Certificate-of-Need State Laws and Elective Posterior Lumbar Fusions: Is It Time to Repeal the Mandate?

Abstract

Our study aimed to assess whether elective posterior lumbar fusions (PLFs) performed in states with Certificate-of-Need (CON) laws versus states without CON laws had lower utilization rates, lower costs, and better quality of care. The 2005-2014 100% Medicare Standard Analytical File was queried to identify patients undergoing elective 1- to 3-level PLF. Differences in per-capita utilization, 90-day reimbursements, and proportion of high-volume between CON and No-CON states were reported. Multivariate analyses were used to analyze 90-day complications and readmissions. A total of 188,687 patients underwent an elective 1- to 3-level PLF in a CON state and 167,642 patients in a No-CON state during 2005-2014. The average per capita utilization of PLFs was lower in CON states as compared with No-CON states (14.5 vs. 15.4 per 10,000 population; P < 0.001). Average 90-day reimbursements between CON and No-CON states differed by a small amount ($22,115 vs. $21,802). CON states had a higher proportion of high-volume facilities (CON vs. No CON-40.9% vs. 29.9%; P < 0.05) and lower proportion of low-volume facilities (CON vs. No-CON-37.2% vs. 45.0%; P < 0.05). PLFs performed in CON states had slightly lower odds of 90-day complications (odds ratio 0.97 [95% confidence interval 0.96-0.99]; P < 0.001) and readmissions (odds ratio 0.95 [95% confidence interval 0.93-0.97]; P < 0.001). The presence of CON laws was associated with lower utilization of elective 1- to 3-level PLFs and a greater number of high-volume facilities. However, their effect on quality of care, via reduction of 90-day readmissions and 90-day complications, is minimally significant.