Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 May 16:10:19.
doi: 10.14444/3019. eCollection 2016.

Impact of a Bundled Payment System on Resource Utilization During Spine Surgery

James M Mok  1 , Maximilian Martinez  2 , Harvey E Smith  3 , Daniel M Sciubba  4 , Peter G Passias  5 , Andrew Schoenfeld  6 , Robert E Isaacs  7 , Alexander R Vaccaro  8 , Kris E Radcliff  9 ; Association for Collaborative Spine Research Investigators
Affiliations

Impact of a Bundled Payment System on Resource Utilization During Spine Surgery

James M Mok et al. Int J Spine Surg. .

Abstract

Background: In a bundled payment system, a single payment covers all costs associated with a single episode of care. Spine surgery may be well suited for bundled payments because of clearly defined episodes of care, but the impact on current practice has not been studied. We sought to examine how a theoretical bundled payment strategy with financial disincentives to resource utilization would impact practice patterns.

Methods: A multiple-choice survey was administered to spine surgeons describing eight clinical scenarios. Respondents were asked about their current practice, and then their practice in a hypothetical bundled payment system. Respondents could choose from multiple types of implants, bone grafts, and other resources utilized at the surgeon's discretion.

Results: Forty-three respondents completed the survey. Within each scenario, 24%-49% of respondents changed at least one aspect of management. The proportion of cases performed without implants was unchanged for four scenarios and increased in four by an average of 8%. Use of autologous iliac crest bone graft increased across all scenarios by an average of 18%. Use of neuromonitoring decreased in all scenarios by an average of 21%. Differences in costs were not statistically significant.

Conclusions: Financial disincentives to resource utilization may result in some changes to surgeons' practices but these appear limited to items with less clear benefits to patients. Choices of implants, which account for the majority of intra-operative costs, did not change meaningfully. A bundling strategy targeting peri-operative costs solely related to surgical practice may not yield substantive savings while rationing potentially beneficial treatments to patient care.

Level of evidence: 5.

Keywords: bundled payments; cost; health care reform; patient protection and affordable care act; resource utilization; spine surgery.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Manchikanti L, Caraway DL, Parr AT, Fellows B, Hirsch JA. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010: reforming the health care reform for the new decade. Pain physician. 2011 Jan-Feb;14(1):E35–67. - PubMed
    1. The Affordable Care Act: Lowering Medicare Costs by Improving Care: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 2012.
    1. Friermood TG, McCardel B, Naas PL. Pros and Cons of Bundled Payments Participation. AAOS Now. 2014 Mar;2014:17,22–23.
    1. Delisle DR. Big things come in bundled packages: implications of bundled payment systems in health care reimbursement reform. American journal of medical quality: the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality. 2013 Jul-Aug;28(4):339–344. - PubMed
    1. Bushnell BD. Developing a Bundled Pricing Strategy. AAOS Now. 2014 Mar;2014:16–17.

LinkOut - more resources