Is Hospital Nurse Staffing Legislation in the Public's Interest?: An Observational Study in New York State.

BACKGROUND: The Safe Staffing for Quality Care Act under consideration in the New York (NY) state assembly would require hospitals to staff enough nurses to safely care for patients. The impact of regulated minimum patient-to-nurse staffing ratios in acute care hospitals in NY is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To examine variation in patient-to-nurse staffing in NY hospitals and its association with adverse outcomes (ie, mortality and avoidable costs). RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional data on nurse staffing in 116 acute care general hospitals in NY are linked with Medicare claims data. SUBJECTS: A total of 417,861 Medicare medical and surgical patients. MEASURES: Patient-to-nurse staffing is the primary predictor variable. Outcomes include in-hospital mortality, length of stay, 30-day readmission, and estimated costs using Medicare-specific cost-to-charge ratios. RESULTS: Hospital staffing ranged from 4.3 to 10.5 patients per nurse (P/N), and averaged 6.3 P/N. After adjusting for potential confounders each additional patient per nurse, for surgical and medical patients, respectively, was associated with higher odds of in-hospital mortality [odds ratio (OR)=1.13, P=0.0262; OR=1.13, P=0.0019], longer lengths of stay (incidence rate ratio=1.09, P=0.0008; incidence rate ratio=1.05, P=0.0023), and higher odds of 30-day readmission (OR=1.08, P=0.0002; OR=1.06, P=0.0003). Were hospitals staffed at the 4:1 P/N ratio proposed in the legislation, we conservatively estimated 4370 lives saved and $720 million saved over the 2-year study period in shorter lengths of stay and avoided readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-to-nurse staffing varies substantially across NY hospitals and higher ratios adversely affect patients. Our estimates of potential lives and costs saved substantially underestimate potential benefits of improved hospital nurse staffing.

Utilization fraction of rhinoplasty instrument sets: Model for efficient use of surgical instruments.

OBJECTIVES: Recognize the avoidable costs incurred due to overpacking of rhinoplasty instrument trays. Reduce rhinoplasty instrument trays by including only instruments used frequently. Establish methods to reduce trays prepared for other otolaryngologic procedures. METHODS: This is a prospective study. The study evaluates the specific use of instruments opened for rhinoplasty procedures at the New York Eye & Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai. Instruments were counted in 10 rhinoplasty cases. Usage rate was calculated for each instrument. Additionally, all instruments used in at least 20% of cases were noted. This "20%" threshold was used to create new rhinoplasty tray inventories more reflective of actual instrument usage. Some instruments above the 20% threshold were included in multiples (i.e. two Adson Brown forceps vs. one curved iris scissor). RESULTS: 189 instruments were opened, and 32 instruments were used on average in each rhinoplasty. 55 instruments were used in at least 20% of cases. The 55 "high usage" instruments were used to create new, reduced rhinoplasty tray inventory lists. Based on our analysis, a new rhinoplasty tray inventory was created comprised of 68 instruments, a 64% reduction from 189. CONCLUSION: Instruments are sterilized and packed in gross excess for rhinoplasty procedures. Previously published figures estimate re-sterilization costs of $0.51 to $0.77 per instrument. Reduction in instruments opened from 189 to 68 is expected to lead to cost savings ranging from $62 to $93 per case, yielding a savings between $6200 and $9300 per 100 cases performed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-3.

The Energy Consumption of Radiology: Energy- and Cost-saving Opportunities for CT and MRI Operation.

Background Awareness of energy efficiency has been rising in the industrial and residential sectors but only recently in the health care sector. Purpose To measure the energy consumption of modern CT and MRI scanners in a university hospital radiology department and to estimate energy- and cost-saving potential during clinical operation. Materials and Methods Three CT scanners, four MRI scanners, and cooling systems were equipped with kilowatt-hour energy measurement sensors (2-Hz sampling rate). Energy measurements, the scanners' log files, and the radiology information system from the entire year 2015 were analyzed and segmented into scan modes, as follows: net scan (actual imaging), active (room time), idle, and system-on and system-off states (no standby mode was available). Per-examination and peak energy consumption were calculated. Results The aggregated energy consumption imaging 40 276 patients amounted to 614 825 kWh, dedicated cooling systems to 492 624 kWh, representing 44.5% of the combined consumption of 1 107 450 kWh (at a cost of U.S. $199 341). This is equivalent to the usage in a town of 852 people and constituted 4.0% of the total yearly energy consumption at the authors' hospital. Mean consumption per CT examination over 1 year was 1.2 kWh, with a mean energy cost (±standard deviation) of $0.22 ± 0.13. The total energy consumption of one CT scanner for 1 year was 26 226 kWh ($4721 in energy cost). The net consumption per CT examination over 1 year was 3580 kWh, which is comparable to the usage of a two-person household in Switzerland; however, idle state consumption was fourfold that of net consumption (14 289 kWh). Mean MRI consumption over 1 year was 19.9 kWh per examination, with a mean energy cost of $3.57 ± 0.96. The mean consumption for a year in the system-on state was 82 174 kWh per MRI examination and 134 037 kWh for total consumption, for an energy cost of $24 127. Conclusion CT and MRI energy consumption is substantial. Considerable energy- and cost-saving potential is present during nonproductive idle and system-off modes, and this realization could decrease total cost of ownership while increasing energy efficiency. © RSNA, 2020.

Intravitreal Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Cost Savings Achievable with Increased Bevacizumab Reimbursement and Use.

PURPOSE: To model Medicare Part B and patient savings associated with increased bevacizumab payment and use for intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy. DESIGN: Cost analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Intelligent Research in Sight (IRIS®) Registry data. METHODS: Medicare claims and IRIS® Registry data were used to calculate Medicare Part B expenditures and patient copayments for anti-VEGF agents with increasing reimbursement and use of bevacizumab relative to ranibizumab and aflibercept. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medicare Part B costs and patient copayments for anti-VEGF agents in the Medicare fee-for-service population. RESULTS: Increasing bevacizumab reimbursement to $125.78, equalizing the dollar margin with aflibercept, would result in Medicare Part B savings of $468 million and patient savings of $119 million with a 10% increase in bevacizumab market share. CONCLUSIONS: Increased use of bevacizumab achievable with increased reimbursement to eliminate the financial disincentive to its use would result in substantial savings for the Medicare Part B program and for patients receiving anti-VEGF intravitreal injections.

Savings or Selection? Initial Spending Reductions in the Medicare Shared Savings Program and Considerations for Reform.

Policy Points Concerns have been raised about risk selection in the Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP). Specifically, turnover in accountable care organization (ACO) physicians and patient panels has led to concerns that ACOs may be earning shared-savings bonuses by selecting lower-risk patients or providers with lower-risk panels. We find no evidence that changes in ACO patient populations explain savings estimates from previous evaluations through 2015. We also find no evidence that ACOs systematically manipulated provider composition or billing to earn bonuses. The modest savings and lack of risk selection in the original MSSP design suggest opportunities to build on early progress. Recent program changes provide ACOs with more opportunity to select providers with lower-risk patients. Understanding the effect of these changes will be important for guiding future payment policy. CONTEXT: The Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) establishes incentives for participating accountable care organizations (ACOs) to lower spending for their attributed fee-for-service Medicare patients. Turnover in ACO physicians and patient panels has raised concerns that ACOs may be earning shared-savings bonuses by selecting lower-risk patients or providers with lower-risk panels. METHODS: We conducted three sets of analyses of Medicare claims data. First, we estimated overall MSSP savings through 2015 using a difference-in-differences approach and methods that eliminated selection bias from ACO program exit or changes in the practices or physicians included in ACO contracts. We then checked for residual risk selection at the patient level. Second, we reestimated savings with methods that address undetected risk selection but could introduce bias from other sources. These included patient fixed effects, baseline or prospective assignment, and area-level MSSP exposure to hold patient populations constant. Third, we tested for changes in provider composition or provider billing that may have contributed to bonuses, even if they were eliminated as sources of bias in the evaluation analyses. FINDINGS: MSSP participation was associated with modest and increasing annual gross savings in the 2012-2013 entry cohorts of ACOs that reached $139 to $302 per patient by 2015. Savings in the 2014 entry cohort were small and not statistically significant. Robustness checks revealed no evidence of residual risk selection. Alternative methods to address risk selection produced results that were substantively consistent with our primary analysis but varied somewhat and were more sensitive to adjustment for patient characteristics, suggesting the introduction of bias from within-patient changes in time-varying characteristics. We found no evidence of ACO manipulation of provider composition or billing to inflate savings. Finally, larger savings for physician group ACOs were robust to consideration of differential changes in organizational structure among non-ACO providers (eg, from consolidation). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in the original MSSP program was associated with modest savings and not with favorable risk selection. These findings suggest an opportunity to build on early progress. Understanding the effect of new opportunities and incentives for risk selection in the revamped MSSP will be important for guiding future program reforms.

Medicare's Bundled Payment Initiatives for Hospital-Initiated Episodes: Evidence and Evolution.

Policy Points Evidence suggests that bundled payment contracting can slow the growth of payer costs relative to fee-for-service contracting, although bundled payment models may not reduce absolute costs. Bundled payments may be more effective than fee-for-service payments in containing costs for certain medical conditions. For the most part, Medicare's bundled payment initiatives have not been associated with a worsening of quality in terms of readmissions, emergency department use, and mortality. Some evidence suggests a worsening of other quality measures for certain medical conditions. Bundled payment contracting involves trade-offs: Expanding a bundle's scope and duration may better contain costs, but a more comprehensive bundle may be less attractive to providers, reducing their willingness to accept it as an alternative to fee-for-service payment. CONTEXT: Bundled payments have been promoted as an alternative to fee-for-service payments that can mitigate the incentives for service volume under the fee-for-service model. As Medicare has gained experience with bundled payments, it has widened their scope and increased their duration. However, there have been few reviews of the empirical literature on the impact of Medicare's bundled payment programs on cost, resource use, utilization, and quality. METHODS: We examined the history and features of 16 of Medicare's bundled payment programs involving hospital-initiated episodes of care and conducted a literature review of articles about those programs. Database and additional searches yielded 1,479 articles. We evaluate the studies' methodological quality and summarize the quantitative findings about Medicare expenditures and quality of care from 37 studies that used higher-quality research designs. FINDINGS: Medicare's bundled payment initiatives have varied in their design features, such as episode scope and duration. Many initiatives were associated with little to no reduction in Medicare expenditures, unless large pricing discounts for providers were negotiated in advance. Initiatives that included post-acute care services were associated with lower expenditures for certain conditions. Hospitals may have been able to reduce internal production costs with help from physicians via gainsharing. Most initiatives were not associated with significant changes in quality of care, as measured by readmission and mortality rates. Of the significant changes in readmission rates, the results were mixed, showing increases and decreases associated with bundled payments. Some evidence suggested that worse patient outcomes were associated bundled payments, although most results were not statistically significant. Results on case-mix selection were mixed: Several initiatives were associated with reductions in episode severity, whereas others were associated with little change. CONCLUSIONS: Bundled payments for hospital-initiated episodes may be a good alternative to fee-for-service payments. Bundled payments can help slow the growth of payer spending, although they do not necessarily reduce absolute spending. They are associated with lower provider production costs, and there is no overwhelming evidence of compromised quality. However, designing a bundled payment contract that is attractive to both providers and payers proves to be a challenge.

Do Medicare Accountable Care Organizations Reduce Disparities After Spinal Fracture?

BACKGROUND: National changes in health care disparities within the setting of trauma care have not been examined within Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) or non-ACOs. We sought to examine the impact of ACOs on post-treatment outcomes (in-hospital mortality, 90-day complications, and readmissions), as well as surgical intervention among whites and nonwhites treated for spinal fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all beneficiaries treated for spinal fractures between 2009 and 2014 using national Medicare fee for service claims data. Claims were used to identify sociodemographic and clinical criteria, receipt of surgery and in-hospital mortality, 90-day complications, and readmissions. Multivariable logistic regression analysis accounting for all confounders was used to determine the effect of race/ethnicity on outcomes. Nonwhites were compared with whites treated in non-ACOs between 2009 and 2011 as the referent. RESULTS: We identified 245,704 patients who were treated for spinal fractures. Two percent of the cohort received care in an ACO, whereas 7% were nonwhite. We found that disparities in the use of surgical fixation for spinal fractures were present in non-ACOs over the period 2009-2014 but did not exist in the context of care provided through ACOs (odds ratio [OR] 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44, 1.28). A disparity in the development of complications existed for nonwhites in non-ACOs (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.01, 1.17) that was not encountered among nonwhites receiving care in ACOs (OR 1.32; 95% CI 0.90, 1.95). An existing disparity in readmission rates for nonwhites in ACOs over 2009-2011 (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.01, 1.80) was eliminated in the period 2012-2014 (OR 0.85; 95% CI 0.65, 1.09). CONCLUSIONS: Our work reinforces the idea that ACOs could improve health care disparities among nonwhites. There is also the potential that as ACOs become more familiar with care integration and streamlined delivery of services, further improvements in disparities could be realized.

Machine Learning Improves the Identification of Individuals With Higher Morbidity and Avoidable Health Costs After Acute Coronary Syndromes.

OBJECTIVES: Traditional risk scores improved the definition of the initial therapeutic strategy in acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but they were not designed for predicting long-term individual risks and costs. In parallel, attempts to directly predict costs from clinical variables in ACS had limited success. Thus, novel approaches to predict cardiovascular risk and health expenditure are urgently needed. Our objectives were to predict the risk of major/minor adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and estimate assistance-related costs. METHODS: We used a 2-step approach that: (1) predicted outcomes with a common pathophysiological substrate (MACE) by using machine learning (ML) or logistic regression (LR) and compared with existing risk scores; (2) derived costs associated with noncardiovascular deaths, dialysis, ambulatory-care-sensitive-hospitalizations (ACSH), strokes, and MACE. With consecutive ACS individuals (n = 1089) from 2 cohorts, we trained in 80% of the population and tested in 20% using a 4-fold cross-validation framework. The 29-variable model included socioeconomic, clinical/lab, and coronarography variables. Individual costs were estimated based on cause-specific hospitalization from the Brazilian Health Ministry perspective. RESULTS: After up to 12 years follow-up (mean = 3.3 ± 3.1; MACE = 169), the gradient-boosting machine model was superior to LR and reached an area under the curve (AUROC) of 0.891 [95% CI 0.846-0.921] (test set), outperforming the Syntax Score II (AUROC = 0.635 [95% CI 0.569-0.699]). Individuals classified as high risk (>90th percentile) presented increased HbA1c and LDL-C both at <24 hours post-ACS and 1-year follow-up. High-risk individuals required 33.5% of total costs and showed 4.96-fold (95% CI 3.71-5.48, P < .00001) greater per capita costs compared with low-risk individuals, mostly owing to avoidable costs (ACSH). This 2-step approach was more successful for finding individuals incurring high costs than predicting costs directly from clinical variables. CONCLUSION: ML methods predicted long-term risks and avoidable costs after ACS.

Cost-Effectiveness of Testing and Treatment for Hepatitis B Virus and Hepatitis C Virus Infections: An Analysis by Scenarios, Regions, and Income.

OBJECTIVES: Testing and treatment for hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection are highly effective, high-impact interventions. This article aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of scaling up these interventions by scenarios, regions, and income groups. METHODS: We modeled costs and impacts of hepatitis elimination in 67 low- and middle-income countries from 2016 to 2030. Costs included testing and treatment commodities, healthcare consultations, and future savings from cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinomas averted. We modeled disease progression to estimate disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) averted. We estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) by regions and World Bank income groups, according to 3 scenarios: flatline (status quo), progress (testing/treatment according to World Health Organization guidelines), and ambitious (elimination). RESULTS: Compared with no action, current levels of testing and treatment had an ICER of $807/DALY for HBV and -$62/DALY (cost-saving) for HCV. Scaling up to progress scenario, both interventions had ICERs less than the average gross domestic product/capita of countries (HBV: $532/DALY; HCV: $613/DALY). Scaling up from flatline to elimination led to higher ICERs across countries (HBV: $927/DALY; HCV: $2528/DALY, respectively) that remained lower than the average gross domestic product/capita. Sensitivity analysis indicated discount rates and commodity costs were main factors driving results. CONCLUSIONS: Scaling up testing and treatment for HBV and HCV infection as per World Health Organization guidelines is a cost-effective intervention. Elimination leads to a much larger impact though ICERs are higher. Price reduction strategies are needed to achieve elimination given the substantial budget impact at current commodity prices.

Development, Implementation, and Evaluation of a Telemedicine Preoperative Evaluation Initiative at a Major Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: With health care practice consolidation, the increasing geographic scope of health care systems, and the advancement of mobile telecommunications, there is increasing interest in telemedicine-based health care consultations. Anesthesiology has had experience with telemedicine consultation for preoperative evaluation since 2004, but the majority of studies have been conducted in rural settings. There is a paucity of literature of use in metropolitan areas. In this article, we describe the implementation of a telemedicine-based anesthesia preoperative evaluation and report the program's patient satisfaction, clinical case cancellation rate outcomes, and cost savings in a large metropolitan area (Los Angeles, CA). METHODS: This is a descriptive study of a telemedicine-based preoperative anesthesia evaluation process in an academic medical center within a large metropolitan area. In a 2-year period, we evaluated 419 patients scheduled for surgery by telemedicine and 1785 patients who were evaluated in-person. RESULTS: Day-of-surgery case cancellations were 2.95% and 3.23% in the telemedicine and the in-person cohort, respectively. Telemedicine patients avoided a median round trip driving distance of 63 miles (Q1 24; Q3 119) and a median time saved of 137 (Q1 95; Q3 195) and 130 (Q1 91; Q3 237) minutes during morning and afternoon traffic conditions, respectively. Patients experienced time-based savings, particularly from traveling across a metropolitan area, which amounted to $67 of direct and opportunity cost savings. From patient satisfaction surveys, 98% (129 patients out of 131 completed surveys) of patients who were consulted via telemedicine were satisfied with their experience. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the implementation of a telemedicine-based preoperative anesthesia evaluation from an academic medical center in a metropolitan area with high patient satisfaction, cost savings, and without increase in day-of-procedure case cancellations.

Perioperative cost evaluation of canal wall down mastoidectomy.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate perioperative costs of canal wall-down (CWD) mastoidectomy as an initial surgery compared to revision surgery following initial canal wall-up (CWU) mastoidectomy. METHODS: This study is a retrospective chart review of adult patients who underwent CWD mastoidectomy for chronic otitis media with or without cholesteatoma at a tertiary referral center. Patients were divided into groups that had previous CWU surgery and were undergoing revision CWD and those that were having an initial CWD mastoidectomy. Cost variables including previous surgeries, imaging costs, audiometric testing, and post-operative visits were compared between the two groups using t-test analysis. RESULTS: There was no significant difference with regards to the cost of post-operative visits, peri-operative imaging, or revision surgeries between the two groups. Hearing outcomes based on mean speech reception threshold (SRT) were not statistically different between the two groups (p = 0.087). There was a significant difference in total cost with the revision group having a higher mean cost by $6967.84, most of which was accounted for by the difference in the cost of the previous surgeries of $6488.53. CONCLUSIONS: The revision CWD surgery group had increased total cost that could be attributed to the cost of previous surgery. Increased peri-operative cost was not noted with the initial CWD surgery group for any individual variables examined. Initial CWD mastoidectomy should be considered in the proper patient population to help decrease healthcare costs.

Return on investment of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) multiguideline, multisite implementation in Alberta, Canada.

Background: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) is a global surgical qualityimprovement initiative. Little is known about the economic effects of implementing multiple ERAS guidelines in both the short and long term. Methods: We performed a return on investment (ROI) analysis of the implementation of multiple ERAS guidelines (for colorectal, pancreas, cystectomy, liver and gynecologic oncology procedures) across multiple sites (9 hospitals) in Alberta using 30-, 180- and 365-day time horizons. The effects of ERAS on health services utilization (length of stay of the primary admission, number of readmissions, length of stay of the readmissions, number of emergency department visits, number of outpatient clinic visits, number of specialist visits and number of general practitioner visits) were assessed by mixed-effect multilevel multivariate negative binomial regressions. Net benefits and ROI were estimated by a decision analytic modelling analysis. All costs were reported in 2019 Canadian dollars. Results: The net health system savings per patient ranged from $26.35 to $3606.44 and ROI ranged from 1.05 to 7.31, meaning that every dollar invested in ERAS brought $1.05 to $7.31 in return. Probabilities for ERAS to be cost-saving were from 86.5% to 99.9%. The effects of ERAS were found to be larger in the longer time horizons, indicating that if only the 30-day time horizon had been used, the benefits of ERAS would have been underestimated. Conclusion: These results demonstrated that ERAS multiguideline implementation was cost-saving in Alberta. To produce a better ROI, it is important to consider a broad range of health service utilizations, long-term impact, economies of scale, productive efficiency and allocative efficiency for sustainability, scale and spread of ERAS implementations.

Contexte: L'initiative de récupération améliorée après la chirurgie (RAAC) est un projet international d'amélioration de la qualité en chirurgie. On en sait peu sur les retombées économiques, tant à court qu'à long terme, de la mise en œuvre de multiples lignes directrices de RAAC. Méthodes: Nous avons réalisé une analyse du rendement sur l'investissement (RSI) visant la mise en œuvre de multiples lignes directrices de RAAC (pour les opérations colorectales, pancréatiques, hépatiques ou d'oncologie gynécologique et la cystectomie) dans 9 hôpitaux albertains sur un horizon temporel de 30, 180 et 365 jours. L'incidence de la RAAC sur l'utilisation des services de santé (durée du séjour à l'hospitalisation initiale, nombre de réadmissions, durée du séjour à la réhospitalisation et nombre de visites à l'urgence, en consultation externe, chez un spécialiste et chez un omnipraticien) a été évaluée à l'aide d'un modèle multiniveau de régressions binomiales négatives à effets mixtes multivariés. Les bénéfices nets et le RSI ont été estimés à l'aide d'un processus de modélisation analytique décisionnelle. Tous les coûts ont été rapportés en dollars canadiens de 2019. Résultats: Les économies nettes du système de santé allaient de 26,35 $ à 3606,44 $ par patient, et le RSI variait de 1,05 à 7,31; chaque dollar investi dans l'initiative de RAAC a donc généré un retour sur l'investissement de 1,05 $ à 7,31 $. Les probabilités d'économie grâce au RAAC allaient de 86,5% à 99,9%. Les retombées générées augmentaient avec un horizon temporel à plus long terme, ce qui suggère que l'utilisation unique d'un horizon temporel de 30 jours aurait mené à une sousestimation des bénéfices. Conclusion: Les résultats montrent que la mise en œuvre de multiples lignes directrices de RAAC a permis des économies en Alberta. En vue d'obtenir un RSI optimal, il est important de tenir compte d'une grande variété d'utilisations des services de santé, des retombées à long terme, des économies d'échelle, de l'efficacité productive et de l'efficience des allocations pour la pérennité, la mise à l'échelle et la diffusion des projets de mise en œuvre de RAAC.

Effectiveness for introducing nurse practitioners in six long-term care facilities in Québec, Canada: A cost-savings analysis.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, most studies have focused on quality and safety in long-term care. However, studies focusing on the economic evaluation of quality and security in long-term care are sparse. Moreover, the economic evaluation of nurse practitioner care in long-term care is lacking, particularly in Québec Canada where roles are new. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of introducing nurse practitioners in six long-term care facilities in Québec using a cost-savings analysis in terms of reduction of nurse practitioner sensitive events (NPSEs). METHODS: A cost savings analysis was completed using a prospective observational study. All residents (n = 538) under the care of teams that included nurse practitioners who experienced at least one of the following NPSEs: falls, pressure ulcers, short-term transfers, and a change in the time needed to administer the medications consumed were included. Data were collected from September 1st 2015 to August 31st 2016. Descriptive statistics identified numbers of cases for falls, pressure ulcers, short-term transfers, and the number of medications consumed. A literature analysis was used to estimate excess median long-term care facility related costs of these NPSEs. Costs were calculated in 2016 Canadian dollars. The cost savings with the reductions that occurred for falls, pressure ulcers, short term transfers, and the time needed to administer medications after the implementation of a primary healthcare nurse practitioner role in the six long term care facilities were also estimated. FINDINGS: The median cost of 341 cases of falls, 32 cases of pressure ulcers and 53 cases of short-term transfers in the six long-term facilities would range between CAD 4,516,337.8 and CAD 5,281,824.4. Moreover, the total costs savings from the reduction of adverse events including the reduction of nursing administration time for medications would be between CAD 1,942,533.6 and CAD 3,254,403.4. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to present the financial consequence of adverse events sensitive to nurse practitioner care in long-term care. Important cost savings were generated from the reduction of adverse events after the implementation of nurse practitioner roles in long-term care. Government should consider these results for prevention and improvements in quality and safety in long-term care.

Outpatient surgery is the solution at hand for reducing costs and hospital stays for pediatric surgery too: a hospital trial.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient management has proven to be the most useful method of treatment for various minimally complex surgical specialties compared to day-hospital management or ordinary inpatient processes, a fact confirmed by numerous technical documents and works in the literature. METHODS: We analyzed 27,713 surgical interventions carried out in our hospital between 2005 and 2017. This analysis included all interventions for which the indication of the level of care has moved, over the years, to an outpatient setting. We evaluated the direct costs of these services, comparing them by year and by treatment setting. RESULTS: From the analysis of costs in general, for the same number of services, a reduction of 56.6% can be seen in the comparison between 2005 and 2017. In addition, the analysis of the length of stay shows an average reduction in the number of days of hospitalization from 2.9 to 1.2 between 2005 and 2017. On the basis of a large quantity of data, our study confirms that outpatient surgery can have a significant impact in reducing costs and days of hospitalization, even in a pediatric setting, demonstrating that it is the best choice in terms of saving resources and, above all, clinical and organizational appropriateness. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient surgery is in fact a valuable solution that provides an advantage for both the patient and his/her family, especially in the pediatric field, for the hospital and more generally for the health system as a whole.

[Effects of a multifactorial intervention for improving frailty on risk of long-term care insurance certification, death, and long-term care cost among community-dwelling older adults: A quasi-experimental study using propensity score matching].

Objectives　To examine the effects of a multifactorial intervention for improving frailty-comprising resistance exercise and nutritional and psychosocial programs-on the risk of long-term care insurance (LTCI) certification, death, and long-term care (LTC) cost among community-dwelling older adults.Methods　Seventy-seven individuals (47 in 2011 and 30 in 2013) from the Hatoyama Cohort Study (742 individuals) participated in a multifactorial intervention. Non-participants were from the same cohort (including people who were invited to participate in the multifactorial intervention but declined). We performed propensity score matching with a ratio of 1 : 2 (intervention group vs. non-participant group). Afterward, 70 individuals undergoing the multifactorial intervention and 140 non-participants were selected. The risk of LTCI certification and/or death and the mean LTC cost during the follow-up period (32 months) were compared using the Cox proportional hazards model and generalized linear model (gamma regression model).Results　The incidence of new LTCI certification (per 1,000 person-years) tended to be lower in the intervention group than in the non-participant group (1.8 vs. 3.6), but this was not statistically significant as per the Cox proportional hazards model (hazard ratio=0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.17-1.54). Although the incidence of LTC cost was not significant, the mean cumulative LTC cost during the 32 months and the mean LTC cost per unit during the follow-up period (1 month) were 375,308 JPY and 11,906 JPY/month, respectively, in the intervention group and 1,040,727 JPY and 33,460 JPY/month, respectively, in the non-participant group. Cost tended to be lower in the intervention group than in the non-participant group as per the gamma regression model (cumulative LTC cost: cost ratio=0.36, 95%CI=0.11-1.21, P=0.099; LTC cost per unit follow-up period: cost ratio=0.36, 95%CI=0.11-1.12, P=0.076).Conclusions　These results suggest that a multifactorial intervention comprising resistance exercise, nutritional, and psychosocial programs is effective in lowering the incidence of LTCI certification, consequently saving LTC cost, although the results were not statistically significant. Further research with a stricter study design is needed.

Estimated Clinical and Economic Impact through Use of a Novel Blood Collection Device To Reduce Blood Culture Contamination in the Emergency Department: a Cost-Benefit Analysis.

Blood culture contamination results in increased hospital costs and exposure to antimicrobials. We evaluated the potential clinical and economic benefits of an initial specimen diversion device (ISDD) when routinely utilized for blood culture collection in the emergency department (ED) of a quaternary care medical center. A decision analysis model was created to identify the cost benefit of the use of the ISDD device in the ED. Probabilistic costs were determined from the published literature and the direct observation of pharmacy/microbiology staff. The primary outcome was the expected per-patient cost savings (microbiology, pharmacy, and indirect hospital costs) with the routine use of an ISDD from a hospital perspective. The indirect costs included those related to an increased hospital length of stay, additional procedures, adverse drug reactions, and hospital-acquired infections. Models were created to represent hospitals that routinely or do not routinely use rapid diagnostic tests (RDT) on positive blood cultures. The routine implementation of ISDD for blood culture collection in the ED was cost beneficial compared to conventional blood culture collection methods. When implemented in a hospital utilizing RDT with a baseline contamination rate of 6%, ISDD use was associated with a cost savings of $272 (3%) per blood culture in terms of overall hospital costs and $28 (5.4%) in direct-only costs. The main drivers of cost were baseline contamination rates and the duration of antibiotics given to patients with negative blood cultures. These findings support the routine use of ISDD during blood culture collection in the ED as a cost-beneficial strategy to reduce the clinical and economic impact of blood culture contamination in terms of microbiology, pharmacy, and wider indirect hospital impacts.

How Much Does Medication Nonadherence Cost the Medicare Fee-for-Service Program?

BACKGROUND: Medication adherence is associated with lower health care utilization and savings in specific patient populations; however, few empirical estimates exist at the population level. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study was to apply a data-driven approach to obtain population-level estimates of the impact of medication nonadherence among Medicare beneficiaries with chronic conditions. RESEARCH DESIGN: Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) claims data were used to calculate the prevalence of medication nonadherence among individuals with diabetes, heart failure, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia. Per person estimates of avoidable health care utilization and spending associated with medication adherence, adjusted for healthy adherer effects, from prior literature were applied to the number of nonadherent Medicare beneficiaries. SUBJECTS: A 20% random sample of community-dwelling, continuously enrolled Medicare FFS beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with Part D (N=14,657,735) in 2013. MEASURES: Avoidable health care costs and hospital use from medication nonadherence. RESULTS: Medication nonadherence for diabetes, heart failure, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension resulted in billions of Medicare FFS expenditures, millions in hospital days, and thousands of emergency department visits that could have been avoided. If the 25% of beneficiaries with hypertension who were nonadherent became adherent, Medicare could save $13.7 billion annually, with over 100,000 emergency department visits and 7 million inpatient hospital days that could be averted. CONCLUSION: Medication nonadherence places a large resource burden on the Medicare FFS program. Study results provide actionable information for policymakers considering programs to manage chronic conditions. Caution should be used in summing estimates across disease groups, assuming all nonadherent beneficiaries could become adherent, and applying estimates beyond the Medicare FFS population.

Effects of a Surgical Receipt Program on the Supply Costs of Five General Surgery Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Surgical supplies occupy a large portion of health care expenditures but is often under the surgeon's control. We sought to assess whether an automated, surgeon-directed, cost feedback system can decrease supply expenditures for five common general surgery procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An automated "surgical receipt" detailing intraoperative supply costs was generated and emailed to surgeons after each case. We compared the median cost per case for 18 mo before and after implementation of the surgical receipt. We controlled for price fluctuations by applying common per-unit prices in both periods. We also compared the incision time, case length booking accuracy, length of stay, and postoperative occurrences. RESULTS: Median costs decreased significantly for open inguinal hernia ($433.45 to $385.49, P < 0.001), laparoscopic cholecystectomy ($886.77 to $816.13, P = 0.002), and thyroidectomy ($861.21 to $825.90, P = 0.034). Median costs were unchanged for laparoscopic appendectomy and increased significantly for lumpectomy ($325.67 to $420.53, P < 0.001). There was an increase in incision-to-closure minutes for open inguinal hernia (71 to 75 min, P < 0.001) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (75 to 96 min, P < 0.001), but a decrease in thyroidectomy (79 to 73 min, P < 0.001). There was an increase in booking accuracy for laparoscopic appendectomy (38.6% to 55.0%, P = 0.001) and thyroidectomy (32.5% to 48.1%, P = 0.001). There were no differences in postoperative occurrence rates and length of stay duration. CONCLUSIONS: An automated surgeon-directed surgical receipt may be a useful tool to decrease supply costs for certain procedures. However, curtailing surgical supply costs with surgeon-directed cost feedback alone is challenging and a multimodal approach may be necessary.

Impact of brand drug discount cards on private insurer, government and patient expenditures.

BACKGROUND: Brand discount cards have become a popular way for patients to reduce out-of-pocket spending on drugs; however, controversy exists over their potential to increase insurers' costs. We estimated the impact of brand discount cards on Canadian drug expenditures. METHODS: Using national claims-level pharmacy adjudication data, we performed a retrospective comparison of prescriptions filled using a brand discount card matched to equivalent generic prescriptions between September 2014 and September 2017. We investigated the impact on expenditures for 3 groups of prescriptions: those paid only through private insurance, those paid only through public insurance and those paid only out of pocket. RESULTS: We studied 2.82 million prescriptions for 89 different medications for which brand discount cards were used. Use of discount cards resulted in 46% higher private insurance expenditures than comparable generic prescriptions (+$23.09 per prescription, 95% confidence interval [CI] $22.97 to $23.21). Public insurance expenditures were only slightly higher with cards: an increase of 1.3% or $0.37 per prescription (95% CI $0.33 to $0.41). Finally, out-of-pocket transactions using a card resulted in mean patient savings of 7% or $3.49 per prescription (95% CI -$3.55 to -$3.43). The impact varied widely among medicines across all 3 analyses. INTERPRETATION: The use of brand discount cards increased costs to private insurers, had little impact on public insurers and resulted in mixed impacts for patients. These effects likely resulted from private insurers reimbursing brand drug prices even when generics were available and from discount cards being adjudicated after claims were sent to other insurers in most cases. Patients and their clinicians should recognize that discount cards have mixed impacts on out-of-pocket costs.

Assessing changes in costs of maternal postpartum services between 2013 and 2014 in Burkina Faso.

INTRODUCTION: In Africa, a majority of women bring their infant to health services for immunization, but few are checked in the postpartum (PP) period. The Missed opportunities for maternal and infant health (MOMI) EU-funded project has implemented a package of interventions at community and facility levels to uptake maternal and infant postpartum care (PPC). One of these interventions is the integration of maternal PPC in child clinics and infant immunization services, which proved to be successful for improving maternal and infant PPC. AIM: Taking stock of the progress achieved in terms of PPC with the implementation of the interventions, this paper assesses the economic cost of maternal PPC services, for health services and households, before and after the project start in Kaya health district (Burkina Faso). METHODS: PPC costs to health services are estimated using secondary data on personnel and infrastructure and primary data on time allocation. Data from two household surveys collected before and after one year intervention among mothers within one year PP are used to estimate the household cost of maternal PPC visits. We also compare PPC costs for households and health services with or without integration. We focus on the costs of the PPC intervention at days 6-10 that was most successful. RESULTS: The average unit cost of health services for days 6-10 maternal PPC decreased from 4.6 USD before the intervention in 2013 (Jan-June) to 3.5 USD after the intervention implementation in 2014. Maternal PPC utilization increased with the implementation of the interventions but so did days 6-10 household mean costs. Similarly, the household costs increased with the integration of maternal PPC to BCG immunization. CONCLUSION: In the context of growing reproductive health expenditures from many funding sources in Burkina Faso, the uptake of maternal PPC led to a cost reduction, as shown for days 6-10, at health services level. Further research should determine whether the increase in costs for households would be deterrent to the use of integrated maternal and infant PPC.