Readmission due to infection following total hip and total knee procedures: A retrospective study.

Policymakers have expanded readmissions penalty programs to include elective arthroplasties, but little is known about the risk factors for readmissions following these procedures. We hypothesized that infections after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) lead to excess readmissions and increased costs. This study aims to evaluate the proportion of readmissions due to infections following THA and TKA.Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-State Inpatient Databases were used for the study. Procedure codes "8151" and "8154" were used to identify inpatient discharges with THA and TKA in Florida (FL) 2009 to 2013, Massachusetts (MA) 2010 to 2012, and California (CA) 2009 to 2011. Readmission was measured by a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) validated algorithm. Infections were identified by ICD-9-CM codes: 99859, 99666, 6826, 0389, 486, 4821, 00845, 5990, 48242, 04111, 04112, 04119, 0417, 99591, and 99592. Descriptive analysis was performed.In CA, 4.29% of patients were readmitted with 33.02% of the total readmissions for infection. In FL, 4.7% of patients were readmitted with 33.39% of the readmissions for infection. In MA, 3.92% of patients were readmitted with 35.2% of readmissions for infection. Of the total number of readmissions due to infection, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus (MSSA) together accounted for 14.88% in CA, 13.38% in FL, and 13.11% in MA.The rate of infection is similar across all 3 states and is a leading cause for readmission following THA and TKA. Programs to reduce the likelihood of MRSA or MSSA infection would reduce readmissions due to infection.

Molecular methods and platforms for infectious diseases testing a review of FDA-approved and cleared assays.

The superior sensitivity and specificity associated with the use of molecular assays has greatly improved the field of infectious disease diagnostics by providing clinicians with results that are both accurate and rapidly obtained. Herein, we review molecularly based infectious disease diagnostic tests that are Food and Drug Administration approved or cleared and commercially available in the United States as of December 31, 2010. We describe specific assays and their performance, as stated in the Food and Drug Administration's Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data or the Office of In Vitro Diagnostic Device Evaluation and Safety's decision summaries, product inserts, or peer-reviewed literature. We summarize indications for testing, limitations, and challenges related to implementation in a clinical laboratory setting for a wide variety of common pathogens. The information presented in this review will be particularly useful for laboratories that plan to implement or expand their molecular offerings in the near term.

The interface of Medicare coverage decision-making and emerging molecular-based laboratory testing.

The process of obtaining Medicare coverage for clinical services (both at the national and local levels) can be complex and often leads to considerable confusion among external stakeholders. The entry of molecular diagnostic testing into the clinical arena of laboratory medicine has posed some special challenges, both for those providing the testing, and those paying for such technology. This commentary will seek to clarify Medicare's pursuit of defining medical necessity by describing both the local and national Medicare coverage policy processes. However, it should be understood that the Medicare reimbursement for such esoteric testing is a work-in-progress, without an established step-by-step process for obtaining a positive coverage decision. Yet, this evolving process provides all stakeholders (payers, laboratories, industry, clinicians, etc.) with an opportunity to fully understand the health policy implications of complex molecular diagnostic testing. In addition, brief case study vignettes are incorporated into our discussion, to show how laboratorians, in conjunction with their clinical colleagues, can effectively engage the payer community in developing more medically sound and fiscally responsible coverage policies.