A Comprehensive Insight into the Economic Profile of People Receiving Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Use in France.

BACKGROUND: The use of metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) is not uniformly distributed within the population, even if it is governed by established guidelines. This disparity seems to be associated, among other factors, with the economic profile of people receiving this surgery. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the disparities in the use of MBS with respect to the socio-economic level in France based on socio-economic status (SES). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A descriptive observational study was conducted to compare the population of individuals with obesity who underwent MBS (MBS group) with individuals with obesity with no history of MBS (obese group). Data were extracted from the French National Hospital discharge database ("Programme De Médicalisation des Systèmes d'Information," PMSI). Socio-economic status (SES) was assessed through the French Deprivation Index (FDep). RESULTS: The use of MBS was significantly lower in patients having a higher SES compared to those having a lower one. There was no statistically significant difference in the use of MBS between individuals within the 4th and 5th SES quintiles compared to those in the 2nd and 3rd quintiles. No difference was found in the specific MBS procedures used depending on the SES. The obesity level was significantly lower in patients from the 1st and 3rd SES quintiles compared to the patients having a lower SES. CONCLUSION: Our study provides valuable insights into the complex interrelationships between the use of MBS, patients' SES, and obesity levels according to the FDep. These findings underscore the importance of developing targeted interventions to address disparities in the use of bariatric care.

Costs of Robotic and Laparoscopic Bariatric Surgery: A Retrospective Propensity Score-matched Analysis.

PURPOSE: Robotic bariatric surgery has not shown significant advantages compared to laparoscopy, yet costs remain a major concern. The aim of our study was to assess costs of robotic and laparoscopic bariatric surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively collected data of all patients who underwent either robotic or laparoscopic bariatric surgery at our institution. We retrieved demographics, clinical characteristics, postoperative data, and costs using a bottom-up approach. The primary endpoint was hospital costs in the robotic and laparoscopic groups. Data was analyzed using a propensity score matching. RESULTS: Out of the total 122 patients enrolled in the study, 42 were subsequently chosen based on propensity scores, with 21 patients allocated to each group. No difference in clinical characteristics and postoperative outcomes were noted. Length of hospital stay was 2.4 ± 0.7 days vs. 2.6 ± 1.1 days (p = 0.520). In the robotic and laparoscopic groups, total costs were USD 16,275 ± 4018 vs. 12,690 ± 2834 (absolute difference USD 3585, 95%CI 1416-5753, p = 0.002), direct costs were USD 5037 ± 1282 vs. 3720 ± 1308 (absolute difference USD 1316, 95% CI 509-2214, p = 0.002), and indirect costs were USD 11,238 ± 3234 vs. 8970 ± 3021 (absolute difference USD 2,268, 95% CI 317-4220, p = 0.024). Subgroup analyses revealed a decreasing trend in the cost difference in patients undergoing primary gastric bypass and revisional surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Overall hospital costs were higher in patients operated on with the robotic system than with laparoscopy, yet a clinical advantage has not been demonstrated so far. Subgroup analyses showed lesser disparity in costs among patients undergoing revisional bariatric surgery, where robotics are likely to be more worthwhile.

Evaluating the impact and costs of conversional or revisional metabolic bariatric surgery on obstructive sleep apnea: Insights from a French nationwide cohort.

BACKGROUND: This study assesses the effectiveness of 5 main conversional or revisional metabolic bariatric surgery sequences after sleeve gastrectomy, adjustable gastric banding and gastric bypass on reimbursement and cost of continuous positive airway pressure therapy, the first line treatment for obstructive sleep apnea, in France. METHODS: This nationwide observational population-based cohort study analyzed data from the French National Health Insurance database. It included all patients who had undergone primary metabolic bariatric surgery in France between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2014, and followed until December 31, 2020. The study assessed continuous positive airway pressure therapy reimbursement discontinuation and costs of reimbursed continuous positive airway pressure therapy across 5 different conversional or revisional metabolic bariatric surgery sequences. RESULTS: During follow-up, 6,396 patients underwent the following sequences: sleeve gastrectomy-gastric bypass (n = 2,400), adjustable gastric banding-sleeve gastrectomy (n = 2,277), adjustable gastric banding-gastric bypass (n = 1,173), sleeve gastrectomy-sleeve gastrectomy (n = 546), and gastric bypass-others (n =332), with a rate of obstructive sleep apnea of 15.2%, 12.4%, 15.5% 12.8%, and 9.9% in the year before conversional or revisional metabolic bariatric surgery. The rates of patients who had a discontinuation of continuous positive airway pressure were at 2 and 4 years: 41.1%, 41.9%, 46.4%, 29.3%, and 33.3%; 62.3%, 57.0%, 78.2%; 57.5%, and 44.4%, respectively. At 4 years, the mean annual costs (euros) of obstructive sleep apnea treatment per patient were significantly lower (P < .01) than the costs in the year before conversional or revisional metabolic bariatric surgery for each sequence: 526.9 ± 414.4 vs 257.4 ± 349.7; 368.0 ± 247.5 vs 230.9 ± 288.4; 433.7 ± 326.0 vs 116.8 ± 238.3; 540.7 ± 275.3 vs 248.0 ± 308.4 and 501.2 ± 254.0 vs 281.1 ± 287.0, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study underscore the effectiveness of conversional or revisional metabolic bariatric surgery in significantly reducing the need and associated costs of continuous positive airway pressure therapy for patients with obstructive sleep apnea postprimary metabolic bariatric surgery over a 4-year period.

Randomized Controlled Trial Based US Commercial Payor Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty Versus Lifestyle Modification Alone for Adults With Class I/II Obesity.

PURPOSE: Endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty (ESG) is a minimally invasive day procedure that the MERIT randomized controlled trial (RCT) has demonstrated to be an effective and safe method of weight loss versus lifestyle modification alone. We sought to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ESG from the perspective of a US commercial payer in a cohort of adults with class II and class I obesity with diabetes based on this RCT. MATERIALS: We used a Markov modelling approach with BMI group health states and an absorbing death state. Baseline characteristics, utilities, BMI group transition probabilities, and adverse events (AEs) were informed by patient-level data from the MERIT RCT. Mortality was estimated by applying BMI-specific hazard ratios to US general population mortality rates. We used BMI-based health state utilities to reflect the impact of obesity comorbidities and applied disutilities due to ESG AEs. Costs included intervention costs, AE costs, and BMI-based annual direct healthcare costs to account for costs associated with obesity comorbidities. A willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was assumed. RESULTS: In our base-case analysis over a 5-year time horizon, ESG was cost-effective versus lifestyle modification alone with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $23,432/QALY. ESG remained cost-effective in all sensitivity analyses we conducted and was dominant in analyses with longer time horizons. CONCLUSION: ESG is a cost-effective treatment option for people living with obesity and should be considered in commercial health plans as an additional treatment option for clinically eligible patients.

Cost-Effectiveness of Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy for Chinese Patients.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is the most popular bariatric surgery procedure in China. However, its cost-effectiveness in Chinese patients is currently unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to assess the cost-effectiveness of LSG vs no surgery in Chinese patients with severe and complex obesity, taking into account both healthcare expenses and the potential improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted, encompassing 135 Chinese patients who underwent LSG between January 3, 2022 and December 29, 2022, at a major bariatric center. The study evaluated the cost-effectiveness from a healthcare service perspective, employing the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. The analyses compared LSG with the alternative of not undergoing surgery over a 1-year period, using actual data, and extended to a lifetime horizon by projecting costs and utilities at an annual discount rate of 3.0%. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to explore cost-effectiveness variations across different sex, age and BMI categories, and diabetes status, employing a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). To ensure the reliability of the findings, one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were executed. RESULTS: The results indicated that 1-year post-LSG, patients achieved an average total weight loss (TWL) of (32.7 ± 7.3)% and an excess weight loss (EWL) of (97.8 ± 23.1)%. The ICER for LSG compared to no surgery over a lifetime was $4,327/QALY, significantly below the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold for Chinese patients with severe and complex obesity. From a lifetime perspective, LSG proved to be cost-effective for all sex and age groups, across all BMI categories, and for both patients with and without diabetes. Notably, it was more cost-effective for younger patients, patients with higher BMI, and patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: LSG is a highly cost-effective intervention for managing obesity in Chinese patients, delivering substantial benefits in terms of HRQoL improvement at a low cost. Its cost-effectiveness is particularly pronounced among younger individuals, those with higher BMI, and patients with diabetes.

Hospital charges for laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy compared to robotic sleeve gastrectomy: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy has become a gold standard in addressing medically refractory obesity. Robotic platforms are becoming more utilized, however, data on its cost-effectiveness compared to laparoscopy remain controversial (1-3). At NYU Langone Health, many of the bariatric surgeons adopted robotic surgery as part of their practices starting in 2021. We present a retrospective cost analysis of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) vs. robotic sleeve gastrectomy (RSG) at New York University (NYU) Langone Health campuses. METHODS: All adult patients ages 18-65 who underwent LSG or RSG from 202 to 2023 at NYU Langone Health campuses (Manhattan, Long Island, and Brooklyn) were evaluated via electronic medical records and MBSAQIP 30-day follow-up data. Patients with prior bariatric surgery were excluded. Complication-related ICD-10/CPT codes are collected and readmission costs will be estimated from ICD codes using the lower limit of CMS transparent NYU standard charges (3). Direct charge data for surgery and length of stay cost data were also obtained. Statistical T-test and chi-squared analysis were used to compare groups. RESULTS: Direct operating cost data at NYU Health Campuses demonstrated RSG was associated with 4% higher total charges, due to higher OR charges, robotic-specific supplies, and more post-op ED visits. CONCLUSIONS: RSG was associated with higher overall hospital charges compared to LSG, though there are multiple contributing factors. More research is needed to identify cost saving measures. This study is retrospective in nature, and does not include indirect costs nor reimbursement. Direct operating costs, per contractual agreement with suppliers, are only given as percentages. Data are limited to 30-day follow-up.

Insurance payor status and risk of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events after metabolic and bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients with Medicare/Medicaid insurance receive metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) at lower rates than privately insured (PI) patients. Although studies on some surgical procedures report that Medicare/Medicaid insurance confers increased postoperative complication rates and a longer length of stay, less is known about these outcomes after MBS. Among often-feared postoperative complications are major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACEs). Although these events are rare after MBS, they have a significant impact on morbidity and mortality. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the effect of insurance payor status on MACEs after MBS. SETTING: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS). METHODS: HCUP-NIS was queried for cases including sleeve gastrectomy or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass between 2012 and 2019. Bivariate associations between patient-level factors and MACEs were assessed via Rao-Scott χ2 tests. Adjusted and unadjusted risks of insurance payor status for MACEs were evaluated using logistic regression. RESULTS: Incidence of MACEs was higher in both Medicare (.75% versus .11%; P < .001) and Medicaid (.15% versus .11%; P < .001) groups than in the PI group. After adjustment for high-risk demographics, high-risk co-morbidities, socioeconomic variables, and hospital factors, insurance status of Medicare (odds ratio [OR]: 1.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.23, 2.07; P = .0026) or Medicaid (OR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.12, 2.16; P = .0026) remained an independent risk factor for MACEs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore the significance of Medicaid/Medicare payor status as an independent predictor of postoperative MACEs in MBS. The results of this study can have a significant impact on deepening our understanding of socioeconomic and health system-related issues that can be targeted to improve outcomes in both MBS and other surgical specialties.

Is the QCI framework suited for monitoring outcomes and costs in a teaching hospital using value-based healthcare principles? A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective is to develop a pragmatic framework, based on value-based healthcare principles, to monitor health outcomes per unit costs on an institutional level. Subsequently, we investigated the association between health outcomes and healthcare utilisation costs. DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study. SETTING: A teaching hospital in Rotterdam, The Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: The study was performed in two use cases. The bariatric population contained 856 patients of which 639 were diagnosed with morbid obesity body mass index (BMI) <45 and 217 were diagnosed with morbid obesity BMI ≥45. The breast cancer population contained 663 patients of which 455 received a lumpectomy and 208 a mastectomy. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The quality cost indicator (QCI) was the primary measures and was defined asQCI = (resulting outcome * 100)/average total costs (per thousand Euros)where average total costs entail all healthcare utilisation costs with regard to the treatment of the primary diagnosis and follow-up care. Resulting outcome is the number of patients achieving textbook outcome (passing all health outcome indicators) divided by the total number of patients included in the care path. RESULTS: The breast cancer and bariatric population had the highest resulting outcome values in 2020 Q4, 0.93 and 0.73, respectively. The average total costs of the bariatric population remained stable (avg, €8833.55, min €8494.32, max €9164.26). The breast cancer population showed higher variance in costs (avg, €12 735.31 min €12 188.83, max €13 695.58). QCI values of both populations showed similar variance (0.3 and 0.8). Failing health outcome indicators was significantly related to higher hospital-based costs of care in both populations (p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The QCI framework is effective for monitoring changes in average total costs and relevant health outcomes on an institutional level. Health outcomes are associated with hospital-based costs of care.

The financial toxicity of postbariatric body contouring surgery: a survey study of an urban tertiary care center's patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with obesity who undergo bariatric surgery achieve sustained weight loss but are often left with excess skin folds that cause functional and psychological deficits. To remove excess skin, patients can undergo postbariatric BCS; however, cost and lack of insurance coverage present a significant barrier for many patients. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to characterize the financial impact of treatment on all patients who received bariatric surgery and to compare between those receiving only bariatric surgery and those with postbariatric BCS. SETTING: Email-based survey study at an urban tertiary care center. METHODS: Surveys that included the COST-FACIT were sent to patients with a history of bariatric surgery and/or post-bariatric BCS. RESULTS: One hundred and five respondents completed the survey, of which 19 reported having postbariatric BCS. Patients with postbariatric BCS had slightly higher COST scores than those receiving bariatric surgery only, but this difference was not significant (15.6 versus 17.8, P = .23). Most patients (76%) did not have an awareness of BCS or BCS cost prior to bariatric surgery, and many (68%) had more loose skin than anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: Financial toxicity was similar across all postbariatric surgery patients surveyed regardless of history of BCS. However, survey respondents noted a gap between patient education and expectations around loose skin and body contouring that can be addressed through improved presurgical counseling.

Economic Evaluations of Anti-obesity Interventions in Obese Adults: An Umbrella Review.

This umbrella review amalgamates the outcomes of economic evaluations pertaining to bariatric surgeries, pharmacotherapy, and gastric balloon for adult obesity treatment. Six databases were systematically searched. The inclusion criteria were established following the Patient/population Intervention Comparison and Outcomes (PICO) statement. Fifteen reviews met all the inclusion criteria. Eight studies focused on surgical interventions, four on pharmacotherapy, and three on both interventions. No systematic review of the economic evaluation of gastric balloons was identified. The majority of reviews advocated bariatric surgery as a cost-effective approach; however, there was discordance in the interpretation of pharmacological cost-effectiveness. Most of the economic evaluations were conducted from the payer and the healthcare system perspectives. We propose that future economic evaluations assessing weight loss interventions in adults adopt a societal perspective and longer-term time horizons.

Long-term impact of weight loss in people with class II obesity on the overall burden of disease: Evidence from the National Health Screening Cohort in Korea.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is known to increase overall disease burden but does obesity management actually help reduce disease burden? OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of weight loss on disease burden in people with obesity using the National Health Insurance Service-Health Screening Cohort (NHIS-HEALS) in Korea. SETTING: Pure longitudinal observational study using Nationwide cohort database. METHODS: Out of 514,866 NHIS-HEALS cohort, participants with class II obesity in Asia-Pacific region (30 ≤ body mass index [BMI] < 35) who underwent health check-up provided by NHIS during 2003-2004 (index date) were included. All final participants continued to receive a total of 5 biennial health check-ups over the next 10 years without missing. A group-based trajectory model (GBTM) was used to categorize subjects based on 10-year BMI change patterns. The changes of co-morbidities, healthcare resource utilization, and medical cost were analyzed. RESULTS: The final study subjects (9857) were categorized into 3 trajectory clusters based on the pattern of BMI (kg/m2) change: maintenance (57.35%) with an average change of -.02 ± .06, loss (38.65%) with -.04 ± .08, and substantial loss (4.0%) with -.10 ± .18. The annual increases in the number of co-morbidities per subject in each cluster were .18, .18, and .16 (all P < .001), respectively. The increase of healthcare resource utilization over time was lowest for the substantial loss compared to maintenance and loss. With each passing year, the average annual total healthcare cost increased by ₩21,200 ($16.48, P = .034) and ₩10,500 ($8.16, P = .498) in the maintenance and loss, respectively, but decreased by ₩62,500 ($48.59, P = .032) in the substantial loss. CONCLUSIONS: Weight loss in people with obesity was associated with a reduced burden of disease, as evidenced by lower co-morbidity, healthcare resource utilization rate, and decreased medical costs. This study highlights the potential positive long-term impact on Korean society when actively managing weight in individuals with obesity.

Estimated Cost-effectiveness of Medical Therapy, Sleeve Gastrectomy, and Gastric Bypass in Patients With Severe Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes.

Importance: Bariatric surgery is recommended for patients with severe obesity (body mass index ≥40) and type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, the most cost-effective treatment remains unclear and may depend on the patient's T2D severity. Objective: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of medical therapy, sleeve gastrectomy (SG), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) among patients with severe obesity and T2D, stratified by T2D severity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation used a microsimulation model to project health and cost outcomes of medical therapy, SG, and RYGB over 5 years. Time horizons varied between 10 and 30 years in sensitivity analyses. Model inputs were derived from clinical trials, large cohort studies, national databases, and published literature. Probabilistic sampling of model inputs accounted for parameter uncertainty. Estimates of US adults with severe obesity and T2D were derived from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Data analysis was performed from January 2020 to August 2021. Exposures: Medical therapy, SG, and RYGB. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (in 2020 US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were projected, with future cost and QALYs discounted 3.0% annually. A strategy was deemed cost-effective if the ICER was less than $100 000 per QALY. The preferred strategy resulted in the greatest number of QALYs gained while being cost-effective. Results: The model simulated 1000 cohorts of 10 000 patients, of whom 16% had mild T2D, 56% had moderate T2D, and 28% had severe T2D at baseline. The mean age of simulated patients was 54.6 years (95% CI, 54.2-55.0 years), 61.6% (95% CI, 60.1%-63.4%) were female, and 65.1% (95% CI, 63.6%-66.7%) were non-Hispanic White. Compared with medical therapy over 5 years, RYGB was associated with the most QALYs gained in the overall population (mean, 0.44 QALY; 95% CI, 0.21-0.86 QALY) and when stratified by baseline T2D severity: mild (mean, 0.59 QALY; 95% CI, 0.35-0.98 QALY), moderate (mean, 0.50 QALY; 95% CI, 0.25-0.88 QALY), and severe (mean, 0.30 QALY; 95% CI, 0.07-0.79 QALY). RYGB was the preferred strategy in the overall population (ICER, $46 877 per QALY; 83.0% probability preferred) and when stratified by baseline T2D severity: mild (ICER, $36 479 per QALY; 73.7% probability preferred), moderate (ICER, $37 056 per QALY; 85.6% probability preferred), and severe (ICER, $98 940 per QALY; 40.2% probability preferred). The cost-effectiveness of RYGB improved over a longer time horizon. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery vary by baseline severity of T2D. Over a 5-year time horizon, RYGB is projected to be the preferred treatment strategy for patients with severe obesity regardless of baseline T2D severity.

Relationship Between Health Care Spending and Clinical Outcomes in Bariatric Surgery: Implications for Medicare Bundled Payments.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate sources of 90-day episode spending variation in Medicare patients undergoing bariatric surgery and whether spending variation was related to quality of care. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Medicare's bundled payments for care improvement-advanced program includes the first large-scale episodic bundling program for bariatric surgery. This voluntary program will pay bariatric programs a bonus if 90-day spending after surgery falls below a predetermined target. It is unclear what share of bariatric episode spending may be due to unnecessary variation and thus modifiable through care improvement. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of fee-for-service Medicare claims data from 761 acute care hospitals providing inpatient bariatric surgery between January 1, 2011 and September 30, 2016. We measured associations between patient and hospital factors, clinical outcomes, and total Medicare spending for the 90-day bariatric surgery episode using multivariable regression models. RESULTS: Of 64,537 patients, 46% underwent sleeve gastrectomy, 22% revisited the emergency department (ED) within 90 days, and 12.5% were readmitted. Average 90-day episode payments were $14,124, ranging from $12,220 at the lowest-spending quintile of hospitals to $16,887 at the highest-spending quintile. After risk adjustment, 90-day episode spending was $11,447 at the lowest quintile versus $15,380 at the highest quintile (difference $3932, P < 0.001). The largest components of spending variation were readmissions (44% of variation, or $2043 per episode), post-acute care (19% or $871), and index professional fees (15% or $450). The lowest spending hospitals had the lowest complication, ED visit, post-acute utilization, and readmission rates (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this retrospective analysis of Medicare patients undergoing bariatric surgery, the largest components of 90-day episode spending variation are readmissions, inpatient professional fees, and post-acute care utilization. Hospitals with lower spending were associated with lower rates of complications, ED visits, post-acute utilization, and readmissions. Incentives for improving outcomes and reducing spending seem to be well-aligned in Medicare's bundled payment initiative for bariatric surgery.

The real-world cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery for the treatment of severe obesity: a cost-utility analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe obesity is associated with adverse health outcomes and increased risk of death. This study evaluates the real-world cost-utility of therapy for severe obesity, from the publicly funded health care system and societal perspectives. METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis using primary data from a prospective observational cohort of adults living with severe obesity (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 and a major medical comorbidity or BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2) who were enrolled in a regional obesity program over 2 years. We extrapolated 10-year and lifetime Markov models, validated and supplemented with literature sources, to compare medical, surgical and standard care therapies. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The cohort included 500 adults living with severe obesity, 150 of whom received laparoscopic surgical therapy. From a publicly funded health system perspective, at 2 years, surgical therapy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $54 456 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with standard care therapy. Over a lifetime, it had an ICER of $14 056 per QALY. From the societal perspective, at 2 years, surgical therapy had an ICER of $340 per QALY; over a lifetime, it was the dominant option. The results were robust to sensitivity analysis. INTERPRETATION: From a public health care perspective, surgery for severe obesity is cost effective, and when approached from a societal perspective, it becomes cost saving. Real-world data support using surgical therapy for severe obesity, and our results contribute to the health economic and clinical literature with regard to a robust analysis from a societal perspective.

Association of body mass index with health care expenditures in the United States by age and sex.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of health care costs associated with excess weight are needed to inform the development of cost-effective obesity prevention efforts. However, commonly used cost estimates are not sensitive to changes in weight across the entire body mass index (BMI) distribution as they are often based on discrete BMI categories. METHODS: We estimated continuous BMI-related health care expenditures using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) 2011-2016 for 175,726 respondents. We adjusted BMI for self-report bias using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2011-2016, and controlled for potential confounding between BMI and medical expenditures using a two-part model. Costs are reported in $US 2019. RESULTS: We found a J-shaped curve of medical expenditures by BMI, with higher costs for females and the lowest expenditures occurring at a BMI of 20.5 for adult females and 23.5 for adult males. Over 30 units of BMI, each one-unit BMI increase was associated with an additional cost of $253 (95% CI $167-$347) per person. Among adults, obesity was associated with $1,861 (95% CI $1,656-$2,053) excess annual medical costs per person, accounting for $172.74 billion (95% CI $153.70-$190.61) of annual expenditures. Severe obesity was associated with excess costs of $3,097 (95% CI $2,777-$3,413) per adult. Among children, obesity was associated with $116 (95% CI $14-$201) excess costs per person and $1.32 billion (95% CI $0.16-$2.29) of medical spending, with severe obesity associated with $310 (95% CI $124-$474) excess costs per child. CONCLUSIONS: Higher health care costs are associated with excess body weight across a broad range of ages and BMI levels, and are especially high for people with severe obesity. These findings highlight the importance of promoting a healthy weight for the entire population while also targeting efforts to prevent extreme weight gain over the life course.

Protocol of a multicentre, prospective cohort study that evaluates cost-effectiveness of two perioperative care strategies for potential obstructive sleep apnoea in morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the high prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery, OSA is undiagnosed in the majority of patients and thus untreated. While untreated OSA is associated with an increased risk of preoperative and postoperative complications, no evidence-based guidelines on perioperative care for these patients are available. The aim of the POPCORN study (Post-Operative Pulse oximetry without OSA sCreening vs perioperative continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment following OSA scReeNing by polygraphy (PG)) is to evaluate which perioperative strategy is the most cost-effective for obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery without a history of OSA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this multicentre observational cohort study, data from 1380 patients who will undergo bariatric surgery will be collected. Patients will receive either postoperative care with pulse oximetry monitoring and supplemental oxygen during the first postoperative night, or care that includes preoperative PG and CPAP treatment in case of moderate or severe OSA. Local protocols for perioperative care in each participating hospital will determine into which cohort a patient is placed. The primary outcome is cost-effectiveness, which will be calculated by comparing all healthcare costs with the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs, calculated using EQ-5D questionnaires). Secondary outcomes are mortality, complications within 30 days after surgery, readmissions, reoperations, length of stay, weight loss, generic quality of life (QOL), OSA-specific QOL, OSA symptoms and CPAP adherence. Patients will receive questionnaires before surgery and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery to report QALYs and other patient-reported outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval from the Medical Research Ethics Committees United was granted in accordance with the Dutch law for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) (reference number W17.050). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at (inter)national conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR6991.

Endoscopy Used as Provocative Testing in Bariatric Surgery: An Analysis of the Texas Public Use Data File.

BACKGROUND: Many bariatric surgeons test the anastomosis and staple lines with some sort of provocative test. This can take the form of an air leak test with a nasogastric tube with methylene blue dye or with an endoscopy. The State Department of Health Statistics in Texas tracks outcomes using the Texas Public Use Data File (PUDF). METHODS: We queried the Texas Inpatient and Outpatient PUDFs for 2013 to 2017 to examine the number of bariatric surgeries with endoscopy performed at the same time. We used the International Classification of Diseases Clinical Modification Version 9 (ICD-9-CM) and ICD-10 procedure codes and Current Procedural Terminology for Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and endoscopy, and the ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 diagnosis codes for morbid obesity. RESULTS: There were 74,075 SG reported in the Texas Inpatient and Outpatient PUDF for the years 2013-2017. Of the SG performed, 5,521 (7.4%) had an intraoperative endoscopy. For the 19,192 LRYGB reported, 1640 (8.6%) underwent LRYGB + endoscopy. This was broken down by SG only vs SG + endoscopy and LRYGB only vs LRYGB + endoscopy. Overall, SG + endoscopy had a significantly shorter length of stay (LOS) vs LRYGB + endoscopy at 1.74 d vs 2.34 d (P < .001) and a significantly less cost of $71,685 vs $91,093 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A small percentage of SG and LRYGB patients underwent endoscopy for provocative testing over the study period. Provocative testing with endoscopy costs more for SG and LRYGB and was associated with a shorter LOS.

Association of Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass With Postoperative Health Care Use and Expenditures in Canada.

Importance: Results of previous studies are mixed regarding the economic implications of a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). Objective: To assess the 5-year incremental health care use and expenditures after RYGB. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based cohort study conducted in Ontario, Canada, used a difference-in-differences approach to compare health care use and expenditures between patients who underwent a publicly funded RYGB from March 1, 2010, to March 31, 2013, and propensity score-matched control individuals who did not undergo a surgical bariatric procedure. The study period allowed for a minimum 60 months of follow-up because, at that time, the most recent date for which administrative data on health care and expenditures were available was March 31, 2018. Data sources included the Ontario Bariatric Registry linked to several Ontario health administrative databases and the Electronic Medical Record Administrative Data Linked Database. Health care use and expenditures data for 5 years before and 5 years after the index date (procedure date for RYGB group; random date for controls) were analyzed. Data analyses were performed March 12, 2019, to March 10, 2020. Intervention: RYGB procedure. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was total health care expenditures. Results: The final propensity score-matched cohorts comprised 1587 individuals in the RYGB group (mean [SD] age, 47 [10.2] years) and 1587 controls (mean [SD] age, 47 [12.2] years); each group had 1228 women (77.4%) and a mean body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) of 46. Mean total health care expenditures (2017 Canadian dollars) per patient in the RYGB group increased from CAD $15 594 (95% CI, CAD $14 743 to CAD $16 614) (US $12 008 [95% CI, US $11 353 to US $12 794]) in the 5 years before the procedure to CAD $30 389 (95% CI, CAD $28 789 to CAD $32 232) (US $23 401 [95% CI, US $22 169 to US $24 821]) over the 5 years after the procedure, a difference of CAD $14 795 (95% CI, CAD $13 172 to CAD $16 480) (US $11 393 [95% CI, US $10 143 to US $12 691]). For the control group, mean total health care expenditures per individual increased from CAD $16 109 (95% CI, CAD $14 727 to CAD $17 591) (US $12 405 [95% CI, US $11 341 to US $13 546]) 5 years before the index date to CAD $20 073 (95% CI, CAD $18 147 to CAD $22 169) (US $15 457 [95% CI, US $13 974 to US $17 071]) 5 years after the date, a difference of CAD $3964 (95% CI, CAD $2250 to CAD $5875) (US $3053 [95% CI, US $1733 to US $4524]). Overall, the difference-in-differences estimate of the net cost of RYGB was CAD $10 831 (95% CI, CAD $8252 to CAD $13 283) (US $8341 [95% CI, $6355 to $10 229]) over the 5-year period. This amount excluded the mean (SD) cost associated with the index date: CAD $6501 (CAD $1087) (US $5006 [US $837]) for the RYGB cohort and CAD $9 (CAD $72) (US $7 [US $55]) for the controls. The cost differential was primarily associated with increased hospitalizations in the first months immediately after RYGB. Expenditures leveled off in year 3 after the index date; differences in total expenditures between the RYGB and control cohorts were not statistically significantly different in years 4 and 5. Conclusions and Relevance: Health care expenditures in the 3 years after publicly funded RYGB were higher in patients who underwent the procedure than in control individuals, but the costs were similar thereafter. This finding suggests the need to decrease hospital and emergency department readmissions after surgical bariatric procedures because such use is associated with increased spending.