Payor Type is Associated With Increased Rates of Reoperation and Health-care Utilization Following Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: A National Database Study.

Abstract

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a common orthopedic procedure with overall good clinical outcomes; however, more recent literature has identified disparities in treatment access and outcomes based on sociodemographic factors. There is a paucity of literature examining whether payor type, including Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial insurance types, impacts early medical complications and rates of reoperation following a UKA. Patients with Medicare, Medicaid, or commercial payor type who underwent primary medial or lateral UKA between 2010 and 2019 were identified using a large national database. Ninety-day incidence of emergency department visit and 1-year incidence of revision, revision to arthroplasty, reimbursement, and cost of care were evaluated. Propensity score matching was used to control for patient demographic factors and comorbidities as covariates. Medicaid insurance was associated with an increased risk of emergency room visit (odds ratio [OR] 2.77; P < .001), revision surgery (OR 1.85; P < .001), and conversion to total knee arthroplasty (OR 1.50; P= .0292) compared to commercially insured patients. Medicaid insurance was associated with an increased risk of emergency room visit (OR 3.58; P < .001), revision surgery (OR 1.97; P < .001), and conversion to total knee arthroplasty (OR 1.80; P= .003). Medicaid patients were associated with a higher overall cost of care and lower reimbursement than commercial and Medicare patients (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively). These findings demonstrate that payor type is associated with increased rates of reoperation and health-care utilization following UKA despite controlling for covariates. Additional work is required to understand the complex relationship between socioeconomic status and outcomes to ensure appropriate health-care access for all patients and pursue appropriate risk stratification. III, retrospective chart review.