Trends in performance of hospital outpatient procedures and associated 30-day costs among Medicare beneficiaries from 2011 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: United States healthcare has increasingly transitioned to outpatient care delivery. The degree to which Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) have been able to shift surgical procedures from inpatient to outpatient settings despite higher patient complexity is unknown. METHODS: This observational study used a 20% sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older undergoing eight elective procedures from 2011 to 2018 to model trends in procedure site (hospital outpatient vs. inpatient) and 30-day standardized Medicare costs, overall and by hospital teaching status. RESULTS: Of the 1,222,845 procedures, 15.9% occurred at AMCs. There was a 2.42% per-year adjusted increase (95% CI 2.39%-2.45%; p < .001) in proportion of outpatient hospital procedures, from 68.9% in 2011 to 85.4% in 2018. Adjusted 30-day standardized costs declined from $18,122 to $14,353, (-$560/year, 95% CI -$573 to -$547; p < .001). Patients at AMCs had more chronic conditions and higher predicted annual mortality. AMCs had a lower proportion of outpatient procedures in all years compared to non-AMCs, a difference that was statistically significant but small in magnitude. AMCs had higher costs compared to non-AMCs and a lesser decline over time (p < .001 for the interaction). AMCs and non-AMCs saw a similar decline in 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a substantial shift toward outpatient procedures among Medicare beneficiaries with a decrease in total 30-day Medicare spending as well as 30-day mortality. Despite a higher complexity population, AMCs shifted procedures to the outpatient hospital setting at a similar rate as non-AMCs. IMPLICATIONS: The trend toward outpatient procedural care and lower spending has been observed broadly across AMCs and non-AMCs, suggesting that Medicare beneficiaries have benefited from more efficient delivery of procedural care across academic and community hospitals.

Disproportionate presentation of high risk prostate cancer in a safety net health system.

PURPOSE: Most prostate cancer research is based on relatively homogenous cohorts of men, often with comparatively high socioeconomic status. We describe prostate cancer characteristics in men treated in a public health system and hypothesize a disproportionate burden of high risk disease in this population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We created a clinical registry from a review of the medical records of 377 men diagnosed with prostate cancer in the San Francisco General Hospital system, which provides care to underserved, uninsured populations. We compared sociodemographic data and cancer characteristics with those in 2 large prostate cancer databases from a community (CaPSURE™) and an academic (University of California-San Francisco tumor registry) setting to assess differences in risk distribution using the D'Amico and Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment scoring systems. RESULTS: Compared to men in CaPSURE or the University of California-San Francisco tumor registry those in the San Francisco General Hospital cohort were nonwhite (76%), insured under Medicaid (31%) or uninsured (8%) and had adverse clinical characteristics, including median prostate specific antigen greater than 10 ng/ml at diagnosis and higher Gleason grade. In addition, the majority of patients (67%) had intermediate or high risk disease based on the D'Amico classification and a higher mean Cancer of the Prostate Risk Assessment score. Using ANOVA for continuous variables and the chi-square test for categorical variables, all comparisons were statistically significant (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Men in the San Francisco General Hospital public health system bear a substantially higher burden of high risk disease that those in an academic or a community setting. Populations such as this would benefit most from targeted efforts for early detection and treatment to decrease prostate cancer morbidity and mortality.