5.1%, P < .001), decreased complication rate (6.5%-2.0%, P < .001), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Composite Quality Score increased from 4.4 to 17.6. Over the five year period, CMS saved an estimated $8.3 million on 1,486 CJR cases, $7.5 million on 1,351 non-CJR cases, and $600,000 from the voluntary classification of 371 short-stay inpatients as outpatient—a total savings of $16.4 million. Despite major physician time and effort leading to marked improvements in efficiency, quality, and large cost savings for CMS, CJR participation resulted in a net penalty of $304,456 to our institution, leading to zero physician gainsharing opportunities. ConclusionThe benefits of CJR were tempered by malalignment of incentives among payer, hospital, and physician as well as a lack of transparency. Future payment models should be refined based on the successes and challenges of CJR.