Is the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Feasible in Bundled Payment for Care Improvement in Total Hip Arthroplasty Patients?

BackgroundThe Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is increasingly used to assess patient health. The Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative for total hip arthroplasty (THA) was introduced to decrease costs and improve clinical care. We investigated differences between BPCI and non-BPCI THA patients and their PROMIS scores, along with its feasibility and responsiveness in these populations.MethodsWe included all consecutive patients receiving unilateral primary THA who also had preoperative and one-year postoperative PROMIS physical function (PF), PROMIS pain interference (PI), and PROMIS depression (DEP) scores. Demographics and PROMIS scores were compared. Test burden was assessed using the number of questions and time required for PROMIS completion. The minimum clinically important difference was defined as 5. Floor and ceiling effects were noted if more than 15% of patients responded with the lowest or highest possible score, respectively. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare categorical data. ANOVA was used for PROMIS comparisons.Results290 hips (86 BPCI, 30%) were included. The BPCI cohort was older (P < .001) with a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification system (P = .0045). There were significant differences in baseline scores of PF and DEP between BPCI and non-BPCI (P = .046 and P = .048, respectively). Both groups showed significant improvement at follow-up in all scores (all P < .001). Significantly more non-BPCI patients achieved minimum clinically important difference at follow-up in PI and PF (P = .047 and P = .023, respectively). Floor effects were identified for DEP at baseline and follow-up and for PI at follow-up only.ConclusionPROMIS is feasible and time-efficient in BPCI patients undergoing primary THA. There were significant differences between BPCI and non-BPCI hips.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

Is the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Feasible in Bundled Payment for Care Improvement Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients?

BackgroundSeveral bundled payment plans, like the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative for total joint arthroplasty, have been introduced to decrease costs and improve clinical care. Measuring clinical outcomes with efficient, standardized methodologies is essential to determine the relative value of total joint arthroplasty care. We investigated feasibility and responsiveness of the recently developed Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients.MethodsWe included patients with preoperative and 1-year PROMIS Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression (DEP) scores who received unilateral primary TKA. Burden was assessed using the number of questions and time required for PROMIS completion. The minimum clinically important difference was defined as 5. Floor/ceiling effects were noted if more than 15% of patients responded with the lowest/highest possible score, respectively. Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare categorical data. Analysis of variance was used for PROMIS comparisons.ResultsIn total, 172 knees (54 BPCI) were included. Floor effects were identified for DEP at baseline (non-BPCI) and follow-up (both groups), and for PI at follow-up only (BPCI). Patients required 140 seconds and 16 questions to answer all 3 PROMIS domains. Sixty-seven percent, 60%, and 44% of knees achieved minimum clinically important difference in PI, PF, and DEP scores respectively, with no significant difference between groups. The BPCI cohort was older (P < .001) with a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists score (P = .028). There were no significant differences in scores between BPCI and non-BPCI patients.ConclusionPROMIS is feasible and time-efficient in BPCI patients undergoing primary TKA. There were no significant differences in outcomes between BPCI and non-BPCI knees.Level of EvidenceLevel III.     

From Winners to Losers: The Methodology of Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced Disincentivizes Participation in Bundled Payment Programs

BackgroundThe Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative improved quality and reduced costs following total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA). In October 2018, the BPCI-Advanced program was implemented. The purpose of this study is to compare the quality metrics and performance between our institution’s participation in the BPCI program with the BPCI-Advanced initiative.MethodsWe reviewed a consecutive series of Medicare primary THA and TKA patients. Demographics, medical comorbidities, discharge disposition, readmission, and complication rates were compared between BPCI and BPCI-Advanced groups. Medicare claims data were used to compare episode-of-care costs, target price, and margin per patient between the cohorts.ResultsCompared to BPCI patients (n = 9222), BPCI-Advanced patients (n = 2430) had lower rates of readmission (5.8% vs 3.8%, P = .001) and higher rate of discharge to home (72% vs 78%, P < .001) with similar rates of complications (4% vs 4%, P = .216). Medical comorbidities were similar between groups. BPCI-Advanced patients had higher episode-of-care costs ($22,044 vs $18,440, P < .001) and a higher mean target price ($21,154 vs $20,277, P < .001). BPCI-Advanced patients had a reduced per-patient margin compared to BPCI ($890 loss vs $1459 gain, P < .001), resulting in a $2,138,670 loss in the first three-quarters of program participation.ConclusionDespite marked improvements in quality metrics, our institution suffered a substantial loss through BPCI-Advanced secondary to methodological changes within the program, such as the exclusion of outpatient TKAs, facility-specific target pricing, and the elimination of different risk tracks for institutions. Medicare should consider adjustments to this program to keep surgeons participating in alternative payment models.