All-cause 30- and 90-day inpatient readmission costs associated with 4 minimally invasive colon surgery approaches: A propensity-matched analysis using Medicare and commercial claims data.

Background: The purpose of this study is to assess which minimally invasive colon surgery approach may be associated with the least 30- and 90-day inpatient readmission costs from a payer perspective. Methods: This retrospective claims analysis included adult Medicare and commercially insured beneficiaries who underwent minimally invasive sigmoid, left, or right colon surgery between January 2016 and December 2019. Two cohorts were created based on the use of near-infrared fluorescence (NIF) and were propensity-score matched 1 NIF:5 NoNIF. Four subgroups were then created based on the presence of robotics (R): NIF-NoR, NIF-R, NoNIF-R, and NoNIF-NoR. Results: A total of 50,148 patients were identified, of which 165 (0.3%) indicated the use of NIF and 49,983 (99.7%) did not. After propensity score matching, 990 patients were included (NIF cohort: 165; NoNIF cohort: 825). Of the 165 NIF patients, 87 were robotic-assisted and 78 were conventional laparoscopy. Of the 825 NoNIF patients, 136 were robotic-assisted and 689 were conventional laparoscopy. Postindex inpatient readmission costs were significantly different between the NIF and NoNIF cohorts with the NIF cohort having the lowest 30- and 90-day postindex readmission costs. Postindex readmission costs were also significantly different across the 4 subgroups at 30 and 90 days, with the NIF-NoR group having the lowest postindex readmission costs (all P < .05). Conclusion: Using NIF without the robot during minimally invasive colon surgery is associated with the least 30- and 90-day inpatient readmission costs compared to the other 3 approaches. Hospitals may want to consider these potential cost savings when evaluating technologies for laparoscopic colon surgery. Key Message: Near-infrared fluorescence (NIF) imaging without the robot during minimally invasive colon surgery may significantly save hospitals 30- and 90-day inpatient readmission costs compared to NIF with the robot, NoNIF with the robot, and NoNIF without the robot. This is important as hospitals may want to consider these cost findings in addition to capital equipment and disposable costs when evaluating technologies for laparoscopic colon surgery.

Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Adherence and Treatment Cost in Patients With Obstructive Sleep Apnea and Cardiovascular Disease.

Objective: To determine whether continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) adherence reduces health care-related costs or use in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and comorbid cardiovascular disease (CVD). Patients: A total of 23 million patients with CVD were identified in the Medicare fee-for-service database. Of the 65,198 who completed a sleep study between January 2016 and September 2018, 55,125 were diagnosed as having OSA and 1758 were identified in the 5% Medicare durable medical equipment (DME) database. Methods: Patients with DME claims were categorized as adherent (AD, treatment evidenced ≥91 days after CPAP initiation; n=614) or nonadherent (nAD, n=242) to CPAP therapy. In addition, 9881 individuals with CVD who were not diagnosed as having OSA after sleep testing and without CPAP initiation were included as control patients. Propensity score matching balanced the groups for age, sex, and comorbidities (eg, diabetes mellitus), resulting in 241 participants per cohort. Dependent variables included total episode-of-care, inpatient, outpatient, skilled nursing, home health, and DME costs across 12 months. Results: Total episode-of-care costs of AD participants ($6825) were lower than those of nAD ($11,312; P<.05) and control ($8102) participants. This difference (Δ) was attributable to fewer outpatient expenses (Δ$2290; P<.05) relative to the nAD group and fewer inpatient expenses (Δ$745) relative to the control group because skilled nursing costs were comparable between groups (P=.73). Conclusion: Adherence to CPAP treatment reduces annual health care-related expenses by 40% in Medicare patients with CVD and OSA.

Cost savings for pVAD compared to ECMO in the management of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: An episode-of-care analysis.

BACKGROUND: Acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMICS) occurs in up to 10% of acute myocardial infarction admissions and is associated with high mortality, frequent adverse outcomes, prolonged hospitalizations, extensive medical resource utilization, and major cost. Using hospital cost data for Medicare Fee-for-Service (FFS) patients with AMICS, we sought to evaluate in hospital and 45-day outcomes and cost, comparing patients treated with percutaneous ventricular assist device (pVAD) versus extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). The goal of this study was to better understand clinical and economic outcomes of AMICS to help clinicians and hospitals optimize outcomes most economically for AMICS patients. METHODS: A retrospective claims analysis identified patients from the full census Medicare Standard Analytic Files compiled by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) including: Inpatient, Outpatient, Skilled Nursing Facility and Home Health files for Medicare FFS beneficiaries. Study costs were defined as the total costs incurred by providers for treating a population with AMICS. Medicare FFS beneficiaries who experienced an inpatient admission during the index period (January 1, 2015 to March 31, 2017) with a diagnosis of AMICS were eligible for study inclusion and were identified by the presence of appropriate International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Versions (ICD-9 and ICD-10) diagnosis and procedure codes. To create a matched sample and control for any baseline differences, a 1:1 Propensity Score Matching (PSM) was performed based on criteria such as age, gender, race, geographic distribution, and 11 high-cost comorbidities (e.g., congestive HF, coronary artery disease, diabetes, etc.). Index length of stay (LOS), index costs, discharge disposition (including mortality), post-index utilization, and episode-of-care (EOC) costs were reviewed. EOC was defined as index admission for all patients plus a 45-day post index period for patients who survived the index admission. RESULTS: Each cohort included 338 patients. Index in-hospital mortality rates were 53% for pVAD versus 64% for ECMO (178 vs. 217; p = .0023), and total EOC in-hospital mortality rates were 66% for pVAD versus 74% for ECMO (222 vs. 250; p = .0160). Index LOS for pVAD was 27% lower versus ECMO (12.12 vs. 16.59; p = .0006). The index LOS for patients discharged alive was 25% lower for pVAD versus ECMO (17.73 vs. 23.62; p = .0016). For patients that experienced in-hospital mortality during their index stay, pVAD had a 44% lower LOS compared to ECMO (7.08 vs. 12.66; p < .0001). Following index hospitalization, the average cost savings with additional inpatient care was 31% lower for pVAD patients ($62,188 vs. $90,087; p = NS). During the EOC, pVAD patients incurred 32% lower costs compared to ECMO patients ($117,849 vs. $172,420; <.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study of Medicare FFS patients demonstrates that hospitals utilizing pVAD for appropriately selected AMICS patients have reduced mortality rates and reduced index LOS with lower index facility costs and lower post index 45-day costs. The study results offer hospitals and clinicians an opportunity to improve clinical outcomes and reduce total EOC costs in treating patients with AMI complicated by CS.

Revision Analysis of Robotic Arm-Assisted and Manual Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate hospital admissions for revision surgeries associated with robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (rUKA) vs manually instrumented UKA (mUKA) procedures. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years of age who received either a mUKA or a rUKA procedure were candidates for inclusion and were identified by the presence of appropriate billing codes. Procedures performed between March 1, 2013 and July 31, 2015 were used to calculate the rate of surgical revisions occurring within 24-months of the index procedure. Following propensity matching, 246 rUKA and 492 mUKA patients were included. Revision rates and the associated costs were compared between the two cohorts. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare continuous variables, and Fisher's exact tests was used to analyze discrete categorical variables. RESULTS: At 24 months after the primary UKA procedure, patients who underwent rUKA had fewer revision procedures (0.81% [2/246] vs 5.28% [26/492]; P = .002), shorter mean length of stay (2.00 vs 2.33 days; P > .05), and incurred lower mean costs for the index stay plus revisions ($26,001 vs $27,915; P > .05) than mUKA patients. Length of stay at index and index costs were also lower for rUKA patients (1.77 vs 2.02 days; P = .0047) and ($25,786 vs $26,307; P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The study results demonstrate that patients who underwent rUKA had fewer revision procedures, shorter length of stay, and incurred lower mean costs (although not statistically different) during the index admission and at 24 months postoperatively. These results could be important for payers as the prevalence of end-stage knee osteoarthritis increases alongside the demand for cost-efficient treatments.

Economic Impact of Increased Utilization of Multivariate Assay Testing to Guide the Treatment of Ovarian Cancer: Implications for Payers.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the eighth most common cancer among women, but ranks fifth in cancer-related causes of death, the majority of which are detected in late stages, after the cancer has metastasized. The CA125 test is the standard of care for assessing suspicious pelvic masses. However, the primary use of CA125 is to monitor treatment progress rather than to screen for disease, and its sensitivity is exceedingly low, unlike the multivariate assay OVA1. A cost-effective treatment of ovarian cancer requires early and accurate diagnosis of pelvic masses and reduced referrals of patients with benign tumors to a gynecologic oncologist. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the economic impact of increased utilization of a multivariate assay, such as OVA1, to guide the treatment of ovarian cancer. METHODS: The study population was drawn from Medicare and commercial health plan claims data. A budget impact model was constructed to estimate the economic consequences of substituting the multivariate assay OVA1 to replace the single biomarker assay CA125 to assess the likelihood of pelvic mass malignancy in premenopausal and/or postmenopausal women. All patients selected for the analysis had CA125 testing before surgical intervention. RESULTS: A total of 92,843 health plan members were included for analysis, comprising 48,113 commercially insured members and 44,730 Medicare beneficiaries. Estimates of future health plan expenditures, which were calculated from base-case assumptions, projected overall savings of $0.05 per-member per-month (PMPM) for commercially insured members and $0.01 PMPM for Medicare beneficiaries as a result of increased utilization of OVA1. Sensitivity analysis revealed potential savings of up to $0.17 PMPM for commercially insured patients and up to $0.05 for Medicare beneficiaries. CONCLUSION: The results of the budget impact model support the use of OVA1 instead of CA125 by indicating that modest cost-savings can be achieved, while reaping the clinical benefits of improved diagnostic accuracy, early disease detection, and reductions in multiple, and possibly unnecessary, referrals to gynecologic oncologists.