Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 8, 2026

Surgical Approach and Complications of Stand-alone Lateral Trans-Psoas Interbody Fusion
Published on: February 14, 2025
Is Discretionary Care Associated with Safety Among Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Spine Surgery?
Hyunkyu Ko1, Darrel S Brodke1, Megan E Vanneman2
1Department of Orthopaedics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Background:
Spine surgery and its corresponding costs have increased in recent years and are variable across geographic regions. Discretionary care is the component of spending variation that is independent of illness severity, age, and regional pricing. It is unknown whether greater discretionary care is associated with improved safety for patients undergoing spine surgery, as we would expect from value-based health care.
Methods:
We conducted an analysis of 5 spine surgery cohorts based on Medicare claims from 2013 to 2017. Patients were grouped into quintiles based on the Dartmouth Atlas End-of-Life Inpatient Care Index (EOL), reflecting regional spending variation attributed to discretionary care. Multivariable regression examined the association between discretionary care and safety measures while controlling for age, sex, race, comorbidity, and hospital features.
Results:
We observed a threefold to fourfold variation in 90-day episode-of-care cost across regions, depending on the cohort. Spine-specific spending was correlated with EOL quintile, confirming that spending variation is due more to discretionary care than it is to pricing, age, or illness severity. Greater spending across EOL quintiles was not associated with improved safety, and, in fact, was associated with poorer safety in some cohorts. For example, all-cause readmission was greater in the high-spending EOL quintile relative to the low-spending EOL quintile among the "fusion, except cervical" cohort (14.2% vs. 13.1%; OR = 1.10; 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.20), the "complex fusion" cohort (28.0% vs. 25.4%; OR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.30), and the "cervical fusion" cohort (15.0% vs. 13.6%; OR = 1.12; 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.20).
Conclusions:
Wide variation in spending was not explained by differences in illness severity, age, or pricing, and increased discretionary care did not enhance safety. These findings point to inefficient use of health-care resources, a potential focus of reform.
Level Of Evidence:
Economic and Decision Analysis Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
More Related Videos
04:19Minimally Invasive Treatment for Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture Using Sagittal Alignment Screws and A Trauma Reduction Device
Published on: November 8, 2024
06:28Biomechanical Changes Related to Low Back Pain: An Innovative Tool for Movement Pattern Assessment and Treatment Evaluation in Rehabilitation
Published on: December 13, 2024