The need for integrated clinical and administrative data models for risk adjustment in assessment of the cost transplant care.

INTRODUCTION: Value-based purchasing requires accurate techniques to appropriately measure both outcomes and cost with robust adjustment for differences in severity of illness. Traditional methods to adjust cost estimates have exclusively used administrative data derived from billing claims to identify comorbidity and complications. Transplantation uniquely has accurate national clinical registry data that can be used to supplement administrative data. METHODS: Administrative claims from the Vizient, Inc, Clinical Data Base (CDB) were linked with clinical records from the Scientific Registry for Transplant Recipients for 76 liver and 109 kidney transplant programs. Using either or both datasets, we fitted a regression model to the total direct cost of care for 16,649 kidney and 6058 liver transplants. RESULTS: The proportion of variation explained by these risk-adjustment models increased significantly when combined administrative and clinical data were used for kidney (administrative only R2 = .069, clinical only R2 = .047, combined R2 = .14, p < .0001) and liver (administrative only R2 = .28, clinical only R2 = .25, combined R2 = .33, p < .0001). CONCLUSION: Incorporating accurate clinical data into risk-adjustment methodologies can improve risk adjustment methodologies; however, as majority of variation in cost remains unexplained by these risk-adjustment models further work is needed to accuracy assess transplant value.

A simple risk-based reimbursement system for kidney transplant.

Transplant centers were challenged by the Executive Order on Advancing Kidney health to increase access to kidney transplant (KTx) by accepting higher risk patients and organs. However, Medicare reimbursement for KTx does not include adjustment for major complicating comorbidities (MCCs) like other transplants. The prevalence of MCCs was assessed for KTx performed from 10/15 to 10/19 at a single academic center, using Medicare ICD10 MCC criteria exclusive of end-stage kidney disease. KTx hospital resource utilization and estimated margin, assuming Medicare reimbursement, were determined for cases with and without MCC. Among 260 KTx recipients, 49 (19%) had an MCC. Patients with MCCs had longer wait times (1121 days vs 703 days, P < .001); however, there were no differences in age, gender, race, or diagnosis. Donor characteristics associated with an MCC included greater cold ischemic time (1042 vs 670 minutes, P < .001) and fewer living donor KTx (9% vs 32%, P < .001). KTx cost, exclusive of organ acquisition, was 31% higher (MCC: $38 293 vs No MCC: $29 132) and estimated margin was markedly lower (-$7750 vs -$1001, P = .001). In conclusion, KTx with qualifying MCCs resulted in significant financial losses and modification of KTx payment methodology to align with other organ transplants is needed.

Financial Evaluation of Kidney Transplant With Hepatitis C Viremic Donors to Uninfected Recipients.

Kidney transplantation with hepatitis C viremic (dHCV+) donors appears safe for recipients without HCV when accompanied by direct acting antiviral (DAA) treatment. However, US programs have been reluctant to embrace this approach due to concern about insurance coverage. While the cost of DAA treatment is currently offset by the reduction in waiting time, increased competition for dHCV+ organs may reduce this advantage. This analysis sought to demonstrate the financial benefit of dHCV+ transplant for third-party health insurers to expand coverage availability. METHODS: An economic analysis was developed using a Markov model for 2 decisions: first, to accept a dHCV+ organ versus wait for a dHCV uninfected organ; or second, accept a high kidney donor profile index (KDPI) (>85) organ versus wait for a better quality dHCV+ organ. The analysis used Medicare payments, historical survival data, cost report data, and an estimated cost of DAA of $29 874. RESULTS: In the first analysis, using dHCV+ kidneys reduced the cost of end-stage kidney disease care if the wait for a dHCV uninfected organ exceeded 11.5 months. The financial breakeven point differed according to the cost of DAA treatment. In the second analysis, declining a high-KDPI organ in favor of a waiting dHCV+ organ was marginally clinically beneficial if waiting times were <12 months but not cost effective. CONCLUSIONS: dHCV+ transplant appears to be economically and clinically advantageous compared with waiting for dHCV-uninfected transplant but should not replace high-KDPI transplant when appropriate. Despite the high cost of DAA therapy, health insurers benefit financially from dHCV+ transplant within 1 year.

Endoscopic Versus Open Carpal Tunnel Release: A Detailed Analysis Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing at an Academic Medical Center.

PURPOSE: In order to effectively improve value in health care delivery, providers must thoroughly understand cost drivers. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) is a novel accounting technique that may allow for precise characterization of procedural costs. The purpose of the present study was to use TDABC to characterize costs in a high-volume, low-complexity ambulatory procedure (endoscopic vs open carpal tunnel release [CTR]), identify cost drivers, and inform opportunities for clinical improvement. METHODS: The costs of endoscopic and open CTR were calculated in a matched cohort investigation using TDABC. Detailed process maps including time stamps were created accounting for all clinical and administrative activities for both the endoscopic and the open treatment pathways on the day of ambulatory surgery. Personnel cost rates were calculated accounting for capacity, salary, and fringe benefits. Costs for direct consumable supplies were based on purchase price. Total costs were calculated by aggregating individual resource utilization and time data and were compared between the 2 surgical techniques. RESULTS: Total procedural cost for the endoscopic CTR was 43.9% greater than the open technique ($2,759.70 vs $1,918.06). This cost difference was primarily driven by the disposable endoscopic blade assembly ($217), direct operating room costs related to procedural duration (44.8 vs 40.5 minutes), and physician labor. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic CTR is 44% more expensive than open CTR compared with a TDABC methodology at an academic medical center employing resident trainees. Granular cost data may be particularly valuable when comparing these 2 procedures, given the clinical equipoise of the surgical techniques. The identification of specific cost drivers with TDABC allows for targeted interventions to optimize value delivery. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic Analysis II.