Literature DB >> 24210578

How do coverage policies influence practice patterns, safety, and cost of initial lumbar fusion surgery? A population-based comparison of workers' compensation systems.

Brook I Martin1, Gary M Franklin2, Richard A Deyo3, Thomas M Wickizer4, Jonathan D Lurie5, Sohail K Mirza5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: In response to increasing use of lumbar fusion for improving back pain, despite unclear efficacy, particularly among injured workers, some insurers have developed limited coverage policies. Washington State's workers' compensation (WC) program requires imaging confirmation of instability and limits initial fusions to a single level. In contrast, California requires coverage if a second opinion supports surgery, allows initial multilevel fusion, and provides additional reimbursement for surgical implants. There are no studies that compare population-level effects of these policy differences on utilization, costs, and safety of lumbar fusion.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare population-level data on the use of complex fusion techniques, adverse outcomes within 3 months, and costs for two states with contrasting coverage policies. STUDY DESIGN AND
SETTING: The study design was an analysis of WC patients in California and Washington using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's State Inpatient Databases, 2008-2009. PATIENT SAMPLE: All patients undergoing an inpatient lumbar fusion for degenerative disease (n=4,628) were included the patient sample. OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Outcome measures included repeat lumbar spine surgery, all-cause readmission, life-threatening complications, wound problems, device complications, and costs.
METHODS: Log-binomial regressions compared 3-month complications and costs between states, adjusting for patient characteristics.
RESULTS: Overall rate of lumbar fusion operations through WC programs was 47% higher in California than in Washington. California WC patients were more likely than those in Washington to undergo fusion for controversial indications, such as nonspecific back pain (28% versus 21%) and disc herniation (37% versus 21%), as opposed to spinal stenosis (6% versus 15%), and spondylolisthesis (25% versus 41%). A higher percentage of patients in California received circumferential procedures (26% versus 5%), fusion of three or more levels (10% versus 5%), and bone morphogenetic protein (50% versus 31%). California had higher adjusted risk for reoperation (relative risk [RR] 2.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.27-2.29), wound problems (RR 2.64; 95% CI, 2.62-2.65), device complications (RR 2.49; 95% CI, 2.38-2.61), and life-threatening complications (RR 1.31; 95% CI, 1.31-1.31). Hospital costs for the index procedure were greater in California ($49,430) than in Washington ($40,114).
CONCLUSIONS: Broader lumbar fusion coverage policy was associated with greater use of lumbar fusion, use of more invasive operations, more reoperations, higher rates of complications, and greater inpatient costs.
Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Coverage and reimbursement; Degenerative disease; Lumbar spine fusion; Readmission; Safety and quality; Workers' compensation

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24210578      PMCID: PMC4013264          DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2013.08.018

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine J        ISSN: 1529-9430            Impact factor:   4.166


  32 in total

1.  Surgical vs nonoperative treatment for lumbar disk herniation: the Spine Patient Outcomes Research Trial (SPORT): a randomized trial.

Authors:  James N Weinstein; Tor D Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Anna N A Tosteson; Brett Hanscom; Jonathan S Skinner; William A Abdu; Alan S Hilibrand; Scott D Boden; Richard A Deyo
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2006-11-22       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Marginal modeling of nonnested multilevel data using standard software.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Patrick J Heagerty
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2006-11-22       Impact factor: 4.897

3.  Surgical versus nonsurgical therapy for lumbar spinal stenosis.

Authors:  James N Weinstein; Tor D Tosteson; Jon D Lurie; Anna N A Tosteson; Emily Blood; Brett Hanscom; Harry Herkowitz; Frank Cammisa; Todd Albert; Scott D Boden; Alan Hilibrand; Harley Goldberg; Sigurd Berven; Howard An
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-02-21       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 4.  Systematic review of randomized trials comparing lumbar fusion surgery to nonoperative care for treatment of chronic back pain.

Authors:  Sohail K Mirza; Richard A Deyo
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2007-04-01       Impact factor: 3.468

Review 5.  An evidence-based clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis.

Authors:  William C Watters; Christopher M Bono; Thomas J Gilbert; D Scott Kreiner; Daniel J Mazanec; William O Shaffer; Jamie Baisden; John E Easa; Robert Fernand; Gary Ghiselli; Michael H Heggeness; Richard C Mendel; Conor O'Neill; Charles A Reitman; Daniel K Resnick; Jeffrey T Summers; Reuben B Timmons; John F Toton
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2009-05-17       Impact factor: 4.166

6.  Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program.

Authors:  Stephen F Jencks; Mark V Williams; Eric A Coleman
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-04-02       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Prevalence, complications, and hospital charges associated with use of bone-morphogenetic proteins in spinal fusion procedures.

Authors:  Kevin S Cahill; John H Chi; Arthur Day; Elizabeth B Claus
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-07-01       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Toward robust information: data quality and inter-rater reliability in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

Authors:  Mira Shiloach; Stanley K Frencher; Janet E Steeger; Katherine S Rowell; Kristine Bartzokis; Majed G Tomeh; Karen E Richards; Clifford Y Ko; Bruce L Hall
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2009-11-22       Impact factor: 6.113

Review 9.  The case for restraint in spinal surgery: does quality management have a role to play?

Authors:  Richard A Deyo; Sohail K Mirza
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-03-06       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 10.  Surgery for low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society Clinical Practice Guideline.

Authors:  Roger Chou; Jamie Baisden; Eugene J Carragee; Daniel K Resnick; William O Shaffer; John D Loeser
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2009-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

View more
  9 in total

1.  Editorial: What Makes Young Surgeons Tick (or Cut)?

Authors:  Seth S Leopold
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-03-14       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Use of bone morphogenetic protein among patients undergoing fusion for degenerative diagnoses in the United States, 2002 to 2012.

Authors:  Brook I Martin; Jon D Lurie; Anna N A Tosteson; Richard A Deyo; Farrokh R Farrokhi; Sohail K Mirza
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2014-12-15       Impact factor: 4.166

Review 3.  Surgical decompression timing for patients with foot drop from lumbar degenerative diseases: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sang-Youn Song; Dae Cheol Nam; Dong-Kyu Moon; Dong-Yeong Lee; Eun-Chang Lee; Dong-Hee Kim
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2021-10-31       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Framing the Care of Injured Workers: An Empirical Four-Jurisdictional Comparison of Workers' Compensation Boards' Healthcare Policies.

Authors:  Anne Hudon; Ellen MacEachen; Katherine Lippel
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2022-01-17

5.  Utilization and Outcomes for Spine Surgery in the United States and Canada.

Authors:  Peter Cram; Bruce E Landon; John Matelski; Vicki Ling; Anthony V Perruccio; J Michael Paterson; Y Raja Rampersaud
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 3.241

6.  Trends in Incidence and Treatment of Herniated Lumbar Disc in Republic of Korea : A Nationwide Database Study.

Authors:  Jong-Myung Jung; Si Un Lee; Seung-Jae Hyun; Ki-Jeong Kim; Tae-Ahn Jahng; Chang Wan Oh; Hyun-Jib Kim
Journal:  J Korean Neurosurg Soc       Date:  2019-08-14

7.  Nonsurgical treatment outcomes for surgical candidates with lumbar disc herniation: a comprehensive cohort study.

Authors:  Chi Heon Kim; Yunhee Choi; Chun Kee Chung; Ki-Jeong Kim; Dong Ah Shin; Youn-Kwan Park; Woo-Keun Kwon; Seung Heon Yang; Chang Hyun Lee; Sung Bae Park; Eun Sang Kim; Hyunsook Hong; Yongeun Cho
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-16       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Direct medical costs after surgical or nonsurgical treatment for degenerative lumbar spinal disease: A nationwide matched cohort study with a 10-year follow-up.

Authors:  Chi Heon Kim; Chun Kee Chung; Yunhee Choi; Juhee Lee; Seung Heon Yang; Chang Hyun Lee; Sung Bae Park; Kyoung-Tae Kim; John M Rhee; Moon Soo Park
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Effects of a Commercial Insurance Policy Restriction on Lumbar Fusion in North Carolina and the Implications for National Adoption.

Authors:  Brook I Martin; Richard A Deyo; Jon D Lurie; Timothy S Carey; Anna N A Tosteson; Sohail K Mirza
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 3.241

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.