Post #1412: A simple heated outdoor faucet (tap, spigot, sillcock, hose bib) cover.

 

This post shows you how to take a few off-the-shelf parts from your local hardware store and make a plug-in heated cover for an outdoor faucet.   This will take you about two minutes to assemble, and, depending on how much heat you think you need, will cost you either about $6 (using a cheap night-light), up to maybe $17 (using a proper candelabra-base light fitting), including some spare light bulbs.  The only tool you need is a knife.

It’s not rocket science:  Add a candelabra-bulb socket or a cheap night-light to a standard foam faucet cover.  Screw in a night-light or similar incandescent bulb.  Attach that foam faucet cover to the faucet, and snug it up against the wall.  Plug it in.  Turn it on.  You’re done.

The only value added I’m bringing to this, other than pointing out the obvious, is that I’ve tried three wattages and recorded the results.  Having tested it, you can be assured that you’re not going to end up with a flaming piece of Styrofoam attached to your house.  In fact, the 4 watt bulb is barely warm to the touch.

Pick the wattage that meets your needs:

  • 15 watt incandescent:  60+ degrees F over ambient temperature
  • 7 watt incandescent: 40 degrees F over ambient temperature
  • 4 watt incandescent: 28 degrees F over ambient temperature.

E.g., if I’m expecting a low of 6 F in my neighborhood, a four watt bulb should keep the inside of that foam cover at a toasty (6 + 28 =) 34F.  These temperature increases were measured with the Home Depot foam cover (referenced below) snugged up against a brick wall.  You might get somewhat better or worse results depending on your siding (e.g., wood or aluminum).

The only warning is that you must use an old-fashioned incandescent bulb.  You’re using them for the waste heat, not for the light.  Do not use an LED night-light bulb.  They won’t put out enough heat.  I think that seven-watt incandescent night-light bulbs are available at every hardware store in the country.

The nicest thing about this setup is that is starts with a standard foam faucet cover.  I put these on my faucets at the start of winter, with the cord bundled up, out of the way.  Most of the winter, they just sit on the faucets like a normal foam faucet covers.  When extreme low temperatures are predicted, I unroll the cord and plug them in.  At that point, they’re heated faucet covers.

If you just want some ideas for a temporary fix, to be used for a few days in an emergency situation, read the “Cobbling something up” section below, in addition to the main post.


Parts, tools, and assembly, high-wattage model.

Parts, left to right:

Home depot reference: , $4.

 

Pick one:

\

Ace hardware typical reference., $6 for four.

 

Home depot reference, $7.  (Edit 1/12/2024:  I see HD no longer carries these in stores, but Lowes (reference Lowes.com) has the equivalent for $8. 

If you can’t find this part, and a night-light won’t do (next section), see the section “Cobbling something up” below).

Instructions:  Use the serrated knife to cut a small (1/8″ wide) notch in the bottom of the Styrofoam faucet protector.  Bend the metal fitting that comes with the candelabra socket to spread it out a bit.  Press the cord for the candelabra socket into that notch.  Snug the bottom of the socket up against the foam.  Screw in the bulb.

What you see below is the inside of the faucet protector, fully assembled and lit.  Attach this to your faucet, and draw it up firmly against the wall.

One clear drawback is the need to run an extension cord out to the faucet cover.  But, with a power draw so low, the cheapest, flimsiest outdoor extension cord will do.  Optionally, wrap any junctions (e.g., where the extension cord and lamp cord meet, or where the switch is on the lamp cord) with electrician’s tape or other waterproofing material, depending on how exposed they are.

I call this the high-wattage model because that $7 light fixture from Home Depot can easily handle a 15-watt bulb.  And the feet on the fitting keep that bulb well away from the Styrofoam.  But that’s also the most expensive part.  And you need to buy bulbs separately.

There is a cheaper way, if you don’t need 15 watts of heat.  Below.


Much cheaper, low-wattage model:  Use a night-light.

In the original version, I went with a candelabra base fitting because I thought I might need 15 watts of heating.  Turns out, 15 watts was overkill, for me.  And so, you can make this cheaper by substituting a night light for the candelabra base, as long as you keep the wattage down.

The instructions are identical to those above, you just cut a wider notch into the faucet protector.  Take the plastic shade off the night-light.  Stuff the night-light fitting into into place.  (See pictures below).  You’re done.

Originally, I cut back the foam a bit, to clear the bulb.  Not a bad idea, but not really necessary.  A four-watt night light bulb barely gets warm to the touch.

In any case, because the night-lights come with bulbs, you can make this for about $6.  I used a manual night-light, with an on-off switch.  You can use an automatic one, just tape over the sensor so the night-light thinks it’s in the dark.

I would NOT put a 15-watt bulb in one of those ultra-cheapo night light fixtures.  There ain’t a lot of metal in them.  Most of the night-lights I’ve found were rated for seven watts.  One (by GE) was only rated for four watts.  In any case, don’t exceed the rated wattage of the night-light fitting.

Note:  There are heavy-duty 15-watt night lights, sold as plug-in wax warmers or plug-in fragrance warmers.  I have no idea how hard it would be to tear one down to just the socket and switch, for use as an outdoor faucet warmer.  And they cost as much as the high-wattage fitting used in the first section above.  So may guess is, if you’re going to the night-light route, stick with a cheap night light, and low wattage.

Be sure you are getting a night-light that uses an old-fashioned incandescent bulb.  Do not try this with an LED night light.  They don’t generate enough heat.

One final caveat:  Your night light might be rated for seven watts, but that doesn’t mean it comes with a seven-watt bulb.  Here’s a $1.33 model from Menards that specifically says 7 watts for the included bulb (reference).  Here’s a Home Depot reference, 2 for $2.50, rated for 7 watts, definitely sold with 4 watt bulbs.  (reference).

So, if you go this route, pay attention to the bulb.  Otherwise, if you need 7 watts of heat, but ended up with 4 watt bulbs, you’re going to pay more for replacement bulbs than the night-light cost.

 


Cobbling something up:  A few suggestions if you are desperate and need a temporary fix.

The whole point of using these candelabra-base night-light-sized bulbs is that they’ll fit easily into a standard foam faucet cover, with room to spare.  This gives you a good chance of buying a few parts off the shelf and having it fit  your particular faucet, and gives you something you can leave up all winter.

But suppose you’re in a hurry, and just need a temporary fix, and you can’t lay your hands on the parts that I used.  What are some plausible alternatives?   It’s not like light bulb + insulation is somehow difficult to achieve.

I have to warn you that I haven’t tried all of these.  But based on making the ones above, these seem to have the highest chance of working, with minimal risk.

1:  Same idea, different socket and bulb.  Here’s the link to a guy on YouTube doing his version of this, using a 25 watt incandescent bulb (link).  He feeds the electrical cord through the end of the foam cover, rather than cutting a slot in the foam cover.  But it’s basically the same notion as what I’ve presented above.

2:  Make up a candelabra-base fitting from parts.  Let’s say you can’t lay your hands on the candelabra-base fitting that I used.  But you want to use more wattage than a night-light can handle.  Substitute a standard two-wire extension cord plus a socket-to-light adapter plus a medium-base-to-candelabra base adapter.  At my local Home Depot, those two adapters are available as this part, and this part, for a total of about $5.50 for the two of them.  That way you can still put a small night-light-sized bulb inside the foam faucet cover.   Instead of cutting a small hole, for night-light, as above, cut a hole, for the end 1″ wide end of the candelabra-base adapter.  Then proceed as with the original model above.

 

3:  Cheap trouble light, “60 watt” CFL bulb, and a cotton towel:  30 degrees F of heating.  By “trouble light”, I mean a plug-in 120-volt socket with a cage surrounding the bulb, and a hook for hanging it.   Like this, $9 (no cord, Walmart) and $16 (with cord, Lowes), respectively.

The point of the cage is to keep stuff from contacting the hot bulb.  Put in a moderate-wattage bulb, hang it on your faucet with the open side of the cage facing the wall, and then insulate it however you can, taking care that nothing touches the bulb.

Above is an example I tested using a towel, a plastic grocery bag, and a “60 watt” compact fluorescent, which actually draws 13 watts.  (And the world’s cheapest plastic-cage trouble light.)  Poke the lamp cord and the handle of the trouble light through the bottom of the bag.  Arrange some towels around the light, being careful not to touch the bulb.  Hang the light on the faucet, pull up the grocery bag, arrange the towels for best coverage, and tie the handles of the grocery bag on top of the faucet.

If you do this, be sure to come back and check it to make sure nothing is burning.  And, obviously, don’t leave this out in the rain.  (But if it’s raining, presumably you aren’t worried about your pipes freezing.)

As shown — “60 watt” (actual 13 watt)  CFL bulb, one bath towel — this produced at least 30F of heating above ambient temperature.  Obviously, YMMV.  If you have a kitchen thermometer, nothing will stop you from measuring how well yours does, before you trust it to keep your spigot from freezing.

If all you can get your hands on is an LED light bulb, bear in mind that a “60 watt” LED bulb only uses about 7 watts.  So you’re only going to get as much heat out of that as you would out of a 7-watt night-light bulb.  With this setup, I wouldn’t count on more than about 20F of heating, maybe less, with a “60 watt” LED bulb.

If all you can get is an incandescent bulb, I would not use more than a 25-watt incandescent bulb here.  Maybe not even that much.  It’s just going to get too hot.  You’ll risk (e.g.) melting something inside your cheap trouble light, or setting setting the plastic grocery bag on fire.

4:  A completely different approach:  Use a string of miniature Christmas lights, towels, grocery bag, and duct tape.  I’ve seen this one mentioned on the internet, and it seems like it should work, given the wattage involved.  You just need to have some reasonable wattage of lights, something between (say) 5 and 20 watts.  Wrap a string of miniature Christmas lights (either mini-incandescents or LEDs) around the exposed pipe of the outdoor faucet.

The rest is as shown above. Wrap some towels on top of that, for insulation.  Put a plastic trash or grocery bag on top for waterproofing.  Maybe duct-tape the entire thing.  Maybe just tie the bag on, as shown above.

As with the trouble light, check it after it’s been on for a while to make sure nothing is burning.  I would not do this with full-sized (C7 or C9) incandescent Christmas lights.  Those bulbs get hot — they run about 6 watts each — so even a short string of those can run to more than 100 watts.  That’s a LOT of heat in a very small space, and suggests a pretty significant fire risk, to me.  A string of (say) a dozen such bulbs emits vastly more heat than I would consider safe in these circumstances.


Some totally unnecessary background.

I guess the target audience for this post is people like me:  Southerners, facing a few bitterly cold nights a year, who would rather not mess with trying to winterize their outdoor faucets the proper way.  I’d rather run an extension cord to the faucet than hope that the 60-year-old sillcock shutoff — that hasn’t been used in at least 30 years — will work without leaking.

In my case, I was motivated to install one of these by a recent 11F night, after which water would only trickle out of my outdoor faucet, suggesting it was very nearly frozen solid.  This, despite using a standard foam faucet cover.  Given the damage that a burst pipe can cause, adding some heat to that seemed like a cheap bit of insurance.

I looked around for something I could buy, but came up empty.   Sure, there are heater tapes sold to keep pipes warm.  But those come in (e.g.) 30-foot lengths, and consume hundreds of watts. Overkill for a single outdoor faucet.

Near as I could tell, there doesn’t seem to be any product made to provide electric heat to a single outdoor faucet.  I assume that’s because you’re supposed to winterize these by draining them.  It’s only people who don’t want to do the right thing — shut off and drain that outdoor fitting — that would need something like this.

Which is how I ended up making these for my outdoor faucets.  For me, this is the simpler solution, for a few days of cold weather a year.

One final extras-for-experts: Post #1666.  Sure this works in practice, but does it work in theory?  The answer is yes.  In that post, I do the math.  Starting with the R-values for Styrofoam and brick, the dimensions of the faucet cover, and the heat output of a 4W light bulb, I calculate a steady-state 28F temperature difference between the inside and outside of the cover.  Which is, purely by chance, exactly what I measured.

Post #G21-052: Starting to wrap up the garden year.

 

Last year, I put in some raised beds and made a serious effort to grow some vegetables.  Mostly, it was to have something to do during the pandemic.  If nothing else, during all that isolation, it was cheering to look out my back window and see a patch of giant sunflowers.

Now it’s year two of the pandemic and of my garden.  I’m done with planting for the year, and I’m focused on winding things down, and on the likely first frost date for Vienna, VA.

It seems like a good time to summarize what did and did not go well this year.  Mostly as a reminder to myself, but also in case anyone else might benefit from reading it.

After a brief note on first frost dates, I’ll go through methods and techniques I tried this year, and maybe finish up with some notes on individual vegetables, if there is anything notable to say.  Click the links to go to the relevant sections.  Click the links below to see those sections, click the “back” link to return here.
Continue reading Post #G21-052: Starting to wrap up the garden year.

Post #G21-051: Adding to my deer deterrent arsenal.

I have an un-fenced vegetable garden in Vienna, VA.  Which means that I have a problem with deer.

We all know that deer can read.  Otherwise, how would then know where to cross the highway?  But for some reason, they scoff at my no-deer-allowed signs.

This post is a summary of everything I think I know about deterring deer from eating my garden.  And an introduction to my latest deer-deterrent device, wireless deer fence.

Edit on 3/9/2024:  A year after I wrote this, I ended up buying an electric fence.  Those are a) surprisingly cheap, b) surprisingly easy to set up and take down, and c) effective against deer.  So far.  I use an electric fence to define the outer perimeter of my garden, and run a couple of motion-activated sprinklers (“Yard Defender” and similar) inside the perimeter.  That combination has turned out to be effective.  So far.    See (e.g.) Post G22-063, to see what one looks likeIf you don’t have little kids or pets to worry about, I’d say that a small, portable electric fence setup should be the backbone of your deer deterrence.  So much so that I planned my new garden layout with an electric fence in mind.  Take it down in the fall, put it back up when you have something worth defending, in the spring.


Why it’s so hard to separate fact from fiction regarding deer repellents

Much has been written on deer deterrents, some of which might even be true.  But it has taken some sifting and sorting to try to separate what I believe to be true, from what I believe to be false.

The first problem with evaluating deer deterrents it that deer damage is sporadic.  The deer will come by, mow down a row of (say) beans, and move on.  They might be back tomorrow, they might be back next month.  You might have one herd of deer frequenting your garden.  You might have several distinct herds.  I’ve had long stretches where I’ve seen no evidence of deer.  I have had stretches where I’ve seen them daily.

As a result, absent a serious large-scale controlled trial, all tests of deer deterrents are one-way tests.  If you see continued deer damage, you know they are not working.  But if you see no damage, well, you just don’t know whether the deer deterrent worked, or whether you just got lucky for a spell.  There is a real element of people mistaking luck for effectiveness.

The second problem with evaluating deer deterrents is that deer differ, conditions differ, and the attractiveness of your plantings (compared to other nearby forage) will differ.  People swear that deer love hostas.  We have hostas all over our yard, and the deer have never touched them.  Others will swear that deer won’t eat tomato plants.  Yet that doesn’t stop my deer from chowing down on mine from time to time, at least when the plants are young.

This generates a true “path of least resistance” effect.  Deer manage their risk/return tradeoff depending on what’s available.  Deterrents that might work on some plants, in some circumstances, will not work in others.  If you’re growing something that deer find merely edible, but there is better forage nearby, maybe a simple folklore-style deterrent (Irish Spring soap) will convince them to go elsewhere.  But if you’re growing something that deer really like (e.g., sunflowers), and there’s little for them to browse elsewhere, you’re going to have to seek a stronger solution if you’re going to keep the deer off those plants.

As a result, the available information is a mix of:

  • Proper controlled tests run by (e.g.) state extension services.  These focus almost exclusively on commercially-available products that would be of use to (say) farms, orchards, and the like, to the exclusion of things you might use in your back yard.
  • Claims/testimonials from manufacturers.  Who, of course, are not going to tout any of the negative reviews.
  • Self-reports from people who have tried some deer deterrent.  This is everything from thoughtful advice from individuals who lots of experience, to anecdotes from people who tried something and the deer went away, to classic friend-of-a-friend urban-legend style stories where the person doing the writing isn’t the person with the actual deer problem.

And in each case, the solutions that some people will swear by may or may not work in your circumstances.  Just as the plants that some will swear are “deer proof” may or may not be, depending on just how hungry the deer are.  And the same for plants that are thought to attract deer.


The facts, as I believe them to be.

I’m not giving citation as to source here.  This is just a summary of my impression of what’s true about deterring deer, based on extensive reading of internet sources.

  • Deer do prefer certain plants, and not others.  You can find lists all over the internet.  But if they are motivated enough, they’ll eat almost anything.
  • The only 100%-sure fixed deer deterrent is a physical barrier such as a tall fence, a properly configured electric fence, caging or netting.
  • A properly-trained dog, allowed to roam, is also said to be 100% effective in keeping deer out of your yard.
  • Deer get more aggressive as fall approaches.  Deterrents that worked earlier in the year may not work then, or you have to ramp them up (e.g., increase the concentrations of odor-based deterrents).
  • Deer will get used to any fixed device meant to scare them.  They actively test the limits of your deer deterrents and stay just beyond those limits, or figure ways to work around them.

If I had it to do all over again.

I use several different deer deterrents.  Mostly, I only started gardening seriously last year, and I wasn’t sure what would work or not.  So, I tried a range of them, to hedge my bets.

If I had to start from scratch, knowing what I now know, I believe I’d invest a few hundred dollars in several Yard Enforcer motion-activated sprinklers, and the associated hoses.  I’d set up double coverage of every bit of garden beds that I have.  And I’d leave them on the “night” setting, so that I’d never forget to turn them back on after I’ve been working in the garden.

This would be a somewhat expensive solution.  The hoses would eventually sun-rot from being left out continuously, and would need to be replaced.  You’d probably cut one with the mower now and then.  And I’d guess that I would not expect to get more than five years’ reliable service from the motion-activated sprinkler.

That said, absent leaks, or freezing weather, I think this would solve my problem with minimal effort on my part.  As far as I can tell, the deer have never gotten used to the Yard Enforcer that I have.  I’m not sure if that’s luck, or whether it really does annoy them enough to keep them away in the long run.  But so far, when I remember to turn it on, for the area that it covers, it seems to keep the deer at bay.  This clearly would not work if you need to protect plants when temperatures drop below freezing.


What I have actually used, so far.

Bobbex deer repellent.  This has an excellent reputation, and really does seem to work in my situation.  I couldn’t really say if it’s any better or worse than any other name-brand odor-based repellent.

It has some drawbacks.  It stinks, so it’s kind of nasty to mix up and apply (you use a spray bottle).  You have to re-apply it at two-week or one-week intervals.  You can’t spray it directly on fruits or vegetables (it taints the taste of them).  And you have to amp it up as fall approaches, according to the directions, because the deer get more aggressive.

Of all that, the biggest drawback for me is that you have to remember to mix it up and use it every week, during peak deer season.  I’m just not that regular in my gardening habits.  (And, clearly, it’s not going to work if you take an extended vacation).

Yard Enforcer motion-activated sprinkler.  The deer don’t seem to get used to this one.  As long as I remember to turn it on, it seems to provide complete protection to the area it covers.

The hose connection on mine leaked, but a ten-cent rubber hose washer fixed the problem.  You do have to change the batteries every once in a while.  And I get a lot of false triggers in bright sunlight.

I have taken to leaving it set on “night”.  On that setting, it’s only active in the dark.  That way, I don’t have to turn it on and off as I go into and out of the garden.  (Or, more likely, turn it off and forget that I’ve done that).  And that avoids the false triggers in bright sunlight.

Home-made motion-activated radio (Post #G07).  I left this one in the shed this year.  It works, but it requires having an extension cord running across the lawn.  Not only will that eventually sun-rot, but there’s no convenient way to turn it off.  As a consequence, I was always triggering this as I went out into the garden.  (Don’t know if it scares the deer, but it never failed to scare the pee out of me.)  I think this would work well in an area that you didn’t routinely walk through.  But in an area where you do some sort of activity almost daily, this was less than ideal.

Blood meal, Irish spring soap, and other similar folklore-based repellents.  These had no appreciable effect that I could see.  Doesn’t mean that they don’t work in some circumstances.  Just didn’t seem to keep the deer away in mine.


New for this fall:  Wireless Deer Fence.

As fall sets in, the deer get larger, hungrier, and more aggressive.  It gets increasingly hard to keep them out of the garden.  And, frankly, I get tired of spraying stinking solutions every week, trying to keep them out.  And I’ll forget to turn on the Yard Enforcer after I’ve been working in the garden.

I looked over what was commercially available, and settled on “wireless deer fence“, three units for $60.  That’s probably not quite enough for the size of my garden, but these will work in conjunction with everything else.

The wireless deer fence consists of roughly one-foot-tall plastic stakes that hold a deer-attracting scent-based lure.  They hold that lure in the middle of four high-voltage metal tines, running off a couple of AA batteries in the base.  If the deer touches nose or tongue to the tines, it gets a nasty shock.  And, ideally, this trains the deer to go elsewhere.  Place one wherever you note deer damage.

Of course I tried it on myself.  (If this turned out to be really horrific, I wasn’t going to use it.)  I did not have the moxie to lick it, deer-style.  Instead, I tapped it on my wet skin.  It hurts, but not too badly.  Felt about the same as brushing up against an electric fence.  Unpleasant and startling, but not hugely painful.  And no lingering pain once you lose contact with the high-voltage metal.  Once you break contact, you’re fine.

Based on the company’s write-up, one shock is enough to train any one deer to stay away.  In the grand scheme of things — no damage, no lasting pain, one shock, and trying it out on myself first — this did not seem like an excessively cruel deer deterrent to me.  Others could reasonably disagree.

And so, you place these where you see deer damage.  Maybe move them from time to time, just so the deer don’t know how to avoid them.

So far, they seem to work.  But, as noted above, there’s really no way for the backyard user to separate cause-and-effect from sheer luck, when it comes to deer deterrents.


Conclusion.

Now you know everything about this topic that I think I know.  A tall fence was not practical for my garden.  I’m fairly sure that an electric fence would be illegal in my area.  I don’t own a dog.  So I’m left with a mix of second-best solutions.

Edit, 3/9/2024:  Turns out, only barbed wire fencing is explicitly illegal in my area (Fairfax County VA).  County code does not address electric fences.  Not sure whether that’s on purpose, or because they never thought any back-yard gardener would be crazy enough to install an electric fence.  In any case, there is no legal ban on electric fences where I live.

This year, I planted my most deer-attractive plants right next to the Yard Enforcer.  I put things that deer don’t like — potatoes, for example — on the edges of the garden.  That, by itself, worked fairly well.

I’ve kept up with the Bobbex from time to time.  And I’ve now installed three wireless deer fence devices.

I still get some deer damage.  Mostly when I forget.  Forget to spray, forget to turn the Yard Enforcer back on.  But I’ve managed to keep it to a tolerable level.  As long as the deer are here and hungry, that’s about the best I can hope for.

Post #1158: High-volume knee replacement surgeons in DC, MD, VA

EDIT:  The downloadable file for this post ended up with several Excel-related glitches.  It is in the process of being replaced with a corrected file (with, I think, no Excel problems) using a newer year (2019) of Medicare data.  The revised version of this will be posted shortly.

 

If you’re thinking of having knee replacement surgery and live in DC, MD, or VA, you may want to download and have a look at this Excel (.xlsx) file:

High volume knee replacement surgeons DC-MD-VA
Size: 0,2 MB
463 Downloads

 

The workbook linked above contains a list of orthopedic surgeons in DC, MD, or VA who performed knee replacements on traditional Medicare enrollees in 2018.  It shows the volume of each surgeon’s Medicare-paid total knee replacements, partial replacements, and repairs (revisions) of replacements. A second sheet in the workbook provides counts of fee-for-service Medicare inpatient knee and hip replacements by hospital for the same three states.

Why should you care about how many knee replacements a surgeon has done?  In a phrase, practice makes perfect.  This is true of most complex surgical procedures such as joint replacements, and is particularly true of partial knee replacements.  To quote one carefully-done large scale study out of Great Britain:

Caseload had a profound effect on implant survival. Low-volume surgeons had a high revision rate ... and therefore should consider either stopping or doing more UKR procedures. High-volume surgeons ... demonstrated a 10-year survival rate of 97.5%, which was similar to that reported in registries for the best-performing TKRs.

(N.B., UKR = partial knee replacement, TKR = total knee replacement, revision = repair or replacement).

Why care about Medicare-paid surgeries?  Mainly, that’s the only data you can get that shows the number of procedures performed by individual surgeons.  The data and methods are public information (accessible at this link).  That raw information is impossible for most people to use, so I created the workbook above.  As importantly, Medicare is a big piece of this market.  In these three states, in 2018, the traditional (fee-for-service) Medicare program paid for roughly half of all knee replacement surgeries (documented below).  And so, while this Medicare-based workbook only shows part of each physician’s practice, in most cases it shows a large part of it.

Think of this as a place to start as you decide upon a surgeon and hospital for your knee replacement.  Volume of surgery alone is not a direct measure of a physician’s quality or competence.  But if you’re going to have a knee joint replaced, you probably want a surgeon who replaces a lot of them.   You’ll obviously want to look at more than just surgical volume before choosing a surgeon.  But surgical volume is one reasonable criterion.  This is one of the few places were you can find orthopedic surgeons known to do a high volume of knee replacement surgery.

For now, you only need to know a few things to use the data. 

  • There are no warranties or guaranties about the accuracy of this information.  Use it at your own risk.
  • This is a snapshot of 2018.  Things change, people move around.
  • These are based on claims (bills) submitted by these surgeons and paid by Medicare.  There may be occasional errors, such as the inclusion of a mix of surgery and assistant-at-surgery services for an individual surgeon.
  • This is restricted to self-designated orthopedic surgeons.  This may omit the occasional legitimate knee surgeon who (e.g.) self-designates as a sports medicine physician or other sub-specialty.
  • An orthopedic surgeon had to be paid for at least eleven knee surgeries of a given type in order to be listed.  (A “type” in this case is an AMA Current Procedural Terminology (r) code.)  A blank entry in this file should best be interpreted as “fewer than eleven surgeries”.
  • An orthopedic surgeon practicing in this geographic area might have been correctly omitted from this file because a) they moved here after 2018, or b) the address of their main practice is listed as being in some other state, or c) they did fewer than eleven of every type of knee surgery on traditional Medicare enrollees in 2018.

This workbook also contains a crude ZIP-code based distance measure.  You can use a standard Excel method (“filtering”) to find orthopedic surgeons near you.  For example, you can easily reduce the list to orthopedic surgeons within 30 miles of a given ZIP code, who did at least 100 Medicare-paid knee replacements in 2018.  The README sheet in the workbook briefly explains how to filter the data.

Absolutely nothing about this file is perfect.  The counts are incomplete, the distance measure is crude, and so on.  But for most users, it’s probably good enough to be useful.   If you’ve ever tried to find a specialist, used an on-line website, and been faced with a list of hundreds of names, you’ll understand the utility of having some systematic approach to whittling down the choices.  At the very least, if you’ve gotten recommendations for a surgeon, you can now look them up and see whether or not they appear to do a lot of knee replacements.  And, as discussed below, you can often use the Medicare Compare website to identify hospitals to which that surgeon admits patients.

The rest of this post talks a bit more about the underlying data source, documents the estimate of traditional Medicare’s share of the market in these three states, and rambles a bit about about why I put this together.

 


The data, and fee-for-service Medicare’s share of the local knee replacement market.

The Excel workbook above is based on Medicare claims (medical bill) data.  In this section, I describe the relevant parts of the Medicare program, and show that for the three states in question (DC, MD, VA), in total, traditional fee-for-service Medicare paid for about half of all knee replacements in 2018.  Throughout, I ignore Medicare Part D (drug) coverage.

Roughly 60 million Americans are insured via Medicare, our federal health insurance for the aged and disabled. You can find a concise summary of enrollment statistics at this link.

Of those, just over one-third are actually enrolled in private health care plans, termed “Medicare Advantage” or “Medicare Part C” plans.  For those beneficiaries, Medicare simply pays monthly premiums to those plans, just like any other health insurance coverage.  With limited exceptions, the Medicare program itself never sees bills (claims) for services provided to those individuals.  They are (almost by definition) excluded from the counts in the Excel workbook provided here.

Roughly two-thirds remain in the traditional “fee-for-service” Medicare program.  For those individuals, Medicare hires contractors to process and pay their covered health care bills.  For those individuals, the Medicare program gets an electronic copy of every bill that was paid.  One way or the other, each bill shows what service was provided, and how much Medicare paid for it. Those are the counts that make up the data for the workbook above.

There is a small factor that also must be considered, which is that Medicare covers inpatient facility care (Part A) separately from payment for professional and outpatient services, such as payment to a surgeon (Part B).   An increasingly large share of enrollees in traditional Medicare have Part A coverage (which is free) but not Part B coverage (which is merely heavily subsidized, not completely free).  (This does not happen in Medicare Advantage, because (with rare exception) you must have both Part A and Part B coverage to be able to enroll in a Medicare Advantage plan.) Working from these enrollment statistics, about five million Medicare beneficiaries have Part A but not Part B.  Because these are by definition concentrated solely in the fee-for-service portion of Medicare, this means that currently about 12.5 percent of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries have Part A (hospital inpatient bill) coverage, but not Part B (surgeon’s bills) coverage.  These individuals tend to be relatively low users of care.  But to the extent that such an individual would get an inpatient knee replacement, Medicare would see a bill from the hospital, but not from the surgeon.

For the U.S. as a whole, we can use a reference inpatient database (the AHRQ HCUP database) to estimate the fraction of all inpatient knee replacements paid by any part of Medicare.  This will include both traditional fee-for-service Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans.  As of 2018, Medicare paid for 57% of all inpatient knee replacements.

But that would include not only traditional Medicare, but Medicare Advantage as well.  To parse those apart, I relied on an old analysis that I had done for clients back when I worked in this area.  (That analysis required separating out Medicare fee-for-service discharges from records for Medicare Advantage discharges.)  Based on that analysis, for knee surgery, for DC+MD+VA combined, traditional Medicare accounted for 90 percent of inpatient knee replacements in 2017.  (For the U.S. as a whole, it was more like 70%).

So fee-for-service (traditional) Medicare’s share of inpatient knee replacements, for DC+MD+VA, would amount to 90% of 57%, or 51%.

Finally, I have to guess what fraction of those with Medicare fee-for-service inpatient knee replacement had Part A but not Part B.  This is a lot harder, because those without Part B tend to have a much lower rate of service use for elective surgery such as knee replacement.  As a reasonable guess, based on years of looking at this question for other procedures, I’d guess that 6 percent of those knee replacement patients had Part A but not Part B.

So fee-for-service (traditional) Medicare’s share of surgeon’s bills, for knee replacements, for DC+MD+VA, would amount to 94% of 51%, or 48%.

The upshot of all of that is that, if I’m looking at fee-for-service knee replacement claims paid by Medicare Part B, in DC+MD+VA, in 2018, I’m looking at just under half of all knee replacements done in this geographic area.

The actual public-use data file is Medicare’s summary of the individual claims (bills).  Medicare summarized the file by physician identifier, place of service (inpatient or outpatient), and procedure (AMA Common Procedural Terminology (r) Code).  As a privacy protection measure, Medicare blanks the data any time that leads to a count of fewer than 11 total services.

Because of that summary-and-redaction process, I will lose some counts of knee replacements every time a surgeon does fewer than 11 of any one particular type of knee surgery.  But that factor is more-or-less irrelevant if the task is to find high-volume surgeons.  It might might drop a lot of volume out of the file in total, but it should leave the counts for high-volume surgeons more-or-less unaffected.

I did considerable post-processing of the Medicare file, to achieve two things.  First, I edited out aberrant-looking lines, mostly trying to get rid of claims for assistance-at-surgery.  (Assistance-at-surgery is exactly what it sounds like — it’s the service of assisting the main surgeon who performs the surgery.  Unfortunately, assistance-at-surgery is billed using the same codes as the surgery itself, with a separate “modifier” indicating assistance.  Medicare just summarizes all the bills, regardless of modifier.)  Second, I added the counts for the range of surgical codes to generate the categories you see labeled on the spreadsheet.

As a validation, I found that after all my edits, and all the CMS redactions of cells with fewer than 11 surgeries, I ended up with 93% of the “benchmark” count of U.S. total knee replacements.  (The benchmark is based on the Medicare Part B National Summary file, excluding assistance-at-surgery (80s) claims.)


Why did I put this together.

I worked more than 30 years as a health economist, and spent most of that time analyzing Medicare claims data.  After three decades, I was both good and quick at doing that sort of analysis.

During my career, I was repeated floored by how hard it was for the lay person to get an answer to even the simplest questions about health care, based on Medicare’s experience.  If somebody in the Medicare program had not tabulated exactly what you wanted, just by chance, then you were out of luck.  In most cases, for most questions, my sole option was to work up an analysis, from scratch, directly from the large public-use or limited versions of the Medicare claims and enrollment data files.

Absent that data access and analytical firepower, I could not get answers to obvious and simple questions.  And it wasn’t so much that Medicare didn’t occasionally try to provide summary data that could answer some questions.  It’s more that most questions you’d like to see answered require just a little bit of analysis that is specific to that question.

And so it is with these counts of surgeries.  Medicare makes the raw summary file available, and even has an interactive on-line query system.  And even with that, I’d bet that the average American would find it impossible to use that system to produce any sort of meaningful information.  You have to know just a little bit — about the codes used to represent the surgeries, about assistance-at-surgery claims — to convert the raw data to a useful listing.

And, since I spent 30 years developing those skills, I figured I should put them to some use.

This is actually the second time I’ve done this analysis.  The first time was years ago, when a friend’s wife was facing a replacement of a failing partial (unicoldylar) knee.  Her knee was not done correctly the first time, it had worn prematurely, and replacements are much harder than initial implants.  She really wanted to find the best of the best for her surgery.  And so I did essentially this analysis, and in fact came across the surgeon who literally wrote the textbook on revisions of uni knees.

That story then had a happy ending.  But without access to information like this, it’s hard to pick a surgeon.  You are reduced to asking friends for suggestions, or soliciting suggestions from social media.  Both of which can work, but neither of which is very systematic.

The second time I did this analysis was two weeks ago, when a question about surgery for a uni knee revision was posted on NextDoor.  I figured, I might as well dust off the old analysis and see what it said now.  And it actually turned up the same national expert on uni knees, at the top of the listing.

Otherwise, finding and choosing a surgery is just a hard task.  You scrape together whatever information you can find from various sources.  Maybe you solicit recommendations from your family physician, friends, or via social media.  And you try to synthesize all of that.

What I have found is that on-line physician finder sites give you an overwhelming number of choices.  And when it comes to surgeons, it seems like all of them get top ratings.  They are great for showing you all of your options.  They are not much good when it comes to narrowing your options.

And that’s why I like practice-makes-perfect as a guide.  It’s not merely that you should avoid surgeons with low volumes of the particular surgery you need.  It’s that you will find that, particularly with anything out-of-the-ordinary, surgeons with high volumes got that way because they had a reputation for being the local expert.  A surgeon doesn’t get to do (say) 80 partial knee revisions per year unless that surgeon has the reputation as the go-to person for that particular surgery.

So there you have it.  It’s not perfect, slick, or pretty, but it makes that Medicare data available to people who might want to use it.  Now that I’ve worked out the kinks for doing this from public-use data, there’s no barrier to doing a national version of this file, and there are only small barriers to doing this for other common surgeries where the practice-makes-perfect effect is known to be important.  As a final note, Medicare updates the underlying data annually in November, so if I’m still in this business at that time, I should be able to update this using newer data then.

Post #1153: The dance of data destruction

For about 20 years, I was self-employed as a health economist.  In the course of that, I used terabytes of “sensitive data” in the form of health care claims (bills), all of which, at some point, had to be destroyed.

I started in the era of reel-to-reel magnetic tape.  You’ll still see those big reel-to-reel tape drives in the backround of cheesy science-fiction movies.  At some point, those open reels morphed into tape cartridges, the same magnetic medium in a more convenient and higher-storage-density package.

In either case, destroying data on magnetic tape was easy.  All you had to do was pass a big purpose-made electromagnet over the tapes, and they were rendered unreadable.  Bulk tape erasers were cheap, fast, and effective.

Then, for a while, I got most of my data on optical media such as DVDs.  Those actually had some entertainment value when they were due to be discarded.  I’d toss them on the gravel pad in my back yard and invite my kids to stomp on them.   They seemed to have a good time, and I guarantee the results made the discs unreadable.  It was an occasional family ritual we referred to as the dance of data destruction.

But what I mostly have now are disk drives.  Boxes and boxes of high-capacity disk drives.

As my career progressed, drive manufacturers were great about increasing drive capacity.  I started out using 30 and 60 megabyte drives.  (Yes, megabyte).  Large files had to be split across multiple drives.  But as time went on, files that I used to have to split across multiple drives now easily fit on modern multi-terabyte drives.  The sizes of the files that were made available for distribution increased accordingly.

Drive manufacturers did a great job of increasing capacity, but speed of access did not increase in proportion.  As a result, it takes hours upon hours to overwrite the data on a modern multi-terabyte drive.  I even bought a device dedicated to erasing drives.  This device absolutely works at as fast a rate as the drive can handle.  And for multi-terabyte drives, it takes the better part of a day to do even one pass over the entire drive surface.

And so, as much as I hate to do it, I’ve decided to destroy the drive hardware rather than just wiping the drives and giving them away.  Once you figure out how to get into the drives and extract the platters (disks), this is orders-of-magnitude faster than overwriting the data and keeping the drive intact.

This bothers me, because these drives still work.  But it only bothers me a little.   Disk drives with rotating magnetic media are dinosaurs, being replaced by solid-state drives in just about every conceivable situation.

So my lovely multi-terabyte hard drives are, in a sense, just the reel-to-reel tapes of the 2020s.  They work, but they are in the process of becoming obsolete.

I found several YouTube videos on how to take apart hard drives, but none of them seemed particularly good.  So I made my own.  If you’ve ever wondered what the inside of a hard drive looks like, check out my three-minute YouTube video on how to disassemble a hard drive and extract the platters.

Post G21-001: Garden lessons learned.

Last year I put in a fairly serious vegetable garden.  Partly it was for the exercise, partly it was to have something to do.

And partly, it was so I’d have something cheerful to see when I looked out my back window.  Like so.

 

I’m going to start this year’s garden posts with lessons learned from last year.  Scroll down to the headers in red to see if any of this interests you. Continue reading Post G21-001: Garden lessons learned.

Post #927: Wheelchair floor-to-chair aid, V3

The brief for this task:  Create a floor-to-chair aid for wheelchair users.  It must be able to be made at home, using only simple hand tools and readily available materials.

The end result is shown directly below.

Above:  Floor-to-chair aid, folded and covered.  For scale, the push-up bars sitting on top are 6″ tall.

Above:  Rear view, folded.  Lower stairs sit atop upper stairs when folded.  The boxes nearest the camera flip away from the camera when put into use.

Above:  Rear view, unfolded.  Lower stairs have been flipped off the top, away from camera, revealing hardboard stair tops.  Push-up bars are on top.

Above:  Front view, folded.  Blue cloth connects the lower and upper sections of the staircase.

Above:  Front view, unfolded.  Lower stairs have been flipped off the top, toward the camera, revealing hardboard stair tops.  The blue cloth keeps the upper and lower stairs connected. Continue reading Post #927: Wheelchair floor-to-chair aid, V3

Post #926: Knife guide for cutting corrugated cardboard.

This post is a set of instructions for creating a utility knife guide, for making fast, straight, precise cuts in corrugated cardboard, using a utility knife.  This guide only cuts cardboard to 4″ widths, but you can easily modify it for other widths.  It uses about $7 in parts, and takes about 15 minutes to construct. Continue reading Post #926: Knife guide for cutting corrugated cardboard.

Post #917: Floor-to-chair aid, user focus

This is the final set of refinements for my floor-to-chair aid staircase.  I’ll build a new set of stairs incorporating all the changes when the materials arrive later this week.

The upshot of this posting is that the only configuration you can build out of readily-available parts is a staircase with four 4.5″ steps.  And that it might be a good idea to carpet those steps.

As planned, the entire setup, including carpet and pushup bars, should cost about $55, and should take just over three hours to build.  The footprint of the stairs will now be 48″ x 32″

Details follow.


Continue reading Post #917: Floor-to-chair aid, user focus