Andrew J Schoenfeld1, Mitchel B Harris2, Haiyin Liu3, John D Birkmeyer3. 1. Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 10, RM G016, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. Electronic address: ajschoen@neomed.edu. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115, USA. 3. Center for Healthcare Outcome and Policy, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Rd, Building 16, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although the high cost of spine surgery is generally recognized, there is little information on the extent to which payments vary across hospitals. PURPOSE: To examine the variation in episode payments for spine surgery in the national Medicare population. We also sought to determine the root causes for observed variations in payment at high cost hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: All patients in the national fee for service Medicare population undergoing surgery for three conditions (spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, and lumbar disc herniation) between 2005 and 2007 were included. PATIENT SAMPLE: Included 185,954 episodes of spine surgery performed between 2005 and 2007. OUTCOME MEASURES: Payments per episode of spine surgery. METHODS: All patients in the national fee for service Medicare population undergoing surgery for three conditions (spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, and lumbar disc herniation) between 2005 and 2007 were identified (n=185,954 episodes of spine surgery). Hospitals were ranked on least to most expensive and grouped into quintiles. Results were risk- and price-adjusted using the empirical Bayes method. We then assessed the contributions of index hospitalization, physician services, readmissions, and postacute care to the overall variations in payment. RESULTS: Episode payments for hospitals in the highest quintile were more than twice as high as those made to hospitals in the lowest quintile ($34,171 vs. $15,997). After risk- and price-adjustment, total episode payments to hospitals in the highest quintile remained $9,210 (47%) higher. Procedure choice, including the use of fusion, was a major determinant of the total episode payment. After adjusting for procedure choice, however, hospitals in the highest quintile continued to be 28% more expensive than those in the lowest. Differences in the use of postacute care accounted for most of this residual variation in payments across hospitals. Hospital episode payments varied to a similar degree after subgroup analyses for disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and spondylolisthesis. Hospitals expensive for one condition were also found to be expensive for services provided for other spinal diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare payments for episodes of spine surgery vary widely across hospitals. As they respond to the new financial incentives inherent in health care reform, high cost hospitals should focus on the use of spinal fusion and postacute care. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Although the high cost of spine surgery is generally recognized, there is little information on the extent to which payments vary across hospitals. PURPOSE: To examine the variation in episode payments for spine surgery in the national Medicare population. We also sought to determine the root causes for observed variations in payment at high cost hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: All patients in the national fee for service Medicare population undergoing surgery for three conditions (spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, and lumbar disc herniation) between 2005 and 2007 were included. PATIENT SAMPLE: Included 185,954 episodes of spine surgery performed between 2005 and 2007. OUTCOME MEASURES: Payments per episode of spine surgery. METHODS: All patients in the national fee for service Medicare population undergoing surgery for three conditions (spinal stenosis, spondylolisthesis, and lumbar disc herniation) between 2005 and 2007 were identified (n=185,954 episodes of spine surgery). Hospitals were ranked on least to most expensive and grouped into quintiles. Results were risk- and price-adjusted using the empirical Bayes method. We then assessed the contributions of index hospitalization, physician services, readmissions, and postacute care to the overall variations in payment. RESULTS: Episode payments for hospitals in the highest quintile were more than twice as high as those made to hospitals in the lowest quintile ($34,171 vs. $15,997). After risk- and price-adjustment, total episode payments to hospitals in the highest quintile remained $9,210 (47%) higher. Procedure choice, including the use of fusion, was a major determinant of the total episode payment. After adjusting for procedure choice, however, hospitals in the highest quintile continued to be 28% more expensive than those in the lowest. Differences in the use of postacute care accounted for most of this residual variation in payments across hospitals. Hospital episode payments varied to a similar degree after subgroup analyses for disc herniation, spinal stenosis, and spondylolisthesis. Hospitals expensive for one condition were also found to be expensive for services provided for other spinal diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare payments for episodes of spine surgery vary widely across hospitals. As they respond to the new financial incentives inherent in health care reform, high cost hospitals should focus on the use of spinal fusion and postacute care. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cost savings methods; Health policy; Healthcare economics; Medicare payments; Payment variation; Spine surgery
Authors: David C Miller; Cathryn Gust; Justin B Dimick; Nancy Birkmeyer; Jonathan Skinner; John D Birkmeyer Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Daniel J Gottlieb; Weiping Zhou; Yunjie Song; Kathryn Gilman Andrews; Jonathan S Skinner; Jason M Sutherland Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Richard A Deyo; Sohail K Mirza; Brook I Martin; William Kreuter; David C Goodman; Jeffrey G Jarvik Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-04-07 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Martin B Kornblum; Jeffrey S Fischgrund; Harry N Herkowitz; David A Abraham; David L Berkower; Jeff S Ditkoff Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Brook I Martin; Richard A Deyo; Sohail K Mirza; Judith A Turner; Bryan A Comstock; William Hollingworth; Sean D Sullivan Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-02-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Adam M Pearson; Jon D Lurie; Tor D Tosteson; Wenyan Zhao; William A Abdu; James N Weinstein Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Erik Wang; Dennis Vasquez-Montes; Deeptee Jain; Lorraine H Hutzler; Joseph A Bosco; Themistocles S Protopsaltis; Aaron J Buckland; Charla R Fischer Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2020-12
Authors: Andrew J Schoenfeld; Heeren Makanji; Wei Jiang; Tracey Koehlmoos; Christopher M Bono; Adil H Haider Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Lindsay E Jubelt; Keith S Goldfeld; Saul B Blecker; Wei-Yi Chung; John A Bendo; Joseph A Bosco; Thomas J Errico; Anthony K Frempong-Boadu; Richard Iorio; James D Slover; Leora I Horwitz Journal: J Am Acad Orthop Surg Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 3.020
Authors: Chandy Ellimoottil; Andrew M Ryan; Hechuan Hou; James Dupree; Brian Hallstrom; David C Miller Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2016-09-01 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Lin Zhong; Elham Mahmoudi; Aviram M Giladi; Melissa Shauver; Kevin C Chung; Jennifer F Waljee Journal: J Hand Surg Am Date: 2015-10-30 Impact factor: 2.230
Authors: Charles C Lee; Kristopher T Kimmell; Amy Lalonde; Peter Salzman; Matthew C Miller; Laura M Calvi; Ekaterina Manuylova; Ismat Shafiq; G Edward Vates Journal: Pituitary Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 4.107
Authors: Andrew J Schoenfeld; Xuan Zhang; David C Grabowski; Vincent Mor; Joel S Weissman; Momotazur Rahman Journal: Surgery Date: 2016-01-28 Impact factor: 3.982