A total of 4,506 patients underwent a one or two-level ACDF procedure and met the study inclusion criteria. The overall demographic data for patients who had undergone an ACDF procedure are listed in Table IV. The overall demographic data for the entire Medicare database from which the 5% Medicare database is derived are also shown in Table IV.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to assess variations in payment in geographic areas and across different years in which the procedures were performed. A one-way ANOVA was also performed to compare CPT and DRG codes among regions. If any results were significant, we performed a post hoc analysis using paired Student t tests between each group. The p value was adjusted in the post hoc analysis using the Bonferroni correction. Significance was set at p < 0.05.
The total reimbursement for 4,506 patients who had undergone ACDF procedures was $69,469,550, or a mean cost per patient (and standard deviation) of $15,417 ± $947 (median, $15,589) from the day of the operation to 90 days after that index procedure. The CPT codes with the largest total reimbursement were CPT 63075 (discectomy, anterior, with decompression of spinal cord and/or nerve root[s], including osteophytectomy; cervical, single interspace), CPT 22845 (anterior instrumentation; 2 to 3 vertebral segments), CPT 22554 (arthrodesis, anterior interbody technique, including minimal discectomy to prepare interspace [other than for decompression]; cervical below C2), CPT 22851 (application of intervertebral biomechanical device[s] [eg, synthetic cage(s), threaded bone dowel(s), methylmethacrylate] to vertebral defect or interspace), and CPT 22551 (arthrodesis, anterior interbody, including disc space preparation, discectomy, osteophytectomy, and decompression of spinal cord and/or nerve roots; cervical below C2) (Table V). The top 5 CPT codes accounted for 15.79% of the total reimbursement. A complete breakdown of the proportion of reimbursement for various subcategories of care for patients who have undergone ACDF procedures is shown in Table VI. The surgeon-related CPT codes represented 18.07% of reimbursement and the anesthesia-related CPT codes represented 2.35% of reimbursement. The overall physician reimbursement was 20.42% of the total reimbursement. These codes include reimbursement for all CPT codes related to surgical procedures as well as anesthesia-related work. The total reimbursement to hospitals for inpatient care represented 72.84% of the total reimbursement. Reimbursement for the highest reimbursed DRG codes is listed in Table VII. The 90-day reimbursement for rehabilitation service, including physical therapy, skilled nursing facilities, and home care, totaled $2,162,200 and represented 3.11% of the total reimbursement.
Complications related to ACDF procedures such as dysphagia, revision procedures, and emergency room visits accounted for a small portion of overall reimbursement for patients who had undergone ACDF procedures. Dysphagia-related reimbursements (that is, reimbursements related to swallowing studies and laryngoscopy) accounted for 0.05% of overall reimbursement. Revision surgical procedures, readmission, and emergency department reimbursement accounted for 0.71% of the total reimbursement.
The mean reimbursement per patient differed by U.S. geographic region (p < 0.001) (Table VIII). Our post hoc analysis showed that there is a significantly higher reimbursement for the West compared with that for the Northeast (p = 0.002) and compared with that for the Midwest (p = 0.039). This same post hoc analysis showed that reimbursement for the South was significantly higher than that for the Northeast (p = 0.043). The most highly reimbursed CPT/DRG codes are also broken down by region in Table IX (p > 0.05). The mean reimbursement per patient in each year from 2005 to 2012 is shown in Table X. There was a trend toward increased reimbursement from 2005 to 2012, but this was not significant (p = 0.082).
A separate analysis was performed comparing one and two-level ACDF procedures. The mean reimbursement was $15,927 ± $1,940 for a one-level ACDF procedure and $15,362 ± $1,197 for a two-level ACDF procedure (p = 0.24).
There were a total of 77,380 patients who met our inclusion criteria for total knee replacements from 2005 to 2012. The overall reimbursement for these patients was $1,350,359,472, or $17,451 per patient.
In this study, we identified that per-patient payment for patients undergoing a one to two-level ACDF procedure from the day of operation to 90 days after that index procedure was $15,417 ± $947 (median, $15,589). More than 70% of the reimbursement was directed to hospital payments, excluding physician payments. Significant regional variations in reimbursement were observed. Revision surgical procedure and readmission-related reimbursement accounted for approximately 1% of the overall reimbursement.
To our knowledge, this study is the first report of 90-day reimbursement per patient for one to two-level ACDF procedures in a Medicare cohort. These reimbursements represent both Part A payments to hospitals and Part B payments to providers. Our study did not take into account Medicare Supplemental Insurance (Medigap) payments, which would have increased our total reimbursement figures. A relative strength of this study is the fact that it represents an analysis of a large Medicare database with a wide cross-section of patients included within the study analysis. This access to reimbursement data can be difficult given the proprietary nature of such figures. Reimbursement data are valuable given that they represent the monetary impact of ACDF procedures on the Medicare system. As with other large database studies that rely on physician and hospital billing of CPT, ICD-9, and DRG codes, there were weaknesses associated with this study related to discrepancies between claims databases and patient chart reviews9. However, hospitals and providers have a vested interest in accurately portraying charges for third-party payers to avoid fraud allegations and to be appropriately compensated for their work. A major limitation was that there were no reimbursement figures included for prescription medications, which would potentially have meant an overall underestimate of total reimbursement per patient. No private payer data were included in this study, and it is likely that reimbursement in that population would have been higher than that in the Medicare population.
The reimbursement data for knee replacement in the current study closely match those described in a prior publication10, providing an internal test for the reliability of our data analysis. It is interesting to note the similarity in reimbursement per patient between the ACDF procedure and the total knee arthroplasty. Both procedures have been validated as cost-effective interventions11-13. Ament et al. reported that both ACDF and cervical disc replacement procedures were cost-effective over a 2-year period14. Similarly, Bedair et al. found that a total knee replacement for a patient in his fifties is cost-effective compared with nonoperative treatment15. The cost-per-quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) figures for total knee replacement have varied from $18,700/QALY to $9,680/QALY16-18. At 5 years, the cost per QALY gained for a one-level ACDF procedure has been shown to be $23,460/QALY. Both procedures fall well below the generally accepted $50,000/QALY threshold typically used to determine if a procedure is cost-effective. The long-term economic impact of a repeat surgical procedure such as revision knee replacement or treatment of infection, as well as a revision cervical surgical procedure for pseudarthrosis or adjacent segment disease, requires further study. An important note is that the values provided in this article do not necessarily correlate with the cost or financial impact of an ACDF procedure on a surgeon, hospital, or third-party payer. The figures only represent reimbursement, which may underestimate the cost. Further research is required in areas such as time-driven activity-based costing to accurately determine the cost of any individual surgical procedure19-21. When cost analysis gets to this level of detail, the aspects of care that physicians control may play a larger role in determining the resources used for a particular bundled payment. This would likely include greater detail on the choice of implant and other direct costs22.
In this study, we identified significant variation in reimbursement for ACDF procedures between geographic regions. Prior studies have similarly shown differences in utilization of care between geographic regions for spine care23,24. Utilization of resources for common spinal procedures such as posterior lumbar fusion does vary on the basis of region25. Furthermore, reimbursement for posterior lumbar fusions also was found to vary on the basis of region, with the lowest rates in the Midwest26. These findings are consistent with our own study, which showed that overall reimbursement for ACDF in the Midwest was lower than that in both the West and South regions. The specific reason for and implications of this difference for patients undergoing ACDF procedures will require further research.
In the current study, reimbursement for the spinal surgeon was 18.07% of the total reimbursement. During the period of the study, surgical coding for anterior decompression (63075) and anterior fusion (22554) was bundled to code 22551. The mean reimbursement for these codes was $847 per patient for CPT 63075 and $586 per patient for CPT 22554 (total of $1,432) compared with $1,382 per patient for the bundled CPT 22551. Interestingly, total reimbursements for ACDF trended upward during the same period that surgeons’ fees were reduced as a result of the new bundled payment. Although payments to physicians have been implicated in the rise of health-care costs27, the data suggest that the greater opportunity for reducing expenses involves hospital-related reimbursement. Hospitals tend to be inefficient venues for providing elective surgical services on relatively healthy patients. Studies have shown that spinal surgical procedures performed in outpatient surgicenters are safe and provide substantial cost savings28. One retrospective study of 26 patients undergoing cervical disc arthroplasty in an outpatient setting showed cost savings of 84% when compared with cervical disc arthroplasty performed in an inpatient setting29. Since the introduction of the PPACA, hospital systems have merged and have expanded, making reining in hospital costs more challenging. Policy-makers will need to navigate the current climate to ensure that benefits from cost savings are shared among stakeholders such as patients, physicians, hospitals, and third-party payers as ACDF procedures move toward a more cost-efficient outpatient setting.
For numerous orthopaedic procedures, the costs associated with complication such as infections or venous thrombosis, often leading to readmissions or extended lengths of stay, are important drivers of costs. Complications from total knee arthroplasty can result in 65% higher 90-day costs for individual patients30. In fact, there have been efforts to tie reimbursement to eliminating certain complications (never events)31. In contrast, after ACDF for radiculopathy, complications were infrequent and accounted for a mean of only 0.71% of reimbursements in the 90-day surgical period. Postacute inpatient rehabilitation has been used by >50% of patients after they underwent a total knee arthroplasty, according to an analysis of the Medicare database between 1997 and 201032. Furthermore, 70% of post-discharge payments after total knee arthroplasty go toward postacute care facilities3. However, the impact of rehabilitation services for ACDF procedures within our study was much smaller. Only 3.11% of ACDF reimbursement went toward physical therapy, skilled nursing facilities, or a home health service.
The population analyzed in the current study is derived solely from Medicare patients. Of importance is that Medicare covers a substantial number of patients who are younger than 65 years of age (Table IV), and, given the diagnosis and procedures studies, it is not surprising that younger Medicare patients were overrepresented33.
In conclusion, the total reimbursement per patient as shown through the Medicare 5% database for one to two-level ACDF procedures was $15,417 per patient. CPT and DRG codes related to revision surgical procedure or readmission accounted for only 0.71% of total reimbursement. Rehabilitation and home-care services represented 3.11% of total reimbursement. There were significant geographic variations in reimbursement for an ACDF procedure and a trend toward increased overall reimbursement between 2005 and 2012. These data provide a benchmark for ACDF reimbursement in the treatment of radiculopathy in a bundled payment system.
Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopaedics, Wexner Medical Center at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
Disclosure: There was no source of external funding for this study. The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article.
3. Bozic KJ, Ward L, Vail TP, Maze M. Bundled payments in total joint arthroplasty: targeting opportunities for quality improvement and cost reduction. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 ;472(1):188–93.
4. Ugiliweneza B, Kong M, Nosova K, Huang KT, Babu R, Lad SP, Boakye M. Spinal surgery: variations in health care costs and implications for episode-based bundled payments. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 ;39(15):1235–42.
5. Froimson MI, Rana A, White RE Jr, Marshall A, Schutzer SF, Healy WL, Naas P, Daubert G, Iorio R, Parsley B. Bundled payments for care improvement initiative: the next evolution of payment formulations: AAHKS Bundled Payment Task Force. J Arthroplasty. 2013 ;28(8)(Suppl):157–65.
6. Bozic KJ, Lau E, Ong K, Chan V, Kurtz S, Vail TP, Rubash HE, Berry DJ. Risk factors for early revision after primary total hip arthroplasty in Medicare patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014 ;472(2):449–54.
7. Sacks GD, Lawson EH, Dawes AJ, Russell MM, Maggard-Gibbons M, Zingmond DS, Ko CY. Relationship between hospital performance on a patient satisfaction survey and surgical quality. JAMA Surg. 2015 ;150(9):858–64.
8. Jampel HD, Cassard SD, Friedman DS, Shekhawat NS, Whiteside-de Vos J, Quigley HA, Gower EW. Trends over time and regional variations in the rate of laser trabeculoplasty in the Medicare population. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014 ;132(6):685–90.
9. Bozic KJ, Chiu VW, Takemoto SK, Greenbaum JN, Smith TM, Jerabek SA, Berry DJ. The validity of using administrative claims data in total joint arthroplasty outcomes research. J Arthroplasty. 2010 ;25(6)(Suppl):58–61. Epub 2010 Jun 8.
10. Maradit Kremers H, Visscher SL, Moriarty JP, Reinalda MS, Kremers WK, Naessens JM, Lewallen DG. Determinants of direct medical costs in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 ;471(1):206–14.
11. Qureshi SA, McAnany S, Goz V, Koehler SM, Hecht AC. Cost-effectiveness analysis: comparing single-level cervical disc replacement and single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013 ;19(5):546–54. Epub 2013 Sep 6.
12. Rampersaud YR, Tso P, Walker KR, Lewis SJ, Davey JR, Mahomed NN, Coyte PC. Comparative outcomes and cost-utility following surgical treatment of focal lumbar spinal stenosis compared with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: part 2—estimated lifetime incremental cost-utility ratios. Spine J. 2014 ;14(2):244–54. Epub 2013 Nov 12.
13. Virk SS, Elder JB, Sandhu HS, Khan SN. The cost effectiveness of polyetheretheketone (PEEK) cages for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. J Spinal Disord Tech. 2015 ;28(8):E482–92.
14. Ament JD, Yang Z, Nunley P, Stone MB, Kim KD. Cost-effectiveness of cervical total disc replacement vs fusion for the treatment of 2-level symptomatic degenerative disc disease. JAMA Surg. 2014 ;149(12):1231–9.
15. Bedair H, Cha TD, Hansen VJ. Economic benefit to society at large of total knee arthroplasty in younger patients: a Markov analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014 ;96(2):119–26.
16. Lavernia CJ, Guzman JF, Gachupin-Garcia A. Cost effectiveness and quality of life in knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997 ;345:134–9.
17. Lubowitz JH, Appleby D. Cost-effectiveness analysis of the most common orthopaedic surgery procedures: knee arthroscopy and knee anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2011 ;27(10):1317–22. Epub 2011 Aug 19.
18. Losina E, Walensky RP, Kessler CL, Emrani PS, Reichmann WM, Wright EA, Holt HL, Solomon DH, Yelin E, Paltiel AD, Katz JN. Cost-effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty in the United States: patient risk and hospital volume. Arch Intern Med. 2009 ;169(12):1113–21; discussion 1121-2.
19. Mandigo M, O’Neill K, Mistry B, Mundy B, Millien C, Nazaire Y, Damuse R, Pierre C, Mugunga JC, Gillies R, Lucien F, Bertrand K, Luo E, Costas A, Greenberg SL, Meara JG, Kaplan R. A time-driven activity-based costing model to improve health-care resource use in Mirebalais, Haiti. Lancet. 2015 ;385(Suppl 2):S22. Epub 2015 Apr 26.
20. Akhavan S, Ward L, Bozic KJ. Time-driven activity-based costing more accurately reflects costs in arthroplasty surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 ;474(1):8–15.
21. Hennrikus WP, Waters PM, Bae DS, Virk SS, Shah AS. Inside the value revolution at Children’s Hospital Boston: time-driven activity-based costing in orthopaedic surgery. The Harvard Orthopaedic Journal. 2012;14:50–70.
22. Gerber DR, Bekes CE, Parrillo JE. Economics of critical care: Medicare part A versus part B payments. Crit Care Med. 2006 ;34(3)(Suppl):S82–7.
23. Pransky G, Foley G, Cifuentes M, Webster BS. Geographic variation in early MRI for acute work-related low back pain and associated factors. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 ;40(21):1712–8.
24. Sebastião YV, Womack L, Vamos CA, Louis JM, Olaoye F, Caragan T, Bubu OM, Detman LA, Curran JS, Sappenfield WM. Hospital variation in cesarean delivery rates: contribution of individual and hospital factors in Florida. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 ;214(1):123–18.e1–18. Epub 2015 Aug 17.
25. Norton RP, Bianco K, Klifto C, Errico TJ, Bendo JA. Degenerative spondylolisthesis: an analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 ;40(15):1219–27.
26. Goz V, Rane A, Abtahi AM, Lawrence BD, Brodke DS, Spiker WR. Geographic variations in the cost of spine surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2015 ;40(17):1380–9.
27. Laugesen MJ, Glied SA. Higher fees paid to US physicians drive higher spending for physician services compared to other countries. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 ;30(9):1647–56.
28. Devin CJ, Godil SS, Mendenhall SK, McGirt MJ, Adamson TE. ACDF in the outpatient ambulatory surgery setting: analysis of 1000 consecutive cases and comparison to hospital inpatient ACDF. Presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Cervical Spine Research Society; 2014 Dec 4; Orlando, FL.
29. Wohns R. Safety and cost-effectiveness of outpatient cervical disc arthroplasty. Surg Neurol Int. 2010 ;1(77):77.
30. Maradit Kremers H, Visscher SL, Moriarty JP, Reinalda MS, Kremers WK, Naessens JM, Lewallen DG. Determinants of direct medical costs in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 ;471(1):206–14.
31. Lembitz A, Clarke TJ. Clarifying “never events” and introducing “always events”. Patient Saf Surg. 2009;3(26):26. Epub 2009 Dec 31.
32. Ong KL, Lotke PA, Lau E, Manley MT, Kurtz SM. Prevalence and costs of rehabilitation and physical therapy after primary TJA. J Arthroplasty. 2015 ;30(7):1121–6. Epub 2015 Feb 28.
Copyright 2016 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated
33. van Eck CF, Regan C, Donaldson WF, Kang JD, Lee JY. The revision rate and occurrence of adjacent segment disease after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: a study of 672 consecutive patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014 ;39(26):2143–7.