Becker's Spine Review

Becker's Spine Review November 2015

Issue link: https://beckershealthcare.uberflip.com/i/613323

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 23 of 51

24 Executive Briefing: Reducing the Cost of Spine Care: Key Thoughts from 4 Spine Surgeons By Laura Dyrda T reating back pain and other spinal conditions can cost more than $200 billion annually in the United States, with $90 billion in direct costs. There are several factors con- tributing to the ever-increasing cost of care, including hospital costs, device costs, pharmaceuticals and post-surgi- cal care. "We have a larger aging popula- tion now which requires more care, and in spine surgery we are able to treat a much wider range of patients than in the past," says Glenn R. But- termann, MD, an orthopedic spine surgeon at Midwest Spine & Brain Insti- tute in Minnesota. "Anesthesia is better and our technology for monitoring and performing surgery with new biologics and instrumentation allows us to per- form surgery on patients we wouldn't have selected 20 years ago." Physician reimbursement is a relatively small portion of the overall healthcare speeding, and until there is transparent pricing for each aspect of care, the hidden costs will likely contin- ue to drive up the ticket price. "Physicians need to be aware of the true cost of proce- dures and choice of equipment," says Jason Datta, MD, an orthopedic spine surgeon with Sonoran Spine in Mesa, Ariz. "When true pricing is known, choices can be made for non-es- sential expenditures and cheaper alternatives that don't com- promise quality for our patients." Patient health also makes a difference; obesity is on the rise and can increase postoperative complications that drive costs higher. "Anything we can do as a society to increase awareness of the impact comorbid conditions such as obesity can have on health will go a long way to address some of the real econom- ic factors driving the cost of spine care in our country," says Eubulus Kerr, MD, an orthopedic spine surgeon at The Spine Institute of Louisiana in Shreveport. Surgeons can influence the cost in several ways, including: • Device and technology choice • Using less invasive procedures to reduce the length of hospital stay • Perform efficient procedures for decreased operating room and anesthesia time • Focus on procedures with less blood loss • Appropriate patient and procedure selection to reduce complications and revision surgeries For years the traditional orthopedic device company giants were able to charge high costs without push-back. However, with a renewed focus on cost control at many institutions there is an opportunity for other companies, such as GS Medical, to bring new innovation to the table. "GS Medical went beyond our expectations by engaging surgeons and not trying to sell them more products, but instead to figure out how they could make our cases easier and more effi- cient," says Dr. Datta. "When they can, there is new equipment for performing cases. This is why a majority of surgeons at our facility prefer GS Medical prod- ucts." The GS Medical product line is designed for surgeons to control costs and improve outcomes that lower overall costs. "I have a quality product from a more nimble company that responds to our needs intraoperatively without compromising quality and the hospital is extremely happy because of the sig- nificant cost reduction," says Dr. Datta. "GS Medical has proven itself as an engaged partner in providing specific equipment that each surgeon prefers and improving sets to be more effi- cient for the surgeons and patients to which they are providing the products." All across healthcare, physicians and hospitals are dealing with similar cost issues. A November 2013 JAMA issue was dedicated to the increasing healthcare costs, with pharmaceu- ticals, medical devices and hospital care driving the lion's share of the costs. "Medical device costs have increased due in part to in- creased regulations and the 2.3 percent medical device excise tax," says Dr. Kerr. "Though they've decreased some of the mor- bidity risks associated with traditional bone grafting, biologics have also played a role in increasing surgical costs associated with spine care. Certainly, surgeons need to be very mindful of the cost-effectiveness of the products they are choosing Sponsored by: Dr. Glenn R. Buttermann Dr. Jason Datta Dr. Eubulus Kerr Dr. Gregory Hoffman Reducing the Cost of Spine Care

Articles in this issue

view archives of Becker's Spine Review - Becker's Spine Review November 2015