An Analysis of Medicare Payment Policy for Total Joint Arthroplasty

Similar documents
ARTICLE IN PRESS. All-Patient Refined Diagnosis- Related Groups in Primary Arthroplasty

(vi) Economics of revision total hip arthroplasty

Payment analysis of total hip replacement Carlos J. Lavernia a,b, Victor Hugo Hernandez a and Mark D. Rossi b

TECHNICAL NOTES. for Knee and Hip Replacements. 225 Market Street, Suite 400, Harrisburg, PA Phone: Fax:

Bundled Payments in Orthopedic Trauma: How to Succeed

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

HOSPITAL "A" (2007) ORTHOPEDIC JOINT IMPLANT COMPONENT MATRIX

The Influence of Patient Activation, Pain Self-Efficacy, and Resilience on Patient-Reported Pain and Function in Patients with Hip and Knee Arthritis

The Pennsylvania State University. The Graduate School. College of Medicine. The Department of Public Health Sciences

WATCHMAN. For questions regarding WATCHMAN reimbursement, please contact:

The Epidemiology of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in the United States

Optimizing Patient Outcomes Following Orthopedic Surgery: The Role of Albumin and the Case For Fast- Track

Incidence of DVT Post- Hip or Knee Replacement. A Comparison of Incidence at Boundary Trails Health Centre to a Credible Baseline Incidence

TOTAL HIP AND KNEE REPLACEMENTS. FISCAL YEAR 2002 DATA July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002 TECHNICAL NOTES

Surgical Trends in Arthroscopic Hip Surgery using a Large National Database

FY2014 Final Hospital Inpatient Rule Summary

Malnutrition: An independent Risk Factor for Postoperative Complications

Periprosthetic joint infection: are patients with multiple prosthetic joints at risk?

Changes in Surgical Loads and Economic Burden of Hip and Knee Replacements in the US:

CURRICULUM VITAE CHRISTINE STEUBBEN HEIM Ward Drive Chesterland, OH Telephone:

Effectiveness of passive and active knee joint mobilisation following total knee arthroplasty: Continuous passive motion vs. sling exercise training.

5/11/2013. Financial Disclosure. Introduction. Introduction

For Commercial products, please refer to the following policy: Preauthorization via Web-Based Tool for Procedures

2018 HEMODIALYSIS CATHETERS CODING AND REIMBURSEMENT GUIDE


CASE-MIX ANALYSIS ACROSS PATIENT POPULATIONS AND BOUNDARIES: A REFINED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY FOR INTERNATIONAL USE

Ankle fractures are one of

Effect of Immediate Postoperative Physical Therapy on Length of Stay for Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients

)100( COPYRIGHT 2018 BY THE ARCHIVES OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY

CD Horizon Spire. CD Horizon Spire Z PHYSICIAN REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT GUIDE. Spinal System and. Spinal System

The Cost Burden of Worsening Heart Failure in the Medicare Fee For Service Population: An Actuarial Analysis

2018 Cerebrovascular Reimbursement Coding Fact Sheet

REIMBURSEMENT GUIDE. Sovereign. Spinal System

Integrated Health Care Economics

Hip and Knee Replacements

Index. Note: Page numbers of article titles are in boldface type.

Hip Arthroscopy in Patients with Mild to Moderate Dysplasia: When do they Fail?

WORKING P A P E R. Comparative Performance of the MS-DRGS and RDRGS in Explaining Variation in Cost for Medicare Hospital Discharges BARBARA O.

Research Report. Key Words: Functional status; Orthopedics, general; Treatment outcomes. Neva J Kirk-Sanchez. Kathryn E Roach

2015 Facility and Physician Billing Guide Heart Valve Technologies

APR DRG Data Discovery

Determining MS-DRGs. Kimberly Cunningham CPC, CIC, CCS. Copyright/Disclaimer text

ADVANCES IN JOINT REPLACEMENT AND REHABILITATION IMPLICATIONS

Do Premium Joint Implants Add Value?

had non-continuous enrolment in Medicare Part A or Part B during the year following initial admission;

BPCI Advanced Episode Selection

code it EVOLVE EPS HCPCS Device Codes CPT Codes Physician Coding Elbow Plating System HCPCS Code Description C1713 CPT CODE Description RVUs

Comparative Epidemiology of Revision Arthroplasty: Failed THA Poses Greater Clinical and Economic Burdens Than Failed TKA

Recommendations for Optimal Care of the Fragility Fracture Patient to Reduce the Risk of Future Fracture

Anesthesia for Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

CD Horizon Solera 5.5/6.0mm Fenestrated Screw Set

The utility of bladder catheterization in total hip arthroplasty Iorio R, Whang W, Healy W L, Patch D A, Najibi S, Appleby D

Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Hospital Inpatient Proposed Rule Interventional Cardiology, Peripheral Interventions & Rhythm Management

Product Name or Headline

Statewide Statistics and Key Findings 1

Using Illness Rating Systems to Predict Discharge Location Following Total Knee Arthroplasty

The Treatment of Pelvic Discontinuity During Acetabular Revision

Nancy Hailpern, Director, Regulatory Affairs K Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20005

ORIGINAL ARTICLES SECTION II. Prevalence and Risk Factors for Symptomatic Thromboembolic Events after Shoulder Arthroplasty

Orthopedic Surgery (Adult Hip Service) (Seoul National University Hospital)

Publications and Presentations. B.A., Biology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, M.D., Cornell University Medical College, New York, 1979

2015 Cardiac Catheterization Survey. Part A : General Information. Part B : Survey Contact Information. 1. Identification UID: 2.

Heart Attack Readmissions in Virginia

What ASMBS Members Need to Know About: New Medicare Payment Policy Governing Bariatric Surgery and Hospital Acquired Conditions (HACs)

Cementless Acetabular Fixation With and Without Screws

MEDICAL POLICY SUBJECT: COMPUTER ASSISTED NAVIGATION FOR KNEE AND HIP ARTHROPLASTY

Cost Analysis of Magnetically Controlled Growing Rods Compared with Traditional

COMMONLY BILLED CODES AND ASSOCIATED 2018 MEDICARE RATES

Objectives. Medicare Spending per Beneficiary: Analyzing MSPB Data to Identify Primary Drivers

MOVE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION: Malnutrition Diagnosis, Documentation & Physical Assessment!

EPO-144 Patients with Morbid Obesity and Congestive Heart Failure Have Longer Operative Time and Room Time in Total Hip Arthroplasty

Predicting Short Term Morbidity following Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

CURRICULUM VITAE. Illinois Bone and Joint Institute 2004-Present. Diplomate, American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery Certified 7/2006

Rehabilitation Pathways Following. Hip and Knee Arthroplasty. Final report. January Rehabilitation Following Hip and Knee Arthroplasty

Trabecular Metal Primary Hip Prosthesis

R3think your options. For US distribution only.

Factors Associated with a Short-Term Revision of Total Knee Arthroplasty

Gerald R. Williams, MD

CODING SHEET HYDROCEPHALUS REIMBURSEMENT. All Medicare information is current as of the time of printing.

FY2015 Proposed Hospital Inpatient Rule Summary

AN EVOLUTION IN TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY

MOVE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION: Malnutrition Diagnosis, Documentation & Physical Assessment!

REHABILITATION UNIT ANNUAL OUTCOMES REPORT Prepared by

Hospital Discharge Data

Issue Brief. Lumbar Fusion Surgery in California: Volumes, Costs, Length of Stay, Surgical Complications, and Insurance Reimbursement

PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTABLE PROVIDER MANUAL

Functional Outcomes among the Medically Complex Population

Accelero Identifies Opportunities to Provide Greater Value in Hip Fracture Care

DIVISION OF QUALITY & PATIENT SAFETY. The National Comparative Effectiveness Summit, Washington D.C. 11/6/2012

Early Ambulation Reduces the Risk of Venous Thromboembolism After Total Knee Replacement. Marilyn Szekendi, PhD, RN

All-Payer Severity-Adjusted Diagnosis-Related Groups: A Uniform Method To Severity-Adjust Discharge Data

Fundamentals of Hip and Knee Arthroplasty for Orthopaedic Residents. Presented by AAOS, AAHKS, The Knee Society and The Hip Society PROGRAM SCHEDULE

Physician specialty and the outcomes and cost of admissions for end-stage liver disease Ko C W, Kelley K, Meyer K E

What Coding and CDI Specialists Should Know About Medicare's Comprehensive Care Joint Replacement (CJR) Bundled Payment Model

2015 ST. JUDE MEDICAL THERAPY CODING GUIDE Cardiac Pacemakers

Operative Treatment of Acetabular Fractures in the Medicare Population

Get the Right Reimbursement for High Risk Patients

Total Hip Arthroplasty Performed Using Conventional and Computer-Assisted, Tissue- Preserving Techniques 6

Accelero Identifies Opportunities to Provide Greater Value in Hip Fracture Care

Agenda. CWCI: Background

Transcription:

The Journal of Arthroplasty Vol. 23 No. 6 Suppl. 1 2008 An Analysis of Medicare Payment Policy for Total Joint Arthroplasty Kevin J. Bozic, MD, MBA,*y Harry E. Rubash, MD,z Thomas P. Sculco, MD, and Daniel J. Berry, MD Abstract: Medicare facility payment policy for lower extremity total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has undergone extensive changes since 2005. The purpose of this study was to compare patient and procedure characteristics and resource use among TJA procedures and to identify predictors of resource use in TJA. Clinical, demographic, and economic data were analyzed from 6483 primary or revision TJA patients from 4 high-volume centers between October 2005 and June 2006. Descriptive analyses were conducted to evaluate differences between procedure types, and multivariable linear regression analyses were undertaken to identify predictors of resource use. Both patient severity of illness and surgical complexity influenced resource use associated with TJA procedures. As the primary goal of Medicare payment policy is to set payment rates proportional to relative resource use, both severity of illness and surgical complexity should be incorporated for payment equity and to minimize incentives for selection bias among hospitals that perform TJA procedures. Key words: Costs, revision hip, revision knee, outcomes. 2008 Published by Elsevier Inc. Medicare is the primary payer for more than 60% of the roughly 800 000 hip and knee arthroplasty procedures that are performed annually in the United States, and major arthroplasty procedures of the lower extremity represent the single largest procedural cost in the Medicare budget [1]. The Centers for Medicare & From the *Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; ydepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California; zdepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York; and Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Submitted January 4, 2008; accepted April 6, 2008. Benefits or funds were received from Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation. Reprint requests: Kevin J. Bozic, MD, MBA, UCSF Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Institute for Health Policy Studies, 500 Parnassus, MU 320W, San Francisco, CA 94143-0728. 2008 Published by Elsevier Inc. 0883-5403/08/2306-0024$34.00/0 doi:10.1016/j.arth.2008.04.013 Medicaid Services' (CMS) decision to create a separate diagnosis-related group (DRG 545) for revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA) procedures in October 2005 resulted in more equitable reimbursement for hospitals that perform a disproportionate share of complex revision TJA procedures, recognizing the higher resource use associated with these procedures [2]. This important payment policy change will hopefully provide increased access to care for patients with failed total joint arthroplasties and help referral and tertiary care TJA centers continue to provide a high standard of care for these challenging patients. The addition of new, more descriptive International Classification of Diseases, Ninth, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis and procedure codes in October 2005 has provided the opportunity to further analyze differences in clinical characteristics and resource intensity among TJA procedures and patients. In 2006, policy makers recommended using All-Patient Refined Diagnosis-Related Group (APR- DRG) severity of illness (), a measure of medical comorbidities, as the primary predictor of resource use, without accounting for procedure characteristics, such 133

134 The Journal of Arthroplasty Vol. 23 No. 6 Suppl. 1 September 2008 Table 1a. ICD-9-CM Procedure Codes for Primary and THA Procedures ICD-9 Principal Procedure Code Primary THA (81.51) Both (0.70) Acetabular (00.71) Femoral (00.72) Head/Liner Exchange (00.73) Total n % n % n % n % n % n % Site UCSF 132 4.9% 44 23.5% 6 4.0% 6 6.7% 4 3.6% 195 6.0% Mayo 633 23.3% 104 55.6% 42 28.0% 27 30.0% 56 50.5% 868 26.6% MGH 291 10.7% 29 15.5% 3 2.0% 1 1.1% 4 3.6% 333 10.2% HSS 1661 61.1% 10 5.3% 99 66.0% 56 62.2% 47 42.3% 1873 57.3% Total 2717 83.1% 187 5.7% 150 4.6% 90 2.8% 111 3.4% 3269 100.0% MGH indicates Massachusetts General Hospital; HSS, Hospital for Special Surgery. as surgical complexity. The purpose of this study was to compare patient characteristics, procedure characteristics, and resource use among TJA procedures, and to identify useful predictors of resource use in TJA. Materials and Methods A retrospective analysis of clinical, demographic, treatment, and economic data from 6483 primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty procedures from 4 high-volume TJA centers was conducted (Tables 1a and 1b). Patients were included in the study if they received either a primary or revision TJA from October 2005 through June 2006. Clinical factors included in the analysis were principal diagnosis on admission, APR-DRG classification, presence of extensive bone loss, and surgical complexity. Routine surgical complexity was defined as all primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures, and revision procedures that involved revision of modular parts only (isolated femoral head and liner THA revisions and isolated tibial insert TKA revisions). Complex surgical complexity was defined as all other types of revision THA and TKA procedures. Demographic factors included age, sex, and insurance type. Treatment factors included type of primary or revision TJA procedure and mean operative time. Economic data included mean total costs per procedure (using hospital-based decision support systems from each center), length of stay, and discharge disposition. Costs were normalized to 1 center to account for differences in procedure cost across centers. Statistical Analyses Descriptive analyses were conducted, as well as comparisons by ICD-9-CM procedure code (using analysis of variance and post hoc Dunnett's t test methodology). A linear regression was performed to predict total standardized costs by APR-DRG and surgical complexity. Surgical complexity was defined by both patient factors (eg, major bone loss) and procedure characteristics (eg, primary vs revision, type of revision). Results Patient Demographic and Clinical Characteristics The majority of primary and revision THA patients were women, and there were no differences in sex among procedure types, other than a significantly higher percentage of women (63%) who underwent isolated acetabular liner and femoral head exchange procedures (Tables 2a and 2b). Similarly, the majority of primary and Table 1b. ICD-9-CM Procedure Codes by Site for Primary and TKA Procedures ICD-9 Principal Procedure Code Primary TKA (81.54) All (00.80) Tibial (00.81) Femoral (00.82) Patellar (00.83) Tibial Insert (00.84) Total n % n % n % n % n % n % n % Site UCSF 152 5.4% 36 24.0% 3 2.6% 5 9.1% 2 14.3% 1 2.2% 203 6.3% Mayo 696 24.8% 65 43.3% 48 41.0% 27 49.1% 2 14.3% 21 45.7% 877 27.3% MGH 260 9.3% 6 4.0% 6 5.1% 2 3.6% 0 0.0% 4 8.7% 279 8.7% HSS 1701 60.6% 43 28.7% 60 51.3% 21 38.2% 10 71.4% 20 43.5% 1855 57.7% Total 2809 87.4% 150 4.7% 117 3.6% 55 1.7% 14 0.4% 46 1.4% 3214 100.0%

Medicare Payment Policy Bozic et al 135 Table 2a. Patient Demographics for Primary and THA Procedures (All Sites) Primary THA (81.51) (n = 2717) Both (00.70) (n = 187) Acetabular (00.71) Femoral (00.72) (n = 90) Head/Liner Exchange (00.73) (n = 111) Sex, male 1312 (48) 84 (45) 55 (37) 46 (51) 57 (51) Age, y 63.6 ± 13.0 65.0 ± 12.8 65.1 ± 14.3 66.9 ± 13.1 63.8 ± 13.1 Medicare, yes 1289 (47) 90 (48) 83 (55) 53 (59) 53 (47) Major osseous defect, yes 59 (2) 114 (61) 93 (62) 40 (44) 28 (25) 1 1159 (43) 43 (23) 18 (12) 5 (6) 15 (14) 2 1317 (49) 106 (57) 115 (77) 72 (80) 82 (74) 3 227 (8) 35 (19) 15 (10) 12 (13) 13 (12) 4 14 (1) 3 (2) 2 (1) 1 (1) 1 (1) Values are shown as n (%) or mean ± SD. revision TKA patients were women, with the exception of femoral component only revisions (55% men) and tibial liner exchanges (52% men) (P b.01 for both comparisons). The average age for primary THA patients was 63.8 years, and there were no significant differences in age between patients who underwent primary and revision procedures. The average age for primary TKA patients was 68.5 years, and patients who underwent all component revisions (64.2), tibial component revisions (64.7), and tibial liner exchanges (64.5) were significantly younger than primary TKA patients (P b.01 for all comparisons). Forty-seven percent of primary THA and 61% of primary TKA patients had Medicare insurance, and there were no significant differences in payer type across procedures. Only 2% of primary THA patients had major bone loss, and all types of revision THA procedures had a significantly higher incidence of major bone loss, ranging from 25% for isolated head and liner exchanges to 62% for acetabular component revisions (P b.01 for all comparisons). Only 1% of primary TKA patients had major bone loss, and all types of revision TKA procedures (with the exception of isolated patellar component revisions) had a significantly higher incidence of major bone loss, ranging from 4% for isolated tibial liner exchanges to 30% for all component revision TKA procedures (P b.01 for all comparisons). All types of revision THA patients had significantly higher APR-DRG scores (indicative of more comorbid medical conditions) than primary THA patients (P b.01 for all comparisons). Similarly, all types of revision TKA patients, with the exception of isolated patellar component revisions, had significantly higher APR-DRG scores than primary TKA patients (P b.01 for all patients). Treatment Factors The average operative time (skin-to-skin) for primary THA was 92.6 minutes. All types of revision THA procedures had significantly longer average operative times (P b.01), ranging from 116.6 minutes for isolated head and liner exchange procedures to 190.0 minutes for both component revisions (Tables 3a and 3b). The most common revision THA procedure was both component revisions. The average operative time for primary TKA was 97.7 minutes. All types of revision TKA procedures had significantly longer average operative times (P b.01), with the exception of isolated patellar component revisions (84.6 minutes) and isolated tibial insert exchanges (88.9 minutes). The most common revision TKA procedure was both component revisions. Table 2b. Patient Demographics for Primary and TKA Procedures (All Sites) Primary TKA (81.54) (n = 2809) All (00.80) Tibial (00.81) (n = 117) Femoral (00.82) (n = 55) Patellar (00.83) (n = 14) Tibial Insert (00.84) (n = 46) Sex. male 1053 (38) 70 (47) 50 (43) 30 (55) 6 (43) 24 (52) Age, years 68.5 ± 10.0 64.2 ± 12.0 64.7 ± 11.1 65.6 ± 11.8 67.1 ± 7.5 64.4 ± 11.1 Medicare, yes 1713 (61) 66 (44) 61 (52) 30 (55) 6 (43) 22 (48) Major osseous defect, 23 (1) 45 (30) 17 (15) 11 (20) 1 (7) 2 (4) yes 1 1197 (43) 51 (34) 41 (35) 20 (36) 6 (43) 14 (30) 2 1341 (48) 78 (52) 65 (56) 28 (51) 8 (57) 23 (50) 3 252 (9) 20 (13) 11 (9) 7 (13) 0 (0) 8 (17) 4 19 (1) 1 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (2) Values are shown as n (%) or mean ± SD.

136 The Journal of Arthroplasty Vol. 23 No. 6 Suppl. 1 September 2008 Table 3a. Operative Times and Length of Hospital Stay for Primary and THA Procedures (All Sites) Primary THA (81.51) (n = 2717) Both (00.70) (n = 187) Acetabular (00.71) Femoral (00.72) (n = 90) Head/Liner Exchange (00.73) (n = 111) OR Time (skin-to-skin, min) 92.6 ± 42.3 190.0 ± 81.6 132.8 ± 55.9 157.4 ± 59.9 116.6 ± 57.3 Length of stay (d) 4.4 ± 1.8 5.9 ± 3.9 5.1 ± 2.2 6.1 ± 3.3 5.1 ± 3.6 Values are shown as mean ± SD. OR indicates operating room. Table 3b. Operative Times and Length of Hospital Stay for Primary and THA Procedures (All Sites) Primary TKA (81.54) (n = 2809) All (00.80) Tibial (00.81) (n = 117) Femoral (00.82) (n = 55) Patellar (00.83) (n = 14) Tibial Insert Exchange (00.84) (n = 46) OR Time (skinto-skin, 97.7 ± 36.4 159.9 ± 67.3 145.0 ± 52.3 142.3 ± 57.8 84.6 ± 42.4 88.9 ± 52.0 min) Length of stay (d) 4.7 ± 2.0 5.5 ± 2.7 5.0 ± 2.4 4.8 ± 2.5 4.0 ± 1.0 6.4 ± 5.8 Values are shown as mean ± SD. Fig. 1. Mean total costs by type of revision THA procedure. Economic Factors The average costs for primary THA, normalized to 1 institution (UCSF), were $28 120 (Tables 3a and 3b). The average costs for all types of revision THA procedures were significantly higher (P b.01), with the exception of isolated head and liner exchanges, ranging from a low of $30 916 for isolated acetabular component procedures to a high of $39 328 for both component revisions (Fig. 1). The average costs for primary TKA, normalized to 1 institution (UCSF), were $29 290. The average costs for all types of revision TKA procedures were significantly higher (P b.01), with the exception of isolated tibial insert exchanges, ranging from a low of $35 207 for isolated femoral component revisions to a high of $40 029 for both component revisions (Fig. 2). Isolated patellar component revisions were significantly less costly than primary TKA procedures ($20 310, P b.01). Multivariable Regression Analysis Both and surgical complexity were significantly correlated with resource use associated with TJA procedures, with costs increasing with higher values and more complex surgical procedures (Tables 4a and 4b). Even after controlling for, a higher surgical complexity procedure (defined as any revision THA or TKA procedure other than a revision of modular parts) still resulted in higher costs for each category for both THA (between 25% and 34% higher) and TKA (between 22% and 29% higher) procedures. Discussion Medicare payment policy for lower extremity TJA procedures has evolved considerably over the past

Medicare Payment Policy Bozic et al 137 Fig. 2. Mean total costs by type of revision TKA procedure. Table 4a. Independent Contributors of Severity of Illness and Surgical Complexity for Primary and THA Procedures When Complexity Code = 1 Complexity Code n Mean Total Cost ($) 95% Confidence Limits Increase ($) Increase (%) 1 0 1174 27 126 20 655 37 645 5683 21% 1 72 32 789 17 407 56 841 2 0 1399 29 992 21 535 39 190 6390 23% 1 300 34 342 21 293 56 382 3 0 240 33 454 22 930 61 423 10 582 32% 1 63 44 036 26 322 62 778 Complexity code 1 is defined as all revision THA procedures except isolated head and liner exchange procedures (ICD-9 procedure code is 00.73). Table 4b. Independent Contributors of Severity Illness and Surgical Complexity for Primary and TKA Procedures When Complexity Code = 1 Complexity Code n Mean Total Cost ($) 95% Confidence Limits Increase ($) Increase (%) 1 0 1217 27 046 20 232 37 659 6190 23% 1 121 33 236 20 194 47 162 2 0 1372 29 756 21 701 43 712 8620 29% 1 183 38 376 24 824 59 074 3 0 260 35 539 24 033 59 959 7719 22% 1 40 43 258 26 919 68 443 Complexity code 1 is defined as all revision TKA procedures except isolated patellar component procedures (ICD-9 procedure code is 00.83) and isolated tibial insert exchange procedures (ICD-9 procedure code 00.84). 3 years. Before 2005, all lower extremity arthroplasty procedures, regardless of patient characteristics (eg, comorbidities) or type of procedure (eg, primary vs revision), were lumped together under a single DRG (DRG 209). Previous investigators had reported significant differences in resource use between primary and revision TJA procedures [3-11]. In October 2005, in response to a request from the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, CMS created separate DRGs for primary (DRG 544) and revision (DRG 545) TJA procedures [2]. These changes were intended to more accurately reflect differences in clinical characteristics and resource use between primary and revision TJA procedures. However, in 2006, policy makers recommended further refinements to the Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System which would have once again eliminated separate DRGs for primary and revision

138 The Journal of Arthroplasty Vol. 23 No. 6 Suppl. 1 September 2008 Table 5. CMS Inpatient Prospective Payment System Changes from FY07 to FY08 Related to TJA Procedures FY07 FY08 Description 545 466 of hip or knee arthroplasty with MCC 467 of hip or knee arthroplasty with CC 468 of hip or knee arthroplasty without CC/MCC 544 469 Major joint arthroplasty or reattachment of lower extremity with MCC 470 Major joint arthroplasty or reattachment of lower extremity without MCC MCC indicates major complications and comorbid conditions. TJA procedures. The rationale for this change was that differences in resource use could be accounted for by differences in patient alone, regardless of the complexity of the surgical procedure (eg, primary vs revision). Although our current study confirms that is a useful predictor of resource use associated with TJA procedures, our data also indicate that both and surgical complexity are important independent predictors of resource use in TJA. Because the intent of Medicare DRGs is to set payment rates proportional to relative resource use, both and surgical complexity factors that significantly affect resource use should be incorporated for payment equity and to avoid incentives which may create selection bias among orthopedic providers and institutions. Policy Implications The results of this study were shared with CMS in December 2006. Based in part on our findings, the new Medicare Severity DRGs related to TJA procedures that were implemented in October 2007 were revised to recognize both patient and procedure characteristics as important contributors to resource use in TJA (Table 5) [12]. By more appropriately matching hospital reimbursement to resource use, these payment policy changes will help hospitals that perform complex TJA procedures in medically ill patients be appropriately compensated for these resource-intensive procedures. Conclusions By working with CMS to continue to evaluate policyrelevant differences in clinical characteristics and resource use among hip and knee arthroplasty patients and procedures, we recommended further refinements to the orthopedic DRGs based on differences in and surgical complexity. These changes were adopted by CMS in the FY2008 Final Rule for the Inpatient Prospective Payment System. We believe these changes more closely accomplish CMS's goal of matching hospital reimbursement to resource use for primary and revision TJA procedures, and minimize incentives for hospitals and surgeons to selectively treat patients with less complex orthopedic conditions whose procedures are less resource intensive. These types of collaborative efforts have the potential to greatly improve the accuracy of the Medicare payment system as it relates to TJA procedures by more appropriately matching hospital reimbursement to actual resource use associated with these procedures, with the ultimate goal of improving patient access to care and clinical outcomes for TJA patients. References 1. Mendenhall S. 2006 Hip and knee implant review. Orthop Netw News 2006;17:1 [July, 2006]. 2. Bozic K. CMS Changes ICD-9 and DRG codes for revision TJA. AAOS Bull 2005;53:17. 3. Barber T, Healy W. The hospital cost of total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1993;75-A:321. 4. Barrack R. Economics of revision total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1995;319:209. 5. Barrack R. Cost analysis of revision total hip arthroplasty. A 5-year follow-up study. Clin Orthop 1999; 369:175. 6. Barrack R. The evolving spectrum of revision hip arthroplasty. Orthopedics 1999;22:865. 7. Bozic K, Katz P, Showstack J, et al. The 2006 OREF Clinical Research Award Paper: using clinical and economic data to influence health policy in the United States. Paper presented at: AAOS Annual Meeting. 2006. Chicago, IL. 8. Bozic KJ, Durbhakula S, Berry DJ, et al. Differences in patient and procedure characteristics and hospital resource use in primary and revision total joint arthroplasty: a multicenter study. J Arthroplasty 2005;20(7 Suppl 3):17. 9. Bozic KJ, Katz P, Cisternas M, et al. Hospital resource utilization for primary and revision total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87-A:570. 10. Iorio R, Healy W, Richards J. Comparison of the hospital cost of primary and revision total hip arthroplasty after cost containment. Orthopedics1999;22:185. 11. Lavernia C, Drakeford M, Tsao A, et al. and primary hip and knee arthroplasty A cost analysis. Clin Orthop 1995;311:136. 12. Mendenhall S. 2007 Hip and knee implant review. Orthop Netw News 2007;18:1 July, 2007.