Variation of the Inpatient Cost of Care in the Treatment of Isolated Geriatric Intertrochanteric Hip Fractures.

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric hip fractures are a major, costly public health issue, expected to increase in incidence and expense with the aging population. As healthcare transitions towards value-based care, understanding cost drivers of hip fracture treatment will be necessary to perform adequate risk adjustment. Historically, cost has been variable and difficult to determine. This study was purposed to identify variables that can predict the overall cost of care for geriatric intertrochanteric (IT) hip fractures and provide a better cost prediction to ensure the success of future bundled payment models. METHODS: A retrospective review of operatively-managed geriatric hip fractures was performed at single urban level I academic trauma center between 2013 and 2017. Patient variables were collected via the electronic medical record (EMR) including CCI, ACCI, ASA, overall length of stay (LOS), AO/OTA fracture classification and demographics. Direct and indirect costs were calculated by activity-based costing by the hospital's accounting software. Multivariable linear regression models evaluated which parameters predicted total inpatient cost of care. RESULTS: The mean cost of care was $19,822, ranging from $9,128 to $64,211. Critical care comprised 16.9% of total costs, followed by implant costs (13.6%), and nursing costs (12.6%). Regression analysis identified both ASA (p < 0.01) and ACCI (p = 0.01) as statistically significant associative parameters, but only LOS (r 2 = 0.77) as a strong correlative measure for inpatient care cost. CONCLUSION: This study found no correlation between ACCI or ASA and the total inpatient cost of care in isolated intertrochanteric geriatric hip fractures, suggesting that the inpatient episode-of-care costs cannot be accurately predicted by the patient demographics/comorbidities alone. Future bundled care payment models would have to be adjusted to account for variables beyond just patient characteristics. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level IV.

Does Implant Selection Affect the Inpatient Cost of Care for Geriatric Intertrochanteric Femur Fractures?

INTRODUCTION: Geriatric intertrochanteric (IT) femur fractures are a common and costly injury, expected to increase in incidence as the population ages. Understanding cost drivers will be essential for risk adjustments, and the surgeon's choice of implant may be an opportunity to reduce the overall cost of care. This study was purposed to identify the relationship between implant type and inpatient cost of care for isolated geriatric IT fractures. METHODS: A retrospective review of IT fractures from 2013-2017 was performed at an academic level I trauma center. Construct type and AO/OTA fracture classifications were obtained radiographically, and patient variables were collected via the electronic medical record (EMR). The total cost of care was obtained via time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC). Multivariable linear regression and goodness-of-fit analyses were used to determine correlation between implant costs, inpatient cost of care, construct type, patient characteristics, and injury characteristics. RESULTS: Implant costs ranged from $765.17 to $5,045.62, averaging $2,699, and were highest among OTA 31-A3 fracture patterns (p < 0.01). Implant cost had a positive linear association with overall inpatient cost of care (p < 0.01), but remained highly variable (r2 = 0.16). Total cost of care ranged from $9,129.18 to $64,210.70, averaging $19,822, and patients receiving a sliding hip screw (SHS) had the lowest mean total cost of care at $17,077, followed by short and long intramedullary nails ($19,314 and $21,372, respectively). When construct type and fracture pattern were compared to total cost, 31-A1 fracture pattern treated with SHS had significantly lower cost than 31-A2 and 31-A3 and less variation in cost. CONCLUSION: The cost of care for IT fractures is poorly understood and difficult to determine. With alternative payment models on the horizon, implant selection should be utilized as an opportunity to decrease costs and increase the value of care provided to patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level IV.

Geriatric Femoral Neck Fractures: Hemiarthroplasty Implant Trends Across a Health System From 2006 to 2018.

INTRODUCTION: Hemiarthroplasty is increasingly used for the treatment of geriatric femoral neck fractures in an effort to optimize value-based care. The current American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) guidelines released in 2014 for the treatment of geriatric hip fractures recommend the utilization of monopolar cemented constructs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate hip hemiarthroplasty implant cost variability and implant selection trends from 2006 to 2018. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of 940 geriatric hip fractures treated with hemiarthroplasty was conducted across 3 institutions from 2006 to 2018. Variables examined were construct type, surgeon, operative time, patient mortality, and implant cost. Statistical analysis consisted of multigroup comparative tests and multiple linear regression analyses to evaluate correlative measures. RESULTS: The study population was 85.0 ± 7.9 years of age with a body mass index of 24.0 ± 5.5. A total of 33 (3.5%) patients were deceased at the 90-day postoperative mark and 45 (4.8%) patients at the 1-year mark. There was no statistical difference in terms of mortality between the 4 implant cohorts at the 90-day mark (P = .56) and 1-year mark (P = .24). The bipolar press-fit construct was the most expensive, US$3900.61 ± US$2607.54, and the monopolar cemented construct was the least expensive, US$2618.68 ± US$1834.16. The mean operative time was 6 minutes greater for press-fit implants, 93.6 ± 32.0, than cemented implants, 87.1 ± 33.6 (P = .02). The use of monopolar cemented implants increased from 12.1% to 83.3%, while bipolar press-fit decreased from 57.6% to 4.6% from 2013 to 2018. DISCUSSION: The use of a bipolar and/or press-fit implant significantly increases construct cost despite little evidence in the literature of improved outcomes. Contrary to previous research, cemented implants do not increase the operative time. CONCLUSIONS: Encouragingly, selection of the most cost-conscience implant, monopolar cemented, has been increasing since 2014, which may reflect the influence of current AAOS guidelines. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level III.

Variation in Implant Selection for Ankle Fractures: Identifying Cost Drivers.

BACKGROUND: Implant selection is the first opportunity for surgeons to control costs of fracture fixation. The current literature has demonstrated surgeons' poor understanding of implant costs. Our study evaluated implant cost variability for surgically treated ankle fractures and distal tibia fractures. Our hypothesis was that significant cost variation exists among providers. The goal was to identify cost drivers and determine whether specialty training is linked to implant selection. METHODS: A retrospective 2010-2017 chart review was performed for 1281 patients at a Level I trauma center. Patients were excluded for skeletal immaturity, open fractures, polytrauma, and concurrent surgeries. Variables were assessed included age, sex, body mass index, OTA/AO classification, Weber classification, 1-year reoperation status, surgeon specialty, and use of syndesmotic screws, locking plates, and cannulated screws. Construct cost was determined by using electronic medical record implant model numbers cross-referenced with the chargemaster database. Statistical analysis involved intergroup comparative tests, regression analysis, and goodness-of-fit analyses. RESULTS: Implant cost was different among OTA patterns (P < 0.01), highest among 43C ($3771) and lowest with 44A ($819). Construct costs of OTA 43 fractures varied from $2568 to 3771, whereas OTA 44 ranged from $819 to $1474. Costs were comparable across Weber patterns (P = 0.15), with Weber B having the highest ($1494). Costs were highest among reconstructive, podiatry, and spine surgeons, with mean costs of $1804, $1404, and $1396, respectively. Traumatologist constructs had the lowest overall price ($987). A total of 433 (33.8%) procedures used locking plates with 512 (40.0%) using at least one cannulated screw. Locking plates averaged a larger total implant cost ($1947) than nonlocking plates ($1313) but had a comparable reoperation rate (18.5% vs. 17.7%, P = 0.81). Use of a cannulated screw presented a higher total cost ($2008 vs. $1435) with comparable reoperation rates (17.4% vs. 18.8%, P = 0.72). A total of 401 (31.5%) patients received syndesmotic fixation and a significantly higher reoperation rate (17.0% vs. 11.0%, P < 0.01). Overall, 199 patients underwent elective hardware removal, 23 were infected, 7 required revision, and 3 were identified with a nonunion. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated significant variability in implant costs for ankle fracture fixation and identified the key cost drivers as locking plates and cannulated screws. Surgical management of ankle fractures could be an ideal setting to pilot economic alignment between physicians and hospitals to drive value. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. Retrospective Cohort.

Does Value Matter in Orthopaedic Trauma?: A Survey of Orthopaedic Trauma Association Members.

OBJECTIVES: With value-based payment models on the horizon, this study was designed to examine the perceptions of value-based care among orthopaedic traumatologists and how they influence their practice. DESIGN: Systems-based survey study. SETTING: Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) research surveys. PARTICIPANTS: OTA members. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Thirty-eight-question surveys focusing on 5 areas related to value-based care: understanding value, assessing interest, barriers, perceptions around implementing value-based strategies, and policy. RESULTS: Of 1106 OTA members, 252 members responded for a response rate of 22.7%. Consideration around cost was not different between hospital, academic, and private practice settings (P = 0.47). Previous reported experience in finance increased the amount surgical decision-making was influenced by cost (P < 0.01), along with reported understanding of implant costs (P < 0.01). Over half of the respondents (59.4%) believed value-based payments are coming to orthopaedic trauma. The vast majority (88.5%) believed bundled payments would be unsuccessful or only partially successful. With respect to barriers, a third of respondents (34.7%) indicated accurate cost data prevented the implementation of programs that track and maximize value, another third (31.5%) attributed it to a limited ability to collect patient-reported outcomes, and the rest (33.8%) were split between lack of institutional interest and access to funding. CONCLUSION: Our study indicated the understanding of value in orthopaedic trauma is limited and practice integration is rare. Reported experience in finance was the only factor associated with increased consideration of value-based care in practice. Our results highlight the need for increased exposure and resources to changing health care policy, specifically for orthopaedic traumatologists. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.