J Knee Surg 2020; 33(06): 593-596
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1681094
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Are Joint Surgeons Being Adequately Compensated for Single-Component versus Double-Component Revision TKA? An Analysis of Relative Value Units

Azeem Tariq Malik
1   Department of Orthopaedics, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio
,
Thomas J. Scharschmidt
1   Department of Orthopaedics, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio
,
Mengnai Li
1   Department of Orthopaedics, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio
,
Nikhil Jain
1   Department of Orthopaedics, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio
,
Safdar N. Khan
1   Department of Orthopaedics, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

23 July 2018

22 January 2019

Publication Date:
12 March 2019 (online)

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