Current Ancillary Service Opportunities, Access Points and Options for Revenue Distribution

Ancillary Service Opportunities

Authors

  • Stephen Canton University of Pittsburgh
  • Garrhett Via Reno Orthopedic Center
  • Lisa Mead
  • Pierce Johnson Reno Orthopedic Center
  • Peter Althausen Reno Orthopedic Center

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55576/job.v6i1.77

Keywords:

Ancillary services, orthopedic practice management, financial productivity, revenue distribution, Stark Law, physician self-referral, ambulatory surgery center, orthopedic urgent care, in-office imaging, physical therapy, durable medical equipment, value-based care

Abstract

Objectives: To describe real-world utilization volumes and surgeon-level financial distributions for major orthopedic ancillary service lines within a large, single-specialty group practice, and to outline operational “access points” and Stark-compliant revenue distribution models that support sustainable ancillary development across practice settings.

Design: Retrospective, observational, single-practice economic outcomes analysis with a narrative synthesis of regulatory considerations and implementation strategies.

Main Outcome Measurements: Calendar-year 2024 ancillary utilization volumes (encounters/units by service line) and corresponding surgeon FTE/partner distribution estimates; descriptive benchmarks of revenue potential across radiography, MRI, CT (planned), DME, physical therapy, orthopedic urgent care, and ambulatory surgery center (ASC) operations; and a qualitative assessment of access strategies and Stark-compliant distribution approaches (equal, productivity-based, hybrid).

Results: In 2024, the practice (35 surgeons; 26 physician extenders; 2 clinic sites; 5 PT sites; 2 urgent care sites; one 7-room ASC) recorded 270,217 patient encounters and 17,009 surgical cases. Observed ancillary utilization included 79,046 radiographs, 11,905 MRIs, 20,058 DME items dispensed, 77,813 PT visits, and 21,693 orthopedic urgent care visits; the ASC performed 7,309 surgical cases. Reported annual distributions for these service lines were approximately $23,429 per partner for radiography, $27,030 per partner for MRI, $31,908 per surgeon FTE for DME, $32,971 per surgeon for PT, $75,433 per partner for urgent care, and $493,109 per surgeon for ASC. The practice projected additional opportunity from in-office CT acquisition (planned for 2025), citing the need for adequate arthroplasty/trauma volume to justify capital costs and support utilization. Across service lines, operational access points associated with higher capture included a pre-rooming radiography workflow, same-day availability of advanced imaging, a convenient multi-site PT footprint, extended-hours urgent care as an entry point for new patients, and ASC expansion to safely accommodate higher-acuity cases (including select ASA III). Stark-compliant revenue distribution models emphasized equal pooling to avoid referral-linked allocation, with permissible productivity or hybrid modifiers based on neutral metrics (e.g., RVUs, total visits, leadership roles) when applied uniformly.

Conclusions: In a high-volume, single-specialty orthopedic group, ancillary services produced substantial, directly observed surgeon distributions and functioned as strategic access points that increased system capture across the episode of care. Given the scarcity of published, real-world orthopedic ancillary financial benchmarks, these results provide pragmatic reference points for private, employed, and academic surgeons evaluating ancillary development, negotiation leverage, and compliant revenue-sharing structures.

Level of Evidence: Level IV; Retrospective observational economic outcomes (single-practice case series).

Keywords: Ancillary services, orthopedic practice management, financial productivity, revenue distribution, Stark Law, physician self-referral, ambulatory surgery center, orthopedic urgent care, in-office imaging, physical therapy, durable medical equipment, value-based care.

References

Pereira DE, Hannon CP, Courtney PM, Rana AJ, et al. Trends in Orthopaedic Surgeon Compensation: A Comparative Analysis Over Twenty Years. J Arthroplasty. 2025;40(7):1660–1666. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2025.02.012

Jayaram R, Futela D, Day W, et al. Academic Orthopaedic Surgeon Financial Compensation in the United States: Trends and Distribution. JAAOS Glob Res Rev. 2025;9(5):e25.00112. doi:10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-25-00112

Medical Group Management Association. 2025 Provider Compensation Report. Englewood, CO: MGMA; 2025. [Details/DOI pending]

Althausen PL. Practice management. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28 Suppl 8:S35–S38. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000180

American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Position Statement 1180: Specialty Hospitals. 2020. [Details/DOI pending]

Amrhein TJ, et al. In-office imaging and utilization: a critical review. Skelet Radiol. 2014;43(6):655–664. doi:10.1007/s00256-013-1817-9

Bai G, et al. Prices of imaging services: physician-owned vs hospital-owned facilities in the same market. Health Aff (Millwood). 2023;42(5):673–681. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2022.01234

Levin DC, Rao VM. Turf wars in radiology: updated evidence on self-referral and imaging utilization. J Am Coll Radiol. 2011;8(5):339–343. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2010.12.017

Whaley CM, et al. National trends in spending growth by site of service. Health Serv Res. 2021;56(5):882–891. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.13685

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Medicare Program; Modernizing and Clarifying the Physician Self-Referral Regulations. Federal Register. 2020;85(232):77492–77831. Available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2020-26140

McGuireWoods. CMS and OIG Issue Final Rules Modernizing Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute. 2021. [Details/DOI pending]

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Physician Self-Referral (Stark) Law Overview. [Details/DOI pending; URL: https://www.cms.gov/physician-self-referral]

Medical Group Management Association. Medical Practice Business Operations Report. 2019. [Details/DOI pending]

(Duplicate of #4) Althausen PL. Practice management. J Orthop Trauma. 2014;28 Suppl 8:S35–S38. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000180

Schwartz AJ, Moskowitz JS, Safdar N, et al. Inflation-Adjusted Trends in Medicare Reimbursement for Common Musculoskeletal Imaging Studies From 2005 to 2020. Skelet Radiol. 2022;51(7):1379–1387. doi:10.1007/s00256-022-04010-1

Kamel IR, Levin DC, Parker L, Rao VM. Utilization Trends and Reimbursement for Advanced Imaging in Office Settings: Medicare Fee-for-Service Data 2001–2017. J Am Coll Radiol. 2020;17(2):205–212. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2019.09.048

Widmyer MR, Utturkar GM, Leddy HA, et al. High body mass index is associated with increased cartilage damage and altered preoperative planning in MRI-based total knee arthroplasty systems. J Arthroplasty. 2015;30(3):456–461. doi:10.1016/j.arth.2014.10.016

Rassir R, Nolte PA, Doornberg JN, et al. MRI-based preoperative planning and implant selection in hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. EFORT Open Rev. 2021;6(7):558–569. doi:10.1302/2058-5241.6.210024

Marchand RC, Sodhi N, Khlopas A, et al. Preoperative CT-based three-dimensional templating in robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty more accurately predicts implant sizes than 2D templating. J Knee Surg. 2019;32(1):9–16. doi:10.1055/s-0038-1668122

Adkar N, Patil M, Vaidya S, et al. Accuracy of CT-based three-dimensional templating in robot-assisted total knee arthroplasty. Indian J Orthop. 2024;58(6):659–667. doi:10.1007/s43465-024-01112-5

Bhor P, Patil V, Deshmukh A, et al. Does preoperative 3D CT planning help in predicting component sizes, reduce surgical time, and enhance implant position accuracy? Int Orthop. 2023;47(10):2407–2414. doi:10.1007/s00264-023-05843-3

Wan X, Wang S, Chen J, et al. Robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty: prediction of component sizes using 3D CT planning. Arthroplasty Today. 2021;7:42–49. doi:10.1016/j.artd.2020.11.016

Smith FM, et al. Missed fractures on radiographs in a pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2016;32(12):819–823. doi:10.1097/PEC.0000000000000953

Mounts J, Smith WS, Housholder DF, et al. Most frequently missed fractures in the emergency department. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2011;50(3):183–186. doi:10.1177/0009922810384725

Anderson GF, Althausen PL. The role of dedicated orthopaedic urgent care centers in reducing costs and improving access. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(Suppl 5):S5–S10. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000643

Fabricant PD, Seeley MA, Rozell JC, et al. Cost savings from utilization of an ambulatory surgery center for orthopaedic day surgery. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016;24(12):865–871. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-D-16-00273

Wang KY, Puvanesarajah V, Marrache M, et al. Ambulatory surgery centers versus hospital outpatient departments for orthopaedic surgeries. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2022;30(5):207–214. doi:10.5435/JAAOS-D-21-00196

Tiao J, Wang K, Carbone AD, et al. Ambulatory surgery centers significantly decrease total health care expenditures in primary ACL reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2023;51(1):97–106. doi:10.1177/03635465221127244

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Ambulatory Surgical Center (ASC) Covered Procedures List. Updated 2023. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/medicare/payment/ascpayment

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). Changes to Hospital Outpatient and ASC Payment Systems; CY 2020 Final Rule. Federal Register. 2019;84(229):61142–61620.

Rohrback M, Johnson P, Olson E, Althausen PL. Ambulatory Surgery Center Fracture Care: A Value-Based Opportunity. J Orthop Business. 2025;5(2):67. doi:10.55576/job.v5i2.67

Althausen PL, et al. [Implant cost alignment in ASCs]. J Arthroplasty. 2014. [Details/DOI pending]

Gurnea TP, Frye WP, Althausen PL. Operating room supply costs in orthopaedic trauma: cost containment opportunities. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(Suppl 5):S21–S26. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000704

McPhillamy A, Gurnea TP, Moody AE, et al. Clinical and economic impact of generic locking plate utilization at a Level II trauma center. J Orthop Trauma. 2016;30(Suppl 5):S32–S36. doi:10.1097/BOT.0000000000000705

Zhao B, Tyree GA, Lin TC, Vaida F, Stock BJ, Hamelin TA, Clary BM. Effects of a surgical receipt program on the supply costs of five general surgery procedures. J Surg Res. 2019;236:110-118. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2018.11.023

Published

2026-02-01

How to Cite

Canton, S., Via, G., Mead, L., Johnson, P. ., & Althausen, P. (2026). Current Ancillary Service Opportunities, Access Points and Options for Revenue Distribution: Ancillary Service Opportunities. Journal of Orthopaedic Business, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.55576/job.v6i1.77