Access of Patients With Lumbar Disc Herniations to Spine Surgeons: The Effect of Insurance Type Under the Affordable Care Act.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of insurance type (Medicaid vs. a specific private insurance) on patient access to spine surgeons for lumbar disc herniation as measured by (A) acceptance of insurance, (B) need for a referral, and (C) wait time for appointment. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Limited studies have been conducted to examine the issue of patient access to spine surgeons based on different insurance types (Medicaid vs. a specific private insurance), especially in relation to the Medicaid expansion that resulted from the Affordable Care Act. METHODS: Appointment success rates, the need for a referral, and waiting periods were compared between Medicaid and a specific private insurance for patients needing an evaluation for a herniated lumbar disc. The waiting period was studied in the context of comparing states that have expanded Medicaid eligibility to ones that have not, and the surgical training of the spine surgeon (orthopaedic surgeons vs. neurosurgeons). RESULTS: Appointment success rate for patients seeking access to lumbar spine care was significantly higher for patients with BlueCross insurance (95.0%) versus patients with Medicaid insurance (0.8%) (P <0.001). The need for referrals was significantly higher for patients with Medicaid insurance (93.3%) versus patients with BlueCross insurance (4.2%) (P <0.001). Among BlueCross patients, wait times were longer in Medicaid-expanded states. However, the same trend was not seen among patients with Medicaid insurance. CONCLUSION: Patients with Medicaid were less successful at scheduling an appointment and faced more barriers to care, such as the need for a referral, compared with the private insurance studied. In the states with expanded Medicaid, wait times for appointments were longer for BlueCross patients, but were not longer for patients with Medicaid insurance. Overall, this study suggests that increased coverage resulting from Medicaid expansion does not necessarily equate to increased access to care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Primary Care Physician and Patient Perceptions of Reimbursement for Total Knee and Hip Replacement.

BACKGROUND: The opinions of nonspecialists and patients will be important to determining reimbursements for specialists such as orthopedic surgeons. In addition, primary care physician (PCP) perceptions of reimbursements may affect utilization of orthopedic services. METHODS: We distributed a web-based survey to PCPs, asking how much they believed orthopedic surgeons were reimbursed for total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We also proctored a paper-based survey to postoperative patients, asking how much orthopedic surgeons should be reimbursed. RESULTS: There was a significant difference between perceived and actual reimbursement values for THA and TKA. Hospital-affiliated PCPs estimated higher reimbursements for both THA ($1657 vs $838, P < .0001 for Medicaid and $2246 vs $1515, P = .018 for Medicare) and TKA ($1260 vs $903, P = .052 for Medicaid and $2022 vs $1514, P = .049 for Medicare). Similarly, larger practices estimated higher reimbursements for both THA ($1861 vs $838, P < .0001 for Medicaid and $2635 vs $1515, P = .004 for Medicare) and TKA ($1583 vs $903, P = .005 for Medicaid and $2380 vs $1514, P = .011 for Medicare). Compared to PCPs, patients estimated that orthopedic surgeons should be paid 4 times higher for both THA ($9787 vs $2235, P < .0001) and TKA ($9088 vs $2134, P < .0001). CONCLUSION: PCPs believe that reimbursements for orthopedic procedures are higher than actual values. The effect that these perceptions will have on efforts at cost reform and utilization of orthopedic services requires further study.

Survey of Patient Insurance Status on Access to Specialty Foot and Ankle Care Under the Affordable Care Act.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of insurance type (Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance) on access to foot and ankle surgeons for total ankle arthroplasty. METHODS: We called 240 foot and ankle surgeons who performed total ankle arthroplasty in 8 representative states (California, Massachusetts, Ohio, New York, Florida, Georgia, Texas, and North Carolina). The caller requested an appointment for a fictitious patient to be evaluated for a total ankle arthroplasty. Each office was called 3 times to assess the responses for Medicaid, Medicare, and BlueCross. From each call, we recorded appointment success or failure and any barriers to an appointment, such as need for a referral. RESULTS: Patients with Medicaid were less likely to receive an appointment compared to patients with Medicare (19.8% vs 92.0%, P < .0001) or BlueCross (19.8% vs 90.4%, P < .0001) and experienced more requests for referrals compared to patients with Medicare (41.9% vs 1.6%, P < .0001) or BlueCross (41.9% vs 4%, P < .0001). Waiting periods were longer for patients with Medicaid compared to those with Medicare (22.6 days vs 11.7 days, P = .004) or BlueCross (22.6 days vs 10.7 days, P = .001). Reimbursement rates did not correlate with appointment success rate or waiting period. CONCLUSION: Despite the passage of the PPACA, patients with Medicaid continue to have difficulty finding a surgeon who will provide care, increased need for a primary care referral, and longer waiting periods for appointments. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study.

The Effect of Insurance Type on Patient Access to Carpal Tunnel Release Under the Affordable Care Act.

PURPOSE: To assess the effect of insurance type (Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance) on access to hand surgeons for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). METHODS: The research team called 240 hand surgeons in 8 states (California, Massachusetts, Ohio, New York, Florida, Georgia, Texas, and North Carolina). The caller requested an appointment for her fictitious mother to be evaluated for CTS and possible surgical management through carpal tunnel release (CTR). Each office was called 3 times to assess the responses for Medicaid, Medicare, or Blue Cross Blue Shield. From each call, we recorded whether an appointment was given and whether there were barriers to an appointment, such as the need for a referral. RESULTS: Twenty percent of offices scheduled an appointment for a patient with Medicaid, compared with 89% for Medicare and 97% for Blue Cross Blue Shield. Patients with Medicaid had an easier time scheduling appointments (28% vs 13%) and experienced fewer requests for referrals (25% vs 67%) in states with expanded Medicaid eligibility. Neither Medicaid nor Medicare reimbursement for CTR was significantly correlated with the incidence of successful appointments. Although the difference in Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements for CTR was small, the appointment success incidence for Medicare was approximately 5 times higher. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the passage of the Affordable Care Act, patients with Medicaid have reduced access to surgical care for CTS and more complex barriers to receiving an appointment. Although Medicaid was accepted at a higher rate in states with expanded Medicaid eligibility, a more robust strategy for increasing access to care may be helpful for patients with Medicaid. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic II.

The Effect of Insurance Type on Patient Access to Knee Arthroplasty and Revision under the Affordable Care Act.

This study evaluated access to knee arthroplasty and revision in 8 geographically representative states. Patients with Medicaid were significantly less likely to receive an appointment compared to patients with Medicare or BlueCross. However, patients with Medicaid had increased success at making an appointment in states with expanded Medicaid eligibility (37.7% vs 22.8%, P=0.011 for replacement, 42.6% vs 26.9%, P=0.091 for revision), although they experienced longer waiting periods (31.5 days vs 21.1 days, P=0.054 for replacement, 45.5 days vs 22.5 days, P=0.06 for revision). Higher Medicaid reimbursement also had a direct correlation with appointment success rate for Medicaid patients (OR=1.232, P=0.001 for replacement, OR=1.314, P=0.014 for revision).

Actual knee motion during continuous passive motion protocols is less than expected.

Investigations of the usefulness of continuous passive motion (CPM) after TKA have yielded mixed results, with evidence suggesting its efficacy is contingent on the presence of larger motion arcs. Surprisingly, the range of motion (ROM) the knee actually experiences while in a CPM machine has not been elucidated. In this study, the ability of a CPM apparatus to bring about a desired knee ROM was assessed with an electrogoniometer. The knee experienced only 68% to 76% of the programmed CPM arc, with the higher percentages generated by elevating the head of the patient's bed. This disparity between true knee motion and CPM should be accounted for when designing CPM protocols for patients or investigations evaluating efficacy of CPM.

Current practices of AAHKS members in the treatment of adult osteonecrosis of the femoral head.

BACKGROUND: There is currently no standardized protocol for evaluating and treating osteonecrosis of the femoral head in adults in the United States. We sought to understand current treatment practices of a group of surgeons who commonly treat this disease to determine if there was agreement on some aspects of care. METHODS: We designed a two-staged mixed-mode (mailed and faxed) sixteen-question self-administered descriptive survey questionnaire to be sent to all 753 active members of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS). The survey design was based on Dillman's survey research methodology, and the questionnaire included hypothetical clinical scenarios based on the Steinberg classification system. The responses elucidated the opinions and treatment preferences of high-volume arthroplasty surgeons who treat adult patients with osteonecrosis of the femoral head. RESULTS: Of the 753 active members of the AAHKS, 403 (54%) responded to the questionnaire. Total hip replacement was reported to be the most frequent intervention for treatment of postcollapse (Steinberg stage-IIIB, IVB, V, and VI) osteonecrosis; core decompression was reported to be the most commonly offered intervention for symptomatic, precollapse (Steinberg stage-IB and IIB) osteonecrosis. Less frequently offered treatments included nonoperative management, osteotomy, vascularized and non-vascularized bone-grafting, hemiarthroplasty, and arthrodesis. CONCLUSIONS: The care of adults with osteonecrosis of the femoral head varies among American orthopaedic surgeons specializing in hip and knee surgery. A consensus may evolve with a continued concerted effort on the part of interested surgeons, but it will require randomized, controlled, prospective studies of treatment of each stage of the disease and collaborative multicenter studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level V.

Sequential dependence of freeze-drying and irradiation on biomechanical properties of rat bone.

Femurs of Sprague-Dawley rats were subjected to in vitro 3-Mrad irradiation and/or freeze-drying to investigate whether these processes have an order-dependent effect on the biomechanical properties of bone. Four experimental groups were designated-irradiated (RAD); freeze-dried (FD); irradiated, then freeze-dried (RAD/FD); and freeze-dried, then irradiated (FD/RAD). After the various treatments, the bones were inspected for microfractures and then torsion-tested. Microfractures were seen in more than 90% of the specimens that had undergone freeze-drying alone or with irradiation. Regarding the normalized relative ratios of torque, there was a statistically significant difference (P < .05) between the RAD group (1.0) and the 3 other groups (FD, .32; RAD/FD, .40; FD/RAD, .14). Differences among the FD, RAD/FD, and FD/RAD groups were not significant. However, a trend was bones were weaker than FD and noted: FD/RAD RAD/FD bones.