Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1681094
Are Joint Surgeons Being Adequately Compensated for Single-Component versus Double-Component Revision TKA? An Analysis of Relative Value Units
Publication History
23 July 2018
22 January 2019
Publication Date:
12 March 2019 (online)
![](https://www.thieme-connect.de/media/jks/202006/lookinside/thumbnails/10-1055-s-0039-1681094_180233oa-1.jpg)
Abstract
Relative value units (RVUs) are used for ensuring that physicians are appropriately reimbursed based on case complexity. While past research has elucidated that surgeons are reimbursed at a higher rate for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) versus revision TKA, no study has explored differences in reimbursements between single-component and double-component revisions, considering a double-component revision is likely to require more effort/skill as compared with single-component revision. The 2015 to 2016 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program files were queried using Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for single-component revision TKA (CPT-27486) and double-component revision TKA (CPT-27487). A total of 1,962 single-component and 4,184 double component revisions were performed during this period. Total RVUs, RVU/min, and dollar amount/min were calculated for each case. The mean RVU was 21.12 and 27.11 for single-component and double-component revision TKAs, respectively. A statistically significant difference was noted in mean operative time (single component = 100.44 vs. double component = 144.29; p < 0.001) between the two groups. Single-component revision had a significantly higher mean RVU/min (0.267) versus double-component revision (0.223). The reimbursement amounts calculated for single-component versus double-component revisions were per minute ($9.58/min vs. $8.00/min), per case ($962.22 vs. $1,154.32), and per day ($5,773.32 vs. $4,617.28) with a projected annualized cost difference of $184,966. Orthopaedic surgeons are reimbursed at a higher rate for single-component revision TKAs as compared with double-component revision TKAs, despite the higher complexity and longer operative times required in the latter. The study highlights the need for a change in the RVUs for either double-component or single-component revision to ensure reimbursement per unit time is adequate for performing a complex case such as double-component revision TKA.
Note
The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the hospitals participating in the ACS NSQIP are the source of the data used herein; they have not verified and are not responsible for the statistical validity of the data analysis or the conclusions derived by the authors.
-
References
- 1 Beck DE, Margolin DA. Physician coding and reimbursement. Ochsner J 2007; 7 (01) 8-15
- 2 American Medical Association - Relative Value Unit (RVU) Update. Available at: https://www.ama-assn.org/sites/default/files/media.../ruc-update-booklet_0.pdf . Accessed July 23, 2018
- 3 Peterson J, Sodhi N, Khlopas A. , et al. A comparison of relative value units in primary versus revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (7S): S39-S42
- 4 Isaacson MJ, Bunn KJ, Noble PC, Ismaily SK, Incavo SJ. Quantifying and predicting surgeon work input in primary vs revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (06) 1188-1193
- 5 Tokarski AT, Deirmengian CA, Lichstein PM, Austin MS, Deirmengian GK. Medicare fails to compensate additional surgical time and effort associated with revision arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (04) 535-538
- 6 Sodhi N, Piuzzi NS, Khlopas A. , et al. Are we appropriately compensated by relative value units for primary vs revision total hip arthroplasty?. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (02) 340-344
- 7 Orr RD, Sodhi N, Dalton SE. , et al. What provides a better value for your time? The use of relative value units to compare posterior segmental instrumentation of vertebral segments. Spine J 2018; 18 (10) 1727-1732
- 8 Sodhi N, Yao B, Newman JM. , et al. A comparison of relative value units in primary versus revision total ankle arthroplasty. Surg Technol Int 2017; 31: 322-326
- 9 Schwartz DA, Hui X, Velopulos CG. , et al. Does relative value unit-based compensation shortchange the acute care surgeon?. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2014; 76 (01) 84-92 , discussion 92–94
- 10 Shah DR, Bold RJ, Yang AD, Khatri VP, Martinez SR, Canter RJ. Relative value units poorly correlate with measures of surgical effort and complexity. J Surg Res 2014; 190 (02) 465-470