Abstract:Background: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) launched the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative in 2013 to create incentives to improve outcomes and reduce costs in various clinical settings, including total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study seeks to quantify BPCI initiative outcomes for THA and to determine the optimal party (for example, hospital versus physician group practice [PGP]) to manage the program. Questions/purposes: (1) Is BPCI associated with lower 90-day payments, readmissions, or mortality for elective THA? (2) Is there a difference in 90-day payments, readmissions, or mortality between episodes initiated by PGPs and episodes initiated by hospitals for elective THA? (3) Is BPCI associated with reduced total Elixhauser comorbidity index or age for elective THA? Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis on the CMS Limited Data Set on all Medicare primary elective THAs without a major comorbidity performed in the United States (except Maryland) between January 2013 and March 2016, totaling more than USD 7.1 billion in expenditures. Episodes were grouped into hospital-run BPCI (n = 42,922), PGP-run BPCI (n = 44,662), and THA performed outside of BPCI (n = 284,002). All Medicare Part A payments were calculated over a 90-day period after surgery and adjusted for inflation and regional variation. For each episode, age, sex, race, geographic location, background trend, and Elixhauser comorbidities were determined to control for major confounding variables. Total payments, readmissions, and mortality were compared among the groups with logistic regression. Results: When controlling for demographics, background trend, geographic variation, and total Elixhauser comorbidities in elective Diagnosis-Related Group 470 THA episodes, BPCI was associated with a 4.44% (95% confidence interval [CI], -4.58% to -4.30%; p < 0.001) payment decrease for all participants (USD 1244 decrease from a baseline of USD 18,802); additionally, odds ratios (ORs) for 90-day mortality and readmissions were unchanged. PGP groups showed a 4.81% decrease in payments (95% CI, -5.01% to -4.61%; p < 0.001) after enrolling in BPCI (USD 1335 decrease from a baseline of USD 17,841). Hospital groups showed a 4.04% decrease in payments (95% CI, -4.24% to 3.84%; p < 0.01) after enrolling in BPCI (USD 1138 decrease from a baseline of USD 19,799). The decrease in payments of PGP-run episodes was greater compared with hospital-run episodes. ORs for 90-day mortality and readmission remained unchanged after BPCI for PGP- and hospital-run BPCI programs. Patient age and mean Elixhauser comorbidity index did not change after BPCI for PGP-run, hospital-run, or overall BPCI episodes. Conclusions: Even when controlling for decreasing costs in traditional fee-for-service care, BPCI is associated with payment reduction with no change in adverse events, and this is not because of the selection of younger patients or those with fewer comorbidities. Furthermore, physician group practices were associated with greater payment reduction than hospital programs with no difference in readmission or mortality from baseline for either. Physicians may be a more logical group than hospitals to manage payment reduction in future healthcare reform. Level of evidence: Level II, economic and decision analysis.

Hospitals' strategies to reduce costs and improve quality: survey of hospital leaders

Hospital-Skilled Nursing Facility Integration and Participation in a Bundled Payment Initiative

Association of Hospital Participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced With Medicare Spending and Hospital Incentive Payments

2018 John Charnley Award: Analysis of US Hip Replacement Bundled Payments: Physician-initiated Episodes Outperform Hospital-initiated Episodes

Association of Hospitals' Experience with Bundled Payment for Care Improvement Model with the Diffusion of Acute Hospital Care at Home

Factors Associated With Participation in Cardiac Episode Payments Included in Medicare’s Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative

Do Bundled Payment Programs in Joint Replacement Care Hold Promise for Improving Patient Outcomes?

Spending and quality after three years of Medicare's bundled payments for medical conditions: quasi-experimental difference-in-differences study

Abstract 11654: Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Advanced and Cardiac Rehabilitation Participation After Acute Myocardial Infarction

Pay-for-Performance Initiatives: Modest Benefits for Improving Healthcare Quality

Comparison of Clinical Episode Outcomes between Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) Initiative Participants and Non-Participants

Evaluating the robustness of the CMS Hospital Value-Based Purchasing measurement system

Evidence of the Linkage Between Hospital-based Care Coordination Strategies and Hospital Overall (Star) Ratings

Standardising costs or standardising care? Qualitative evaluation of the implementation and impact of a hospital funding reform in Ontario, Canada

Trends in HCAHPS Survey Scores, 2008-2019: A Quality Improvement Perspective

Hospital-physician Integration and Value-based Payment: Early Results From MIPS

An Exploratory Analysis of the Association between Hospital Quality Measures and Financial Performance

Association of Skilled Nursing Facility Participation in Voluntary Bundled Payments With Postacute Care Outcomes for Joint Replacement

Do Hospitals Alter Patient Care Effort Allocations under Pay-for-Performance?

Hospital resources are associated with value-based surgical performance

Medical University of South Carolina case study: A structured approach to improving quality metrics for achieving maximum pay-for-performance incentive payments