Advertisement

Poor Patient Compliance Limits the Attainability of Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Completion Thresholds for the Comprehensive Care for Joint Arthroplasty Model

Published:November 08, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.09.026

      Abstract

      Background

      The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) links patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with hospital reimbursement in some value-based models for total joint arthroplasty (TJA). This study evaluates PROM reporting compliance and resource utilization using protocol-driven electronic collection of outcomes for commercial and CMS alternative payment models (APMs).

      Methods

      We analyzed a consecutive series of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) from 2016 and 2019. Compliance rates were obtained for reporting hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint replacement (HOOS-JR.), knee disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint replacement (KOOS-JR.), and 12-item short form survey (SF-12) surveys preoperatively and postoperatively at 6-months, 1 year, and 2- years. Of 43,252 THA and TKA patients, 25,315 (58%) were Medicare-only. Direct supply and staff labor costs for PROM collection were obtained. Chi-square testing compared compliance rates between Medicare-only and all-arthroplasty groups. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) estimated resource utilization for PROM collection.

      Results

      In the Medicare-only cohort, preoperative HOOS-JR./KOOS-JR. compliance was 66.6%. Postoperative HOOS-JR./KOOS-JR. compliance was 29.9%, 46.1%, and 27.8% at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, respectively. Preoperative SF-12 compliance was 70%. Postoperative SF-12 compliance was 35.9%, 49.6%, and 33.4% at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, respectively. Medicare patients had lower PROM compliance than the overall cohort (P < .05) at all time points except preoperative KOOS-JR., HOOS-JR., and SF-12 in TKA patients. The estimated annual cost for PROM collection was $273,682 and the total cost for the entire study period was $986,369.

      Conclusion

      Despite extensive experience with APMs and a total expenditure near $1,000,000, our center demonstrated low preoperative and postoperative PROM compliance rates. In order for practices to achieve satisfactory compliance, Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) compensation should be adjusted to reflect the costs associated with collecting these PROMs and CJR target compliance rates should be adjusted to reflect more attainable levels consistent with currently published literature.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The Journal of Arthroplasty
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model. CMS.gov.
        ([accessed 04.09.22])
        • Kurtz S.
        • Ong K.
        • Lau E.
        • Mowat F.
        • Halpern M.
        Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89: 780-785
        • Ware J.
        • Kosinski M.
        • Keller S.D.
        A 12-Item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity.
        Med Care. 1996; 34: 220-223
        • Cella D.
        • Yount S.
        • Rothrock N.
        • Gershon R.
        • Cook K.
        • Reeve B.
        • et al.
        The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first 2 years.
        Med Care. 2007; 45: S3-S11
        • Kazis L.E.
        • Selim A.
        • Rogers W.
        • Ren X.S.
        • Lee A.
        • Miller D.R.
        • et al.
        Veterans RAND 12 item health survey (VR12): a white paper summary.
        ([accessed 23.04.22])
        • Roos E.M.
        • Roos H.P.
        • Lohmander L.S.
        • Ekdahl C.
        • Beynnon B.D.
        Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure.
        J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998; 28: 88-96
        • Lyman S.
        • Lee Y.Y.
        • Franklin P.D.
        • Li W.
        • Cross M.B.
        • Padgett D.E.
        Validation of the KOOS, JR: a short-form knee arthroplasty outcomes survey.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016; 474: 1461-1471
        • Lyman S.
        • Lee Y.Y.
        • Franklin P.D.
        • Li W.
        • Mayman D.J.
        • Padgett D.E.
        Validation of the HOOS, JR: a short-form hip replacement survey.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016; 474: 1472-1482
        • Schamber E.M.
        • Takemoto S.K.
        • Chenok K.E.
        • Bozic K.J.
        Barriers to completion of patient reported outcome measures.
        J Arthroplasty. 2013; 28: 1449-1453
        • Canfield M.
        • Savoy L.
        • Cote M.P.
        • Halawi M.J.
        Patient-reported outcome measures in total joint arthroplasty: defining the optimal collection window.
        Arthroplast Today. 2019; 6: 62-67
        • Haglin J.M.
        • Arthur J.R.
        • Deckey D.G.
        • Moore M.L.
        • Makovicka J.L.
        • Spangehl M.J.
        A comprehensive monetary analysis of inpatient total hip and knee arthroplasties billed to Medicare by hospitals: 2011-2017.
        J Arthroplasty. 2021; 36: S134-S140
        • Ramkumar P.N.
        • Navarro S.M.
        • Haeberle H.S.
        • Ng M.
        • Piuzzi N.S.
        • Spindler K.P.
        No difference in outcomes 12 and 24 Months after lower extremity total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Arthroplasty. 2018; 33: 2322-2329
        • Gornet M.F.
        • Copay A.G.
        • Sorensen K.M.
        • Schranck F.W.
        Assessment of health-related quality of life in spine treatment: conversion from SF-36 to VR-12.
        Spine J. 2018; 18: 1292-1297
        • Akhavan S.
        • Ward L.
        • Bozic K.J.
        Time-driven activity-based costing more accurately reflects costs in arthroplasty surgery.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016; 474: 8-15
        • Molloy I.B.
        • Yong T.M.
        • Keswani A.
        • Keeney B.J.
        • Moschetti W.E.
        • Lucas A.P.
        • et al.
        Do medicare's patient-reported outcome measures collection windows accurately reflect academic clinical practice?.
        J Arthroplasty. 2020; 35 (Epub 2019 Nov 13): 911-917https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.11.006
        • Barrack T.N.
        • Abu-Amer W.
        • Schwabe M.T.
        • Adelani M.A.
        • Clohisy J.C.
        • Nunley R.M.
        • et al.
        The burden and utility of routine follow-up at one year after primary arthroplasty.
        Bone Joint J. 2020; 102-B: 85-89
        • Clohisy J.C.
        • Kamath G.V.
        • Byrd G.D.
        • Steger-May K.
        • Wright R.W.
        Patient compliance with clinical follow-up after total joint arthroplasty.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90: 1848-1854
        • Gayet-Ageron A.
        • Agoritsas T.
        • Schiesari L.
        • Kolly V.
        • Perneger T.V.
        Barriers to participation in a patient satisfaction survey: who are we missing?.
        PLoS One. 2011; 6: e26852
        • Lyman S.
        • Yin K.L.
        Patient-reported outcome measurement for patients with total knee arthroplasty.
        J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017; 25: S44-S47
        • Ko H.
        • Martin B.I.
        • Nelson R.E.
        • Pelt C.E.
        Patient selection in the comprehensive care for joint replacement model.
        Health Serv Res. 2022; 57: 72-90
        • Cairns M.A.
        • Moskal P.T.
        • Eskildsen S.M.
        • Ostrum R.F.
        • Clement R.C.
        Are medicare's “comprehensive care for joint replacement” bundled payments stratifying risk adequately?.
        J Arthroplasty. 2018; 33: 2722-2727
        • Kamath A.F.
        • Courtney P.M.
        • Bozic K.J.
        • Mehta S.
        • Parsley B.S.
        • Froimson M.I.
        Bundled payment in total joint care: survey of AAHKS membership attitudes and experience with alternative payment models.
        J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30: 2045-2056
        • Goel M.S.
        • Brown T.L.
        • Williams A.
        • Cooper A.J.
        • Hasnain-Wynia R.
        • Baker D.W.
        Patient reported barriers to enrolling in a patient portal.
        J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011; 18: i8-i12