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.

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.

Health state utilities for economic evaluation of bariatric surgery: A comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis.

Health state utilities (HSUs) are health economic metrics that capture and assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL). They are essential in health-economic evaluations when calculating quality-adjusted life years. We investigated published studies reporting bariatric surgery-related HSUs elicited through direct or indirect (multiattribute utility instrument [MAUI]) patient-reported methods (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019131725). Mean HSUs for different time points and HSU changes over time (where feasible) were meta-analysed using random-effects models. Of the 950 potentially relevant identified studies, n = 28 (2004-2018) qualified for data extraction, with n = 85 unique HSUs elicited mainly from the EQ-5D (88%). Most (75%) studies were published after 2013. The follow-up duration varied between studies and was often limited to 12 months. The pooled mean HSU was 0.72 (0.67-0.76) at baseline/presurgery (n = 18) and 0.84 (0.79-0.89) one-year postsurgery (n = 11), indicating a 0.11 (0.09-0.14) utility unit increment. EQ-5D showed the similar results. This positive difference can be partially explained by BMI and/or co-morbidities status improvement. This study provides a valuable summary of HSUs to future bariatric surgery-related cost-utility models. However, more well-designed higher-quality bariatric-related HSU studies are expected for future reviews to improve the available evidence. We suggest that researchers select an MAUI that is preferentially sensitive to the study population.

A Cross-sectional Analysis of Insurance Coverage of Extremity Contouring After Massive Weight Loss.

INTRODUCTION: After bariatric surgery, patients often experience redundant skin in the upper arms and medial thighs as sequelae of massive weight loss. Insurance companies have unpredictable criteria to determine the medical necessity of brachioplasty and thighplasty, which are often ascribed as cosmetic procedures. We evaluated current insurance coverage and characterized policy criteria for extremity contouring in the postbariatric population. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of insurance policies for coverage of brachioplasty and thighplasty in January 2019. Insurance companies were selected based on their state enrolment data and market share. A web-based search and direct calls were conducted to identify policies. A comprehensive list of standard criteria was compiled based on the policies that offered coverage. RESULTS: Of the 56 insurance companies assessed, half did not provide coverage for either procedure (n = 28). No single criterion featured universally across brachioplasty and thighplasty policies. Functional impairment was the most commonly cited condition for preapproval of brachioplasty and/or thighplasty (94%). Conversely, minimum weight loss was the least frequent criterion within the insurance policies (6%). Only 5% of the insurance companies (n = 3) would consider coverage of liposuction-assisted lipectomy as a modality for brachioplasty or thighplasty. CONCLUSIONS: We propose a comprehensive list of reporting recommendations to help optimize authorization of extremity contouring in the postbariatric population. There is great intercompany variation in preapproval criteria for brachioplasty and thighplasty, illustrating an absence of established recommendations or guidelines. High-level evidence and investigations are needed to ascertain validity of the limited coverage criteria in current use.

Cost-effectiveness of Bariatric Surgery for People with Morbid Obesity in South Korea.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery (BS) compared to non-surgical treatment (NST) in Korean people with morbid obesity according to comorbidities and body mass index (BMI) severity. METHODS: The target cohort was people with morbid obesity, defined as BMI of ≥ 35 kg/m2, or obese people with BMI of 30-34.9 kg/m2 having obesity-related comorbidities. A decision-tree model for 1-year obesity treatment and Markov model for the rest of life were used. In the decision-tree model, the comorbidity remission rate and BMI change after 1-year treatment were decided based on a prospective clinical trial. In the Markov model, the transition probabilities were calculated considering the BMI level and age. The starting age of 20 years, a cycle length of 1 year, a time horizon of 80 years, and a 5% discount rate were applied for the base case from the healthcare system perspective. RESULTS: In the base case, BS improved quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and was the cost-effective option in total cohort (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of BS vs. NST was 674 USD/QALY). It was shown to be cost-effective in all subgroup analyses based on BMI level. In particular, BS was a dominant alternative for the subgroup with basal BMI of 35.0-37.4 kg/m2. Various sensitivity analyses showed the robustness of results indicating the cost-effectiveness of BS. CONCLUSION: BS at BMI of > 30 kg/m2 was more effective than NST for a reduction in BMI and remission of obesity-related comorbidities and was cost-effective in Korea.

Impact of Statewide Essential Health Benefits on Utilization of Bariatric Surgery.

BACKGROUND: In response to concerns about inadequate insurance coverage, bariatric surgery was included in the Affordable Care Act's essential health benefits program-requiring individual and small-group insurance plans in 23 states to cover bariatric surgery. We evaluated the impact of this policy on bariatric surgery utilization. METHODS: Multiple-group interrupted time series analyses of IBM MarketScan commercial claims data from 2009 to 2016. RESULTS: Bariatric surgery utilization increased in all states after ACA implementation, but this increase was no greater in states with a bariatric surgery essential health benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the essential health benefits program may have been too narrow in scope to meaningfully increase bariatric surgery utilization at the population level.

The hidden cost of an extensive preoperative work-up: predictors of attrition after referral for bariatric surgery in a universal healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery is in high demand and patients generally undergo an extensive work-up process to maximize the success of surgery, especially in universal healthcare systems. Although valuable, this work-up process can lead to attrition before surgery. Therefore, we aim to assess patient and health system factors associated with attrition after bariatric surgery referral in a universal healthcare system. METHODS: This was a population-based study of all patients aged ≥ 18 referred for bariatric surgery in Ontario, Canada from 2009 to 2015. Primary outcome was patients who dropped out of bariatric surgery after referral. Predictors of attrition after referral included patient demographics, clinical, institutional, and socioeconomic variables. Odds ratios and 95% CIs were estimated by multilevel logistic regression models. RESULTS: From 17,703 patients that were referred for bariatric surgery, 4122 patients dropped after the initial referral. Male patients, increasing age, and longer wait times for surgery were significantly (P < 0.0001) associated with higher odds of attrition. Additionally, smoker status, immigration status, unemployment, and disability were significant factors (P < 0.0001) predicting attrition. Patients who lived in lowest income quintile neighborhoods, when compared to those from the richest neighborhoods, had significantly higher odds of attrition (P = 0.02). Sleep apnea was associated with lower odds of attrition while diabetes and heart failure both with higher odds of attrition. CONCLUSION: Even in a universal healthcare system, there are various factors that could lead to increased odds of attrition before bariatric surgery. Clear disparities exist for certain marginalized populations. Further studies are warranted to ensure equitable utilization of bariatric surgery for all patients.

Insurance Coverage Criteria for Bariatric Surgery: A Survey of Policies.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery remains underutilized at a national scale, and insurance company reimbursement is an important determinant of access to these procedures. We examined the current state of coverage criteria for bariatric surgery set by private insurance companies. METHODS: We surveyed medical policies of the 64 highest market share health insurance providers in the USA. ASMBS guidelines and the CMS criteria for pre-bariatric evaluation were used to collect private insurer coverage criteria, which included procedures covered, age, BMI, co-morbidities, medical weight management program (MWM), psychosocial evaluation, and a center of excellence designation. We derive a comprehensive checklist for pre-bariatric patient evaluation. RESULTS: Sixty-one companies (95%) had defined pre-authorization policies. All policies covered the RYGB, and 57 (93%) covered the LAGB or the SG. Procedures had coverage limited to center of excellence in 43% of policies (n = 26). A total of 92% required a BMI of 40 or above or of 35 or above with a co-morbidity; however, 43% (n = 23) of policies covering adolescents (n = 36) had a higher BMI requirement of 40 or above with a co-morbidity. Additional evaluation was required in the majority of policies (MWM 87%, psychosocial evaluation 75%). Revision procedures were covered in 79% (n = 48) of policies. Reimbursement of a second bariatric procedure for failure of weight loss was less frequently found (n = 41, 67%). CONCLUSIONS: A majority of private insurers still require a supervised medical weight management program prior to approval, and most will not cover adolescent bariatric surgery unless certain criteria, which are not supported by current evidence, are met.

Bariatric Surgery Among Medicare Subgroups: Short- and Long-Term Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: This study sought to examine weight change, postoperative adverse events, and related outcomes of interest among age-qualified (AQ) and disability-qualified (DQ) Medicare recipients compared with non-Medicare (NM) patients undergoing an initial bariatric procedure. METHODS: The Longitudinal Assessment of Bariatric Surgery (LABS-2) is an observational cohort study of 2,458 adults who underwent Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) bariatric surgery. Weight, percentage body fat, functional status, and comorbidities, as well as postoperative adverse events, were assessed at baseline and annually for 5 years. The 1,943 participants who reported insurance type were categorized into the following groups: AQ, DQ, or NM. RESULTS: The median preoperative BMI ranged from 45 to 48 kg/m2 across groups. For RYGB, 5-year BMI loss was approximately 30% for all groups, and for LAGB, BMI loss was 12% to 15%. Diabetes remission after 5 years was also similar across groups within procedure types (RYGB: 33%-40%; LAGB: 13%-19%). The frequency of adverse events after RYGB ranged from 4.1% for NM participants to 6.7% for DQ participants. After LAGB, there were no adverse events for the AQ group, whereas 3% of DQ participants and 1.8% of NM participants had at least one adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare participants experienced substantial BMI loss and diabetes remission, with a frequency of adverse events similar to that of NM participants.

Incremental Cost-Effectiveness of Aspiration Therapy vs Bariatric Surgery and No Treatment for Morbid Obesity.

INTRODUCTION: Despite its recent approval by the US Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada, aspiration therapy-one of the latest weight loss treatments-remains controversial. Critics have expressed concerns that the therapy could lead to bulimia and other binge eating disorders. Meanwhile, proponents argue that the therapy is less invasive, reversible, and cheaper than bariatric surgery. Cost-effectiveness of this therapy, however, is not yet established. METHODS: We developed a Markov model to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness of aspiration therapy relative to 2 most common bariatric surgery procedures (gastric bypass and sleeve gastrectomy) and no treatment over a lifetime horizon. Costs were estimated from the health system's perspective using US data. Effectiveness was measured in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: Despite being a cheaper procedure than bariatric surgery, aspiration therapy costs more than bariatric surgery in the long term because of its high maintenance costs (i.e., periodic replacement of device parts). It also yields lower QALYs than bariatric surgery because of its smaller weight loss effects. Thus, the therapy is dominated by bariatric surgery. In particular, compared with gastric bypass, it costs US$5,318 more and yields 1.31 fewer QALYs. However, aspiration therapy is cost-effective relative to no treatment with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of US$17,532 per QALY gained. DISCUSSION: Given its high lifetime costs and its modest weight loss effects, aspiration therapy is not cost-effective relative to bariatric surgery. However, it is a cost-effective treatment option for patients who lack access to bariatric surgery.

Rivaroxaban versus warfarin treatment among morbidly obese patients with venous thromboembolism: Comparative effectiveness, safety, and costs.

INTRODUCTION: Limited data exist on direct-acting oral anticoagulants in morbidly obese patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE). We compared clinical and health/economic outcomes with rivaroxaban versus warfarin for VTE treatment in morbidly obese patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective 1:1 propensity score matched cohort study analyzed data from 2 US claims databases. VTE patients initiating rivaroxaban or warfarin were identified who had diagnosis codes for morbid obesity (ICD-9:278.01,V85.4; ICD-10:E66.01,E66.2,Z68.4) 12 months pre- or 3 months post-initiation and followed ≥3 months. Intent-to-treat (ITT) and on-treatment (OT) analyses were conducted using conditional logistic regression and generalized linear models to compare recurrent VTE and major bleeding risks, healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and per patient per year (PPPY) costs. RESULTS: In total, 2890 matched pairs of morbidly obese VTE patients initiating rivaroxaban or warfarin were identified. Risks of recurrent VTE (ITT: OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.85-1.14) and major bleeding (OT: OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.47-1.19) were similar for cohorts. Anti-Factor Xa laboratory measurement was performed on <1% of rivaroxaban cohort. Hospitalizations (OR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.77-0.96) and outpatient visits (OR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.10-0.56), were lower with rivaroxaban versus warfarin (ITT analysis). Average total medical costs PPPY were $2829 lower with rivaroxaban versus warfarin ($34,824 vs $37,653), mainly driven by hospitalization costs. Total healthcare costs (including pharmacy) were similar ($43,034 vs $44,565). CONCLUSIONS: Morbidly obese VTE patients receiving rivaroxaban had similar risks of recurrent VTE and major bleeding versus warfarin. Rivaroxaban treatment yielded significantly less HRU and total medical costs, with similar total healthcare costs between groups.

Six-month readmissions after bariatric surgery: Results of a nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Morbidity and mortality after laparoscopic bariatric surgery have decreased steadily during the past 2 decades. National data on the rates at which these patients may require return to the hospital beyond 30 days are lacking. We aimed to determine the national burden and causes of readmission after the 3 most common bariatric procedures in the United States. METHODS: All adult patients with morbid obesity (>18 years old) who underwent a laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, or laparoscopic gastric bypass between 2010 and 2015 were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes from the Nationwide Readmission Database. The Nationwide Readmission Database permits longitudinal tracking of patients between hospital admissions and allows for nationally weighted estimates. The primary outcome was 180-day readmission; secondary outcomes included causes, mortality, time to readmission, costs, and procedures during readmission. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with increased 180-day readmission after adjusting for differences in patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Records from 228,043 patients were identified, of whom 10.1%, 36.1%, and 53.9% underwent laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy, and laparoscopic gastric bypass, respectively. The overall 180-day readmission rate was 10.8% (laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding 8.3%, LGS 7.8% and laparoscopic gastric bypass 13.2%). Readmission analysis showed that 64.5% were directly relates directly to the index procedure, 31.2% were readmitted to a different hospital, the median time to readmission was 28 days (interquartile ratio 9-77), 23.9% had a gastrointestinal procedure, and 0.48% died within the 180-day readmissions. Factors independently associated with increased readmission were the following: greater preoperative comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2, odds ratio 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.44); either Medicare status (1.84 [1.72-1.97]) or Medicaid status (1.60 [1.48-1.73]) relative to private insurance; moderate (1.09 [1.03-1.15]) or major (1.33 [1.13-1.56]) severity of illness relative to minor Nationwide Readmission Database-provided severity of illness; nonresident of state where they were admitted initially (1.49 [1.31-1.69]); discharge to a health care system other than home (1.70 [1.46-1.97]); short-term hospital 1.70 [1.46-1.97]); admission to private hospital (1.11 [1.01-1.22]) relative to nonprofit hospital; prolonged duration of initial hospital stay (1.81 [1.70-1.92]); and a serious adverse event occurring during the index admission (1.20 [1.02-1.42]). Patients who were readmitted had an incremental mean difference of $15,781 (95% confidence interval, $15,168-$16,394.4; P < .001) in total costs. CONCLUSION: Readmissions after bariatric surgery continue to occur even 6 months after discharge. Most of these readmissions were related directly to the index procedure. Almost a fourth of those patients who were readmitted d required a procedure and almost a third presented to a different hospital than the hiatal of their initial operation. These readmissions carry a substantial burden for the health care system and may impair quality of life for patients. Strategies targeted to prevent readmissions beyond the traditional 30-day benchmark are warranted in this population.

Bariatric surgery among vulnerable populations: The effect of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion.

BACKGROUND: Obesity disproportionately affects vulnerable populations. Bariatric surgery is an effective long-term treatment for obesity-related complications; however, bariatric surgical rates are lower among racial minorities and low-income and publicly insured patients. The Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion improved access to health insurance, but its impact on bariatric surgical disparities has not been evaluated. We sought to determine the impact of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion on disparate utilization rates of bariatric surgery. METHODS: A total of 47,974 nonelderly adult bariatric surgical patients (ages 18-64 years) were identified in 2 Medicaid-expansion states (Kentucky and Maryland) versus 2 nonexpansion control states (Florida and North Carolina) between 2012 and 2015 using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's State Inpatient Database. Poisson interrupted time series were conducted to determine the adjusted incidence rates of bariatric surgery by insurance (Medicaid/uninsured versus privately insured), income (high income versus low income), and race (African American versus white). The difference in the counts of bariatric surgery were then calculated to measure the gap in bariatric surgery rates. RESULTS: The adjusted incidence rate of bariatric surgery among Medicaid or uninsured and low-income patients increased by 15.8% and 5.1% per quarter, respectively, after the Affordable Care Act in expansion states (P < .001). No marginal change was seen in privately insured and high-income patients in expansion states. The adjusted incidence rates increased among African American and white patients, but these rates did not change significantly before and after the Affordable Care Act in expansion states. CONCLUSION: The gap in bariatric surgery rates by insurance and income was reduced after the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, but racial disparities persisted. Future research should track these trends and identify factors to reduce racial disparity in bariatric surgery.

Cost-Utility of Gastric Bypass Surgery Compared to Clinical Treatment for Severely Obese With and Without Diabetes in the Perspective of the Brazilian Public Health System.

PURPOSE: Obesity is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Weight loss due to gastric bypass (GBP) surgery improves clinical outcomes and may be a cost-effective intervention. To estimate the cost-effectiveness of GBP compared to clinical treatment in severely obese individuals with and without diabetes in the perspective of the Brazilian public health system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was developed to compare costs and outcomes of gastric bypass in an open approach to clinical treatment. Health states were living with diabetes, remission of diabetes, non-fatal and fatal myocardial infarction, and death. We also included the occurrence of complications related to surgery and plastic surgery after the gastric bypass surgery. The direct costs were obtained from primary data collection performed in three public reference centers for obesity treatment. Utility values also derived from this cohort, while transition probabilities came from the international literature. A sensitivity analysis was performed to evaluate uncertainties. The model considered a 10-year time horizon and a 5% discount rate. RESULTS: Over 10 years, GBP increased quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and costs compared to clinical treatment, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of Int$1820.17/QALY and Int$1937.73/QALY in individuals with and without diabetes, respectively. Sensitivity analysis showed that utility values and direct costs of treatments were the parameters that affected the most the ICERs. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrated that GBP is a cost-effective intervention for severely obese individuals in the Brazilian public health system perspective, with a better result in individuals with diabetes.