Orthopedic specialty hospitals: centers of excellence or greed machines?

Orthopedic specialty hospitals have recently been the subject of debate. They are patient-centered, physician-friendly health care alternatives that take advantage of the economic efficiencies of specialization. Medically, they provide a higher quality of care and increase patient and physician satisfaction. Economically, they are more efficient and profitable than general hospitals. They also positively affect society through the taxes they pay and the beneficial aspects of the competition they provide to general hospitals. Their ability to provide a disruptive innovation to the existing hospital industry will lead to lower costs and greater access to health care. However, critics say that physician ownership presents potential conflicts of interest and leads to overuse of medical care. Some general hospitals are suffering as a result of unfair specialty hospital practices, and a few drastic medical complications have occurred at specialty hospitals. Specialty hospitals have been scrutinized for increasing the inequality of health care and continue to be a target of government regulations. In this article, the pros and cons are examined, and the Emory Orthopaedics and Spine Hospital is analyzed as an example. Orthopedic specialty hospitals provide excellent care and are great assets to society. Competition between specialty and general hospitals has provided added value to patients and taxpayers. However, physicians must take more responsibility in their appropriate and ethical leadership. It is critical to recognize financial conflicts of interest, disclose ownership, and act ethically. Patient care cannot be compromised. With thoughtful and efficient leadership, specialty hospitals can be an integral part of improving health care in the long term.