Abstract
Introduction
Pressure to control health care costs may limit the ability of new implants to enter the market. Customized individually made (CIM) knee implants are produced from CT scans of each patient and may result in improved clinical outcomes based on early data showing less blood loss, reduced bone resection, and better implant function and alignment. Limited economic evidence suggests that the use of CIM technology may result in cost savings, particularly when post-discharge expenses are included. The purpose of this study was to evaluate real-world cost data to determine episode spending in a Medicare population receiving either CIM or off-the-shelf (OTS) implants.
Methods
The Yale Center for Musculoskeletal Care and Baker Tilly Healthcare Management reviewed episode expenditures among Medicare beneficiaries who received CIM and OTS implants for TKA between 01/01/2015 and 12/31/2015. Episode costs included the pre-operative CT scan, index TKA procedure, and 12-month post-index spending for inpatient (IP), outpatient (OP), emergency room (ER), skilled nursing facility (SNF), and home health (HH) services. CIM patients were identified through a matching process utilizing de-identified patient demographic and procedural information and the presence of a CT scan 28–365 days before index. OTS patients included those without a CT scan within one year of index. CIM and OTS cohorts were propensity matched to produce comparable cohorts at a one-to-five ratio based on age range, gender, race, geographical location, and comorbidities. Average expenditure was used to calculate one-year costs of care differences between the CIM and the OTS technologies. A Generalized Linear Model (GLM) and two-part model (logistics and GLM) were used to test statistical significance.
Results
The study included 4,434 patients (CIM: 739, OTS: 3,695). CIM index hospital expenses were 6.5% less than OTS (CIM: $11,579; OTS: $12,386, p<0.0001). CIM patients were 37.5% less likely to incur SNF costs than OTS patients (CIM: 3.0% vs. OTS: 4.8%; p=0.0241) and had 45.1% lower average SNF expenditures (CIM: $8,882 vs. OTS: $16,183; p=0.0236). There was no difference in the probability of incurring post-index IP costs (CIM: 15.7% vs. OTS: 15.4%; p=0.9437) but average post-index IP expenditures were 27.2% lower among the CIM cohort than OTS (CIM: $12,817 vs. OTS: $17,605; p=0.0008). However, CIM patients were 10.5% more likely to incur OP costs (CIM: 90.9% vs. OTS: 85.7%; p=0.0005) and had 6.1% higher average OP expenditures (CIM: $2,328 vs. OTS: $2,106; p=0.0377). Average 12-month episode spending for the CIM cohort was 8.4% less than the OTS cohort ($1,697 Difference; CIM: $18,585 vs. OTS: $20,280; p<0.0001).
Conclusion
Study findings demonstrate that the use of CIM technology can result in significant 12-month episode savings among a Medicare population. The average expenditure differences noted for post-index IP, SNF, and OP cost categories suggest there are differences in required post-operative treatment across the two cohorts. Savings calculated in the analysis is a meaningful reduction for payers. Providers may also benefit from index and episode cost savings through shared savings arrangements. CIM technology should be considered as a method to reduce TKA episode spending.
