Literature DB >> 26913512

Variation in Resource Utilization for Patients With Hip and Pelvic Fractures Despite Equal Medicare Reimbursement.

Andre M Samuel1, Matthew L Webb1, Adam M Lukasiewicz1, Bryce A Basques2, Daniel D Bohl2, Arya G Varthi1, Joseph M Lane3, Jonathan N Grauer4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Medicare currently reimburses hospitals for inpatient admissions with "bundled" payments based on patient Diagnosis-related Groups (DRGs) regardless of true hospital costs. At present, DRG 536 (fractures of the hip and pelvis) includes a broad spectrum of patients with orthopaedic trauma, likely with varying inpatient resource utilization. With the growing incidence of fractures in the elderly, inadequate reimbursements from Medicare for certain patients with DRG 536 may lead to growing financial strain on healthcare institutions caring for these patients with higher costs. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purposes of the study were to determine whether (1) inpatient length of stay; (2) intensive care unit stay; and (3) ventilator time differ among subpopulations with Medicare DRG 536.
METHODS: A total of 56,683 patients, 65 years or older, with fractures of the hip or pelvis were identified in the 2011 and 2012 National Trauma Data Bank. This clinical registry contains data on trauma cases from more than 900 participating trauma centers, allowing analysis of resource utilization in centers across the United States. Patients were grouped in the following subgroups: hip fractures (n = 35,119), nonoperative pelvic fractures (n = 15,506), acetabulum fractures, operative and nonoperative, (n = 7670), and operative pelvic fractures (n = 682). Total inpatient length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and ventilator time were compared across groups using multivariate analysis that controlled for hospital factors.
RESULTS: After controlling for patient and hospital factors, difference in inpatient length of stay was -0.2 days for patients with nonoperative pelvis fractures compared with inpatient length of stay for patients with hip fractures (95% CI, -0.4 to -0.1 days; p = 0.001); 1.7 days for patient with acetabulum fractures (95% CI, 1.4-1.9 days; p < 0.001); and 7.7 days for patients with operative pelvic fractures (95% CI, 7.0-8.4 days; p < 0.001). The difference in ICU length of stay for patients with nonoperative pelvis fractures was 0.8 days compared with ICU length of stay for patients with hip fractures (95% CI, 0.7-0.9 days; p < 0.001); 1.9 days for patients with acetabulum fractures (95% CI, 1.8-2.1 days; p < 0.001); and 6.3 days for patients with operative pelvic fractures (95% CI, 5.9-6.7 days; p < 0.001). The difference in mechanical ventilation time for patients with nonoperative fractures was 0.5 days compared with ventilation time for patients with hip fractures (95% CI, 0.4-0.6 days; p < 0.001); 1.1 days for patients with acetabulum fractures (95% CI, 1.0-1.2 days; p < 0.001); and 3.9 days for patients with operative fractures (95% CI, 2.5-3.2 days; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: In our current multitiered trauma system, certain centers will see higher proportions of patients with acetabulum and operative pelvic fractures. Because hospitals are reimbursed equally for these subgroups of Medicare DRG 536, centers that care for a greater proportion of patients with more-complex pelvic trauma will experience lower financial margins per trauma patient, limiting their potential for growth and investment compared with competing institutions that may not routinely see patients with high-energy trauma. Because of this, we believe reevaluation of this Medicare Prospective Payment System DRG is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, economic and decision analysis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26913512      PMCID: PMC4868172          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-016-4765-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  22 in total

1.  Differences in patient and procedure characteristics and hospital resource use in primary and revision total joint arthroplasty: a multicenter study.

Authors:  Kevin J Bozic; Sridar Durbhakula; Daniel J Berry; James M Naessens; Karen Rappaport; Miriam Cisternas; Khaled J Saleh; Harry E Rubash
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 4.757

2.  Practical considerations on the use of the Charlson comorbidity index with administrative data bases.

Authors:  W D'Hoore; A Bouckaert; C Tilquin
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Analysis of Delays to Surgery for Cervical Spinal Cord Injuries.

Authors:  Andre M Samuel; Daniel D Bohl; Bryce A Basques; Pablo J Diaz-Collado; Adam M Lukasiewicz; Matthew L Webb; Jonathan N Grauer
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2015-07-01       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Incidence and economic burden of osteoporosis-related fractures in the United States, 2005-2025.

Authors:  Russel Burge; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Daniel H Solomon; John B Wong; Alison King; Anna Tosteson
Journal:  J Bone Miner Res       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 6.741

5.  Case mix definition by diagnosis-related groups.

Authors:  R B Fetter; Y Shin; J L Freeman; R F Averill; J D Thompson
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1980-02       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Daily cost of an intensive care unit day: the contribution of mechanical ventilation.

Authors:  Joseph F Dasta; Trent P McLaughlin; Samir H Mody; Catherine Tak Piech
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 7.598

7.  Medicare intensive care unit use: analysis of incidence, cost, and payment.

Authors:  Liesl M Cooper; Walter T Linde-Zwirble
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 7.598

8.  Hospital resource utilization for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Kevin J Bozic; Patricia Katz; Miriam Cisternas; Linda Ono; Michael D Ries; Jonathan Showstack
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Incidence and mortality of hip fractures in the United States.

Authors:  Carmen A Brauer; Marcelo Coca-Perraillon; David M Cutler; Allison B Rosen
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  The origins, development, and passage of Medicare's revolutionary prospective payment system.

Authors:  Rick Mayes
Journal:  J Hist Med Allied Sci       Date:  2006-02-08       Impact factor: 2.088

View more
  5 in total

1.  Is Insurance Status Associated with the Likelihood of Operative Treatment of Clavicle Fractures?

Authors:  Dominick V Congiusta; Kamil M Amer; Aziz M Merchant; Michael M Vosbikian; Irfan H Ahmed
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Low-energy lateral compression type 1 (LC1) pelvic ring fractures in the middle-aged and elderly affect hospital quality measures and functional outcomes.

Authors:  Nina D Fisher; Sara J Solasz; Assefa Tensae; Sanjit R Konda; Kenneth A Egol
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2021-09-20

3.  Factors for Increased Hospital Stay and Utilization of Post -Acute Care Facilities in Geriatric Orthopaedic Fracture Patients.

Authors:  Quirine M J Van Der Vliet; Michael J Weaver; Koloman Heil; Michael F McTague; Marilyn Heng
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2021-01

4.  Comprehensive Hip Fracture Care Program: Successive Implementation in 3 Hospitals.

Authors:  Kelly Jackson; Mary Bachhuber; Dawn Bowden; Katherine Etter; Cindy Tong
Journal:  Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil       Date:  2019-05-15

5.  Financial Implications for the Treatment of Medicare Patients With Isolated Intertrochanteric Femur Fractures: Disproportionate Losses Among Healthier Patients.

Authors:  Brandon Kelly; Harsh R Parikh; Dylan L McCreary; Logan McMillan; Patrick K Horst; Brian P Cunningham
Journal:  Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil       Date:  2020-04-07
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.