Search

Background: Orthopaedic procedures are expensive, and devices account for a large proportion of the overall costs. Hospitals have employed a variety of strategies to decrease implant costs, but many center on restricting surgeon choice. At our institution, we developed an implant selection tool that guides surgeons toward more cost-effective implants, while minimally restricting choice. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of this tool on preferred implant usage rates, vendor attitudes toward pricing structure, and hospital implant expenditures., Methods: For 6 commonly used orthopaedic trauma devices, similar constructs were created for the 4 vendors used at our hospital, and the costs were determined. On the basis of these costs, the available options for each device type were categorized as "green" (preferred vendor), "yellow" (midrange), or "red" (used for patient-specific requirements). The "Red-Yellow-Green" chart was posted on the wall of each orthopaedic trauma operating room. To assess the effect of the tool, we compared implant usage patterns before and after implementation of the implant selection tool. We also assessed changes in vendor contract prices, as well as overall savings to our institution., Results: Implant usage changed significantly from 30% "red," 56% "yellow," and 14% "green" prior to the intervention, to 9% "red," 21% "yellow," and 70% "green" after the intervention (p < 0.0001). As a result of price renegotiation with vendors following implementation, we observed average price decreases that ranged from 1.1% to 22.4%. Average expenditures on these 6 implants decreased 20% during the study period, which represented a savings of $216,495 per year., Conclusions: At our institution, we designed and implemented "Red-Yellow-Green," a simple tool that guides surgeons toward the selection of lower-cost implants without violating vendor confidentiality clauses, limiting the implants from which surgeons can choose, or requiring surgeons to discern the prices of complex constructs. Following implementation, hospital implant expenditures decreased as a result of a combination of increased preferred vendor usage by surgeons, as well as increased competition among vendors, which resulted in lower overall prices.

Objectives: To determine the role of generic orthopaedic trauma implants in the current orthopaedic trauma market, as perceived by OTA members, and investigate potential hurdles to the use of generic implants and other cost-containment measures., Design: Survey study., Setting: Not applicable., Participants: All active OTA members with valid e-mail addresses were invited to participate., Intervention: Participants completed a brief online survey with questions regarding participation in cost-containment and incentive programs, industry relationships, generic implant use, and the role of surgeons in cost containment., Main Outcome Measures: Survey data., Results: Participation in cost-containment programs (comanagement agreements, bundled payment for care improvement, and gainsharing) was found to be very low among participants (17%, 36.5%, 17%, respectively). Industry sales representatives were present in a majority of participants' cases (76.9%) the majority of time, but relatively a few surgeons (21.2%) felt their presence was necessary. Most surgeons were aware of the availability of generic implants (72.6%), but a few had adopted the use of such implants (25.5%), despite 50/52 (96.2%) prescribing generic drugs and 45/52 (86.5%) using generic products in their own households., Conclusions: Most participants agreed that generic orthopaedic implants have a role in cost containment, but a few have adopted these implants. The presence of sales representatives does not seem to be necessary for most surgeons, and minimizing or eliminating their presence may result in substantial savings for health care institutions. Increased education and the use of financial incentive programs may encourage improved surgeon participation in cost containment and adoption of generic implants and may help reduce health care spending., Level of Evidence: Level 4. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Implant costs comprise the largest proportion of operating room supply costs for orthopedic trauma care. Over the years, hospitals have devised several methods of controlling these costs with the help of physicians. With increasing economic pressure, these negotiations have a tremendous ability to decrease the cost of trauma care. In the past, physicians have taken no responsibility for implant pricing which has made cost control difficult. The reasons have been multifactorial. However, industry surgeon consulting fees, research support, and surgeon comfort with certain implant systems have played a large role in slowing adoption of cost-control measures. With the advent of physician gainsharing and comanagement agreements, physicians now have impetus to change. At our facility, we have used 3 methods for cost containment since 2009: dual vendor, matrix pricing, and sole-source contracting. Each has been increasingly successful, resulting in massive savings for the institution. This article describes the process and benefits of each model.

Background: There is ongoing concern over potential conflict of interest inherent in physician relationships with industry. However, there are limited empirical data detailing the prevalence and magnitude of these relationships. Our objective was to use data made available by a US Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuit to describe the extent of orthopedic surgeons' financial relationships with implant manufacturers., Methods: We used data made available by the 2007 DOJ settlement with 5 major joint implant manufacturers to detail the number of orthopedic surgeons receiving payments, the size of these payments, the aggregate dollar amount, and the proportion going to academically affiliated orthopedic surgeons between 2007 and 2010., Results: In 2007, 1041 payments totaling in excess of $198 million were made to 939 orthopedic surgeons. In 2008, following the DOJ settlement, the implant makers made 568 payments totaling more than $228 million to 526 orthopedic surgeons (which included $109 million in one-time royalty buyouts by a single firm). The proportion of surgeons receiving payments who had academic affiliations rose from 39.4% in 2007 to 44.9% in 2008. Similar patterns were observed in 2009 and 2010 for 3 firms that continued to disclose by choice. We also noted substantial variation across firms in the details provided in the disclosed data., Conclusions: The impact of the DOJ settlement in the short term appears complex, with an increase in payments, a decline in the number of consultants, and an increase in the proportion of consultants drawn from academia. There is a need for clearer specific requirements for disclosure to allow for meaningful long-term analyses to be performed.

Total joint arthroplasty is a successful surgical treatment for painful, arthritic hips and knees. The prevalence of total joint arthroplasty is increasing, and it is consuming an increasing proportion of health care dollars. Payers, especially Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, have targeted total joint arthroplasty for cost control, and joint implants, the greatest expense in total joint arthroplasty, have been identified as an opportunity for cost control. Hospitals seek to control the cost of joint implants because the rate of increase in the price of implants is rising faster than the rate of increase in hospital payment for total joint arthroplasty. As joint implants consume more of the hospital payment for total joint arthroplasty, hospitals are encouraging surgeons to use less expensive implants. Several methods for controlling the cost of implants have been described, but no method has succeeded without the cooperation and involvement of surgeons. Gainsharing programs may help align the incentives of hospitals and surgeons relative to the selection and cost of implants. We have implemented a Single-price/Case-price Purchasing program with considerable savings on the cost of implants without adversely affecting the patient outcome of total joint arthroplasty.