Search

Background: Advanced practice professionals, including physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs), play an important role in providing high-quality orthopaedic care. This role has been highlighted by projections of nationwide shortages in orthopaedic surgeons, with rural areas expected to be most affected. Given that approximately half of rural counties have no practicing orthopaedic surgeons and that advanced practice professionals have been shown to be more likely to practice in rural areas compared to physicians in other medical disciplines, orthopaedic advanced practice professionals may be poised to address orthopaedic care shortages in rural areas, but the degree to which this is true has not been well characterized., Questions/purposes: (1) What percentage of rural counties have no orthopaedic caregivers, including surgeons and advanced practice professionals? (2) Is the density of advanced practice professionals greater than that of orthopaedic surgeons in rural counties? (3) Do orthopaedic advanced practice professionals only practice in counties that also have practicing orthopaedic surgeons? (4) Are NPs in states with full practice authority more likely to practice in rural counties compared with NPs in restricted practice authority states?, Methods: We identified orthopaedic surgeons and advanced practice professionals using the 2019 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data, as this large dataset has been shown to be the most complete source of claims data nationwide. Each professional's ZIP Code was matched to counties per the US Postal Service ZIP Code Crosswalk Files. The total number and density of physician and advanced practice professionals per 100,000 residents were calculated per county nationwide. Counties were categorized as urban (large central metropolitan, large fringe metropolitan, medium metropolitan, and small metropolitan) or rural (micropolitan and noncore) using the National Center for Health Statistics Urban-Rural Classification Scheme. Comparisons between rural and urban county caregivers were conducted with the chi-square test and odds ratios. Population densities were compared with the Wilcoxon rank sum test. A bivariate density map was made to visualize the nationwide distribution of orthopaedic caregivers and determine the percentage of rural counties with no orthopaedic caregivers as well as whether orthopaedic advanced practice professionals practiced in counties not containing any surgeons. Additionally, to compare states with NP's full versus restricted practice authority, each NP was grouped based on their state to determine whether NPs in states with full practice authority were more likely to practice in rural counties. We identified a group of 31,091 orthopaedic caregivers, which was comprised of 23,728 physicians, 964 NPs, and 6399 PAs (7363 advanced practice professionals). A total of 88% (20,879 of 23,728) of physicians and 87% (6427 of 7363) of advanced practice professionals were in urban counties, which is comparable to nationwide population distributions., Results: A total of 39% (1237 of 3139) of counties had no orthopaedic professionals (defined as orthopaedic surgeons or advanced practice professionals) in 2019. Among these counties, 82% (1015 of 1237) were rural and 18% (222 of 1237) were urban. The density of advanced practice professionals providing orthopaedic services compared with the density of orthopaedic surgeons was higher in rural counties (18 ± 70 versus 8 ± 40 per 100,000 residents; p = 0.001). Additionally, 3% (57 of 1974) of rural and 1% (13 of 1165) of urban counties had at least one orthopaedic advanced practice professional, but no orthopaedic surgeons concurrently practicing in the county. There was no difference between the percentage of rural counties with an NP in states with full versus restricted practice authority for NPs (19% [157 of 823] versus 26% [36 of 141], OR 1.45 [95% CI 0.99 to 2.2]; p = 0.08)., Conclusion: As advanced practice professionals tended to only practice in counties which contain orthopaedic surgeons, our analysis suggests that plans to increase the number of advanced practice professionals alone in rural counties may not be sufficient to fully address the demand for orthopaedic care in rural areas that currently do not have orthopaedic surgeons in practice. Rather, interventions are needed to encourage more orthopaedic surgeons to practice in rural counties in collaborative partnerships with advanced practice professionals. In turn, rural orthopaedic advanced practice professionals may serve to further extend the accessibility of these surgeons, but it remains to be determined what the total number and ratio of advanced practice professionals and surgeons is needed to serve rural counties adequately., Clinical Relevance: To increase rural orthopaedic outreach, state legislatures may consider providing financial incentives to hospitals who adopt traveling clinic models, incorporating advanced practice professionals in these models as physician-extenders to further increase the coverage of orthopaedic care. Furthermore, the creation of more widespread financial incentives and programs aimed at expanding the experience of trainees in serving rural populations are longer-term investments to foster interest and retention of orthopaedic caregivers in rural settings., Competing Interests: All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request., (Copyright © 2023 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Introduction: Inequalities involving women across orthopaedic subspecialties continue to be highlighted in the literature. Previous analyses exploring reimbursement differences between sexes have not controlled for confounding factors or have been limited by small sample sizes. Our study used Medicare data on a national sample of orthopaedic surgeons to better evaluate these disparities., Methods: This cross-sectional analysis used publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File. Using each provider's National Provider Identifier number, this data set was linked to the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System downloadable file and the 2019 National Provider Compare Database. Mean differences were calculated using the Welch t -test. Multivariate linear regression analysis was conducted to determine the effect of sex on total Medicare payments per physician, controlling for years in practice, practice diversity, clinical productivity, and subspecialty., Results: Nineteen thousand six orthopaedic surgeons were included in our analysis. Of these providers, 1,058 were female (5.6%) and 17,948 were male (94.4%). Male orthopaedic surgeons billed an average of 19.40 unique billing codes per provider and female orthopaedic surgeons billed 14.4 per provider ( P < 0.001). Female orthopaedic surgeons billed an average of 1,245.5 services per physician while male orthopaedic surgeons billed 2,360.7 services per physician. The mean difference in payment between male and female orthopaedic surgeons was $59,748.7 ( P < 0.001). Multivariate linear regression showed that female sex was a significant predictor of lower total yearly Medicare reimbursement ( P < 0.001)., Discussion: These findings emphasize the need for additional efforts to help ensure reimbursement differences do not deter women from pursuing orthopaedics. Healthcare organizations should use this information to ensure equal salary negotiating power among their employees while additionally addressing potential biases and misconceptions related to referrals and surgeon aptitude, respectively., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Introduction: Although previous studies have demonstrated inconsistencies between surgeon work and reimbursement, no previous study has calculated expected relative value units (RVUs) based on procedure-specific variables. Our study aimed to evaluate how measures of physician workload and surgical complexity correlate with the work RVUs (wRVUs) assigned to orthopaedic procedures and compare our predicted wRVUs with actual wRVUs., Methods: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was used to identify orthopaedic surgeries with the highest procedural volume in 2019. For each Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code, variables related to surgical complexity and postoperative management were retrieved. A multivariable linear regression was conducted, and R 2 values were calculated., Results: A total of 229,792 cases from the top 20 CPT codes by frequency in 2019 were identified. Base RVU values ranged from 7.03 mRVUs for arthroscopic meniscectomy to 30.28 mRVUs for revision total hip arthroplasty. A total of 15 (75%) of the projected mRVUs were lower than the actual mRVU of the procedure. For the 5 (25%) procedures with mRVU projections higher than actual values, the largest differences were seen for CPT codes 29,888 (arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament [ACL] repair; difference: 7.81), 22,630 (posterior arthrodesis of the lumbar interbody; difference: 7.75), and 27,487 (revision total knee arthroplasty; difference: 4.04)., Conclusion: Our analysis demonstrates that current orthopaedic wRVUs do not appropriately compensate for objective measures of overall complexity as it relates to each procedure. Significant undercompensation in projected RVUs was noted for several high-volume orthopaedic procedures including arthroscopic ACL repair and revision total knee arthroplasty., (Copyright © 2023 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Introduction: Although industry payments to physicians and surgeons remain a subject of controversy, relationships between industry and orthopaedic surgeons continue to grow. Notably, recent analyses have demonstrated significant increases in the rate and magnitude of payments among orthopaedic surgeons, despite the passing of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010. Given the concerns regarding how these relationships may affect the peer-review process, our analysis aimed to evaluate how payments among editorial board members of orthopaedic journals have changed over a contemporary time frame., Methods: The Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor tool was used to identify all orthopaedic journals with a 2019 impact factor of ≥1.5. Editorial board members from these respective journals were identified from each journal's website. Subsequently, the Open Payments database by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was queried to identify industry payments received by these board members between 2014 and 2019. The quantity and magnitude of payments were then evaluated and compared over this study period. All monetary values were adjusted for inflation., Results: A total of 18 orthopaedic journals were included in our analysis. Of the 1,519 editorial board members identified, 711 (46.81%) received some form of industry payment in 2019. The total, average, and median payments over this study period decreased for 6 (31.6%), 7 (36.8%), and 8 of the included journals (44.44%), respectively. Six hundred twenty board members had higher average payments in 2019 than in 2014., Conclusion: Our analysis demonstrated high rates of industry payments among editorial board members of high-impact orthopaedic journals. In addition, we demonstrated marked growth in the total, average, and median magnitude of these payments since the inception of the Open Payments database. Our findings encourage a continued need for transparency in related payments to ensure a fair and unbiased peer-review process, one that is separated from undue industry influence., (Copyright © 2022 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.)

Background: Although the achievement of adequate analgesia is critical to patient comfort and recovery following orthopedic procedures, no standard protocol exists to dictate the appropriate duration and quantity of narcotic prescription in the postoperative period. Therefore, the purpose of this survey was to determine patterns of opioid prescribing among orthopedic shoulder and elbow providers., Methods: In March 2020, a survey was distributed through a LISTSERV to 989 members of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons orthopedic society. Survey recipients were asked to describe their personal and practice characteristics. Additionally, they were asked to list their 3 most commonly performed procedures and, for each operation, to list which narcotic pain medication they most commonly prescribe postoperatively, along with the corresponding number of tablets typically given. Similarly, respondents were asked to record frequently recommended alternative strategies for postoperative pain control, factors influencing the respondents' prescribing practices, and methods of patient counseling regarding opioid use and disposal., Results: A total of 177 providers responded to the survey. Across all selected procedures, Percocet (5 mg of oxycodone hydrochloride and 325 mg of acetaminophen) was the most commonly prescribed drug, with 21-30 tablets being the most commonly prescribed amount. The majority of surgeons (82%) indicated that previous opioid prescriptions influence their decision to prescribe opioids. Respondents most frequently reported patient age (48%) and duration of the patient's symptoms (32%) as additional influential factors. Most surgeons (93%) reported counseling their patients regarding the use of opioid medications. However, only 30% of surgeons reported providing information regarding how to dispose of unused opioids. In lieu of opioids, nearly all investigators reported the use of ice as a pain-relief strategy, with rest and the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs reported as other commonly recommended alternatives. Of 137 respondents who were aware of prescription guidelines, 21% reported using recommendations from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 21% used institutional policies, and 20% used personal guidelines, whereas the remaining respondents used other literature findings in their prescription decisions. Of particular concern, 21% of overall respondents were unaware of any type of guidelines., Discussion: To prevent both misuse and abuse of opioid prescribing, this analysis serves as a starting point for the establishment of more consistent, evidence-based opioid prescription guidelines for surgical procedures on the shoulder and elbow. In addition to recommending safe, procedure-specific opioid dosages and standardizing pain management strategies, these guidelines should include effective methods of educating both providers and patients regarding the use of opioid medication., (Copyright © 2021 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)