Abstract:Background: There is an increasing acceptance of conducting minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) in ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs). The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced the Hospitals Without Walls (HWW) program in March 2020. This program granted hospitals regulatory flexibility to offer services and procedures in nontraditional locations, including ASCs. However, implementation hurdles persist. Methods: A survey was sent to 235 surgeons regarding the use of ASCs for performing TLIF surgeries on elderly patients. Multiple-choice questions covering various aspects of TLIF practice preferences, including surgical indications, decision factors for choosing ASCs over hospitals, implementation hurdles, reimbursement concerns, staffing issues, and the impact of CMS rules and regulations on TLIF in ASCs, particularly concerning physician ownership and self-referral conflicts governed by the Stark law, were asked. Results: The survey completion rate was 25.8% (Figure 1). The most common surgical indications for TLIF in ASCs were spondylolisthesis (80%), spinal stenosis (62.5%), and low back pain (47.5%). Most surgeons (78%) believed TLIF could be safely performed in ASCs. Streamlined workflow, lower infection rates, and cost-effectiveness were advantages listed by 58.5% of surgeons. Patient's medical history (75.8%), followed by ASC resources and capabilities (61%) and surgeon preference (61%), were relevant factors. Higher efficiencies at ASCs (14.6%), contractual issues (9.8%), and ownership issues (7.3%) were less relevant to surgeons. About 65.9% of surgeons reported lower reimbursement in ASCs, and 43.9% said it was an implementation hurdle. Lower direct costs were reported by 53.7% of surgeons. Other hurdles included a lack of trained staff (24.4%), inadequate staffing (22.0%), cost overruns (26.8%), high Joint Commission or the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care credentialing costs, and surgeons feeling uncomfortable performing TLIF in ASCs (22.0%). Only 17.1% listed medical problems as a reason their patient was considered unsuitable for the ASC environment. A majority (53.7%) stated that their ASCs complied with strict Stark requirements by disclosing physician ownership interests. However, 22% of surgeons reported self-referrals under the "In-Office Ancillary Services Exception" allowed by the Stark law. Conclusion: Our survey data show that surgeons' perceptions of current CMS rules and regulations may hinder the transition into the ASC setting because they think the reimbursement is too low and the regulatory burden is too high. ASCs have disproportionally higher initial acquisition and ongoing costs related to staff training and maintenance of the TLIF technology that CMS should consider when determining the appropriate financial remuneration for these complex procedures. Clinical relevance: ASC offers a viable and attractive option for their TLIF procedure with the advantage of same-day discharge and at-home recovery.

Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Hospital Outpatient Versus Ambulatory Surgery Center Lumbar Decompression Surgery

Ambulatory surgery center versus outpatient hospitals: a comparison of reimbursements for patients undergoing anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

An Analysis of the Cost-Effectiveness of Spinal Versus General Anesthesia for Lumbar Spine Surgery in Various Hospital Settings

276 Outpatient Versus Inpatient Laminoplasty for Cervical Spondylosis: A Non-inferiority Analysis of Surgical Outcomes

Thirty-Day Outcomes From Standalone Minimally Invasive Surgery-Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion Patients in an Ambulatory Surgery Center vs. Hospital Setting

Opioid Use Following Spine Surgery in Ambulatory Surgical Centers Versus Hospital Outpatient Departments

Safety and Efficacy of Outpatient Anterior Cervical Disk Replacement (ACDR) in an Ambulatory Surgery Center Versus Hospital Setting

Safety and Efficacy of Outpatient Anterior Cervical Disk Replacement (ACDR) in an Ambulatory Surgery Center Versus Hospital Setting: A 2-year Retrospective Analysis

Revisiting the Posterior Approach for Cervical Radiculopathy Utilizing Endoscopic Techniques: A Favorable Short-Term Outcome and Cost Comparison With Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

Lumbar Decompression with and without Fusion for Lumbar Stenosis with Spondylolisthesis

Cost-effectiveness Improves for Operative vs Nonoperative Treatment of Adult Symptomatic Lumbar Scoliosis at Eight-Year Follow-up

Comparison of lumbar endoscopic unilateral laminotomy bilateral decompression and minimally invasive surgery transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion for one-level lumbar spinal stenosis

Surgeon Perceptions of Performing Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion in an Ambulatory Surgical Center vs Hospital Setting in the Elderly Population: Results of a Surgeon Survey

Transforming Outcomes of Spine Surgery—Exploring the Power of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocol: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of 15 198 Patients

Design and Implementation of an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Program for Minimally Invasive Lumbar Decompression Spine Surgery: Initial Experience

Efficiency of Spinal Anesthesia versus General Anesthesia for Minimal Invasive Single Level Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion: A Retrospective Analysis of 178 Patients

Is Less Really More? Economic Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Surgery

One Year Patient Reported Outcomes After Single-Level Lumbar Fusion at Orthopedic Specialty Hospital Compared to Tertiary Referral Center

Decompression alone versus interspinous/interlaminar device placement for degenerative lumbar pathologies: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Enhanced recovery care versus traditional care following laminoplasty: A retrospective case-cohort study.

Bending the Cost Curve—Establishing Value in Spine Surgery