BACKGROUND: Bundled payments are meant to reduce costs and improve quality of care. Without adequate risk adjustment, bundling may be inequitable to providers and restrict access for certain patients. This study examines patient factors that could improve risk stratification for the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) bundled-payment program. METHODS: Ninety-five thousand twenty-four patients meeting the CJR criteria were retrospectively reviewed using administrative Medicare data. Multivariable regression was used to identify associations between patient factors and traditional (fee-for-service) Medicare reimbursement over the bundle period. RESULTS: Average reimbursement was $18,786 ± $12,386. Older age, male gender, cases performed for hip fractures, and most comorbidities were associated with higher reimbursement (P < .05), except dementia (lower reimbursement; P < .01). Stratification incorporating these factors displayed greater accuracy than the current CJR risk adjustment methods (R2 = 0.23 vs 0.17). CONCLUSION: More robust risk stratification could provide more equitable reimbursement in the CJR program. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Large database analysis; Level III.
BACKGROUND: Bundled payments are meant to reduce costs and improve quality of care. Without adequate risk adjustment, bundling may be inequitable to providers and restrict access for certain patients. This study examines patient factors that could improve risk stratification for the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) bundled-payment program. METHODS: Ninety-five thousand twenty-four patients meeting the CJR criteria were retrospectively reviewed using administrative Medicare data. Multivariable regression was used to identify associations between patient factors and traditional (fee-for-service) Medicare reimbursement over the bundle period. RESULTS: Average reimbursement was $18,786 ± $12,386. Older age, male gender, cases performed for hip fractures, and most comorbidities were associated with higher reimbursement (P < .05), except dementia (lower reimbursement; P < .01). Stratification incorporating these factors displayed greater accuracy than the current CJR risk adjustment methods (R2 = 0.23 vs 0.17). CONCLUSION: More robust risk stratification could provide more equitable reimbursement in the CJR program. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Large database analysis; Level III.
Authors: Ahmed Siddiqi; Peter B White; Matthew Sloan; Duncan Fox; Nicolas S Piuzzi; Wudbhav N Sankar; Neil P Sheth Journal: Arthroplast Today Date: 2020-06-22
Authors: Nathan H Varady; Stephen M Gillinov; Caleb M Yeung; Samuel S Rudisill; Antonia F Chen Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 4.755
Authors: Robert Erlichman; Nicholas Kolodychuk; Joseph N Gabra; Harshitha Dudipala; Brook Maxhimer; Nicholas DiNicola; John J Elias Journal: Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil Date: 2021-02-25
Authors: Sander Steenhuis; Geeske Hofstra; France Portrait; Fatima Amankour; Xander Koolman; Eric van der Hijden Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-08-19 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Samuel Rosas; Michael Schallmo; Anirudh Krishna Gowd; Matthew Reynolds Akelman; T David Luo; Cynthia Lynn Emory; Johannes Frank Plate Journal: World J Orthop Date: 2021-06-18
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