Patient willingness to contribute to the cost of novel implants in total joint arthroplasty: the Canadian experience

Background: In Canada, health care is covered by provincial health insurance programs; patients do not directly participate in paying for their acute care expenses. The aim of this study is to assess the willingness of Canadian patients to contribute to the costs of novel total joint arthroplasty implants. Methods: We administered a questionnaire to patients attending an outpatient arthroplasty clinic in Ontario. In the questionnaire, the longevity and risk of complications of a "standard" implant were described. We asked if participants would be willing to contribute to the cost of 3 novel implants that had differing longevities and risks of complications compared with the standard implant. Results: One hundred and fifteen patients completed our questionnaire. Up to 62% of patients were willing to contribute a copayment to get an implant with greater longevity. Willingness to pay decreased to 40% for an implant with greater longevity but an increased risk of complications. Forty percent of participants were willing to pay for an implant with the same longevity as the standard implant but a decreased risk of complications. Participants with a higher income were more willing than other participants to contribute to the cost of a novel implant with greater longevity or lower complication rates. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that up to 62% of our sample of patients in Ontario were willing to share the costs of a novel total joint replacement implant. Willingness to pay was associated with the proposed benefits of the implant and certain patient characteristics. Our study shows that a high proportion of Canadian patients may be willing to copay to have access to new technologies.

Contexte: Au Canada, les soins de santé sont assurés par les régimes provinciaux d'assurance maladie; les patients ne participent pas directement au paiement des soins de santé actifs. Le but de cette étude était de vérifier si les patients canadiens sont prêts à contribuer au paiement de prothèses d'un type nouveau pour les arthroplasties totales. Méthodes: Nous avons administré un questionnaire à des patients d'une clinique externe d'arthroplastie en Ontario. Dans le questionnaire, on décrivait la durée de vie et les risques de complications associés à une prothèse « standard ¼. Nous avons demandé aux participants s'ils étaient ouverts à l'idée de contribuer au paiement de 3 prothèses d'un nouveau type, comportant une durée de vie et des risques de complications différents de ceux de la prothèse standard. Résultats: Cent quinze patients ont répondu à notre questionnaire. Jusqu'à 62 % des patients se sont dits prêts à contribuer à une forme de copaiement pour obtenir une prothèse plus durable. La volonté de payer diminuait à 40 % pour une prothèse plus durable mais comportant plus de risques de complications. Quarante pour cent des participants se sont dits prêts à payer pour une prothèse de même durée de vie que la prothèse standard, mais comportant moins de risques de complications. Les participants ayant un revenu plus élevé étaient davantage disposés à contribuer au paiement d'une prothèse d'un nouveau type plus durable et comportant moins de risques de complications comparativement aux autres participants. Conclusion: Cette étude a démontré que jusqu'à 62 % de notre échantillon de patients ontariens étaient prêts à partager les coûts d'une nouvelle prothèse pour arthroplastie totale. La volonté de payer était associée aux avantages présumés de la prothèse et à certaines caractéristiques des patients. Notre étude montre qu'une forte proportion de patients canadiens seraient prêts à s'engager dans un copaiement pour avoir accès à de nouvelles technologies.

Health economic evaluation in orthotics and prosthetics: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Health economic evaluations are essential to support health care policy and investment decisions. To date, health economic evaluations in orthotics and prosthetics have focused on discrete components of an orthosis/prosthesis (e.g. a microprocessor controlled prosthetic knee joint) rather than the broader service provided by orthotist/prosthetists. As such, the contribution to orthotic/prosthetic policy and investment decisions is unclear. Whilst there are opportunities to conduct more informative health economic evaluations that describe the costs and benefits of the orthotic/prosthetic service, it is important that prospective research is informed by a critical review of the method design challenges and an understanding of how this research can be improved. The aim of this systematic review is to critically appraise the existing orthotic/prosthetic health economic evaluation literature and therefore determine evidence gaps, critical method design issues and the extent to which the literature informs orthotic/prosthetic policy and investment decisions. METHODS: A comprehensive range of databases-AMED, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsychINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and specialty health economic databases-will be searched using National Library of Medicine Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms as well as the title, abstract, and keyword terms. Search terms related to the intervention (e.g. orthosis), including variants used by varying professional disciplines (e.g. brace), will be used in preference to defining the populations that use orthotic and prosthetic services (e.g. people living with rheumatoid arthritis). Search terms related to health economic evaluations will be guided by previously developed and tested search strings and align with recommendations by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria will be hand-searched for relevant citations, and a forward citation search using Google Scholar will also be conducted to identify early online articles not yet indexed in traditional databases. Original research published in the English language and after 1 January 2000 will be included. The Checklist for Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC)-Extended list will be used to appraise the methodological quality and identify sources of bias. Data extraction and appraisal will be conducted by one reviewer independently using appraisal instrument guidelines and a content specific decision aid with exemplars. A subsequent review by a second researcher will be undertaken to confirm the accuracy of the extraction and appraisal, and a final review by a third where consensus cannot be reached. The data will be extracted to a purpose-built data extraction template with decision-making guidelines to support consistency. Where possible, the findings of the review will be reported as a meta-analysis, although the heterogeneity of the literature will likely mean a narrative review that illuminates method design issues that contribute to imprecision and variation will be more appropriate. DISCUSSION: This protocol has been purposefully designed to summarise the existing evidence and appraise the methodological approaches used and the quality of the health economic evaluations in orthotics and prosthetics. What we learn from this review will be used to guide further work in this area and design more rigorous health economic evaluations into the future. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018116910.

Surgeons' Perspectives on Premium Implants in Total Joint Arthroplasty.

Declining total joint arthroplasty reimbursement and rising implant prices have led many hospitals to restrict access to newer, more expensive total joint arthroplasty implants. The authors sought to understand arthroplasty surgeons' perspectives on implants regarding innovation, product launch, costs, and cost-containment strategies including surgeon gain-sharing and patient cost-sharing. Members of the International Congress for Joint Reconstruction were surveyed regarding attitudes about implant technology and costs. Descriptive and univariate analyses were performed. A total of 126 surgeons responded from all 5 regions of the United States. Although 76.9% believed new products advance technology in orthopedics, most (66.7%) supported informing patients that new implants lack long-term clinical data and restricting new implants to a small number of investigators prior to widespread market launch. The survey revealed that 66.7% would forgo gain-sharing incentives in exchange for more freedom to choose implants. Further, 76.9% believed that patients should be allowed to pay incremental costs for "premium" implants. Surgeons who believed that premium products advance orthopedic technology were more willing to forgo gain-sharing (P=.040). Surgeons with higher surgical volume (P=.007), those who believed implant companies should be allowed to charge more for new technology (P<.001), and those who supported discussing costs with patients (P=.004) were more supportive of patient cost-sharing. Most arthroplasty surgeons believe technological innovation advances the field but support discussing the "unproven" nature of new implants with patients. Many surgeons support alternative payment models permitting surgeons and patients to retain implant selection autonomy. Most respondents prioritized patient beneficence and surgeon autonomy above personal financial gain. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(5):e825-e830.].

Prosthetic Joint Infections and Cost Analysis?

Prosthetic joint infection is a devastating complication of arthroplasty surgery that can lead to debilitating morbidity for the patient and significant expense for the healthcare system. With the continual rise of arthroplasty cases worldwide every year, the revision load for infection is becoming a greater financial burden on healthcare budgets. Prevention of infection has to be the key to reducing this burden. For treatment, it is critical for us to collect quality data that can guide future management strategies to minimise healthcare costs and morbidity / mortality for patients. There has been a management shift in many countries to a less expensive 1-stage strategy and in selective cases to the use of debridement, antibiotics and implant retention. These appear very attractive options on many levels, not least cost. However, with a consensus on the definition of joint infection only clarified in 2011, there is still the need for high quality cost analysis data to be collected on how the use of these different methods could impact the healthcare expenditure of countries around the world. With a projected spend on revision for infection at US$1.62 billion in the US alone, this data is vital and urgently needed.

[Endoprostheses in the elderly : Biomaterials, implant selection and fixation technique]. / Endoprothetik des älteren Menschen : Biomaterialien, Implantatwahl, Verankerungstechnik.

The replacement of hip and knee joints is one of the greatest success stories in orthopedics. Due to continuous improvement of biomaterials and implant design, patient-associated problems are now mostly multifactorial and only rarely caused by the implant. Abrasion was significantly reduced by the introduction of highly cross-linked polyethylene (PE), antioxidant stabilized PE, new ceramics and the development of ceramic and protective surfaces. It is assumed that further reduction of frictional resistance will not lead to a significantly better clinical result: however, the problem of periprosthetic infections and implant-related incompatibility is still unsolved and remains challenging for biomaterial research. For the knee joint PE will be irreplaceable for joint articulation even in the future due to the contact situation. Mobile bearings and fixed bearings are two established successful philosophies, which have shown comparably good clinical results. For the hip joint, it is forecasted that ceramic-on-ceramic will be the system of the future if the correct positioning and mounting of the components can be solved so that the problems, such as development of noise and breakage can be reduced to a minimum. An in-depth understanding and detailed knowledge of the biomaterials by the surgeon can prevent implant-related problems. For elderly patients it is assumed that the economic burden on the public healthcare system will have the strongest impact on implant selection.

Endoprótesis articulares y el nuevo Baremo de tráfico / Endoprosthesis and the new Scale in traffic accidents

El nuevo Baremo en accidentes de tráfico modifica la actual valoración de las secuelas en los lesionados, ya que a la simple valoración numérica de las mismas se deben añadir los gastos previsibles de asistencia sanitaria futura. Este apartado adquiere una especial importancia en las lesiones relativas a la especialidad de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología, especialmente en el ámbito de las endoprótesis articulares (artroplastias de cadera, rodilla, hombro y tobillo). El objetivo del presente trabajo es proporcionar datos válidos para realizar la valoración del daño corporal con el nuevo Baremo de tráfico en pacientes con artrosis postraumática que precisarán una cirugía de implante de prótesis y en pacientes a los que ya se les ha implantado la prótesis y precisarán una cirugía de recambio en el futuro (AU)

The new scale in traffic accidents modifies the current valuation of the sequels on the injured and as the simple numerical assessment of them should be added the foreseeable future healthcare costs. This section is particularly important in injuries related to the specialty of Orthopedics and Traumatology, especially in the field of joint endoprosthesis (hip replacements, knee, shoulder and ankle). The aim of this study is to provide valid data for the damage assessment with the new traffic scale in patients with posttraumatic arthritis necessitating a prosthesis implant surgery and in patients who have been implanted a prosthesis and will require revision surgery in the future (AU)

Understanding and Controlling Cost in Total Joint Arthroplasty.

Total joint arthrosplasty (TJA) is both a commonly performed successful intervention and an expensive procedure.As our population ages, the expense of these interventions is expected to grow and hence its impact on healthcare costs will also grow. To ensure that TJA is available to all those who would benefit, it is incumbent that healthcare providers control the cost of these procedures. As orthopaedic surgeons, we must be at the forefront of this effort. The purpose of this review is to outline strategies to control or even decrease TJA cost without negatively affecting outcomes.This concept is at the center of value-based medicine and must guide our decision-making processes.

Transparency to Reduce Surgical Implant Waste.

BACKGROUND: Rising health care costs and emphasis on value have placed the onus of reducing healthcare costs on the surgeon. METHODS: Financial data from 3,973 hip, knee, and shoulder arthroplasties performed at a physician owned orthopedic hospital was retrospectively reviewed over a two-year period. A wasted implant financial report was posted starting the second year of the study. Each surgeon's performance could be identified by his peers. RESULTS: After posting of the financial report, 1.11% of all hip and knee arthroplasty cases had a waste event compared to 1.50% during the control year. Shoulder arthroplasty waste events occurred twice as often than that observed in hip and knee arthroplasty during the study period. A decrease in waste events was observed but was not statistically significant (p = 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Posting a non-blinded wasted implant data sheet was associated with a reduction in the number of wasted orthopedic surgical implants in this series, although the reduction was not statistically significant.

Orthopedic Implant Value Drivers: A Qualitative Survey Study of Hospital Purchasing Administrators.

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a chronic, degenerative disease that is highly prevalent in the population, yet the factors that affect purchasing decisions related to this condition are poorly understood. A questionnaire was developed and administered to hospital executives across North America to determine the factors that affect purchasing decisions related to OA. Thirty-four individuals participated in the survey. Clinical evidence and cost effectiveness were deemed to be the most important factors in the process of making purchasing decisions. The most important considerations for adopting new technology were whether there was sufficient evidence in the literature, followed by thoughts of key opinion leaders, and cost of intervention/device. Ongoing research is still needed, but the current study allowed us to identify some trends in the data, providing new insight on how hospital purchasing decisions are made, which could have an immediate impact on those currently involved with making these decisions.

Transparency to Reduce Surgical Implant Waste

BACKGROUND: Rising health care costs and emphasis on value have placed the onus of reducing healthcare costs on the surgeon. METHODS: Financial data from 3,973 hip, knee, and shoulder arthroplasties performed at a physician owned orthopedic hospital was retrospectively reviewed over a two-year period. A wasted implant financial report was posted starting the second year of the study. Each surgeon's performance could be identified by his peers. RESULTS: After posting of the financial report, 1.11% of all hip and knee arthroplasty cases had a waste event compared to 1.50% during the control year. Shoulder arthroplasty waste events occurred twice as often than that observed in hip and knee arthroplasty during the study period. A decrease in waste events was observed but was not statistically significant (p = 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: Posting a non-blinded wasted implant data sheet was associated with a reduction in the number of wasted orthopedic surgical implants in this series, although the reduction was not statistically significant.

Surgeons' knowledge about the costs of orthopaedic implants.

PURPOSE. To investigate consultant surgeons' knowledge about the costs of implants for various joint surgeries. METHODS. Questionnaires were distributed to consultant orthopaedic surgeons at 2 hospitals. Respondents were asked to estimate the implant costs of any brand for low-demand and high-demand total hip replacement (THR), total knee replacement (TKR), uni-compartmental knee replacement, arthroscopy shaver blade, total anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) fixation, and meniscal repair. The actual cost of each implant was obtained from the manufacturer. RESULTS. 16 consultant surgeons completed the questionnaires. The respective mean estimated and actual costs for a low-demand THR implant were £1714 (range, £600-3000) and £1448 (range, £985- 2335), with an overestimation of 18.4%. The respective costs for a high-demand THR implant were £2172 (range, £600-6000) and £1737 (range, £1192-2335), with an overestimation of 25%. The respective costs for a TKR implant were £1550 (range, £600-6000) and £1316 (range, £995-1535), with an overestimation of 17.8%. The respective costs for a uni-compartmental knee replacement implant were £1040 (range, £600-2000) and £1296 (range, £698-1470), with an underestimation of 19.7%. The respective costs for an arthroscopy shaver blade were £110 (range, £75-150) and £94 (range, £80-100), with an overestimation of 16.6%. The respective costs for a total ACL fixation implant were £246 (range, £80-500) and £306 (range, £272-335), with an underestimation of 19.4%. The respective costs for a meniscal repair implant were £153 (range, £50-250) and £242 (range, £170-260), with an underestimation of 37%. CONCLUSION. The knowledge among consultant orthopaedic surgeons about implant costs was poor. To reduce implant costs, cooperation between surgeons and hospital managers and measures to increase surgeons' awareness about cost-reduction programmes are needed.

Patients' willingness to contribute to cost of novel implants in total joint arthroplasty.

As health care organizations adapt to more accountable financial models, it is increasingly important to assess how patients value new technologies, and their willingness to contribute to their cost. A questionnaire described features of a 'standard' implant including its longevity and risk of complications. We asked if participants would be willing to contribute to the cost of 3 novel implants with differing longevity and risk of complications. Our cohort included 195 patients, 45% were willing to add a co-pay to increase the longevity. Willingness to pay decreased to 26% with increased risk of complications, and 29% were willing to pay for a decreased risk of complications. Patients with higher education level, private insurance and males were more willing to contribute for a novel prosthesis. This study demonstrated that 26%-45% of patients are willing to share costs of a novel prosthesis. Willingness to pay was associated with the proposed implant benefits and with patient characteristics.

An economic analysis of aseptic revision hip arthroplasty: calculation of partial hospital costs in relation to reimbursement.

INTRODUCTION: Aseptic loosening is one of the most common intermediate and long-term complications after total hip replacement (THR). These complications cause suffering and require expensive revision surgery. Little concrete data on direct costs are available from the hospital's, moreover operating department's perspective. We here provide a detailed analysis of the costs of THR revision and relate them to reimbursement underlying the German diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Major cost parameters were identified using for orientation the cost matrix of the German Institute for Hospital Reimbursement (InEK GmbH). We then retrospectively analysed the major direct costs of aseptic revision THR in terms of contribution margins I and II. The analysis included a total of 114 patients who underwent aseptic revision from 1 January 2009 to 31 March 2012. Data were retrieved from the hospital information system and patient records. All costs of surgery, diagnostic tests, and other treatments were calculated as purchase prices in EUR. The comparative analysis of direct costs and reimbursements was done for DRG I46A and I46B from the hospital's, especially treating department's rather than the society or healthcare insurance's perspective. RESULTS: The average direct cost incurred by the hospital for a THR revision was 4,380.0. The largest share was accounted for surgical costs (62.7 % of total). Implant and staff costs were identified as the most important factors that can be influenced. The proportion of the daily contribution margin that was left to cover the hospital's indirect cost decreased with the relative cost weight of the DRG to which a patient was assigned. CONCLUSION: Our study for the first time provides a detailed analysis of the major direct case costs of THR revision for aseptic loosening from the provider's perspective. Our findings suggest that these revision operations could be performed cost-beneficially by the operating unit. From an economic perspective, cases with higher cost weights are more favorable for a hospital. These results need to be confirmed in multicenter studies.