Surgeon Fees Research Articles

Direct Economic Burden of Cubital Tunnel Surgery in the United States: Total Payments and Components of Cost

Despite its widespread prevalence, the cost of cubital tunnel syndrome (CuTS) in the United States to patients and insurers is not well understood. The purpose of this study was to quantify the direct payments associated with operative treatment of CuTS. We hypothesized that CuTS represents a substantial cost to the payer in facility fees, surgeon fees and other expenses. Utilizing the MarketScan database of insured patients (commercial and Medicaid), we identified a cohort of 41,777 patients aged 18-64 years with surgically treated CuTS from 2006 to 2018. We estimated the median 90-day payments from encounters associated with cubital tunnel release (CuTR) and/or ulnar nerve transposition surgery by summing all payments for claims within 90 days after the index surgery. Published estimates of the annual number of cubital tunnel surgeries were used to calculate the annual expenditure. Of 41,777 patients, the median (interquartile range [IQR]) values of total direct payments were $5,522 [$3,426, $9,541]. With an estimated 94,645 cases/year, this leads to an annual payment of more than $522 million. Index facility payments (median[IQR] $2,555 [$1,359, $4,708] were the highest, followed by index provider payments ($1,691 [$1,328, $2,217]). The median index surgeon payment (median[IQR] $905 [$707, $1,184]) represented just over half of the provider payments. Post-operative care had a median [IQR] payment of $377 ($424, $1,987). Limitations of claims databases prevented assessment of other indirect costs associated with cubital tunnel surgery. Payments for the surgical treatment of CuTS from the index surgery to 90 days post-operatively have an estimated median of $5,522 per patient, totaling $52 million annually. Index facility fees are responsible for more than 46% of payments, while index payments to surgeons represent approximately 16%. Defining this data is critical to understanding one component of the economic impact of CuTS. Level IV.

Poster 396: Performing Sports Medicine Procedures in Ambulatory Surgery Centers Is More Cost Effective than Hospital Outpatient Departments for Medicare Recipients

Objectives: To compare the overall cost of sports medicine procedures for Medicare beneficiaries in both ambulatory surgery centers (ASC) and hospital outpatient department (HOPD) settings. Secondary aims were to compare facility fees, surgeon fees, Medicare payments, and patient payments between ASCs and HOPDs. Methods: Publicly available data from The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) was accessed via the Medicare Procedure Price Lookup Tool. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were used to identify sports medicine procedures approved for the outpatient setting by CMS. Facility fees, surgeon fees, total costs, Medicare payment, and patient payment were extracted. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate means and standard deviations. Cost differences were analyzed using Mann Whitney U tests. Results: Sixty-two CPT codes were identified. Shoulder procedures (n=25) at ASCs had lower total costs (3,622±1,156 vs 6,262±1,759; p<0.001), facility fees (2,777±1,020 vs 5,416±1,606; p<0.001), Medicare payments (2,898±928 vs 5,009±1,407 p<0.001), and patient payments (724±232 vs 1,252±352; p<0.001) compared to HOPDs. Knee procedures (n=31) at ASCs had lower total costs (4,236±2,741 vs 6,668±3,341; p=0.006), facility fees (3,408±2,507 vs 5,840±3,116; p=0.006), Medicare payments (3,389±2,193 vs 5,458±2,955; p=0.006), and patient payments (847±548 vs 1,209±429; p=0.011). Hip procedures (n=6) at ASCs had lower total costs (3,583±698 vs 6,671±1,451; p=0.025), facility fees (2,725±6689 vs 5,813±1,431; p=0.025), Medicare payments (2,866±558 vs 5,336±1,161; p=0.025), and patient payments (716±139 vs 1,333±290; p=0.025). Conclusions: Sports medicine procedures performed at ASCs for Medicare recipients were found to have overall average total cost savings of 40% compared to those performed at HOPDs (42% savings for shoulder, 36% for knee, and 46% for hip procedures). ASC use conferred lower facility fees, patient payments, and Medicare payments in all cohorts. These results inform surgeons, patients, and insurance officials of the cost-effectiveness of outpatient surgical facilities for Medicare recipients undergoing sports medicine procedures.

Costs of shoulder and elbow procedures are significantly reduced in ambulatory surgery centers compared to hospital outpatient departments.

Recent literature has shown the advantages of outpatient surgery for many shoulder and elbow procedures, including cost savings with equivalent safety in appropriately selected patients. Two common settings for outpatient surgeries are ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), which function as independent financial and administrative entities, or hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs), which are owned and operated by hospital systems. The purpose of this study was to compare shoulder and elbow surgery costs between ASCs and HOPDs. Publicly available data from 2022 provided by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) was accessed via the Medicare Procedure Price Lookup Tool. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were used to identify shoulder and elbow procedures approved for the outpatient setting by CMS. Procedures were grouped into arthroscopy, fracture, or miscellaneous. Total costs, facility fees, Medicare payments, patient payment (costs not covered by Medicare), and surgeon's fees were extracted. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate means and standard deviations. Cost differences were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U tests. Fifty-seven CPT codes were identified. Arthroscopy procedures (n=16) at ASCs had significantly lower total costs ($2667±$989 vs. $4899±$1917; P=.009), facility fees ($1974±$819 vs. $4206±$1753; P=.008), Medicare payments ($2133±$791 vs. $3919±$1534; P=.009), and patient payments ($533±$198 vs. $979±$383; P=.009) compared with HOPDs. Fracture procedures (n=10) at ASCs had lower total costs ($7680±$3123 vs. $11,335±$3830; P=.049), facility fees ($6851±$3033 vs. $10,507±$3733; P=.047), and Medicare payments ($6143±$2499 vs. $9724±$3676; P=.049) compared with HOPDs, although patient payments were not significantly different ($1535±$625 vs. $1610±$160; P=.449). Miscellaneous procedures (n=31) at ASCs had lower total costs ($4202±$2234 vs. $6985±$2917; P<.001), facility fees ($3348±$2059 vs. $6132±$2736; P<.001), Medicare payments ($3361±$1787 vs. $5675±$2635; P<.001), and patient payments ($840±$447 vs. $1309±$350; P<.001) compared with HOPDs. The combined cohort (n=57) at ASCs had lower total costs ($4381±$2703 vs. $7163±$3534; P<.001), facility fees ($3577±$2570 vs. $6539.1±$3391; P<.001), Medicare payments ($3504±$2162 vs. $5892±$3206; P<.001), and patient payments ($875±$540 vs. $1269±$393; P<.001) compared with HOPDs. Shoulder and elbow procedures performed at HOPDs for Medicare recipients were found to have average total cost increase of 164% compared with those performed at ASCs (184% savings for arthroscopy, 148% for fracture, and 166% for miscellaneous). ASC use conferred lower facility fees, patient payments, and Medicare payments. Policy efforts to incentivize migration of surgeries to ASCs may translate into substantial health care cost savings.

Co-surgery in head and neck microvascular reconstruction

PurposeCo-surgery with two attending reconstructive surgeons is becoming increasingly common in breast microvascular reconstruction due to case complexity and the potential for improved outcomes and operative efficiency. The impact of co-surgery on outcomes in head and neck microvascular reconstruction has not been studied. MethodsOur multidisciplinary head and neck reconstruction team (Otolaryngology, Plastic Surgery) at the University of Pittsburgh transitioned to a practice of co-surgery on head and neck free flaps. In this study, we compare outcomes of two surgeon head and neck reconstruction to single surgeon reconstruction in a prospectively maintained database. Results384 patients met our inclusion criteria from 2020 to 2022. Cases were performed by a single surgeon in 77.8 % of cases (299/384) and two surgeons in 22.1 % (85/384). The mean age was 62.5 years. There was no difference between the single surgeon cohort and the co-surgery cohort in terms of flap survival, procedure time, ischemia time, hospital length of stay, recipient site complications, or rates of return to the operating room. Donor site complications were less common in the co-surgery cohort (0 % vs 4.7 %, p = 0.021). For our reconstructive team, the transition to co-surgery has increased total surgeon fee collection per free flap by 28 % and increased surgeon flap related RVU production by 35 %. ConclusionCo-surgery is feasible and safe in head and neck microvascular reconstruction. Benefits may include reduced complications, increased reimbursement, and improved interdisciplinary collaboration.

Medicare procedural costs in ambulatory surgery centers versus hospital outpatient departments for spine surgeries.

Multiple studies have demonstrated the safety of outpatient spine surgery, with reports of equivalent to improved patient outcomes compared with inpatient procedures. This has resulted in the increased use of outpatient surgery over time. However, there remains a paucity of literature evaluating the difference in costs between ambulatory surgery center (ASC)- and hospital outpatient department (HOPD)-based procedures for Medicare beneficiaries. Publicly available data from Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services were accessed via the Medicare Procedure Price Lookup tool. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were used to identify spine-specific procedures approved for the outpatient setting by CMS. Procedures were grouped into decompression (cervical, thoracic, and lumbar), fusion/instrumentation (cervical, lumbar, and sacroiliac), and kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty cohorts, as well as an overall cohort. Data regarding total costs, facility fees, surgeon reimbursement, Medicare payments, and patient copayments were extracted for each procedure. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate means and standard deviations. Differences between ASC- and HOPD-associated costs were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Twenty-one individual CPT codes approved by Medicare for the ASC and/or HOPD setting were identified. Decompression procedures were associated with a significantly lower total cost ($4183 ± $411.07 vs $7583.67 ± $410.89, p < 0.001), facility fees ($2998 ± $0 vs $6397 ± $0, p < 0.001), Medicare payments ($3345.75 ± $328.80 vs $6064.75 ± $328.80, p < 0.001), and patient payments ($835.58 ± $82.13 vs $1515.58 ± $82.13, p < 0.001) in ASCs compared with HOPDs. Fusion/instrumentation procedures had significantly lower facility fees ($10,436.6 ± $2347.51 vs $14,161 ± $2147.07, p = 0.044) and Medicare payments ($9501.2 ± $1732.42 vs $13,757 ± $2037.58, p = 0.009) in ASCs, as well as a trend toward lower total costs ($11,876.8 ± $2165.22 vs $15,601.2 ± $2016.06, p = 0.076). Patient payments in the HOPD setting were significantly lower in the fusion/instrumentation cohort ($1843.6 ± $73.42 vs $2374.4 ± $433.48, p = 0.009). In the kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty cohort, there was no statistically significant difference between ASCs and HOPDs, despite lower overall costs in the ASC for all variables. Surgeon fees were the same regardless of setting for all procedures (p > 0.99). When combining decompression, fusion/instrumentation, and kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty CPT codes into a single cohort, ASC setting was associated with significant cost savings in total cost, facility fees, Medicare payments, and patient payments. In general, performing spine surgeries in ASCs is associated with cost savings compared with HOPDs. This was demonstrated for decompression and fusion/instrumentation, and kyphoplasty/vertebroplasty Medicare-approved outpatient procedures.

Clinic Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery Outcomes and High-Value Care.

As healthcare costs continue to rise, the importance ofdelivering high-value healthcare increases.The volume of carpal tunnel release surgeries performed annually generates a significant cost burden for the healthcare system. The fundamental expenses of carpal tunnel release surgery are facility fees, anesthesia fees, and surgeon fees. Performing open carpal tunnel release surgeries in the clinic utilizing local anesthesia and field sterilization minimizes facility and anesthesia costs. We compared patient outcomes, as measured by infection and revision rates, between hospital-based, ambulatory surgery center-based, and clinic-based carpal tunnel release operations. Three hundred and eighty-eight patients were treated with isolated mini-open carpal tunnel release procedures by three fellowship-trained hand surgeons: 12 patients had hospital-based procedures, 229 had ASC-based procedures, and 147 had clinic-based procedures. All procedures were performed using amini-open approach. No patients were diagnosed with deep infections post-procedurally, irrespective of venue. Our results show no significant difference in outcomes between venues. Therefore, we conclude that the outcomes of open carpal tunnel release surgeries performed in the clinic were not inferior to carpal tunnel release operations performed at the ambulatory surgery center or the hospital. The cost savings from field sterilization, local anesthesia, and the absence of a facility fee provide an opportunity to expand high-value care.

Institutional Experience With Surgical and Injectable Procedures at a Department Resident Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Clinic

Abstract Goals/Purpose Over the past several decades, the number of aesthetic procedures in plastic surgery has risen drastically in the United States. To meet this public demand, it is important to ensure plastic surgery residents are well-equipped to incorporate aesthetics into their future practice. Given the elective nature of aesthetic surgery, many patients opt to personally select their surgeon from qualified private practitioners. Patients’ tendency to avoid academic institutions, coupled with relatively high postoperative expectations, has historically led to limited hands-on experience for residents. Recent literature has documented graduating plastic surgery residents have felt deficient in performing aesthetic procedures, particularly those of the face. In a recent survey, 30% of department chairs/division chiefs acknowledged difficulties with and inadequacies of aesthetic surgery training at their institutions and recommending the need for more effective training models. The objective was to review the volume and outcomes of our resident aesthetic clinic. Methods/Technique The Resident Aesthetic Surgery Clinic at the Hansjörg Wyss Department of Plastic Surgery at NYU Langone Health sees patients 5 days per week and provides a total of 6 months of training experience for residents. Patients presenting to the clinic are first evaluated by senior residents, who perform the entire consultation. Patients are staffed with the attending present that day who provides feedback, oversight, and supervision and helps the residents refine their clinical skills of indicating a patient for surgery, pre-operative planning, and post-surgical follow-up visits. Dedicated clinic front office staff streamline the process by assisting with surgical quotes, preoperative clearance, and operating room scheduling. The resident aesthetic clinic does not engage in any formal advertising, but rather relies on word-of-mouth and direct referrals for patient recruitment. Patients are billed on a fee-for-service basis and insurance is not accepted. The revenue generated is used to offset operational costs of the clinic and operating rooms, as well as contribute to the salary of staff supporting the clinic. The remaining operational costs of the clinic are subsidized by the department. We conducted a retrospective review of all surgical and injectable procedures completed by the NYU Resident Aesthetic Surgery Clinic in 2021. Patients were excluded from the study if outcome information was missing. Participating residents were surveyed before and after their rotation in the clinic to assess their confidence performing aesthetic procedures which was rated on a scale of 1 to 5. Procedures were defined similar to how procedures are recorded for resident case logs for the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME).1 Bilateral procedures (e.g., bilateral breast augmentation) were counted as two separate procedures (left and right). Blepharoplasty was not only separated by laterality, but also by upper and lower lids. In contrast, an operation was defined as a single trip to the operating room or office visit in which the patient received at least one procedure. Complications were categorized as either minor, moderate, or major. Minor complications were treated with non-operative management. Moderate complications required a small intervention such as seroma aspiration, while major complications necessitated return to the operating room. Complication and revision rates were calculated by summing the number of complications and revisions, respectively, and dividing by the total number of procedures. Data analyzed using IBM SPSS software and the ggplot2 package in R. A chi-squared test assessed for significant deviation in frequencies of procedures across yearly quarters. Mann-Whitney tests evaluated significance between pre- and post-rotation confidence ratings among residents. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Complication and revision rates were calculated with respect to the total number of procedures. The complication rate, revision rate, and surgeon fees were compared to data from other institutions available in the literature. Surgeon fees were also compared to national averages according to the 2020 ASPS Plastic Surgery Statistics Report and 2021 Aesthetic Plastic Surgery National Databank Statistics. Results/Complications In 2021, 144/379 consultations led to an operation (38.0% conversion rate), resulting in 420 distinct surgical procedures. The majority (53.3%) of procedures involved the head and neck. Complication and revision rates were 5.5% and 1.0%, respectively, with surgeon fees consistently below national average. Residents reported being significantly more confident performing face lifts, rhinoplasties, and aesthetic surgery in general following their clinic rotation. Analyzing our injectable experience, 223/233 consultations led to an injection (95.7% conversion rate) for 142 patients. Neurotoxin was most commonly injected into the upper face, while fillers were most commonly injected into the midface. Only 2 complications from fillers (0.9% complication rate) and one touch-up (0.4% touch-up rate) occurred. Procedural fees were substantially less than national averages and comparable to other academic settings. Conclusion These data represent the largest annual reported study of plastic surgery resident aesthetic surgical and injectable procedures and outcomes, demonstrating the high volume and productivity of the NYU Resident Aesthetic Surgery Clinic. These results further support resident aesthetic clinics as a robust training modality.

Meniscus Work and Implant Selection Are Major Cost Drivers of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Background The current study examines the financial charges associated with primary anteriorcruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), specifically the contribution of graft choice, graft type, and concomitant meniscus surgery, in the outpatient hospital setting. Methods A retrospective financial billing review was performed on patients who underwent ACLR at a singleacademic medical center from January to December 2019. Age, BMI, insurance, length of operation, regional block, implants, meniscus surgery, graft type, and graft choice were extracted from hospital electronic patient records. Charges attributed with graft, anesthesia services, supplies, implants, surgeon fees, radiology charges, and total charges were collected. Total amount that insurance and patient paid were also obtained. Descriptive and quantitative statistics were performed. Results A total of 28 patients were studied (18 males, 10 females). The average age was 23.8 years. There were 20 concomitant meniscus surgeries. Six allografts and 22 autografts were used [eight bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB), eight hamstrings, six quadriceps]. The average and median total charge was $61,004 and $60,390, respectively (range: $31,403 to $97,914). The average insurance paid was $26,045 while out-of-pocket costs were $402. The average paid by privateinsurance was higher compared to government insurance($31,111 vs. $11,066, p<0.001). Graft choicesuch as allograft vs. autograft (p=0.035) and meniscus surgery (p=0.048) were significant factors to the overall cost. Conclusions Graft choice, specifically the quadrupled hamstring autograft, and concomitant meniscal surgery are major contributors to variations in ACLR charges. Decreasing implant and graft costs and limiting surgical time can decrease charges associated with ACLR.We hope these findings can help guide surgeon financial decisions, by demonstrating the need to take into account the increased total charges and amount paid associated with specific grafts, meniscus surgery, and prolonged OR time.

Offering No-Cost Cosmetic Revisions: The Experience of an Academic Cosmetic Surgery Program.

The financial principles of a no-cost revision policy and their implications for revision rates are not well understood. Therefore, the primary objective of this retrospective study is to report our no-cost revision rates and, secondarily, to survey the cosmetic revision policies of other cosmetic surgery practices and detail the financial principles underpinning no-cost revisions. All aesthetic surgeries and no-cost revisions performed by the plastic surgeons, oculoplastic surgeons, and facial plastic and reconstructive surgeons at our academic outpatient cosmetic surgery center from January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2022 were identified using procedural codes. Data on the number of surgeries, number of revisions, operative minutes, and time intervals between initial and revision surgeries were collected. A survey was administered to assess the revision policies of similar cosmetic surgery practices. A total of 1491 aesthetic surgeries and minimally invasive procedures were included, and 125 revision procedures were performed (8.4%). Thigh lifts (3, 13.6%), rhinoplasties or septoplasties (25, 15.8%), and otoplasties (3, 27.3%) had the highest revision rates. Three practices (15%) offered cosmetic revisions at no cost, 9 (45%) did not apply a surgeon's fee, 5 (25%) evaluated fees on a case-by-case basis, 1 (5%) offered revisions with an insurance policy, and 2 (10%) cosmetic surgery practices did not offer revisions at a reduced rate. Despite offering revisions at no cost, our revision rates are reasonable for an academic cosmetic surgery practice. The revision policies offered to patients on the private market are varied, but most surveyed practices offer revisions at either a reduced rate or no cost.

Components of Out-of-Pocket Expenditure and Their Relative Contribution to Economic Burden of Diseases in India

High out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) on health in India may limit achieving universal health coverage. A clear insight on the components of health expenditure may be necessary to make allocative decisions to reduce OOPE, and such details by sociodemographic group and state have not been studied in India. To analyze the relative contribution of drugs, diagnostic tests, doctor and surgeon fees, and expenditure on other medical services and nonmedical health-related services, such as transport, lodging, and food, by sociodemographic characteristics of patients, geography, and type of illness. A population-based cross-sectional health consumption survey conducted by the National Sample Survey Organisation in 2018 was analyzed in this cross-sectional study. Respondents who provided complete information on costs of medicine, doctors, diagnostics tests, other medical costs, and nonmedical costs were selected. Data were analyzed from August through September 2021. Mean and median share of components (ie, medicine, diagnostic tests, doctor fees, other medical costs, and nonmedical costs) in total health care expenditure and income were calculated. Bivariate survey-weighted mean (with 95% CI) and median (IQR) expenditures were calculated for each component across sociodemographic characteristics. The proportion of total expenditure and income contributed by each cost was calculated for each individual. Mean and median were then used to summarize such proportions at the population level. The association between state net domestic product per capita and component share of each health care service was graphically explored. Health expenditure details were analyzed for 43 781 individuals for inpatient costs (27 272 [64.3%] women; 26 830 individuals aged 25-64 years [59.9%]) and 8914 individuals for outpatient costs (4176 [48.2%] women; 4901 individuals aged 25-64 years [54.2%]); most individuals were rural residents (24 106 inpatients [67.0]; 4591 outpatients [63.9%]). Medicines accounted for a mean of 29.1% (95% CI, 28.9%-29.2%) of OOPE among inpatients and 60.3% (95% CI, 59.7%-60.9%) of OOPE among outpatients. Doctor consultation charges were a mean of 15.3% (95% CI, 15.1%-15.4%) of OOPE among inpatients and 12.4% (95% CI, 12.1%-12.6%) of OOPE among outpatients. Diagnostic tests accounted for a mean of 12.3% (95% CI, 12.2%-12.4%) of OOPE for inpatient and 9.2% (95% CI, 8.9%-9.5%) of OOPE for outpatient services. Nonmedical costs accounted for a mean of 23.6% (95% CI, 23.3%-23.8%) of OOPE among inpatients and 14.6% (95% CI, 14.1%-15.1%) of OOPE among outpatients. Mean share of OOPE from doctor consultations and diagnostic test charges increased with socioeconomic status. For example, for the lowest vs highest monthly per capita income quintile among inpatients, doctor consultations accounted for 11.5% (95% CI, 11.1%-11.8%) vs 21.2% (95% CI, 20.8%-21.6%), and diagnostic test charges accounted for 10.9% (95% CI, 10.6%-11.1%) vs 14.3% (95% CI, 14.0%-14.5%). The proportion of mean annual health expenditure from mean annual income was $299 of $1918 (15.6%) for inpatient and $391 of $1788 (21.9%) for outpatient services. This study found that nonmedical costs were significant, share of total health care OOPE from doctor consultation and diagnostic test charges increased with socioeconomic status, and annual cost as a proportion of annual income was lower for inpatient than outpatient services.

Rotator Cuff Repair with Graft Augmentation Improves Function, Decreases Revisions, and Is Cost-Effective

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the use of extracellular matrix (ECM) augment at the time of primary rotator cuff repair utilizing a decision tree analysis. A decision tree model was created utilizing the existing literature for retear rates with and without dermal graft augmentation. Costs for rotator cuff repair (hospital and surgeon fees) were based on published studies and the cost for graft augmentation was based on institutional data. Utility measures were based upon EQ-5D (European Quality of Life 5 Dimension) scores to assess for improvement in quality adjusted life years (QALY) over a 10-year postoperative period with and without graft augmentation. Cost effectiveness was assessed using the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER), or the incremental cost for per QALY with graft augmentation. Cost effectiveness is based on previous literature whereby an intervention is considered cost effective if the ICER is less than $50,000/QALY. On the basis of our decision tree analysis, total cost for rotator cuff tear without augmentation was $12,763, while the cost increased to $16,039 with ECM augmentation. With graft augmentation there was an improvement in 2.29 QALY, while there was an improvement of 2.05 without graft augmentation. The ICER of graft augmentation is $14,000/QALY, well below the cost effectiveness cut-off of $50,000/QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed the maximum cost of the ECM augment to be cost effective is $11,921. Graft augmentation does come with a significant upfront cost; however, on the basis of our decision-tree analysis, it may represent a cost-effective procedure. There is evidence to potentially consider more routine use in rotator cuff repairs, while being cost effective. Economic: Level IV: computer simulation model (Monte Carlo simulation, Markov model) with inputs derived from Level IV studies.

Medicare Bundled Payment Model for Total Ankle Arthroplasty

Category:Ankle; OtherIntroduction/Purpose:Total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) is included in the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services' (CMS) Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative for lower extremity joint replacements. This model has been demonstrated to be for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, there remains concern that the model underestimates expected costs for TAA due to the unique healthcare needs of TAA patients including higher implant costs, longer procedures, and an increased demand for postoperative acute care services due to non-weightbearing. The purpose of this study was to analyze the breakdown of costs associated with inpatient and outpatient care and assess the difference between Medicare beneficiary reimbursements and actual costs for the episode of care.Methods:An IRB-approved retrospective review was conducted of patients with Medicare who underwent TAA between July 2014 and June 2018. The surgeries were performed at seven facilities affiliated with a singular institution hospital system. Patients undergoing TAA in this time period were identified using an institutional arthroplasty database and were eligible for study. Of 99 patients who met this criterion, financial data was available for 72. Demographics including age, gender, BMI, and comorbidities were collected via chart review. Episode start and end dates, first post-acute care discharge destination, and total episode costs were recorded. Total episode cost was subdivided into inpatient facility cost, surgeon fees, and post-acute care discharge costs (inpatient rehab facility costs, skilled nursing facility expenses, or home health aide fees). Patients were stratified into two groups based on 90-day costs of care, a 'positive group' not exceeding the bundled payment allocation and a 'negative group' which did exceed.Results:No statistically significant difference was found among demographics between the positive and negative patient groups. Average group age was 70.5 years and 72.9 years, respectively, and both groups had average BMI of 29.3 kg/m2. Age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index was 3.35 for the positive group and 3.40 for the negative group. Total episode costs were 50% higher in the negative group compared to the positive group ($31,462 vs. $15,845). The total post discharge costs for the negative group were $17,912 which is significantly higher than those of the positive group ($2,502) (P<0.001). Thirteen patients (18.1%) attended skilled nursing facilities, and 12 of these patients exceeded the allocated budget. Average SNF cost was $13,089, which nearly matched the entire inpatient cost (facility + surgeon fees) of $13,400. Home health aide requirement was significant at 39% (n=28), and 15 of these patients (54%) also came in over budget.Conclusion:Results suggest that there is a considerable possibility for patients undergoing TAA to have post-acute care requirements that drive cost over budget, including admittance to skilled nursing facilities and home health aide, likely sue to the added necessity for extended immobilization in an older patient population. Such parameters should be factored into the BPCI reimbursement model for TAA.

Productivity and Efficiency of a Department Resident Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Clinic.

There has been increasing demand for aesthetic surgery procedures in the United States, highlighting the critical importance of the competence of plastic surgery residents and rigorous methods of aesthetic surgery training. The objective of this study was to review procedures and outcomes from our plastic surgery resident aesthetic clinic. Outcomes and costs were compared to national averages and reports from the literature. A retrospective chart review identified all adult patients who presented to the Resident Aesthetic Surgery Clinic at NYU Langone Health in 2021. Patient demographics, comorbidities, procedural data, postoperative complications, revisions, and surgeon fees were compiled. A brief confidence survey was distributed to participating residents before and after their clinic rotation. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS software (Armonk, NY). In 2021, 144/379 consultations led to an operation (38.0% conversion rate), resulting in 420 distinct surgical procedures. The majority (53.3%) of procedures involved the head and neck. Complication and revision rates were 5.5% and 1.0%, respectively, with surgeon fees consistently below the national average. Residents reported being significantly more confident performing face lifts, rhinoplasties, and aesthetic surgery in general following their clinic rotation. These data represent the largest annual reported study of plastic surgery resident aesthetic procedures and outcomes, demonstrating the high volume and productivity of the NYU Resident Aesthetic Surgery Clinic. These results further support resident aesthetic clinics as a robust training modality.

Cost Analysis of Liver Acquisition Fees Before and After Acuity Circle Policy Implementation

Acuity circles (AC) liver allocation policy was implemented to eliminate donor service area geographic boundaries from liver allocation and to decrease variability in median Model of End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score at transplant and wait list mortality. However, the broader sharing of organs was also associated with more flights for organ procurements and higher costs associated with the increase in flights. To determine whether the costs associated with liver acquisition changed after the implementation of AC allocation. This single-center cost comparison study analyzed fees associated with organ acquisition before and after AC allocation implementation. The cost data were collected from a single transplant institute with 2 liver transplant centers, located 30 miles apart, in different donation service areas. Cost, recipient, and transportation data for all cases that included fees associated with liver acquisition from July 1, 2019, to October 31, 2020, were collected. Primary liver offer acceptance with associated organ procurement organization or charter flight fees. Specific fees (organ acquisition, surgeon, import, and charter flight fees) and total fees per donor were collected for all accepted liver donors with at least 1 associated fee during the study period. Of 213 included donors, 171 were used for transplant; 90 of 171 (52.6%) were male, and the median (interquartile range) age of donors was 41.0 (30.0-52.8) years in the pre-AC period and 36.9 (24.0-48.8) years in the post-AC period. There was no significant difference in the post-AC compared with pre-AC period in median (range) MELD score (24 [8-40] vs 25 [6-40]; P = .27) or median (range) match run sequence (15 [1-3951] vs 10 [1-1138]; P = .31), nor in mean (SD) distance traveled (155.83 [157.00] vs 140.54 [144.33] nautical miles; P = .32) or percentage of donors requiring flights (58.5% [69 of 118] vs 56.8% [54 of 95]; P = .82). However, costs increased significantly in the post-AC period: total cost increased 16% per accepted donor (mean [SD] of $52 966 [13 278] vs $45 725 [9300]; P < .001) and 55% per declined donor (mean [SD] of $15 865 [3942] vs $10 217 [4853]; P < .001). Contributing factors included more than 2-fold increases in the proportions of donors incurring import fees (31.4% [37 of 118] vs 12.6% [12 of 95]; P = .002) and surgeon fees (19.5% [23 of 118] vs 9.5% [9 of 95]; P = .05), increased acquisition fees (10% increase; mean [SD] of $43 860 [3266] vs $39 980 [2236]; P < .001), and increased flight expenses (43% increase; mean [SD] of $12 904 [6066] vs $9049 [5140]; P = .002). The unintended consequences of implementing broader sharing without addressing organ acquisition fees to account for increased importation between organ procurement organizations must be remedied to contain costs and ensure viability of transplant programs.

Board Certification and Surgeon's Fee for Aesthetic Rhinoplasty

Elective rhinoplasty surgeons' fees vary considerably and are influenced by geographic surgeon density, surgeon's experience, local economic factors, patient demand, and other factors. The American Board of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, the American Society of Plastic Surgery, and other organizations certify physicians who profess expertise in rhinoplasty. We sought to determine if specific board certification or experience correlates with higher rhinoplasty fee. An internet search was conducted of seven U.S. metropolitan areas using the search terms "rhinoplasty and "city name." Top search results were surveyed for rhinoplasty fee, years of experience, annual volume of rhinoplasties, board certification, and other demographic data. Using both univariate and multivariate comparisons, the data were analyzed for forces having significant correlation with rhinoplasty fee. Sixty-seven surgeons were included in the study. The average price for ABFPRS certified surgeons was significantly higher than surgeons with other board certifications ($10,550.00 ± 3,722.10 compared with $8,524.50 ± 2816.30, p = 0.0142). The volume of rhinoplasties performed per year was also significantly correlated with fee charged for rhinoplasty by the surgeon (r = 0.37773, p = 0.032). Additionally, surgeons practicing on the West Coast (LA) charged significantly higher fees ($12,059.09 ± 3014.53) compared with the Mid United States. ($8316.07 ± 2449.43) and the East Coast ($9152.86 ± 3639.78) (p = 0.0047). On multivariable linear regression, controlling for volume of rhinoplasty and region of the United States, ABFPRS certified surgeons charged significantly higher fees for rhinoplasty (p = 0.0230). ABFPRS board certification correlates with higher fees charged for rhinoplasty. Other important variables include surgeon's annual rhinoplasty and practice on the West Coast.

Three months in a high-volume tertiary orthopaedic trauma unit: What is a registrar worth?

South Africa has a high burden of traumatic injuries that is predominantly managed in the public healthcare system, despite the relative disparity in human resources between the public and private sectors. Because of budget and theatre time constraints, the trauma waiting list often exceeds 50 - 60 patients who need urgent and emergent surgery in high-volume orthopaedic trauma centres. This situation is exacerbated by other surgical disciplines using orthopaedic theatre time for life-threatening injuries because of lack of own theatre availability. One of the proposed solutions to this problem is outsourcing of some of the cases to private medical facilities.To establish the volume of work done by an orthopaedic registrar during a 3-month trauma rotation, and to calculate the implant and theatre costs, as well as compare the salary of a registrar with the theoretical private surgeon fees for procedures performed by the registrar in the 3-month period.In a retrospective study, the surgical logbook of a single registrar during a 3-month rotation, from 14 January to 14 April 2019, was reviewed. Surgeon fees were calculated for these procedures, according to current medical aid rates, without additional modifier codes being added.During the 3-month study period, a total of 157 surgical procedures was performed, ranging from total hip arthroplasty to debridement of septic hands. Surgeon fees amounted to ZAR186 565.10 per month ‒ double the gross salary of a registrar. Total implant costs amounted to ZAR1 272 667. Theatre costs were ZAR1 301 976 for the 3-month period.Although this analysis was conducted over a short period, it highlights the significant amount of trauma work done by a single individual at a high-volume tertiary orthopaedic trauma unit. With increasing budget constraints, pressure on theatre time and a growing population, cost-effective expansion of resources is needed. From this study, it appears that increasing capacity in the state sector could be cheaper than private outsourcing, although a more in-depth analysis needs to be conducted.

Cost Comparison of Tibial Distraction Osteogenesis Using External Lengthening and Then Nailing vs Internal Magnetic Lengthening Nails.

Aim and objectiveTibial lengthening can be performed by distraction osteogenesis via lengthening and then nailing (LATN) or by using a magnetic lengthening nail (MLN). MLN avoids the complications of external fixation while providing accurate and easily controlled lengthening. Concerns exist still regarding the high upfront cost of the magnetic nail, which serves to limit its use in resource-poor areas and decrease adoption among cost-conscious surgeons. The purpose of this study was to compare the hospital, surgeon, and total cost between LATN and MLN when used for tibial lengthening.Materials and methodsA retrospective review was performed comparing consecutive tibial lengthening using either LATN (n = 17) or MLN (n = 15). The number of surgical procedures and time to union were compared. Surgeon and hospital payments were used to perform cost analysis after adjusting for inflation using the consumer price index (CPI).ResultsPatients treated with MLN underwent fewer surgeries (3.6 vs 2.8; p < 0.001) but had a longer time to union as compared with patients treated with LATN (19.79 vs 27.84 weeks; p = 0.006). Total costs were similar ($50,345 vs $46,162; p = 0.249) although surgeon fees were lower for MLN as compared with LATN ($6,426 vs $4,428; p < 0.001).ConclusionLATN and MLN had similar overall costs in patients undergoing tibial lengthening. MLN was associated with fewer procedures but a longer time to union as compared with LATN.Clinical significanceDespite an increased upfront cost in MLN, there was no difference in total cost between LATN and MLN when used for tibial lengthening. Thus, in cases where either method is feasible, cost may not be a deciding factor when selecting the appropriate treatment.How to cite this articleDvorzhinskiy A, Zhang DT, Fragomen AT, et al. Cost Comparison of Tibial Distraction Osteogenesis Using External Lengthening and Then Nailing vs Internal Magnetic Lengthening Nails. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2021;16(1):14–19.

Surgical Cancellations in Glaucoma Practice: Causes, Delays, and Effect on Patient Care and Revenue

To assess the incidence of glaucoma surgery cancellations, as well as their characteristics, underlying reasons, resultant surgical delay, and estimated lost potential reimbursement, at a tertiary eye hospital. Retrospective observational study of planned surgical procedures of 4 glaucoma specialists at a tertiary eye center over a 2-year period (May 2017-May 2019). An additional prospective survey of patients was conducted. Patients who canceled glaucoma surgeries. Demographics and clinical information were recorded from the electronic medical record. A brief phone survey was implemented to determine the reason for cancellation and whether the patient rescheduled. Lost reimbursement was estimated assuming Medicare reimbursement rates for each procedure based on facility fee, surgeon fee, and anesthesia fee. Reasons for surgical cancellation, delay related to surgical cancellations, and annual lost reimbursement potential. One hundred twenty-three of 1384 glaucoma surgeries (8.9%) to be performed by 4 glaucoma specialists at Wills Eye Hospital during the 2-year study period were canceled. Among those canceled, the mean age ± standard deviation (SD) of the patients was 70.3 ± 14.4 years and 51% were men. Of the cancellations, 56.9% were made within 1 day of the planned date of surgery and 96.7% were canceled within 7 days. Of the reasons for surgical cancellation, 28% were considered preventable, 50% were considered unpreventable, and 23% were categorized as "no reason given." Most of the surgeries eventually were performed-to-date (64.2%); the mean ± SD delay in surgery was 63.4 ± 68.6 days. The 3 most common preventable reasons for cancellation were lack of transportation (34%), lack of timely clearance (26%), and insurance-related issues (14%). Assuming Medicare reimbursement rates, the estimated annual lost potential reimbursement from surgical cancellations of the 4 glaucoma specialists was $208 306. This study highlights a significant number of cancellations in a glaucoma practice, most of which occurred within 1 day of planned surgery. Minimizing preventable causes of cancellations could decrease the likelihood of surgical delays as well as lost reimbursement. Further comparison with patients who successfully underwent surgery performed without delay may identify predictive factors or interventions that could decrease the number of surgical cancellations.

Patient Perception of Orthopedic Surgeon Reimbursement.

Significant attention has been directed at evaluating reimbursement rates to orthopedic surgeons for various surgical procedures. To evaluate patients' understanding of the surgeon reimbursement process, studies using patient surveys have been conducted to determine patients' perceptions of orthopedic surgeon compensation. To date, there has been no systematic review to consolidate the data of these studies. This study aimed to synthesize the findings of these individual studies across multiple subspecialties of orthopedic surgery to evaluate the potential discrepancy between how much patients believe orthopedic surgeons are reimbursed and the actual reimbursement rate. We performed a systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies that report findings of patient perceptions of orthopedic surgeon reimbursement for various procedures. Searches were conducted using MEDLINE through PubMed, Embase, and Scopus. Summary estimates of reimbursement discrepancies across subspecialties and overall were reported as unweighted averages of the individual study results within each group. Twelve studies were identified that met inclusion criteria, constituting 4309 surveys. These survey studies measured patients' perceptions of how much orthopedic surgeons are reimbursed for common procedures, including anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, arthroscopic meniscectomy, carpal tunnel release, rotator cuff repair, multiple spine procedures and total shoulder, hip, and knee arthroplasty. It was found that patients reported reasonable surgeon's fees to be 11.2 times more than actual Medicare reimbursement. Among individual studies, the largest discrepancies were seen in total hip arthroplasty (26 times), whereas the smallest difference was in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (1.6 times). On average, patients estimated Medicare reimbursement rates to be 5.9 times higher than the actual surgeon reimbursement. Patients consistently overestimate how much orthopedic surgeons are reimbursed for common orthopedic procedures. The results of this systematic review suggest that patients may value these procedures more than what Medicare reimburses. Such information may help educate the public, direct policy, and increase transparency between orthopedic surgeons and patients.

264. Economic impact of revision operations for adjacent segment disease of the cervical spine

BACKGROUND CONTEXT Adjacent-segment disease (ASD) of the cervical spine is a common disabling phenomenon that often requires operative intervention. PURPOSE To evaluate the economic impact of revision operations for cervical ASD after previous cervical spine surgery. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING Single-center retrospective cohort analysis. PATIENT SAMPLE Adults who underwent revision cervical spine surgery for ASD. OUTCOME MEASURES Total and direct costs. METHODS Consecutive adults who underwent revision cervical spine surgery for ASD at a single institution between 2007 and 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Direct costs (surgical supplies/implants, room/care, pharmacy, services) were identified from medical billing data and calculated for each revision surgery for ASD. Not included in direct cost data were charges, surgeon fees, or revision operations for indications other than ASD (ie, pseudarthrosis). No cost data was obtained for the index operations. Incomplete cost data for revision operations was used as criteria for exclusion. Total costs were calculated from the sum of indirect and direct costs. Costs data were stratified based on the approach of the index and revision operations. RESULTS Eighty-five patients (average age 57±10 years; range 23-80 years) underwent revision surgery for cervical ASD. For all revisions, direct costs summed to $2 million (average $23,702) and total cost summed to $3.2 million (average $37,983). Revisions consisted of 45 anterior operations (anterior cervical discectomy and fusions [ACDF]-34; corpectomy-10, cervical disc replacement-1), 32 posterior operations (posterior cervical fusion [PCF]-14; foraminotomy-14; laminoplasty-4), and 8 circumferential operations. Revisions that entailed a circumferential approach had significantly higher average costs (direct: $57,376 ± 31,258; total: $91,409) than revisions performed via a single approach ([anterior: direct costs - $20,084; total costs - $32,141]; [posterior: direct costs - $20,371; total costs - $32,841]). Of the posterior revisions, foraminotomies had the lowest average costs (direct: $5,389; total: $8,972), while PCF was associated with the greatest average costs (direct: $35,950; total: $57,749). Of the anterior revisions, corpectomies (direct: $30,265; total: $48,419) had significantly greater average costs than ACDFs (direct: $17,514; total: $28,033). CONCLUSIONS Revision operations forASD in the cervical spine are highly heterogeneous and were associated with an average direct cost of $27,702 and an average total cost of $37,983. Over a 6-year period at a single tertiary referral center, operative care for 85 patients with cervical ASD represented a significant economic expense (greater than $2.0 million). FDA DEVICE/DRUG STATUS This abstract does not discuss or include any applicable devices or drugs. Adjacent-segment disease (ASD) of the cervical spine is a common disabling phenomenon that often requires operative intervention. To evaluate the economic impact of revision operations for cervical ASD after previous cervical spine surgery. Single-center retrospective cohort analysis. Adults who underwent revision cervical spine surgery for ASD. Total and direct costs. Consecutive adults who underwent revision cervical spine surgery for ASD at a single institution between 2007 and 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Direct costs (surgical supplies/implants, room/care, pharmacy, services) were identified from medical billing data and calculated for each revision surgery for ASD. Not included in direct cost data were charges, surgeon fees, or revision operations for indications other than ASD (ie, pseudarthrosis). No cost data was obtained for the index operations. Incomplete cost data for revision operations was used as criteria for exclusion. Total costs were calculated from the sum of indirect and direct costs. Costs data were stratified based on the approach of the index and revision operations. Eighty-five patients (average age 57±10 years; range 23-80 years) underwent revision surgery for cervical ASD. For all revisions, direct costs summed to $2 million (average $23,702) and total cost summed to $3.2 million (average $37,983). Revisions consisted of 45 anterior operations (anterior cervical discectomy and fusions [ACDF]-34; corpectomy-10, cervical disc replacement-1), 32 posterior operations (posterior cervical fusion [PCF]-14; foraminotomy-14; laminoplasty-4), and 8 circumferential operations. Revisions that entailed a circumferential approach had significantly higher average costs (direct: $57,376 ± 31,258; total: $91,409) than revisions performed via a single approach ([anterior: direct costs - $20,084; total costs - $32,141]; [posterior: direct costs - $20,371; total costs - $32,841]). Of the posterior revisions, foraminotomies had the lowest average costs (direct: $5,389; total: $8,972), while PCF was associated with the greatest average costs (direct: $35,950; total: $57,749). Of the anterior revisions, corpectomies (direct: $30,265; total: $48,419) had significantly greater average costs than ACDFs (direct: $17,514; total: $28,033). Revision operations forASD in the cervical spine are highly heterogeneous and were associated with an average direct cost of $27,702 and an average total cost of $37,983. Over a 6-year period at a single tertiary referral center, operative care for 85 patients with cervical ASD represented a significant economic expense (greater than $2.0 million).