Simulated bundled payments for four common surgical approaches to treat degenerative cervical myelopathy: a consideration to break the clinical equipoise

Nikhil Jain MD1, Mayur Sharma MD, MCh2, Dengzhi Wang MS2, Beatrice Ugiliweneza PhD, MSPH2, Doniel Drazin MD3, and Maxwell Boakye MD, MPH, MBA2
View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Orthopedics, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts;
  • | 2 Department of Neurosurgery, University of Louisville, Kentucky; and
  • | 3 Pacific Northwest University of Health Sciences, Yakima, Washington
Restricted access

Purchase Now

USD  $45.00

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
Print or Print + Online

OBJECTIVE

In degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) pathologies in which there exists a clinical equipoise in approach selection, a randomized controlled trial found that an anterior approach did not significantly improve patient-reported outcomes compared with posterior approaches. In this era of value and bundled payment initiatives, the cost profiles of various surgical approaches will form an important consideration in decision-making. The objective of this study was to compare 90-day and 2-year reimbursements for ≥ 2-level (multilevel) anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (mACDF), anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion (ACCF), posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion (LF), and cervical laminoplasty (LP) performed for DCM.

METHODS

The IBM MarketScan research database (2005–2018) was used to study beneficiaries 30–75 years old who underwent surgery using four approaches (mACDF, ACCF, LF, or LP) for DCM. Demographics, index surgery length of stay (LOS), complications, and discharge disposition were compared. Index admission (surgeon, hospital services, operating room) and postdischarge inpatient (readmission, revision surgery, inpatient rehabilitation), outpatient (imaging, emergency department, office visits, physical therapy), and medication-related payments were described. Ninety-day and 2-year bundled payment amounts were simulated for each procedure. All payments are reported as medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs; Q1–Q3) and were adjusted to 2018 US dollars.

RESULTS

A total of 10,834 patients, with a median age of 54 years, were included. The median 90-day payment was $46,094 (IQR $34,243–$65,841) for all procedures, with LF being the highest ($64,542) and LP the lowest ($37,867). Index hospital payment was 62.4% (surgery/operating room 46.6%) and surgeon payments were 17.5% of the average 90-day bundle. There were significant differences in the index, 90-day, and 2-year reimbursements and their distribution among procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

In a national cohort of patients undergoing surgery for DCM, LP had the lowest complication rate and simulated bundled reimbursements at 90 days and 2 years postoperatively. The lowest quartile 90-day payment for LF was more expensive than median amounts for mACDF, ACCF, and LP. If surgeons encounter scenarios of clinical equipoise in practice, LP is likely to result in maximum value because it is 70% less expensive on average than LF over 90 days.

ABBREVIATIONS

ACCF = anterior cervical corpectomy and fusion; CPT = Current Procedural Terminology; DCM = degenerative cervical myelopathy; DRG = Diagnosis Related Group; ED = emergency department; ICD = International Classification of Diseases; IQR = interquartile range; LDS = limited data set; LF = posterior cervical laminectomy and fusion; LOS = length of stay; LP = cervical laminoplasty; mACDF = multilevel anterior cervical discectomy and fusion; OR = operating room; RCT = randomized controlled trial.

Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $376.00

JNS + Pediatrics + Spine - 1 year subscription bundle (Individuals Only)

USD  $612.00
  • 1

    Fehlings MG, Tetreault LA, Riew KD, Middleton JW, Aarabi B, Arnold PM, et al. A clinical practice guideline for the management of patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy: recommendations for patients with mild, moderate, and severe disease and nonmyelopathic patients with evidence of cord compression. Global Spine J. 2017;7(3)(suppl):70S83S.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2

    Fehlings MG, Ibrahim A, Tetreault L, Albanese V, Alvarado M, Arnold P, et al. A global perspective on the outcomes of surgical decompression in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: results from the prospective multicenter AOSpine international study on 479 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2015;40(17):13221328.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Badhiwala JH, Leung SN, Ellenbogen Y, Akbar MA, Martin AR, Jiang F, et al. A comparison of the perioperative outcomes of anterior surgical techniques for the treatment of multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy. J Neurosurg Spine. 2020;33(4):433440.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Farrokhi MR, Ghaffarpasand F, Khani M, Gholami M. An evidence-based stepwise surgical approach to cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a narrative review of the current literature. World Neurosurg. 2016;94:97110.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    McCormick JR, Sama AJ, Schiller NC, Butler AJ, Donnally CJ III. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: A guide to diagnosis and management. J Am Board Fam Med. 2020;33(2):303313.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6

    Ghogawala Z, Terrin N, Dunbar MR, Breeze JL, Freund KM, Kanter AS, et al. Effect of ventral vs dorsal spinal surgery on patient-reported physical functioning in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;325(10):942951.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7

    Asher AL, Devin CJ, Kerezoudis P, Chotai S, Nian H, Harrell FE Jr, et al. Comparison of outcomes following anterior vs posterior fusion surgery for patients with degenerative cervical myelopathy: an analysis from quality outcomes database. Neurosurgery. 2019;84(4):919926.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8

    Shamji MF, Massicotte EM, Traynelis VC, Norvell DC, Hermsmeyer JT, Fehlings MG. Comparison of anterior surgical options for the treatment of multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2013;38(22)(suppl 1):S195S209.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9

    Lawrence BD, Jacobs WB, Norvell DC, Hermsmeyer JT, Chapman JR, Brodke DS. Anterior versus posterior approach for treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976).2013;38(22)(suppl 1):S173S182.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10

    Badhiwala JH, Ellenbogen Y, Khan O, et al. Comparison of the inpatient complications and health care costs of anterior versus posterior cervical decompression and fusion in patients with multilevel degenerative cervical myelopathy: a retrospective propensity score–matched analysis. World Neurosurg.2020;134:e112e119.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11

    Scalise J, Jacofsky D. Payor reform opportunities for spine surgery. Clin Spine Surg. 2017;30(5):229231.

  • 12

    Porter ME. A strategy for health care reform—toward a value-based system. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(2):109112.

  • 13

    Veeravagu A, Connolly ID, Lamsam L, Li A, Swinney C, Azad TD, et al. Surgical outcomes of cervical spondylotic myelopathy: an analysis of a national, administrative, longitudinal database. Neurosurg Focus. 2016;40(6):E11.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Virk SS, Phillips FM, Khan SN. Bundled payment reimbursement for anterior and posterior approaches for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: an analysis of private payer and Medicare databases. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018;28(3):244251.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Warren DT, Ricart-Hoffiz PA, Andres TM, Hoelscher CM, Protopsaltis TS, Goldstein JA, Bendo JA. Retrospective cost analysis of cervical laminectomy and fusion versus cervical laminoplasty in the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Int J Spine Surg. 2013;7(1):e72e80.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16

    Goh BC, Striano BM, Lopez WY, Upadhyaya S, Ziino C, Georgakas PJ, et al. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy and fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a cost analysis. Spine J. 2020;20(11):17701775.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 17

    Highsmith JM, Dhall SS, Haid RW Jr, Rodts GE Jr, Mummaneni PV. Treatment of cervical stenotic myelopathy: a cost and outcome comparison of laminoplasty versus laminectomy and lateral mass fusion. J Neurosurg Spine. 2011;14(5):619625.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18

    Blizzard DJ, Caputo AM, Sheets CZ, Klement MR, Michael KW, Isaacs RE, Brown CR. Laminoplasty versus laminectomy with fusion for the treatment of spondylotic cervical myelopathy: short-term follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(1):8593.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19

    IBM MarketScan Research Databases. IBM. Accessed November 8, 2021. https://www.ibm.com/products/marketscan-research-databases/databases

  • 20

    Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) Initiative. General Information. CMS Innovation Center.June 29, 2021.Accessed November 8, 2021.https://innovation.cms.gov/innovation-models/bundled-payments

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21

    Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36(1):827.

  • 22

    Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, Fong A, Burnand B, Luthi JC, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43(11):11301139.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23

    Berenson RA, Sunshine JH, Helms D, Lawton E. Why Medicare Advantage plans pay hospitals traditional Medicare prices. Health Aff (Millwood). 2015;34(8):12891295.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24

    Robinson J. Hospitals respond to Medicare payment shortfalls by both shifting costs and cutting them, based on market concentration. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(7):12651271.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Lopez E, Neuman T, Jacobson G, Levitt L. How much more than Medicare do private insurers pay? A review of the literature. April 15, 2020.KFF. Accessed November 8, 2021.https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/how-much-more-than-medicare-do-private-insurers-pay-a-review-of-the-literature/

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26

    Malik AT, Phillips FM, Retchin S, Xu W, Yu E, Kim J, Khan SN. Refining risk adjustment for bundled payment models in cervical fusions-an analysis of Medicare beneficiaries. Spine J. 2019;19(10):17061713.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27

    White C. Contrary to cost-shift theory, lower Medicare hospital payment rates for inpatient care lead to lower private payment rates. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(5):935943.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 28

    Passias PG, Marascalchi BJ, Boniello AJ, Yang S, Bianco K, Jalai CM, et al. Cervical spondylotic myelopathy: National trends in the treatment and peri-operative outcomes over 10years. J Clin Neurosci. 2017;42:7580.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29

    Vonck CE, Tanenbaum JE, Smith GA, Benzel EC, Mroz TE, Steinmetz MP. National trends in demographics and outcomes following cervical fusion for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Global Spine J. 2018;8(3):244253.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30

    Lopez WY, Goh BC, Upadhyaya S, Ziino C, Georgakas PJ, Gupta A, et al. Laminoplasty-an underutilized procedure for cervical spondylotic myelopathy. Spine J. 2021;21(4):571577.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 31

    Fehlings MG, Santaguida C, Tetreault L, Arnold P, Barbagallo G, Defino H, et al. Laminectomy and fusion versus laminoplasty for the treatment of degenerative cervical myelopathy: results from the AOSpine North America and International prospective multicenter studies. Spine J. 2017;17(1):102108.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32

    Phan K, Scherman DB, Xu J, Leung V, Virk S, Mobbs RJ. Laminectomy and fusion vs laminoplasty for multi-level cervical myelopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J. 2017;26(1):94103.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 33

    Hines K, Mouchtouris N, Getz C, Gonzalez G, Montenegro T, Leibold A, Harrop J. Bundled payment models in spine surgery. Global Spine J. 2021;11(1_suppl):7S13S.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34

    Clemens J, Gottlieb JD. In the shadow of a giant Medicare’s influence on private physician payments. J Polit Econ. 2017;125(1):139.

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 43 43 43
Full Text Views 4 4 4
PDF Downloads 7 7 7
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0