Literature DB >> 30963069

Not all primary total hip arthroplasties are equal-so is there a difference in reimbursement?

Nipun Sodhi1, Sarah E Dalton2, Luke J Garbarino3, Peter A Gold3, Nicolas S Piuzzi4,5, Jared M Newman6, Anton Khlopas4, Assem A Sultan4, Morad Chughtai4, Michael A Mont1,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Relative value units (RVUs) are a physician reimbursement model based on the effort required, or value, in providing a procedure or service for a patient. Procedures such as conversion total hip arthroplasties (THAs) can be compared to primary THAs, but many studies have revealed increased difficulties in conversion cases. Despite the increased time and effort for conversion THA, it is unknown if this is reflected in the RVU compensation model. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the: (I) mean operative times; (II) mean RVUs; (III) RVU/minute for primary and conversion THAs; and (IV) perform an individualized idealized surgeon annual cost difference analysis.
METHODS: A total of 103,702 primary THA patients were identified using CPT code 27130 and 2,986 conversion THA patients were identified using CPT code 27132 using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. The mean RVUs, operative times (minutes), and RVU/minute were calculated and compared. An annualize cost analysis of dollar amounts per case, day, and the year was also performed.
RESULTS: The mean operative times for the primary and conversion THA cohorts were 94 vs. 146 minutes (P<0.001) and mean RVUs were 21.24 vs. 25.68 (P<0.001). Interestingly, the mean RVU per minute was higher for the primary THA compared to the conversion THA groups (0.26 vs. 0.21, P<0.001). Annualized cost analysis revealed a potential $173,529 difference from performing primary vs. conversion THAs.
CONCLUSIONS: Even though conversion THA can be considered to a more complex and demanding procedure, based on RVUs per minute of surgery, orthopaedic surgeons are reimbursed better for primary THA cases. This data could be used by orthopaedic surgeons to administer their practices better to yield the highest return on time.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Reimbursement; primary; relative value units (RVUs); total hip arthroplasty (THA)

Year:  2019        PMID: 30963069      PMCID: PMC6409238          DOI: 10.21037/atm.2018.08.14

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Transl Med        ISSN: 2305-5839


  28 in total

Review 1.  An overview of the development and refinement of the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale. The foundation for reform of U.S. physician payment.

Authors:  W C Hsiao; P Braun; D L Dunn; E R Becker; D Yntema; D K Verrilli; E Stamenovic; S P Chen
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1992-11       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Surgeon contribution to hospital bottom line: not all are created equal.

Authors:  Andrew S Resnick; Diane Corrigan; James L Mullen; Larry R Kaiser
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 12.969

3.  Relative value units correlate with pediatric surgeons' operating time: when perceived myth becomes reality.

Authors:  Danny C Little; Shawn D St Peter; Casey M Calkins; Sohail R Shah; J Patrick Murphy; John M Gatti; George K Gittes; Ron J Sharp; Walter S Andrews; George W Holcomb; Daniel J Ostlie; Charles L Snyder
Journal:  J Pediatr Surg       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 2.545

4.  Assessing the value of a total joint replacement.

Authors:  David B Bumpass; Ryan M Nunley
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2012-12

Review 5.  Conversion of hip arthrodesis to total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  K P Panagiotopoulos; G M Robbins; B A Masri; C P Duncan
Journal:  Instr Course Lect       Date:  2001

6.  [Results and experiences of conversion of hip arthrodesis ].

Authors:  A Schuh; G Zeiler; S Werber
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 1.087

7.  Hip arthroplasty for salvage of failed treatment of intertrochanteric hip fractures.

Authors:  George J Haidukewych; Daniel J Berry
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Hip arthroplasty for failed internal fixation of intertrochanteric fractures.

Authors:  Bosong Zhang; Kwong-Yuen Chiu; Manyi Wang
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2004-04       Impact factor: 4.757

9.  The power of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program--achieving a zero pneumonia rate in general surgery patients.

Authors:  Pascal R Fuchshuber; William Greif; Chantal R Tidwell; Michael S Klemm; Cheryl Frydel; Abdul Wali; Efren Rosas; Molly P Clopp
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2012
View more
  4 in total

1.  Complication Rates of Hemiarthroplasty Conversion to Total Hip Arthroplasty Versus Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Sione A Ofa; Austin J Ross; Bailey J Ross; Oliva C Lee; William F Sherman
Journal:  Orthop Rev (Pavia)       Date:  2021-07-10

2.  Comparing Relative Value Units among Shoulder Arthroplasty, Hemiarthroplasty, and ORIF for Proximal Humerus Fractures in the Elderly: Which is Most Worth Your Time?

Authors:  Marine Coste; Vineet Aggarwal; Neil V Shah; David Kim; Omar K Hariri; Louis M Day; Scott C Pascal; Jaydev B Mistry; William P Urban; William R Aibinder; Arvind G Von Keudell; Nishant Suneja
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2021-07

3.  Variation in Estimated Surgical Procedure Times Across Patient Characteristics and Surgeon Specialty.

Authors:  Daniel J Crespin; Teague Ruder; Andrew W Mulcahy; Ateev Mehrotra
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2022-05-11       Impact factor: 16.681

4.  Total Hip Arthroplasty for Developmental Dysplasia of Hip vs Osteoarthritis: A Propensity Matched Pair Analysis.

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
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.