What Is the Value of Undergoing Surgery for Spinal Metastases at Dedicated Cancer Centers?

The Alliance of Dedicated Cancer Centers is an organization of 11 leading cancer institutions and affiliated hospitals that are exempt from the Medicare prospective system hospital reimbursement policies. Because of their focus on cancer care and participation in innovative cancer treatment methods and protocols, these hospitals are reimbursed based on their actual billings. The perceived lack of incentive to meet a predetermined target price and reduce costs has spurred criticism of the value of cancer care at these institutions. The rationale of our study was to better understand whether dedicated cancer centers (DCCs) deliver high-value care for patients undergoing surgical treatment of spinal metastases. Is there a difference in 90-day complications and reimbursements between patients undergoing surgical treatment (decompression or fusion) for spinal metastases at DCCs and those treated at nonDCC hospitals? The 2005 to 2014 100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files database was queried using ICD-9 procedure and diagnosis codes to identify patients undergoing decompression (03.0, 03.09, and 03.4) and/or fusion (81.0X) for spinal metastases (198.5). The database does not allow us to exclude the possibility that some patients were treated with fusion for stabilization of the spine without decompression, although this is likely an uncommon event. Patients undergoing vertebroplasty or kyphoplasty for metastatic disease were excluded. The Medicare hospital provider identification numbers were used to identify the 11 DCCs. The study cohort was categorized into two groups: DCCs and nonDCCs. Although spinal metastases are known to occur among nonMedicare and younger patients, the payment policies of these DCCs are only applicable to Medicare beneficiaries. Therefore, to keep the study objective relevant to current policy and value-based discussions, we performed the analysis using the Medicare dataset. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 17,776 patients in the study, 6% (1138 of 17,776) of whom underwent surgery at one of the 11 DCCs. Compared with the nonDCC group, DCC group hospitals operated on a younger patient population and on more patients with primary renal cancers. In addition, DCCs were more likely to be high-volume facilities with National Cancer Institute designations and have a voluntary or government ownership model. Patients undergoing surgery for spinal metastases at DCCs were more likely to have spinal decompression with fusion than those at nonDCCs (40% versus 22%; p < 0.001) and had a greater length and extent of fusion (at least four levels of fusion; 34% versus 29%; p = 0.001). Patients at DCCs were also more likely than those at nonDCCs to receive postoperative adjunct treatments such as radiation (16% versus 13.5%; p = 0.008) and chemotherapy (17% versus 9%; p < 0.001), although this difference is small and we do not know if this meets a minimum clinically important difference. To account for differences in patients presenting at both types of facilities, multivariate logistic regression mixed-model analyses were used to compare rates of 90-day complications and 90-day mortality between DCC and nonDCC hospitals. Controls were implemented for baseline clinical characteristics, procedural factors, and hospital-level factors (such as random effects). Generalized linear regression mixed-modeling was used to evaluate differences in total 90-day reimbursements between DCCs and nonDCCs. After adjusting for differences in baseline demographics, procedural factors, and hospital-level factors, patients undergoing surgery at DCCs had lower odds of experiencing sepsis (6.5% versus 10%; odds ratio 0.54 [95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.74]; p < 0.001), urinary tract infections (19% versus 28%; OR 0.61 [95% CI 0.50 to 0.74]; p < 0.001), renal complications (9% versus 13%; OR 0.55 [95% CI 0.42 to 0.72]; p < 0.001), emergency department visits (27% versus 31%; OR 0.78 [95% CI 0.64 to 0.93]; p = 0.01), and mortality (39% versus 49%; OR 0.75 [95% CI 0.62 to 0.89]; p = 0.001) within 90 days of the procedure compared with patients treated at nonDCCs. Undergoing surgery at a DCC (90-day reimbursement of USD 54,588 ± USD 42,914) compared with nonDCCs (90-day reimbursement of USD 49,454 ± USD 38,174) was also associated with reduced 90-day risk-adjusted reimbursements (USD -14,802 [standard error 1362] ; p < 0.001). Based on our findings, it appears that DCCs offer high-value care, as evidenced by lower complication rates and reduced reimbursements after surgery for spinal metastases. A better understanding of the processes of care adopted at these institutions is needed so that additional cancer centers may also be able to deliver similar care for patients with metastatic spine disease. Level III, therapeutic study.

Malik AT ，Khan SN ，Voskuil RT ，Alexander JH ，Drain JP ，Scharschmidt TJ ... -  《-》

What Is the Quality of Surgical Care for Patients with Hip Fractures at Critical Access Hospitals?

Critical access hospitals (CAHs) play an important role in providing access to care for many patients in rural communities. Prior studies have shown that these facilities are able to provide timely and quality care for patients who undergo various elective and emergency general surgical procedures. However, little is known about the quality and reimbursement of surgical care for patients undergoing surgery for hip fractures at CAHs compared with non-CAH facilities. Are there any differences in 90-day complications, readmissions, mortality, and Medicare payments between patients undergoing surgery for hip fractures at CAHs and those undergoing surgery at non-CAHs? The 2005 to 2014 Medicare 100% Standard Analytical Files were queried using ICD-9 procedure codes to identify Medicare-eligible beneficiaries undergoing open reduction and internal fixation (79.15, 79.35, and 78.55), hemiarthroplasty (81.52), and THA (81.51) for isolated closed hip fractures. This database was selected because the claims capture inpatient diagnoses, procedures, charged amounts and paid claims, as well as hospital-level information of the care, of Medicare patients across the nation. Patients with concurrent fixation of an upper extremity, lower extremity, and/or polytrauma were excluded from the study to ensure an isolated cohort of hip fractures was captured. The study cohort was divided into two groups based on where the surgery took place: CAHs and non-CAHs. A 1:1 propensity score match, adjusting for baseline demographics (age, gender, Census Bureau-designated region, and Elixhauser comorbidity index), clinical characteristics (fixation type and time to surgery), and hospital characteristics (whether the hospital was located in a rural ZIP code, the average annual procedure volume of the operating facility, hospital bed size, hospital ownership and teaching status), was used to control for the presence of baseline differences in patients presenting at CAHs and those presenting at non-CAHs. A total of 1,467,482 patients with hip fractures were included, 29,058 of whom underwent surgery in a CAH. After propensity score matching, each cohort (CAH and non-CAH) contained 29,058 patients. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess for differences in 90-day complications, readmissions, and mortality between the two matched cohorts. As funding policies of CAHs are regulated by Medicare, an evaluation of costs-of-care (by using Medicare payments as a proxy) was conducted. Generalized linear regression modeling was used to assess the 90-day Medicare payments among patients undergoing surgery in a CAH, while controlling for differences in baseline demographics and clinical characteristics. Patients undergoing surgery for hip fractures were less likely to experience many serious complications at a critical access hospital (CAH) than at a non-CAH. In particular, after controlling for patient demographics, hospital-level factors and procedural characteristics, patients treated at a CAH were less likely to experience: myocardial infarction (3% (916 of 29,058) versus 4% (1126 of 29,058); OR 0.80 [95% CI 0.74 to 0.88]; p < 0.001), sepsis (3% (765 of 29,058) versus 4% (1084 of 29,058); OR 0.69 [95% CI 0.63 to 0.78]; p < 0.001), acute renal failure (6% (1605 of 29,058) versus 8% (2353 of 29,058); OR 0.65 [95% CI 0.61 to 0.69]; p < 0.001), and Clostridium difficile infections (1% (367 of 29,058) versus 2% (473 of 29,058); OR 0.77 [95% CI 0.67 to 0.88]; p < 0.001) than undergoing surgery in a non-CAH. CAHs also had lower rates of all-cause 90-day readmissions (18% (5133 of 29,058) versus 20% (5931 of 29,058); OR 0.83 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.86]; p < 0.001) and 90-day mortality (4% (1273 of 29,058) versus 5% (1437 of 29,058); OR 0.88 [95% CI 0.82 to 0.95]; p = 0.001) than non-CAHs. Further, CAHs also had risk-adjusted lower 90-day Medicare payments than non-CAHs (USD 800, standard error 89; p < 0.001). Patients who received hip fracture surgical care at CAHs had a lower risk of major medical and surgical complications than those who had surgery at non-CAHs, even though Medicare reimbursements were lower as well. Although there may be some degree of patient selection at CAHs, these facilities appear to provide high-value care to rural communities. These findings provide evidence for policymakers evaluating the impact of the CAH program and allocating funding resources, as well as for community members seeking emergent care at local CAH facilities. Level III, therapeutic study.

Malik AT ，Bonsu JM ，Roser M ，Khan SN ，Phieffer LS ，Ly TV ，Harrison RK ，Quatman CE ... -  《-》

Refining risk adjustment for bundled payment models in cervical fusions-an analysis of Medicare beneficiaries.

The current Bundled Payment for Care Improvement model relies on the use of "Diagnosis Related Groups" (DRGs) to risk-adjust reimbursements associated with a 90-day episode of care. Three distinct DRG groups exist for defining payments associated with cervical fusions: (1) DRG-471 (cervical fusions with major comorbidity/complications), (2) DRG-472 (with comorbidity/complications), and (3) DRG-473 (without major comorbidity/complications). However, this DRG system may not be entirely suitable in controlling the large amounts of cost variation seen among cervical fusions. For instance, these DRGs do not account for area/location of surgery (upper cervical vs. lower cervical), type of surgery (primary vs. revision), surgical approach (anterior vs. posterior), extent of fusion (1-3 level vs. >3 level), and cause/indication of surgery (fracture vs. degenerative pathology). To understand factors responsible for cost variation in a 90-day episode of care following cervical fusions. Retrospective study of a 5% national sample of Medicare claims from 2008 to 2014 5% Standard Analytical Files (SAF5). To calculate the independent marginal cost impact of various patient-level, geographic-level, and procedure-level characteristics on 90-day reimbursements for patients undergoing cervical fusions under DRG-471, DRG-472, and DRG-473. The 2008 to 2014 Medicare SAF5 was queried using DRG codes 471, 472, and 473 to identify patients receiving a cervical fusion. Patients undergoing noncervical fusions (thoracolumbar), surgery for deformity/malignancy, and/or combined anterior-posterior fusions were excluded. Patients with missing data and/or those who died within 90 days of the postoperative follow-up period were excluded. Multivariate linear regression modeling was performed to assess the independent marginal cost impact of DRG, gender, age, state, procedure-level factors (including cause/indication of surgery), and comorbidities on total 90-day reimbursement. Following application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, a total of 12,419 cervical fusions were included. The average 90-day reimbursement for each DRG group was as follows: (1) DRG-471=$54,314±$32,643, (2) DRG-472=$28,535±$17,271, and (3) DRG-473=$18,492±$10,706. The risk-adjusted 90-day reimbursement of a nongeriatric (age <65) female, with no major comorbidities, undergoing a primary 1- to 3-level anterior cervical fusion for degenerative cervical spine disease was $14,924±$753. Male gender (+$922) and age 70 to 84 (+$1,007 to +$2,431) was associated with significant marginal increases in 90-day reimbursements. Undergoing upper cervical surgery (-$1,678) had a negative marginal cost impact. Among other procedure-level factors, posterior approach (+$3,164), >3 level fusion (+$2,561), interbody (+$667), use of intra-operative neuromonitoring (+$1,018), concurrent decompression/laminectomy (+$1,657), and undergoing fusion for cervical fracture (+$3,530) were associated higher 90-day reimbursements. Severe individual comorbidities were associated with higher 90-day reimbursements, with malnutrition (+$15,536), CVA/stroke (+$6,982), drug abuse/dependence (+$5,059), hypercoagulopathy (+$5,436), and chronic kidney disease (+$4,925) having the highest marginal cost impacts. Significant state-level variation was noted, with Maryland (+$8,790), Alaska (+$6,410), Massachusetts (+$6,389), California (+$5,603), and New Mexico (+$5,530) having the highest reimbursements and Puerto Rico (-$7,492) and Iowa (-$3,393) having the lowest reimbursements, as compared with Michigan. The current cervical fusion bundled payment model fails to employ a robust risk adjustment of prices resulting in the large amount of cost variation seen within 90-day reimbursements. Under the proposed DRG-based risk adjustment model, providers would be reimbursed the same amount for cervical fusions regardless of the surgical approach (posterior vs. anterior), the extent of fusion, use of adjunct procedures (decompressions), and cause/indication of surgery (fracture vs. degenerative pathology), despite each of these factors having different resource utilization and associated reimbursements. Our findings suggest that defining payments based on DRG codes only is an imperfect way of employing bundled payments for spinal fusions and will only end up creating major financial disincentives and barriers to access of care in the healthcare system.

Malik AT ，Phillips FM ，Retchin S ，Xu W ，Yu E ，Kim J ，Khan SN ... -  《-》

The Impact of Dedicated Cancer Centers on Outcomes Among Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Liver and Pancreatic Cancer Surgery.

Mehta R ，Ejaz A ，Hyer JM ，Tsilimigras DI ，White S ，Merath K ，Sahara K ，Bagante F ，Paredes AZ ，Cloyd JM ，Dillhoff M ，Tsung A ，Pawlik TM ... -  《-》

Are current DRG-based bundled payment models for lumbar fusions risk-adjusting adequately? An analysis of Medicare beneficiaries.

Current bundled payment programs in spine surgery, such as the bundled payment for care improvement rely on the use of diagnosis-related groups (DRG) to define payments. However, these DRGs may not be adequate enough to appropriately capture the large amount of variation seen in spine procedures. For example, DRG 459 (spinal fusion except cervical with major comorbidity or complication) and DRG 460 (spinal fusion except cervical without major comorbidity or complication) do not differentiate between the type of fusion (anterior or posterior), the levels/extent of fusion, the use of interbody/graft/BMP, indication of surgery (primary vs. revision) or even if the surgery was being performed for a vertebral fracture. We carried out a comprehensive analysis to report the factors responsible for cost-variation in a bundled payment model for spinal fusions. Retrospective review of a 5% national sample of Medicare claims from 2008 to 2014 (SAF5). To understand the independent marginal cost impact of various patient-level, geographic-level, and procedure-level characteristics on 90-day costs for patients undergoing spinal fusions under DRG 459 and 460. The 2008 to 2014 Medicare 5% standard analytical files (SAF) were used to retrieve patients undergoing spinal fusions under DRG 459 and DRG 460 only. Patients with missing gender, age, and/or state-level data were excluded. Only those patients who had complete data, with regard to payments/costs/reimbursements, starting from day 0 of surgery up to 90 days postoperatively were included to prevent erroneous collection. Multivariate linear regression models were built to assess the independent marginal cost impact (decrease/increase) of each patient-level, state-level, and procedure-level characteristics on the average 90-day cost while controlling for other covariates. A total of 21,367 patients (DRG-460=20,154; DRG-459=1,213) were included in the study. The average 90-day cost for all lumbar fusions was $31,716±$18,124, with the individual 90-day payments being $54,607±$30,643 (DRG-459) and $30,338±$16,074 (DRG-460). Increasing age was associated with significant marginal increases in 90-day payments (70-74 years: +$2,387, 75-79 years: +$3,389, 80-84 years: +$2,872, ≥85: +$1,627). With regards to procedure-level factors-undergoing an anterior fusion (+$3,118), >3 level fusion (+$5,648) vs. 1 to 3 level fusion, use of interbody device (+$581), intraoperative neuromonitoring (+$1,413), concurrent decompression (+$768) and undergoing surgery for thoracolumbar fracture (+$6,169) were associated with higher 90-day costs. Most individual comorbidities were associated with higher 90-day costs, with malnutrition (+$12,264), CVA/stroke (+$5,886), Alzheimer's (+$4,968), Parkinson's disease (+$4,415), and coagulopathy (+$3,810) having the highest marginal 90-day cost-increases. The top five states with the highest marginal cost-increase, in comparison to Michigan (reference), were Maryland (+$12,657), Alaska (+$11,292), California (+$10,040), Massachusetts (+$8,800), and the District of Columbia (+$8,315). Under the proposed DRG-based bundled payment model, providers would be reimbursed the same amount for lumbar fusions regardless of the surgical approach (posterior vs. anterior), the extent of fusion (1-3 level vs. >3 level), use of adjunct procedures (decompressions) and cause/indication of surgery (fracture vs. degenerative pathology), despite each of these factors having different resource utilization and associated costs. When defining and developing future bundled payments for spinal fusions, health-policy makers should strive to account for the individual patient-level, state-level, and procedure-level variation seen within DRGs to prevent the creation of a financial dis-incentive in taking care of sicker patients and/or performing more extensive complex spinal fusions.

Malik AT ，Phillips FM ，Yu E ，Khan SN ... -  《-》