Strategies to expand the distribution of nursing talent in the United States.

This panel paper is the third installment in a six-part Nursing Outlook special edition based on the 2022 Emory Business Case for Nursing Summit. The 2022 summit was led by Emory School of Nursing in partnership with Emory School of Business. It convened national nursing, health care, and business leaders to explore possible solutions to nursing workforce crises, including the nursing shortage. Each of the summit's four panels authored a paper in this special edition on their respective topic(s). This panel paper focuses on strategies to optimally distribute nursing talent in rural and underserved areas. It discusses the role of nursing talent distribution in ensuring equity in access to care for U.S. populations. Topics covered include the need for expanded and standardized advanced practice registered nurse (APRN) scope of practice, an expanded nurse licensure compact, reimbursement reforms, and competitive nursing salaries.

The impact of emergency department observation units on a health system.

IMPORTANCE: Protocol driven ED observation units (EDOU) have been shown to improve outcomes for patients and payers, however their impact on an entire health system is unknown. Two thirds of US hospitals do not have such units. OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of a protocol-driven EDOU on health system length of stay, cost, and resource utilization. METHODS: A retrospective, observational, cross-sectional study of observation patients managed over 25 consecutive months in a four-hospital academic health system. Patients were identified using the "admit to observation" order and limited to adult, emergent / urgent, non-obstetric patients. Data was retrieved from a cost accounting database. The primary study exposure was the setting for observation care which was broken into three discrete groups: EDOUs (n = 3), hospital medicine observation units (HMSOU, n = 2), and a non-observation unit (NOU) bed located anywhere in the hospital. Outcomes included observation-to-inpatient admission rate, length of stay (LoS), total direct cost, and inpatient bed days saved. Unadjusted outcomes were compared, and outcomes were adjusted using multiple study variables. LoS and cost were compared using quantile regressions. Inpatient admit rate was compared using logistic regressions. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 48,145 patients who were 57.4% female, 48% Black, 46% White, median age of 58, with some variation in most common diagnoses and payer groups. The median unadjusted outcomes favored EDOU over NOU settings for admission rate (13.1% vs 37.1%), LoS [17.9 vs 35.6 h), and cost ($1279 vs $2022). The adjusted outcomes favored EDOU over NOU settings for admission rates [12.3% (95% CI 9.7-15.3) vs 26.4% (CI 21.3-32.3)], LoS differences [11.1 h (CI 10.6-11.5 h)] and cost differences [$127.5 (CI $105.4 - $149.5)]. Adjusted differences were similar and favored EDOU over HMSOU settings. For the health system, the total adjusted annualized savings of the EDOUs was 10,399 bed days and $1,329,443 in total direct cost per year. CONCLUSION: Within an academic medical center, EDOUs were associated with improved resource utilization and reduced cost. This represents a significant opportunity for hospitals to improve efficiency and contain costs.

The impact of hybrid coronary revascularization on hospital costs and reimbursements.

BACKGROUND: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines a minimally invasive, left internal mammary artery-left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) bypass with percutaneous intervention of non-LAD vessels for patients with multivessel coronary disease. The financial implications of HCR have not been compared with off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) through sternotomy. METHODS: The contribution margin is a fiduciary calculation (best hospital payment estimate--total variable costs) used by hospitals to determine fiscal viability of services. From 2010 to 2011, 26 Medicare patients underwent HCR at a single United States institution and were compared with 28 randomly selected, contemporaneous Medicare patients undergoing multivessel OPCAB. All HCR patients underwent a robotic-assisted, sternal-sparing, off-pump, left internal mammary artery-LAD anastomosis plus percutaneous intervention to non-LAD vessels. A linear regression model was used to compare fiscal and utilization outcomes of HCR to OPCAB adjusted for hospital length of stay and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score. RESULTS: On regression analysis controlling for overall length of stay and Predicted Risk of Mortality score, the contribution margin (+$8,771, p<0.0001) was greater for HCR than for OPCAB. Despite higher total cost for HCR compared with OPCAB (+$7,026, p=0.001), the total variable cost (+$2,281, p=0.07) was not significantly different. Best payment estimates (+11,031, p<0.0001) and Medicare reimbursements (+$8,992, p=0.002) were higher for HCR than for OPCAB, and there was a reduction in blood transfusion (-1.5 units, p<0.0001), ventilator time (-10 hours, p=0.001), and postoperative length of stay (-1.2 days, p=0.002) for the HCR group. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with OPCAB, HCR results in a greater contribution margin for hospitals. This may result from higher reimbursement as well as improved resource utilization postoperatively, which may offset more expensive procedural costs associated with HCR.

Cost-effectiveness of defending against bioterrorism: a comparison of vaccination and antibiotic prophylaxis against anthrax.

BACKGROUND: Weaponized Bacillus anthracis is one of the few biological agents that can cause death and disease in sufficient numbers to devastate an urban setting. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of strategies for prophylaxis and treatment of an aerosolized B. anthracis bioterror attack. DESIGN: Decision analytic model. DATA SOURCES: We derived probabilities of anthrax exposure, vaccine and treatment characteristics, and their costs and associated clinical outcomes from the medical literature and bioterrorism-preparedness experts. TARGET POPULATION: Persons living and working in a large metropolitan U.S. city. TIME HORIZON: Patient lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal. INTERVENTION: We evaluated 4 postattack strategies: no prophylaxis, vaccination alone, antibiotic prophylaxis alone, or vaccination and antibiotic prophylaxis, as well as preattack vaccination versus no vaccination. OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs, quality-adjusted life-years, life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: If an aerosolized B. anthracis bioweapon attack occurs, postexposure prophylactic vaccination and antibiotic therapy for those potentially exposed is the most effective (0.33 life-year gained per person) and least costly (355 dollars saved per person) strategy, as compared with vaccination alone. At low baseline probabilities of attack and exposure, mass previous vaccination of a metropolitan population is more costly (815 million dollars for a city of 5 million people) and not more effective than no vaccination. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: If prophylactic antibiotics cannot be promptly distributed after exposure, previous vaccination may become cost-effective. LIMITATIONS: The probability of exposure and disease critically depends on the probability and mechanism of bioweapon release. CONCLUSIONS: In the event of an aerosolized B. anthracis bioweapon attack over an unvaccinated metropolitan U.S. population, postattack prophylactic vaccination and antibiotic therapy is the most effective and least expensive strategy.