The Experts below are selected from a list of 13281 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Michael A. Mont - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • A Comparison of Relative Value Units in Primary Versus Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.
    The Journal of Arthroplasty, 2018
    Co-Authors: Jennifer Peterson, Nipun Sodhi, Anton Khlopas, Nicolas S. Piuzzi, Jared M. Newman, Assem A. Sultan, Kim L. Stearns, Michael A. Mont
    Abstract:

    Abstract Background In total knee arthroplasty (TKA), revision cases are often technically more challenging, and require more operative time and aftercare than primary cases. These time and effort differences should therefore be appropriately compensated for when using the Relative Value Unit (RVU) system. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the mean (1) RVUs; (2) operative times; and (3) RVU/min; and (4) perform an individualized idealized surgeon annual cost difference analysis for primary vs revision TKA. Methods Current Procedural Terminology code 27447 identified 165,439 primary TKA patients, while Current Procedural Terminology code 27487 identified 8081 revision TKA patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The mean RVUs, operative times, and RVU/min were calculated. Dollar amount per minute, per case, per day, and year were also calculated. Student's t-test, with a cut-off P-Value of Results The mean RVUs for primary TKA was 22, while for revision TKA was 27 (P Conclusion Orthopedic surgeons are reimbursed at a higher rate per minute for primary cases compared to revision TKA (0.26 vs 0.22, P

  • A Comparison of Relative Value Units in Primary Versus Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.
    The Journal of arthroplasty, 2017
    Co-Authors: Jennifer Peterson, Nipun Sodhi, Anton Khlopas, Nicolas S. Piuzzi, Jared M. Newman, Assem A. Sultan, Kim L. Stearns, Michael A. Mont
    Abstract:

    In total knee arthroplasty (TKA), revision cases are often technically more challenging, and require more operative time and aftercare than primary cases. These time and effort differences should therefore be appropriately compensated for when using the Relative Value Unit (RVU) system. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the mean (1) RVUs; (2) operative times; and (3) RVU/min; and (4) perform an individualized idealized surgeon annual cost difference analysis for primary vs revision TKA. Current Procedural Terminology code 27447 identified 165,439 primary TKA patients, while Current Procedural Terminology code 27487 identified 8081 revision TKA patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The mean RVUs, operative times, and RVU/min were calculated. Dollar amount per minute, per case, per day, and year were also calculated. Student's t-test, with a cut-off P-Value of <.05, was used in order to identify any statistical differences in mean RVUs, operative times, and RVU/min. The mean RVUs for primary TKA was 22, while for revision TKA was 27 (P < .001). The mean operative time for primary TKA was 94 minutes, while for revision TKA was 149 minutes (P < .001). The mean RVU/min for primary TKA was 0.26, while for revision TKA was 0.22 (P < .001). The dollar amounts calculated for primary vs revision TKA were per minute ($9.33 vs $7.90), per case ($877.12 vs $1176.43), per day ($4385.60 vs $3529), and projected a $137,008.70 annual cost difference. Orthopedic surgeons are reimbursed at a higher rate per minute for primary cases compared to revision TKA (0.26 vs 0.22, P < .001). The annual difference can amount to nearly $140,000. Orthopedic surgeons can use this information to better understand the dynamics of their time, compensation, and ultimately, their practice. Furthermore, it can be argued that there needs to be a shift to increase the RVU per Unit time for revision TKAs. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Todd K Rosengart - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • an academic Relative Value Unit system for incentivizing the academic productivity of surgery faculty members
    Annals of Surgery, 2018
    Co-Authors: Scott A Lemaire, Barbara W Trautner, Uma Ramamurthy, Susan Y Green, Qianzi Zhang, William E Fisher, Todd K Rosengart
    Abstract:

    Objective:The objective of this study was to evaluate a new academic Relative-Value Unit (aRVU) scoring system linked to faculty compensation and analyze its association with overall departmental academic productivity.Summary Background Data:Faculty are often not incentivized or financially compensa

  • An Academic Relative Value Unit System for Incentivizing the Academic Productivity of Surgery Faculty Members.
    Annals of surgery, 2018
    Co-Authors: Scott A Lemaire, Barbara W Trautner, Uma Ramamurthy, Susan Y Green, Qianzi Zhang, William E Fisher, Todd K Rosengart
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to evaluate a new academic Relative-Value Unit (aRVU) scoring system linked to faculty compensation and analyze its association with overall departmental academic productivity. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA Faculty are often not incentivized or financially compensated for educational and research activities crucial to the academic mission. METHODS We launched an online, self-reporting aRVU system in 2015 to document and incentivize the academic productivity of our faculty. The system captured 65 specific weighted scores in 5 major categories of research, education, innovation, academic service, and peer review activities. The aRVU scores were rank-aggregated annually, and bonuses were distributed to faculty members in 3 tiers: top 10%, top third, and top half. We compared pre-aRVU (academic year 2015) to post-aRVU (academic year 2017) departmental achievement metrics. RESULTS Since 2015, annual aRVU bonuses totaling $493,900 were awarded to 59 faculty members (58% of eligible department faculty). Implementing aRVUs was associated with significant increases in several key departmental academic achievement metrics: presentations (579 to 862; P = 0.02; 49% increase), publications (390 to 446; P = 0.02; 14%), total research funding ($4.6 M to $8.4 M; P < 0.001; 83%), NIH funding ($0.6 M to $3.4 M; P < 0.001; 467%), industry-sponsored clinical trials (8 to 23; P = 0.002; 188%), academic society committee positions (226 to 298; P < 0.001; 32%), and editorial leadership positions (50 to 74; P = 0.01; 48%). CONCLUSIONS Implementing an aRVU system was associated with increases in departmental academic productivity. Although other factors undoubtedly contributed to these increases, an aRVU program may represent an important mechanism for tracking and rewarding academic productivity in surgery departments.

Jennifer Peterson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • A Comparison of Relative Value Units in Primary Versus Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.
    The Journal of Arthroplasty, 2018
    Co-Authors: Jennifer Peterson, Nipun Sodhi, Anton Khlopas, Nicolas S. Piuzzi, Jared M. Newman, Assem A. Sultan, Kim L. Stearns, Michael A. Mont
    Abstract:

    Abstract Background In total knee arthroplasty (TKA), revision cases are often technically more challenging, and require more operative time and aftercare than primary cases. These time and effort differences should therefore be appropriately compensated for when using the Relative Value Unit (RVU) system. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the mean (1) RVUs; (2) operative times; and (3) RVU/min; and (4) perform an individualized idealized surgeon annual cost difference analysis for primary vs revision TKA. Methods Current Procedural Terminology code 27447 identified 165,439 primary TKA patients, while Current Procedural Terminology code 27487 identified 8081 revision TKA patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The mean RVUs, operative times, and RVU/min were calculated. Dollar amount per minute, per case, per day, and year were also calculated. Student's t-test, with a cut-off P-Value of Results The mean RVUs for primary TKA was 22, while for revision TKA was 27 (P Conclusion Orthopedic surgeons are reimbursed at a higher rate per minute for primary cases compared to revision TKA (0.26 vs 0.22, P

  • A Comparison of Relative Value Units in Primary Versus Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.
    The Journal of arthroplasty, 2017
    Co-Authors: Jennifer Peterson, Nipun Sodhi, Anton Khlopas, Nicolas S. Piuzzi, Jared M. Newman, Assem A. Sultan, Kim L. Stearns, Michael A. Mont
    Abstract:

    In total knee arthroplasty (TKA), revision cases are often technically more challenging, and require more operative time and aftercare than primary cases. These time and effort differences should therefore be appropriately compensated for when using the Relative Value Unit (RVU) system. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the mean (1) RVUs; (2) operative times; and (3) RVU/min; and (4) perform an individualized idealized surgeon annual cost difference analysis for primary vs revision TKA. Current Procedural Terminology code 27447 identified 165,439 primary TKA patients, while Current Procedural Terminology code 27487 identified 8081 revision TKA patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The mean RVUs, operative times, and RVU/min were calculated. Dollar amount per minute, per case, per day, and year were also calculated. Student's t-test, with a cut-off P-Value of <.05, was used in order to identify any statistical differences in mean RVUs, operative times, and RVU/min. The mean RVUs for primary TKA was 22, while for revision TKA was 27 (P < .001). The mean operative time for primary TKA was 94 minutes, while for revision TKA was 149 minutes (P < .001). The mean RVU/min for primary TKA was 0.26, while for revision TKA was 0.22 (P < .001). The dollar amounts calculated for primary vs revision TKA were per minute ($9.33 vs $7.90), per case ($877.12 vs $1176.43), per day ($4385.60 vs $3529), and projected a $137,008.70 annual cost difference. Orthopedic surgeons are reimbursed at a higher rate per minute for primary cases compared to revision TKA (0.26 vs 0.22, P < .001). The annual difference can amount to nearly $140,000. Orthopedic surgeons can use this information to better understand the dynamics of their time, compensation, and ultimately, their practice. Furthermore, it can be argued that there needs to be a shift to increase the RVU per Unit time for revision TKAs. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Scott A Lemaire - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • an academic Relative Value Unit system for incentivizing the academic productivity of surgery faculty members
    Annals of Surgery, 2018
    Co-Authors: Scott A Lemaire, Barbara W Trautner, Uma Ramamurthy, Susan Y Green, Qianzi Zhang, William E Fisher, Todd K Rosengart
    Abstract:

    Objective:The objective of this study was to evaluate a new academic Relative-Value Unit (aRVU) scoring system linked to faculty compensation and analyze its association with overall departmental academic productivity.Summary Background Data:Faculty are often not incentivized or financially compensa

  • An Academic Relative Value Unit System for Incentivizing the Academic Productivity of Surgery Faculty Members.
    Annals of surgery, 2018
    Co-Authors: Scott A Lemaire, Barbara W Trautner, Uma Ramamurthy, Susan Y Green, Qianzi Zhang, William E Fisher, Todd K Rosengart
    Abstract:

    OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to evaluate a new academic Relative-Value Unit (aRVU) scoring system linked to faculty compensation and analyze its association with overall departmental academic productivity. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA Faculty are often not incentivized or financially compensated for educational and research activities crucial to the academic mission. METHODS We launched an online, self-reporting aRVU system in 2015 to document and incentivize the academic productivity of our faculty. The system captured 65 specific weighted scores in 5 major categories of research, education, innovation, academic service, and peer review activities. The aRVU scores were rank-aggregated annually, and bonuses were distributed to faculty members in 3 tiers: top 10%, top third, and top half. We compared pre-aRVU (academic year 2015) to post-aRVU (academic year 2017) departmental achievement metrics. RESULTS Since 2015, annual aRVU bonuses totaling $493,900 were awarded to 59 faculty members (58% of eligible department faculty). Implementing aRVUs was associated with significant increases in several key departmental academic achievement metrics: presentations (579 to 862; P = 0.02; 49% increase), publications (390 to 446; P = 0.02; 14%), total research funding ($4.6 M to $8.4 M; P < 0.001; 83%), NIH funding ($0.6 M to $3.4 M; P < 0.001; 467%), industry-sponsored clinical trials (8 to 23; P = 0.002; 188%), academic society committee positions (226 to 298; P < 0.001; 32%), and editorial leadership positions (50 to 74; P = 0.01; 48%). CONCLUSIONS Implementing an aRVU system was associated with increases in departmental academic productivity. Although other factors undoubtedly contributed to these increases, an aRVU program may represent an important mechanism for tracking and rewarding academic productivity in surgery departments.

Kim L. Stearns - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • A Comparison of Relative Value Units in Primary Versus Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.
    The Journal of Arthroplasty, 2018
    Co-Authors: Jennifer Peterson, Nipun Sodhi, Anton Khlopas, Nicolas S. Piuzzi, Jared M. Newman, Assem A. Sultan, Kim L. Stearns, Michael A. Mont
    Abstract:

    Abstract Background In total knee arthroplasty (TKA), revision cases are often technically more challenging, and require more operative time and aftercare than primary cases. These time and effort differences should therefore be appropriately compensated for when using the Relative Value Unit (RVU) system. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the mean (1) RVUs; (2) operative times; and (3) RVU/min; and (4) perform an individualized idealized surgeon annual cost difference analysis for primary vs revision TKA. Methods Current Procedural Terminology code 27447 identified 165,439 primary TKA patients, while Current Procedural Terminology code 27487 identified 8081 revision TKA patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The mean RVUs, operative times, and RVU/min were calculated. Dollar amount per minute, per case, per day, and year were also calculated. Student's t-test, with a cut-off P-Value of Results The mean RVUs for primary TKA was 22, while for revision TKA was 27 (P Conclusion Orthopedic surgeons are reimbursed at a higher rate per minute for primary cases compared to revision TKA (0.26 vs 0.22, P

  • A Comparison of Relative Value Units in Primary Versus Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty.
    The Journal of arthroplasty, 2017
    Co-Authors: Jennifer Peterson, Nipun Sodhi, Anton Khlopas, Nicolas S. Piuzzi, Jared M. Newman, Assem A. Sultan, Kim L. Stearns, Michael A. Mont
    Abstract:

    In total knee arthroplasty (TKA), revision cases are often technically more challenging, and require more operative time and aftercare than primary cases. These time and effort differences should therefore be appropriately compensated for when using the Relative Value Unit (RVU) system. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to compare the mean (1) RVUs; (2) operative times; and (3) RVU/min; and (4) perform an individualized idealized surgeon annual cost difference analysis for primary vs revision TKA. Current Procedural Terminology code 27447 identified 165,439 primary TKA patients, while Current Procedural Terminology code 27487 identified 8081 revision TKA patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. The mean RVUs, operative times, and RVU/min were calculated. Dollar amount per minute, per case, per day, and year were also calculated. Student's t-test, with a cut-off P-Value of <.05, was used in order to identify any statistical differences in mean RVUs, operative times, and RVU/min. The mean RVUs for primary TKA was 22, while for revision TKA was 27 (P < .001). The mean operative time for primary TKA was 94 minutes, while for revision TKA was 149 minutes (P < .001). The mean RVU/min for primary TKA was 0.26, while for revision TKA was 0.22 (P < .001). The dollar amounts calculated for primary vs revision TKA were per minute ($9.33 vs $7.90), per case ($877.12 vs $1176.43), per day ($4385.60 vs $3529), and projected a $137,008.70 annual cost difference. Orthopedic surgeons are reimbursed at a higher rate per minute for primary cases compared to revision TKA (0.26 vs 0.22, P < .001). The annual difference can amount to nearly $140,000. Orthopedic surgeons can use this information to better understand the dynamics of their time, compensation, and ultimately, their practice. Furthermore, it can be argued that there needs to be a shift to increase the RVU per Unit time for revision TKAs. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.