Does Value Matter in Orthopaedic Trauma?: A Survey of Orthopaedic Trauma Association Members
- Additional Document Info
- View All
OBJECTIVES: With value-based payment models on the horizon, this study was designed to examine the perceptions of value-based care among orthopaedic traumatologists and how they influence their practice. DESIGN: Systems-based survey study. SETTING: Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) research surveys. PARTICIPANTS: OTA members. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Thirty-eight-question surveys focusing on 5 areas related to value-based care: understanding value, assessing interest, barriers, perceptions around implementing value-based strategies, and policy. RESULTS: Of 1106 OTA members, 252 members responded for a response rate of 22.7%. Consideration around cost was not different between hospital, academic, and private practice settings (P = 0.47). Previous reported experience in finance increased the amount surgical decision-making was influenced by cost (P < 0.01), along with reported understanding of implant costs (P < 0.01). Over half of the respondents (59.4%) believed value-based payments are coming to orthopaedic trauma. The vast majority (88.5%) believed bundled payments would be unsuccessful or only partially successful. With respect to barriers, a third of respondents (34.7%) indicated accurate cost data prevented the implementation of programs that track and maximize value, another third (31.5%) attributed it to a limited ability to collect patient-reported outcomes, and the rest (33.8%) were split between lack of institutional interest and access to funding. CONCLUSION: Our study indicated the understanding of value in orthopaedic trauma is limited and practice integration is rare. Reported experience in finance was the only factor associated with increased consideration of value-based care in practice. Our results highlight the need for increased exposure and resources to changing health care policy, specifically for orthopaedic traumatologists. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
has subject area