Search

Background: Private equity acquisition of medical specialty practices has increased in recent years. With the projected increase in the volume of elective, ambulatory orthopaedic procedures, especially in the outpatient setting, private equity firms are increasingly investing in orthopaedic practices. The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to report recent trends and variations in acquisitions of US orthopaedic practices by private equity firms and other institutional investors (venture capital firms, trusts, and large investment companies)., Methods: Acquisition data through January 1, 2020, were collected and analyzed using various financial databases, supplemented with publicly available information from financial news outlets, press releases, and financial analyst and industry reports. Disclosed financing data were also included, in addition to pertinent geographic information (state, city, and zip code) of the target practices., Results: Between 2004 and 2019, 41 orthopaedic practices and surgeon groups across 22 states were acquired by 34 private equity and other investment firms. A significant increase was observed in the number of acquisitions between 2017 and 2019, consisting of 70.7% of total transactions during the study period, with a statistically significant upward yearly trend (P = 0.002). The compound annual growth rate in acquisition volume was 29.2% during the study period. A disproportionate share of private equity acquisitions took place in the South, where more than half (51.2%) of the total transactions took place. Firms were markedly more likely to acquire or invest in practices located in major metropolitan areas (population more than 1 million) compared with those in mid-sized or rural areas (70.7%, 17.1%, 12.2%, respectively; P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Private equity acquisition of orthopaedic surgery practices has increased markedly in recent years. The effect of private equity acquisition on physician independence, practice management, and procedure reimbursement remains unclear and may be important to explore as practice management evolves., Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

In a very brief period, the COVID-19 pandemic has swept across the planet leaving governments, societies, and healthcare systems unprepared and under-resourced. New York City now represents the global viral epicenter with roughly one-third of all mortalities in the United States. To date, our hospital has treated thousands of COVID-19 positive patients and sits at the forefront of the United States response to this pandemic. The goal of this paper is to share the lessons learned by our spine division during a crisis when hospital resources and personnel are stretched thin. Such experiences include management of elective and emergent cases, outpatient clinics, physician redeployment, and general health and wellness. As peak infections spread across the United States, we hope this article will serve as a resource for other spine departments on how to manage patient care and healthcare worker deployment during the COVID-19 crisis., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although elective surgeries and in-person office visits were greatly reduced during the COVID-19 crisis, orthopaedic surgeons continue to play a critical role in caring for both orthopaedic and nonorthopaedic problems during this pandemic. Orthopaedic departments provide the ability to off-load emergency departments of orthopaedic issues, redeploy staff to areas of need across the hospital system, and provide direct care to COVID-19 patients. The following will discuss the experience of a large academic orthopaedic surgery department within the epicenter of the COVID-19 pandemic with respect to redeployment of human capital and unique resources such as the United States Naval Ship Comfort as well as our recommended strategy for handling future disaster situations.

Background: Orthopaedic surgeons receive a disproportionately small share of funding from the National Institutes of Health, but they receive the largest amount of funding from industry sources. The purpose of this study was to examine the association between payments from industry partners and research productivity among orthopaedic research authors, as well as to identify predictors of high research productivity., Methods: United States-based physicians who published an article in 2016 in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery or The American Journal of Sports Medicine were included in this study. These authors were queried in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database (OPD) to determine the amount of industry payments received, and on Scopus, a bibliometric web site, to assess the quantity (total publication count) and quality (Hirsch index [h-index]) of each author's research. Nonparametric testing was used to compare the h-index and the total publication count of authors by payments received and academic position. Multivariate regression was used to identify independent predictors of high research productivity., Results: Of the 766 included authors, 494 (64.5%) received <$10,000 per year, 162 (21.1%) received between $10,000 and $100,000, and 110 (14.4%) received >$100,000 in total payments. The h-index increased significantly from a mean (and standard deviation) of 13.1 ± 12.9 to 20.9 ± 14.4, and to 32.3 ± 16.7, from the lowest to highest payment cohorts, as did total publication count. When authors were stratified by academic position (assistant professor, associate professor, full professor, and nonacademic), those who received more industry payments (>$100,000) had a higher h-index and total publication count at all academic levels relative to lower-earning (<$10,000) authors. Independent predictors of a high h-index included industry payments of between $10,000 and $100,000 (odds ratio [OR], 1.63; p = 0.048), payments of >$100,000 (OR, 5.87), associate professorship (OR, 6.53), full professorship (OR, 33.38), and last authorship (OR, 2.22) (p < 0.001 for all comparisons unless otherwise noted)., Conclusions: Although this study does not establish a causal relationship, we identified increasing industry payments as an independent predictor of research productivity among authors at all academic levels who had published peer-reviewed orthopaedic research.