Journal
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME
Volume 104, Issue 3, Pages 246-254Publisher
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.21.00389
Keywords
-
Categories
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Spine surgery and its costs have increased in recent years and vary across geographic regions. A study found that the variation in spending is mainly due to discretionary care rather than pricing, age, or illness severity. However, increased discretionary care does not improve patient safety.
Background:Spine surgery and its corresponding costs have increased in recent years and are variable across geographic regions. Discretionary care is the component of spending variation that is independent of illness severity, age, and regional pricing. It is unknown whether greater discretionary care is associated with improved safety for patients undergoing spine surgery, as we would expect from value-based health care.Methods:We conducted an analysis of 5 spine surgery cohorts based on Medicare claims from 2013 to 2017. Patients were grouped into quintiles based on the Dartmouth Atlas End-of-Life Inpatient Care Index (EOL), reflecting regional spending variation attributed to discretionary care. Multivariable regression examined the association between discretionary care and safety measures while controlling for age, sex, race, comorbidity, and hospital features.Results:We observed a threefold to fourfold variation in 90-day episode-of-care cost across regions, depending on the cohort. Spine-specific spending was correlated with EOL quintile, confirming that spending variation is due more to discretionary care than it is to pricing, age, or illness severity. Greater spending across EOL quintiles was not associated with improved safety, and, in fact, was associated with poorer safety in some cohorts. For example, all-cause readmission was greater in the high-spending EOL quintile relative to the low-spending EOL quintile among the fusion, except cervical cohort (14.2% vs. 13.1%; OR = 1.10; 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.20), the complex fusion cohort (28.0% vs. 25.4%; OR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.30), and the cervical fusion cohort (15.0% vs. 13.6%; OR = 1.12; 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.20).Conclusions:Wide variation in spending was not explained by differences in illness severity, age, or pricing, and increased discretionary care did not enhance safety. These findings point to inefficient use of health-care resources, a potential focus of reform.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available