Certificate-of-Need Programs Are Associated with a Reduced Incidence, Expenditure, and Rate of Complications with Respect to Knee Arthroscopy in the Medicare Population. Issue 2 (December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Cancienne, Jourdan M.; Browning, Robert; Haug, Emmanuel; Browne, James A.; Werner, Brian C.
• Is Part Of: HSS journal. Volume 16:Issue 2(2020)Supplement
• Page Start: 264
• Page End: 271
• Publication Date: 2020-12
• Subjects: certificate-of-need regulations -- knee arthroscopy; Musculoskeletal system -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Orthopedic surgery -- Periodicals; Musculoskeletal System -- surgery -- Periodicals; Orthopedic Procedures -- Periodicals; Orthopédie -- Périodiques; Appareil locomoteur -- Maladies -- Périodiques; Appareil locomoteur -- Maladies -- Patients -- Réadaptation -- Périodiques; 617.47005
• DOI: 10.1007/s11420-019-09693-z
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1556-3316

Abstract

Background: To curb costs at the state level, improve care quality, and promote access to care, certificate-of-need (CON) laws were established in many states in 1974. It is not known how CON regulations have affected the provision of knee arthroscopy, one of the most common orthopedic procedures performed in the USA. Questions/Purposes: We sought to characterize the effects of CON regulations on knee arthroscopy in the national Medicare population by examining trends in procedure volumes, comparing trends in procedure charges, evaluating distribution of procedure volumes between high-, mid-, and low-volume facilities, and comparing adverse event and complication rates after knee arthroscopy between states with and without CON regulations. Methods: States with CON regulations covering both inpatient and outpatient operating rooms formed the study group ( n = 25 states) and were compared with states without CON laws or laws that did not cover operating rooms during the study period ( n = 20 states). The 100% Medicare Standard Analytical Files from 2005 through 2014 were used to compare knee arthroscopy procedure volumes, charges, reimbursements, distribution of procedures based on facility volumes and adverse events between the two groups. Results: The rate of decrease in the incidence of knee arthroscopy was significantly greater in CON states than that in non-CON states. CON states also had significantly lower charges at all time points, and overall, compared with non-CON states. There were significantly more high- and mid-volume facilities in CON states than in non-CON states, and there were significantly more low-volume facilities in non-CON states than in CON states. Finally, there were significantly higher rates of emergency room visits within 30 days and infection within 6 months in non-CON states than in CON states. Conclusions: CON regulations appear to have achieved several of their intended goals for knee arthroscopy. Further research is needed to determine if CON regulations affect the quality and sustainability of care provided to patients undergoing knee arthroscopy.