Original Article

Undervaluation of Perioperative Work for ACL Reconstruction by Relative Value Scale Update Committee Methodology in a Single Surgeon’s Practice

Authors: Shelby Cate Hodges, BS, Juan J. Gordillo, BS, Mathew Hargreaves, BS, Maxwell Harrell, BS, Clay Rahaman, BA, Eugene Brabston, MD, Thomas Evely, DO, Aaron Casp, MD, Amit M. Momaya, MD

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of the Relative Value Update Committee (RUC) and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services current times and work relative value units (wRVUs) for the perioperative work involved in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction by directly timing perioperative tasks as they occur in real time.

Methods: The RUC was contacted to obtain a list of perioperative tasks and the corresponding times allotted for the tasks involved in arthroscopically aided ACL reconstruction (Current Procedural Terminology code 29888). The tasks that occurred both inside and outside the operating room were timed by the attending physician as the event occurred. The time for each task was then multiplied by its respective Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services–assigned intensity coefficient to calculate the wRVU. Calculated and allotted wRVUs were compared for accuracy.

Results: The tasks timed in this study were allotted 100 minutes by the RUC and a total wRVU value of 2.026. Our study found that these tasks took 132.1 minutes and had a total wRVU value of 2.713. The overall time it takes to perform perioperative tasks in arthroscopically aided ACL surgeries is underestimated by 32.1 minutes, which results in an undervaluation of the total wRVU value by 0.687.

Conclusions: The perioperative wRVU assigned by the RUC underestimates the amount of time assigned to perform the required tasks. The RUC should consider using prospective times collected by physicians to calculate a more accurate wRVU. In addition, the RUC should consider how modern patient care practices and requirements have increased the intensity of work for physicians.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. DeParle NA. Celebrating 35 years of Medicare and Medicaid. Health Care Financ Rev 2000; 22:1–7.
 
2. DeWalt DA, Oberlander J, Carey TS, et al. Significance of Medicare and Medicaid programs for the practice of medicine. Health Care Financ Rev 2005;27:79–90.
 
3. American Medical Association. Development of the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/development-of-the-resource-based-relative-value-scale.pdf. Updated November 8, 2024. Accessed November 23, 2024.
 
4. Mabry CD, McCann BC, Harris JA, et al. The use of intraservice work per unit of time (IWPUT) and the building block method (BBM) for the calculation of surgical work. Ann Surg 2005;241:929–940.
 
5. American Medical Association. The physician work component. https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/physician-work-component.pdf. Updated November 8, 2024. Accessed November 23, 2024.
 
6. US Government Accountability Office. Medicare physician payment rates: better data and greater transparency could improve accuracy. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-15-434. Published May 21, 2015. Accessed November 23, 2024.
 
7. Urwin JW, Gudbranson E, Graham D, et al. Accuracy of the Relative Value Scale Update Committee’s time estimates and physician fee schedule for joint replacement. Health Aff (Millwood) 2019;38:1079–1086.
 
8. Gornick M, Greenberg JN, Eggers PW, et al. Twenty years of Medicare and Medicaid: covered populations, use of benefits, and program expenditures. Health Care Financ Rev 1985;1985 Suppl:13–59.
 
9. American Medical Association. AMA/Specialty Society RVS Update Committee. https://www.ama-assn.org/about/rvs-update-committee-ruc/rvs-update-committee-ruc. Updated November 11, 2024. Accessed November 23, 2024.
 
10. Urwin JW, Emanuel EJ. The Relative Value Scale Update Committee: time for an update. JAMA 2019;322:1137–1138.
 
11. Krueger CA, Austin MS, Levicoff EA, et al. Substantial preoperative work is unaccounted for in total hip and knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2020;35:2318–2322.
 
12. Rothfusz CA, Grits D, Emara AK, et al. Procedures with longer intraoperative times undervalue surgeon work in total joint arthroplasty: a large, nationwide database study. J Arthroplasty. 2021;36:3831–3838.
 
13. Hughes AG, Paul KD, Smith WR, et al. Perioperative work in shoulder arthroplasty is undervalued by Relative Value Scale Update Committee methodology: quantifying shoulder arthroplasty workload in a single surgeon’s practice. Semin Arthroplasty 2022;32:279–284.
 
14. Grosso MJ, Courtney PM, Kerr JM, et al. Surgeons’ preoperative work burden has increased before total joint arthroplasty: a survey of AAHKS members. J Arthroplasty 2020;35: 1453–1457.
 
15. Belay ES, Charalambous LT, Saltzman EB, et al. Relative value units underestimate reimbursement for revision shoulder arthroplasty. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2022;30:416–420.
 
16. Pate lA, Oladipo VA, Kerzner B,et al. A retrospective review of relative value units in revision total knee arthroplasty: a dichotomy between surgical complexity and reimbursement. J Arthroplasty 2022;37:S44–S49.
 
17. Kim KY, Anoushiravani AA, Chen KK, et al. Perioperative orthopedic surgical home: optimizing total joint arthroplasty candidates and preventing readmission. J Arthroplasty 2019;34:S91–S96.
 
18. Bernstein DN, Liu TC, Winegar AL, et al. Evaluation of a preoperative optimization protocol for primary hip and knee arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty 2018;33:3642–3648.
 
19. Wall J, Dhesi J, Snowden C, et al. Perioperative medicine. Future Healthc J 2022;9:138–143.
 
20. Gooneratne M, Grailey K, Mythen M, et al. Perioperative medicine, interventions in surgical care: the role of replacing the late-night review with daytime leadership. Future Hosp J 2016; 3:58–61.
 
21. Tadesse B, Kumar P, Girma N, et al. Preoperative patient education practices and predictors among nurses working in East Amhara comprehensive specialized hospitals, Ethiopia, 2022. J Multidiscip Healthc 2023:16:237–247.
 
22. Baumann LA, Baker J, Elshaug AG. The impact of electronic health record systems on clinical documentation times: a systematic review. Health Policy 2018;122:827–836.
 
23. Asaro PV, Boxerman SB. Effects of computerized provider order entry and nursing documentation on workflow. Acad Emerg Med 2008;15:908–915.
 
24. Maxwell S, Zuckerman S. Impact of resource-based practice expenses on the Medicare physician volume. Health Care Financ Rev 2007;29:65–79.
 
25. McMahon LF Jr. A critique of the Harvard Resource-Based Relative Value Scale. Am J Public Health 1990;80:793–798.
 
26. Childers CP, Maggard-Gibbons M. Assessment of the contribution of the work relative value unit scale to differences in physician compensation across medical and surgical specialties. JAMA Surg 2020;155:493–501.
 
27. Dean RS, DePhillipo NN, LaPrade RF. Posterior tibial slope in patients with torn ACL reconstruction grafts compared with primary tear or native ACL: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop J Sports Med 2022;10:23259671221079380.
 
28. Murray MM, Kalish LA, Fleming BC, et al. Bridge-enhanced anterior cruciate ligament repair: two-year results of a first-in-human study. Orthop J Sports Med 2019;7: 2325967118824356.