Rothman Orthopaedic Institute, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA.
J Arthroplasty. 2021 Jul;36(7S):S141-S144.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2020.11.037. Epub 2020 Dec 1.
With the recent removal of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Inpatient Only list, facility reimbursement for outpatient TKA now falls under the Outpatient Prospective Payment System at the same rate as unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). The purpose of this study was to compare true facility costs of patients undergoing outpatient TKA with those undergoing UKA.
We reviewed a consecutive series of 2310 outpatient TKA and 231 UKA patients from 2018 to 2019. Outpatient status was defined as a hospital stay of less than 2 midnights. Facility costs were calculated using a time-driven, activity-based costing algorithm. Implants, supplies, medications, and personnel costs were compared between outpatient TKA and UKA patients. A multivariate analysis was performed to control for confounding medical and demographic variables.
When compared with patients undergoing UKA, outpatient TKA patients had higher implant costs ($3403 vs $3081; P < .001) and overall hospital costs ($6350 vs $5594; P < .001). Outpatient TKA patients had a greater length of stay (1.2 vs 0.5 days; P < .001) and greater postoperative personnel costs ($783 vs $166; P < .001) than UKA patients. When controlling for comorbidities, outpatient TKA was associated with a $803 (P < .001) increase in overall facility costs compared with UKA.
Despite equivalent reimbursement from CMS as UKA, outpatient TKA has increased facility costs to the hospital. Although implant costs can vary greatly by institution, CMS should consider appropriately reimbursing outpatient TKA for the additional personnel costs when compared with UKA.
随着全膝关节置换术(TKA)最近从医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心(CMS)仅限住院患者名单中删除,门诊 TKA 的医院报销现在按照与单髁膝关节置换术(UKA)相同的门诊预期支付系统费率进行。本研究的目的是比较接受门诊 TKA 和 UKA 治疗的患者的实际医院成本。
我们回顾了 2018 年至 2019 年期间连续 2310 例门诊 TKA 和 231 例 UKA 患者。门诊状态定义为住院时间少于 2 个午夜。使用时间驱动的、基于活动的成本核算算法计算医院成本。比较门诊 TKA 和 UKA 患者的植入物、用品、药物和人员成本。进行多变量分析以控制混杂的医疗和人口统计学变量。
与接受 UKA 治疗的患者相比,门诊 TKA 患者的植入物成本更高(3403 美元 vs. 3081 美元;P <.001),总住院费用更高(6350 美元 vs. 5594 美元;P <.001)。门诊 TKA 患者的住院时间更长(1.2 天 vs. 0.5 天;P <.001),术后人员成本更高(783 美元 vs. 166 美元;P <.001)。在控制合并症后,与 UKA 相比,门诊 TKA 的总医院成本增加了 803 美元(P <.001)。
尽管 CMS 的报销与 UKA 相同,但门诊 TKA 给医院带来了更高的医院成本。尽管植入物成本因机构而异,但 CMS 应考虑在与 UKA 相比时,适当报销门诊 TKA 的额外人员成本。