'Bundle busters': who is at risk of exceeding the target payment and can they be optimized?

AIMS: The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative has identified pathways for improving the value of care. However, patient-specific modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors may increase costs beyond the target payment. We sought to identify risk factors for exceeding our institution's target payment, the so-called 'bundle busters'. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using our data warehouse and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data we identified all 412 patients who underwent total joint arthroplasty and qualified for our institution's BPCI model, between July 2015 and May 2017. Episodes where CMS payments exceeded the target payment were considered 'busters' (n = 123). Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using a modified Poisson regression analysis. RESULTS: An increased risk of exceeding the target payment was significantly associated with increasing age (adjusted RR 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.06) and body mass index (adjusted RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.003 to 1.06). Eight comorbid risk factors were also identified (all p < 0.05), only two of which were considered to be potentially modifiable (diabetes with complications and preoperative anaemia). An American Society of Anesthesiologist physical status classification system (ASA) score ≥ 3 (adjusted RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.67 to 3.18) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≥ 3 (adjusted RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.60) were risk factors for bundle busting. CONCLUSION: Non-modifiable preoperative risk factors can increase costs and exceed the target payment. Future bundled payment models should incorporate the stratification of risk. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7 Supple C):64-69.

Ten-year survivorship of primary total hip arthroplasty in patients 30 years of age or younger.

Aims: For this retrospective cohort study, patients aged ≤ 30 years (very young) who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) were compared with patients aged ≥ 60 years (elderly) to evaluate the rate of revision arthroplasty, implant survival, the indications for revision, the complications, and the patient-reported outcomes. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent primary THA between January 2000 and May 2015 from our institutional database. A total of 145 very young and 1359 elderly patients were reviewed. The mean follow-up was 5.3 years (1 to 18). Logistic generalized estimating equations were used to compare characteristics and the revision rate. Survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves and hazard rates were created using Cox regression. Results: The overall revision rate was 11% (16/145) in the very young and 3.83% (52/1359) in the elderly groups (odds ratio (OR) 2.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.43 to 4.63). After adjusting for the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, gender, and a history of previous surgery in a time-to-event model, the risk of revision remained greater in the very young (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 2.48, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.58). Survival at ten years was 82% (95% CI, 71 to 89) in the very young and 96% (95% CI, 94 to 97) in the elderly group (p < 0.001). The very young had a higher rate of revision for complications related to metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing surfaces (p < 0.001). At last follow-up, the very young group had higher levels of physical function (p = 0.002), lower levels of mental health (p = 0.001), and similar levels of pain (p = 0.670) compared with their elderly counterparts. Conclusion: The overall revision rate was greater in very young THA patients. This was largely explained by the use of MoM bearings. Young patients with non-MoM bearings had high survivorship with similar complication profiles to patients aged ≥ 60 years. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:867-74.