BACKGROUND: Relative value units (RVUs) are assigned to Current Procedural Technology (CPT) codes and give relative economic values to the services physicians provide. This study compared the RVU reimbursements for the surgical options of proximal humerus fractures in the elderly, which include arthroplasty (reverse [RSA] and total [TSA]), hemiarthroplasty (HA), and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). METHODS: Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, a total of 1,437 patients of at least 65 years of age with proximal humerus fractures between 2008 and 2016 were identified. Of those, 259 underwent RSA/TSA (CPT code 23472), 418 underwent HA (CPT codes 23470 and 23616), and 760 underwent ORIF (CPT code 23615). Univariate analysis compared RVU per minute, reimbursement rate, and the average annual revenue across cohorts based on respective operative times. RESULTS: RSA/TSA generated a mean RVU per minute of 0.197 (SD 0.078; 95%CI [0.188, 0.207]), which was significantly greater than the mean RVU per minute for 23470 HA (0.156; SD 0.057; 95%CI [0.148, 0.163]), 23616 HA (0.166; SD 0.065; 95%CI [0.005, 0.156]), and ORIF (0.135; SD 0.048; 95%CI [0.132, 0.138]; P<0.001). This converted to respective reimbursement rates of $6.97/min (SD 2.78; 95%CI [6.63, 7.31]), $5.48/min (SD 2.05; 95%CI [5.22, 5.74]), $5.83/min (SD 2.28; 95%CI [5.49, 6.16]) and $4.74/min (SD 1.69; 95%CI [4.62, 4.87]). After extrapolation, respective average annual revenues were $580,386, $456,633, $475,077, and $395,608. CONCLUSION: RSA/TSA provides significantly greater reimbursement rates compared to HA and ORIF. Orthopaedic surgeons can use this information to optimize daily procedural cost-effectiveness in their practices.
BACKGROUND: Relative value units (RVUs) are assigned to Current Procedural Technology (CPT) codes and give relative economic values to the services physicians provide. This study compared the RVU reimbursements for the surgical options of proximal humerus fractures in the elderly, which include arthroplasty (reverse [RSA] and total [TSA]), hemiarthroplasty (HA), and open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). METHODS: Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, a total of 1,437 patients of at least 65 years of age with proximal humerus fractures between 2008 and 2016 were identified. Of those, 259 underwent RSA/TSA (CPT code 23472), 418 underwent HA (CPT codes 23470 and 23616), and 760 underwent ORIF (CPT code 23615). Univariate analysis compared RVU per minute, reimbursement rate, and the average annual revenue across cohorts based on respective operative times. RESULTS: RSA/TSA generated a mean RVU per minute of 0.197 (SD 0.078; 95%CI [0.188, 0.207]), which was significantly greater than the mean RVU per minute for 23470 HA (0.156; SD 0.057; 95%CI [0.148, 0.163]), 23616 HA (0.166; SD 0.065; 95%CI [0.005, 0.156]), and ORIF (0.135; SD 0.048; 95%CI [0.132, 0.138]; P<0.001). This converted to respective reimbursement rates of $6.97/min (SD 2.78; 95%CI [6.63, 7.31]), $5.48/min (SD 2.05; 95%CI [5.22, 5.74]), $5.83/min (SD 2.28; 95%CI [5.49, 6.16]) and $4.74/min (SD 1.69; 95%CI [4.62, 4.87]). After extrapolation, respective average annual revenues were $580,386, $456,633, $475,077, and $395,608. CONCLUSION: RSA/TSA provides significantly greater reimbursement rates compared to HA and ORIF. Orthopaedic surgeons can use this information to optimize daily procedural cost-effectiveness in their practices.
Entities:
Keywords:
Geriatric population; Humeral fracture; Relative value analysis; Surgical management
Authors: Dhruvil R Shah; Richard J Bold; Anthony D Yang; Vijay P Khatri; Steve R Martinez; Robert J Canter Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2014-05-23 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Jeffrey P Jacobs; Stephen J Lahey; Francis C Nichols; James M Levett; George Gilbert Johnston; Richard K Freeman; James D St Louis; Julie Painter; Courtney Yohe; Cameron D Wright; Kirk R Kanter; John E Mayer; Keith S Naunheim; Jeffrey B Rich; Joseph E Bavaria Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Nipun Sodhi; Nicolas S Piuzzi; Anton Khlopas; Jared M Newman; Thomas J Kryzak; Kim L Stearns; Michael A Mont Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Michael van der Merwe; Matthew J Boyle; Christopher M A Frampton; Craig M Ball Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Diane A Schwartz; Xuan Hui; Catherine G Velopulos; Eric B Schneider; Shalini Selvarajah; Donald Lucas; Elliott R Haut; Nathaniel McQuay; Timothy M Pawlik; David T Efron; Adil H Haider Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: B Israel Yahuaca; Peter Simon; Kaitlyn N Christmas; Shaan Patel; R Allen Gorman; Mark A Mighell; Mark A Frankle Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2020-01-13 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Hang Cheng; Brian Po-Han Chen; Ireena M Soleas; Nicole C Ferko; Chris G Cameron; Piet Hinoul Journal: Surg Infect (Larchmt) Date: 2017 Aug/Sep Impact factor: 2.150
Authors: Bheeshma Ravi; Richard Jenkinson; Sven O'Heireamhoin; Peter C Austin; Suriya Aktar; Timothy S Leroux; Michael Paterson; Donald A Redelmeier Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2019-10-23