Is the Centralization of Complex Surgical Procedures an Unintended Spillover Effect of Global Capitation? - Insights from the Maryland Global Budget Revenue Program.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if global budget revenue (GBR) models incent the centralization of complex surgical care. SUMMARY BACKGROUND: In 2014, Maryland initiated a statewide GBR model. While prior research has shown improvements in cost and outcomes for surgical care post-GBR implementation, the mechanism remains unclear. METHODS: Utilizing state inpatient databases, we compared the proportion of adults undergoing elective complex surgeries (gastrectomy, pneumonectomy/lobectomy, proctectomies, and hip/knee revision) at high-concentration hospitals (HCHs) in Maryland and control states. Annual concentration, per procedure, was defined as hospital volume divided by state volume. HCHs were defined as hospitals with a concentration at least at the 75 th percentile in 2010. We estimated the difference-in-differences (DiD) of the probability of patients undergoing surgery at HCHs before and after GBR implementation. FINDINGS: Our sample included 122,882 surgeries. Following GBR implementation, all procedures were increasingly performed at HCHs in Maryland. States satisfied the parallel trends assumption for the centralization of gastrectomy and pneumonectomy/lobectomy. Post-GBR, patients were more likely to undergo gastrectomy (DiD: 5.5 p.p., 95% CI [2.2, 8.8]) and pneumonectomy/lobectomy (DiD: 12.4 p.p., 95% CI [10.0, 14.8]) at an HCH in Maryland compared with control states. For our hip/knee revision analyses, we assumed persistent counterfactuals and noted a positive DiD post-GBR implementation (DiD: 4.8 p.p., 95% CI [1.3, 8.2]). No conclusion could be drawn for proctectomy due to different pre-GBR trends. CONCLUSIONS: GBR implementation is associated with increased centralization for certain complex surgeries. Future research is needed to explore the impact of centralization on patient experience and access.

Comparative Effectiveness of Preoperative Paravertebral Block for Post-Mastectomy Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

INTRODUCTION: Paravertebral block (PVB) has emerged as a viable strategy for improving postoperative outcomes in breast surgery; however, it is unclear whether these benefits extend to recipients of post-mastectomy reconstruction (PMR). METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library electronic databases was conducted for all studies matching the a priori inclusion criteria (inception to 1 March 2017). Independent assessment by two reviewers, in stages, of the title/abstract and full text was performed. Data relating to study design, patient characteristics, PVB medications and technique, and outcomes, including pain, opioid consumption, length of stay (LOS), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and PVB-related complications was abstracted. RESULTS: Of the 1243 identified articles, nine met the inclusion criteria, accounting for 936 patients (PVB, n = 518; non-PVB, n = 418) in two randomized controlled trials (RCT) and seven retrospective cohort studies. Of these studies, six described PVB for prosthetic PMR, and three described PVB for autologous PMR. Overall, there is a subtle trend towards improved pain control, less opioid requirement and shorter LOS, while PONV was largely unchanged in patients receiving PVB for PMR. In two studies, technical failure was reported at 7.4 and 10%, although no study reported a PVB-related complication. Study quality varied, and risk of bias in the included studies was high. Heterogeneity precluded a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Although recent reports and RCTs advocate for PVB use in PMR, our review highlights significant heterogeneity and knowledge gaps that must be addressed in order for PVB to become part of the optimal anesthetic protocol in PMR.

Assessment of Costs and Care Quality Associated With Major Surgical Procedures After Implementation of Maryland's Capitated Budget Model.

Importance: In 2014, Maryland implemented the all-payer model, a distinct hospital funding policy that applied caps on annual hospital expenditures and mandated reductions in avoidable complications. Expansion of this model to other states is currently being considered; therefore, it is important to evaluate whether Maryland's all-payer model is achieving the desired goals among surgical patients, who are an at-risk population for most potentially preventable complications. Objective: To examine the association between the implementation of Maryland's all-payer model and the incidence of avoidable complications and resource use among adult surgical patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study used hospital discharge records from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project state inpatient databases to conduct a difference-in-differences analysis comparing the incidence of avoidable complications and the intensity of health resource use before and after implementation of the all-payer model in Maryland. The analytical sample included 2 983 411 adult patients who received coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), carotid endarterectomy (CEA), spinal fusion, hip or knee arthroplasty, hysterectomy, or cesarean delivery between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2016, at acute care hospitals in Maryland (intervention state) and New York, New Jersey, and Rhode Island (control states). Data analysis was conducted from July 2019 to July 2021. Exposures: All-payer model. Main Outcomes and Measures: Complications (infectious, cardiovascular, respiratory, kidney, coagulation, and wound) and health resource use (ie, hospital charges). Results: Of 2 983 411 total patients in the analytical sample, 525 262 patients were from Maryland and 2 458 149 were from control states. Across Maryland and the control states, there were statistically significant but not clinically relevant differences in the preintervention period with regard to patient age (mean [SD], 49.7 [19.0] years vs 48.9 [19.3] years, respectively; P < .001), sex (22.7% male vs 21.4% male; P < .001), and race (0.3% vs 0.4% American Indian, 2.8% vs 4.5% Asian or Pacific Islander, 25.9% vs 12.7% Black, 4.7% vs 11.9% Hispanic, and 63.5% vs 63.4% White; P < .001). After implementation of the all-payer model in Maryland, significantly lower rates of avoidable complications were found among patients who underwent CABG (-11.3%; 95% CI, -13.8% to -8.7%; P < .001), CEA (-1.6%; 95% CI, -2.9% to -0.3%; P = .02), hip arthroplasty (-0.8%; 95% CI, -1.0% to -0.5%; P < .001), knee arthroplasty (-0.4%; 95% CI, -0.7% to -0.1%; P = .01), and cesarean delivery (-1.0%; 95% CI, -1.3% to -0.7%; P < .001). In addition, there were significantly lower increases in index hospital costs in Maryland among patients who underwent CABG (-$6236; 95% CI, -$7320 to -$5151; P < .001), CEA (-$730; 95% CI, -$1367 to -$94; P = .03), spinal fusion (-$3253; 95% CI, -$3879 to -$2627; P < .001), hip arthroplasty (-$328; 95% CI, -$634 to -$21; P = .04), knee arthroplasty (-$415; 95% CI, -$643 to -$187; P < .001), cesarean delivery (-$300; 95% CI, -$380 to -$220; P < .001), and hysterectomy (-$745; 95% CI, -$974 to -$517; P < .001). Significant changes in patient mix consistent with a younger population (eg, a shift toward private/commercial insurance for orthopedic procedures, such as spinal fusion [4.3%; 95% CI, 3.4%-5.2%; P < .001] and knee arthroplasty [1.6%; 95% CI, 1.0%-2.3%; P < .001]) and a lower comorbidity burden across surgical procedures (eg, CABG: -0.7% [95% CI, -0.1% to -0.5%; P < .001]; hip arthroplasty: -3.0% [95% CI, -3.6% to -2.3%; P < .001]) were also observed. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, patients who underwent common surgical procedures had significantly fewer avoidable complications and lower hospital costs, as measured against the rate of increase throughout the study, after implementation of the all-payer model in Maryland. These findings may be associated with changes in the patient mix.