Drivers of Cost in Primary Single-Level Lumbar Fusion Surgery

Overview

Journal Global Spine J

Publisher Sage Publications

Date 2021 Apr 9

PMID 33832351

Citations 3

Authors

Raymond W Hwang

Samuel W Golenbock

David H Kim

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Study Design: Retrospective cohort.

Objectives: Allocating cost is challenging with traditional hospital accounting. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) is an efficient method to accurately assign cost. We sought to characterize the variation in direct total hospital cost (THC) among both lumbar fusion approaches and surgeons.

Methods: Patients were treated with single-level anterior interbody (ALIF), lateral interbody (LLIF), transforaminal interbody (TLIF), instrumented posterolateral (PLF) or in-situ fusion (ISF) for degenerative disease. Process maps were developed for preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative care. THC was composed of implant, medication, other supply, and personnel costs. Linear regression and descriptive statistics were used to analyze THC variation.

Results: A total of 696 patients underwent surgery by 8 surgeons. Approximately 50% of THC variation was associated with procedure choice while patient characteristics explained 10%. Implants (including biologics) accounted for 45% of cost. With reference to PLF, THC ranged from 0.6x (ISF) to 1.7x (LLIF). Implant cost ranged from 2.5x reference (LLIF) to 0.1x (ISF). There was a 1.7x difference between the highest THC surgeon and the lowest. The fusion type with the highest THC variation was TLIF. The surgeon with the highest TLIF THC was 1.5x more expensive than the surgeon with the lowest.

Conclusions: Surgeon-based choices have the greatest effect on THC variation and represent the largest opportunities for cost savings. Primary single-level lumbar fusion THC is driven primarily by fusion type. Implants, including biologics, account for nearly half this cost. Future work should incorporate outcomes data to characterize the differential value conferred by higher THC fusions.

Citing Articles

Comparing opioid utilization and costs for surgical management of single-level spondylolisthesis: A national claims database analysis.

Shahzad H, Saade A, Tse S, Simister S, Azhar H, Le H J Orthop. 2024; 57:44-48.

PMID: 38973969 PMC: 11225719. DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2024.06.012.

SPINE: High heterogeneity and no significant differences in clinical outcomes of endoscopic foraminotomy vs fusion for lumbar foraminal stenosis: a meta-analysis.

Vande Kerckhove M, dAstorg H, Ramos-Pascual S, Saffarini M, Fiere V, Szadkowski M EFORT Open Rev. 2023; 8(2):73-89.

PMID: 36806547 PMC: 9969001. DOI: 10.1530/EOR-22-0093.

A Multi-Disciplinary Review of Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing: Practical Considerations for Spine Surgery.

Mansoor Ali D, Leibold A, Harrop J, Sharan A, Vaccaro A, Sivaganesan A Global Spine J. 2022; 13(3):823-839.

PMID: 36148695 PMC: 10240581. DOI: 10.1177/21925682221121303.

References

Kahn E, Ellimoottil C, Dupree J, Park P, Ryan A . Variation in payments for spine surgery episodes of care: implications for episode-based bundled payment. J Neurosurg Spine. 2018; 29(2):214-219. DOI: 10.3171/2017.12.SPINE17674. View

Schoenfeld A, Harris M, Liu H, Birkmeyer J . Variations in Medicare payments for episodes of spine surgery. Spine J. 2014; 14(12):2793-8. PMC: 4253551. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.07.002. View

Kaplan R, Witkowski M, Abbott M, Guzman A, Higgins L, Meara J . Using time-driven activity-based costing to identify value improvement opportunities in healthcare. J Healthc Manag. 2015; 59(6):399-412. View

Kaplan R, Anderson S . Time-driven activity-based costing. Harv Bus Rev. 2004; 82(11):131-8, 150. View

Bronson W, Kingery M, Hutzler L, Karia R, Errico T, Bosco J . Lack of Cost Savings for Lumbar Spine Fusions After Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative: A Consequence of Increased Case Complexity. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2018; 44(4):298-304. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002812. View

Liu C, Wang J . Learning Curve of Minimally Invasive Surgery Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Diseases. World Neurosurg. 2018; 120:e88-e93. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.07.167. View

Pahlavan S, Berven S, Bederman S . Variation in Costs of Spinal Implants in United States Academic Medical Centers. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41(6):515-21. DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000001271. View

. Measuring performance on the Healthcare Access and Quality Index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2018; 391(10136):2236-2271. PMC: 5986687. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30994-2. View

Dieleman J, Baral R, Birger M, Bui A, Bulchis A, Chapin A . US Spending on Personal Health Care and Public Health, 1996-2013. JAMA. 2016; 316(24):2627-2646. PMC: 5551483. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2016.16885. View

10.

Kaplan R, Porter M . How to solve the cost crisis in health care. Harv Bus Rev. 2011; 89(9):46-52, 54, 56-61 passim. View

11.

Sharif S, Afsar A . Learning Curve and Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery. World Neurosurg. 2018; 119:472-478. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.06.094. View

12.

Sivaganesan A, Chotai S, Parker S, McGirt M, Devin C . Drivers of Variability in 90-Day Cost for Elective Laminectomy and Fusion for Lumbar Degenerative Disease. Neurosurgery. 2018; 84(5):1043-1049. DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyy264. View

13.

Epstein N . Learning curves for minimally invasive spine surgeries: Are they worth it?. Surg Neurol Int. 2017; 8:61. PMC: 5421250. DOI: 10.4103/sni.sni_39_17. View

14.

Lubelski D, Alentado V, Williams S, ORourke C, Obuchowski N, Wang J . Variability in Surgical Treatment of Spondylolisthesis Among Spine Surgeons. World Neurosurg. 2017; 111:e564-e572. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.12.108. View

15.

Dietz N, Sharma M, Alhourani A, Ugiliweneza B, Wang D, Nuno M . Bundled Payment Models in Spine Surgery: Current Challenges and Opportunities, a Systematic Review. World Neurosurg. 2018; 123:177-183. DOI: 10.1016/j.wneu.2018.12.001. View

16.

Chotai S, Sivaganesan A, Sielatycki J, Archer K, Call R, McGirt M . Surgeon-Level Variability in Outcomes, Cost, and Comorbidity Adjusted-Cost for Elective Lumbar Decompression and Fusion. Neurosurgery. 2017; 82(4):506-515. DOI: 10.1093/neuros/nyx243. View

17.

Deng H, Yue J, Ordaz A, Suen C, Sing D . Elective lumbar fusion in the United States: national trends in inpatient complications and cost from 2002-2014. J Neurosurg Sci. 2019; 65(5):503-512. DOI: 10.23736/S0390-5616.19.04647-2. View

18.

Keel G, Savage C, Rafiq M, Mazzocato P . Time-driven activity-based costing in health care: A systematic review of the literature. Health Policy. 2017; 121(7):755-763. DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2017.04.013. View

19.

Kimchi G, Orlev A, Hadanny A, Knoller N, Harel R . Minimally Invasive Spine Surgery: The Learning Curve of a Single Surgeon. Global Spine J. 2020; 10(8):1022-1026. PMC: 7645089. DOI: 10.1177/2192568219880872. View

20.

Twitchell S, Karsy M, Reese J, Guan J, Couldwell W, Dailey A . Assessment of cost drivers and cost variation for lumbar interbody fusion procedures using the Value Driven Outcomes database. Neurosurg Focus. 2018; 44(5):E10. DOI: 10.3171/2018.1.FOCUS17724. View