Patient Perception of Value in Bundled Payments for Total Joint Arthroplasty

Abstract Background A central concern for providers in a bundled payment model is determining how the bundle is distributed. Prior studies have shown that current reimbursement rates are often not aligned with patients’ values. While willingness to pay (WTP) surveys are perhaps useful in a fee-for-s...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Journal of arthroplasty 2016-12, Vol.31 (12), p.2696-2699
Hauptverfasser: Schwartz, Adam J., MD, MBA, Fraser, James F., MD, MPH, Shannon, Allison, PA-C, Jackson, Nikki, RN, Raghu, T.S., PhD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2699
container_issue 12
container_start_page 2696
container_title The Journal of arthroplasty
container_volume 31
creator Schwartz, Adam J., MD, MBA
Fraser, James F., MD, MPH
Shannon, Allison, PA-C
Jackson, Nikki, RN
Raghu, T.S., PhD
description Abstract Background A central concern for providers in a bundled payment model is determining how the bundle is distributed. Prior studies have shown that current reimbursement rates are often not aligned with patients’ values. While willingness to pay (WTP) surveys are perhaps useful in a fee-for-service arrangement to determine overall reimbursement, the percentage of payment distribution might be as or more important in a bundled payment model. Methods All patients undergoing primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) by a single surgeon were offered participation in a preoperative WTP survey. At a minimum three months postoperatively, patients were mailed instructions for an on-line follow-up survey asking how they would allocate a hypothetical bonus payment. Results From January through December 2014, forty-five patients agreed to participate in the preoperative WTP survey. Twenty patients who were minimum three-months postoperative also completed the follow-up survey. Patients valued total knee and hip replacement at $28,438 (95%CI: $20,551-36,324) and $39,479 (95%CI: $27,848 – $51,112), respectively. At three months postoperatively, patients distributed a hypothetical bonus payment 55.5% to the surgeon (95%CI: 47.8%-63.1%), 38% to the hospital (95%CI: 30.3%-45.7%), and 6.5% (95%CI: -1.2%-14.2%) to the implant manufacturer (p < 0.001). Conclusion The data suggest that TJA patients have vastly different perceptions of payment distributions than what actually exists. In contrast to the findings of this study, the true distribution of payments for an episode of care averages 65% to the hospital, 27% to the implant manufacturer and 8% to the surgeon. While many drivers of payment distribution exist, this study suggests that patients would allocate a larger proportion of a bundled payment to surgeons than is currently disbursed. This finding may also provide a plausible explanation for patients’ consistent overestimation of surgeon reimbursements.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.050
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1826712235</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>1_s2_0_S0883540316302297</els_id><sourcerecordid>1826712235</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-e7953cb5380f7017136152d09b2922054c1c95a81e7ba5da74a4e9b94bdaa5543</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU9r3DAQxUVpaTZpvkAPRcdevB1JlmVDKSSh6R8WspA0VyHLY6qt1tpKcmG_fWU27aGHwsDM4b3HzG8Iec1gzYA173ZrE_P3NS_zGmQpeEZWTApetTU0z8kK2lZUsgZxRs5T2gEwJmX9kpxxJVTbiGZFNluTHU6ZbjFaPGQXJhpG-mj8jNRN9HqeBo8D3ZrjvsgSHUOkDyEbT78GV3xXZYUYDt6kfHxFXozGJ7x86hfk2-3Hh5vP1ebu05ebq01la8ZyhaqTwvZStDAqYIqJhkk-QNfzjnOQtWW2k6ZlqHojB6NqU2PXd3U_GFMOEBfk7Sn3EMPPGVPWe5csem8mDHPSrOWNYpwLWaT8JLUxpBRx1Ifo9iYeNQO9UNQ7vVDUC0UNshQU05un_Lnf4_DX8gdbEbw_CbBc-cth1MkWihYHF9FmPQT3__wP_9itd5Ozxv_AI6ZdmONU-GmmE9eg75c_Lm9kjQDOOyV-AxiclxU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1826712235</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Patient Perception of Value in Bundled Payments for Total Joint Arthroplasty</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Schwartz, Adam J., MD, MBA ; Fraser, James F., MD, MPH ; Shannon, Allison, PA-C ; Jackson, Nikki, RN ; Raghu, T.S., PhD</creator><creatorcontrib>Schwartz, Adam J., MD, MBA ; Fraser, James F., MD, MPH ; Shannon, Allison, PA-C ; Jackson, Nikki, RN ; Raghu, T.S., PhD</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Background A central concern for providers in a bundled payment model is determining how the bundle is distributed. Prior studies have shown that current reimbursement rates are often not aligned with patients’ values. While willingness to pay (WTP) surveys are perhaps useful in a fee-for-service arrangement to determine overall reimbursement, the percentage of payment distribution might be as or more important in a bundled payment model. Methods All patients undergoing primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) by a single surgeon were offered participation in a preoperative WTP survey. At a minimum three months postoperatively, patients were mailed instructions for an on-line follow-up survey asking how they would allocate a hypothetical bonus payment. Results From January through December 2014, forty-five patients agreed to participate in the preoperative WTP survey. Twenty patients who were minimum three-months postoperative also completed the follow-up survey. Patients valued total knee and hip replacement at $28,438 (95%CI: $20,551-36,324) and $39,479 (95%CI: $27,848 – $51,112), respectively. At three months postoperatively, patients distributed a hypothetical bonus payment 55.5% to the surgeon (95%CI: 47.8%-63.1%), 38% to the hospital (95%CI: 30.3%-45.7%), and 6.5% (95%CI: -1.2%-14.2%) to the implant manufacturer (p &lt; 0.001). Conclusion The data suggest that TJA patients have vastly different perceptions of payment distributions than what actually exists. In contrast to the findings of this study, the true distribution of payments for an episode of care averages 65% to the hospital, 27% to the implant manufacturer and 8% to the surgeon. While many drivers of payment distribution exist, this study suggests that patients would allocate a larger proportion of a bundled payment to surgeons than is currently disbursed. This finding may also provide a plausible explanation for patients’ consistent overestimation of surgeon reimbursements.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0883-5403</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-8406</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.050</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27378636</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement - economics ; bundled payments ; bundled total joint arthroplasty ; Female ; health care economics ; Health Expenditures ; Humans ; Male ; Medicare ; Orthopedics ; Patient Care Bundles - psychology ; willingness to pay</subject><ispartof>The Journal of arthroplasty, 2016-12, Vol.31 (12), p.2696-2699</ispartof><rights>2016 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-e7953cb5380f7017136152d09b2922054c1c95a81e7ba5da74a4e9b94bdaa5543</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-e7953cb5380f7017136152d09b2922054c1c95a81e7ba5da74a4e9b94bdaa5543</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883540316302297$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65534</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27378636$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Schwartz, Adam J., MD, MBA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fraser, James F., MD, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shannon, Allison, PA-C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jackson, Nikki, RN</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raghu, T.S., PhD</creatorcontrib><title>Patient Perception of Value in Bundled Payments for Total Joint Arthroplasty</title><title>The Journal of arthroplasty</title><addtitle>J Arthroplasty</addtitle><description>Abstract Background A central concern for providers in a bundled payment model is determining how the bundle is distributed. Prior studies have shown that current reimbursement rates are often not aligned with patients’ values. While willingness to pay (WTP) surveys are perhaps useful in a fee-for-service arrangement to determine overall reimbursement, the percentage of payment distribution might be as or more important in a bundled payment model. Methods All patients undergoing primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) by a single surgeon were offered participation in a preoperative WTP survey. At a minimum three months postoperatively, patients were mailed instructions for an on-line follow-up survey asking how they would allocate a hypothetical bonus payment. Results From January through December 2014, forty-five patients agreed to participate in the preoperative WTP survey. Twenty patients who were minimum three-months postoperative also completed the follow-up survey. Patients valued total knee and hip replacement at $28,438 (95%CI: $20,551-36,324) and $39,479 (95%CI: $27,848 – $51,112), respectively. At three months postoperatively, patients distributed a hypothetical bonus payment 55.5% to the surgeon (95%CI: 47.8%-63.1%), 38% to the hospital (95%CI: 30.3%-45.7%), and 6.5% (95%CI: -1.2%-14.2%) to the implant manufacturer (p &lt; 0.001). Conclusion The data suggest that TJA patients have vastly different perceptions of payment distributions than what actually exists. In contrast to the findings of this study, the true distribution of payments for an episode of care averages 65% to the hospital, 27% to the implant manufacturer and 8% to the surgeon. While many drivers of payment distribution exist, this study suggests that patients would allocate a larger proportion of a bundled payment to surgeons than is currently disbursed. This finding may also provide a plausible explanation for patients’ consistent overestimation of surgeon reimbursements.</description><subject>Arthroplasty, Replacement - economics</subject><subject>bundled payments</subject><subject>bundled total joint arthroplasty</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>health care economics</subject><subject>Health Expenditures</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicare</subject><subject>Orthopedics</subject><subject>Patient Care Bundles - psychology</subject><subject>willingness to pay</subject><issn>0883-5403</issn><issn>1532-8406</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU9r3DAQxUVpaTZpvkAPRcdevB1JlmVDKSSh6R8WspA0VyHLY6qt1tpKcmG_fWU27aGHwsDM4b3HzG8Iec1gzYA173ZrE_P3NS_zGmQpeEZWTApetTU0z8kK2lZUsgZxRs5T2gEwJmX9kpxxJVTbiGZFNluTHU6ZbjFaPGQXJhpG-mj8jNRN9HqeBo8D3ZrjvsgSHUOkDyEbT78GV3xXZYUYDt6kfHxFXozGJ7x86hfk2-3Hh5vP1ebu05ebq01la8ZyhaqTwvZStDAqYIqJhkk-QNfzjnOQtWW2k6ZlqHojB6NqU2PXd3U_GFMOEBfk7Sn3EMPPGVPWe5csem8mDHPSrOWNYpwLWaT8JLUxpBRx1Ifo9iYeNQO9UNQ7vVDUC0UNshQU05un_Lnf4_DX8gdbEbw_CbBc-cth1MkWihYHF9FmPQT3__wP_9itd5Ozxv_AI6ZdmONU-GmmE9eg75c_Lm9kjQDOOyV-AxiclxU</recordid><startdate>20161201</startdate><enddate>20161201</enddate><creator>Schwartz, Adam J., MD, MBA</creator><creator>Fraser, James F., MD, MPH</creator><creator>Shannon, Allison, PA-C</creator><creator>Jackson, Nikki, RN</creator><creator>Raghu, T.S., PhD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20161201</creationdate><title>Patient Perception of Value in Bundled Payments for Total Joint Arthroplasty</title><author>Schwartz, Adam J., MD, MBA ; Fraser, James F., MD, MPH ; Shannon, Allison, PA-C ; Jackson, Nikki, RN ; Raghu, T.S., PhD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-e7953cb5380f7017136152d09b2922054c1c95a81e7ba5da74a4e9b94bdaa5543</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Arthroplasty, Replacement - economics</topic><topic>bundled payments</topic><topic>bundled total joint arthroplasty</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>health care economics</topic><topic>Health Expenditures</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicare</topic><topic>Orthopedics</topic><topic>Patient Care Bundles - psychology</topic><topic>willingness to pay</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Schwartz, Adam J., MD, MBA</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fraser, James F., MD, MPH</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shannon, Allison, PA-C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jackson, Nikki, RN</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raghu, T.S., PhD</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Journal of arthroplasty</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Schwartz, Adam J., MD, MBA</au><au>Fraser, James F., MD, MPH</au><au>Shannon, Allison, PA-C</au><au>Jackson, Nikki, RN</au><au>Raghu, T.S., PhD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Patient Perception of Value in Bundled Payments for Total Joint Arthroplasty</atitle><jtitle>The Journal of arthroplasty</jtitle><addtitle>J Arthroplasty</addtitle><date>2016-12-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>2696</spage><epage>2699</epage><pages>2696-2699</pages><issn>0883-5403</issn><eissn>1532-8406</eissn><abstract>Abstract Background A central concern for providers in a bundled payment model is determining how the bundle is distributed. Prior studies have shown that current reimbursement rates are often not aligned with patients’ values. While willingness to pay (WTP) surveys are perhaps useful in a fee-for-service arrangement to determine overall reimbursement, the percentage of payment distribution might be as or more important in a bundled payment model. Methods All patients undergoing primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) by a single surgeon were offered participation in a preoperative WTP survey. At a minimum three months postoperatively, patients were mailed instructions for an on-line follow-up survey asking how they would allocate a hypothetical bonus payment. Results From January through December 2014, forty-five patients agreed to participate in the preoperative WTP survey. Twenty patients who were minimum three-months postoperative also completed the follow-up survey. Patients valued total knee and hip replacement at $28,438 (95%CI: $20,551-36,324) and $39,479 (95%CI: $27,848 – $51,112), respectively. At three months postoperatively, patients distributed a hypothetical bonus payment 55.5% to the surgeon (95%CI: 47.8%-63.1%), 38% to the hospital (95%CI: 30.3%-45.7%), and 6.5% (95%CI: -1.2%-14.2%) to the implant manufacturer (p &lt; 0.001). Conclusion The data suggest that TJA patients have vastly different perceptions of payment distributions than what actually exists. In contrast to the findings of this study, the true distribution of payments for an episode of care averages 65% to the hospital, 27% to the implant manufacturer and 8% to the surgeon. While many drivers of payment distribution exist, this study suggests that patients would allocate a larger proportion of a bundled payment to surgeons than is currently disbursed. This finding may also provide a plausible explanation for patients’ consistent overestimation of surgeon reimbursements.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>27378636</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.050</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0883-5403
ispartof The Journal of arthroplasty, 2016-12, Vol.31 (12), p.2696-2699
issn 0883-5403
1532-8406
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1826712235
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Arthroplasty, Replacement - economics
bundled payments
bundled total joint arthroplasty
Female
health care economics
Health Expenditures
Humans
Male
Medicare
Orthopedics
Patient Care Bundles - psychology
willingness to pay
title Patient Perception of Value in Bundled Payments for Total Joint Arthroplasty
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-14T01%3A26%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Patient%20Perception%20of%20Value%20in%20Bundled%20Payments%20for%20Total%20Joint%20Arthroplasty&rft.jtitle=The%20Journal%20of%20arthroplasty&rft.au=Schwartz,%20Adam%20J.,%20MD,%20MBA&rft.date=2016-12-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=2696&rft.epage=2699&rft.pages=2696-2699&rft.issn=0883-5403&rft.eissn=1532-8406&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.050&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1826712235%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1826712235&rft_id=info:pmid/27378636&rft_els_id=1_s2_0_S0883540316302297&rfr_iscdi=true