Study on Universal Health Coverage Scheme in India - The Stumper to Private Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Many governments have introduced health insurance schemes for the poor sections of society to save them from catastrophic health expenditure. Private hospitals play a key role in India, as they are in significant number in secondary and tertiary care services. Private hospitals have to fund their infrastructure, staff salaries from the revenue of previous year. In this study, we compared money received by a private medical college hospital bed through government insurance scheme patient and private paying patient. METHODS: Observational study, comparing money reimbursed for top ten procedures treated in private medical college hospitals by Ayushman Bharat (AB) fund and the price offered by a paying patient in similar bed. RESULTS: On average 600 patients received medical care through the AB scheme per month at our tertiary care super-specialty hospital. Highest numbers were seen in specialties like cardiovascular, and cancer treatments and infectious diseases under general medicine specialty. The costs considered were surgeon's cost, medicines, devices, and hospitalization costs. The laparoscopic procedures were incurring a loss of 130%, knee replacements about 50%, coronary bypass grafting thankfully due to controlling of prices by central government is incurring a loss of 10%. The package amount offered accounts to 26-52% only of the costs incurred by the private hospitals. CONCLUSION: The private academic hospitals need 25% to 50% more than current prices offered, across various procedures.

Charges, length of stay, and complication associations with trauma center ownership in adult patients with mild to moderate trauma.

BACKGROUND: For-profit (FP) trauma centers (TCs) charge more for trauma care than not-for-profit (NFP) centers. We sought to determine charges, length of stay (LOS), and complications associations with TC ownership status (FP, NFP, and government) for three diagnoses among patients with overall low injury severity. METHODS: Adult patients treated at TCs with an International Classification of Diseases-based injury severity score (ICISS) survival probability ≥ 0.85 were identified. Only those who with a principal diagnosis of femur, tibial or rib fractures were included. RESULTS: Total charges were significantly higher at FP centers than NFP and lower at government centers (89.6% and -12.8%, respectively). FP TCs had a 12.5% longer LOS and government TCs had a 20.4% longer LOS than NFP TCs. CONCLUSION: Patients presenting to FP TCs with mild/moderate femur, tibial, or rib fractures experienced higher charges and increased LOS compared with government or NFP centers. There was no difference in overall complication rates.

Gynecologic oncology treatment modifications or delays in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in a publicly funded versus privately funded North American tertiary cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: To compare gynecologic oncology surgical treatment modifications and delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between a publicly funded Canadian versus a privately funded American cancer center. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all planned gynecologic oncology surgeries at University Health Network (UHN) in Toronto, Canada and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston, USA, between March 22,020 and July 302,020. Surgical treatment delays and modifications at both centers were compared to standard recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 450 surgical gynecologic oncology patients were included; 215 at UHN and 235 at BWH. There was a significant difference in median time from decision-to-treat to treatment (23 vs 15 days, p < 0.01) between UHN and BWH and a significant difference in treatment delays (32.56% vs 18.29%; p < 0.01) and modifications (8.37% vs 0.85%; p < 0.01), respectively. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race, treatment site and surgical priority status, treatment at UHN was an independent predictor of treatment modification (OR = 9.43,95% CI 1.81-49.05, p < 0.01). Treatment delays were higher at UHN (OR = 1.96,95% CI 1.14-3.36 p = 0.03) and for uterine disease (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.11-5.33, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: During the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, gynecologic oncology patients treated at a publicly funded Canadian center were 9.43 times more likely to have a surgical treatment modification and 1.96 times more likely to have a surgical delay compared to an equal volume privately funded center in the United States.

Specialist shortage in developing countries: comprehending delays in care.

We describe a case of a middle-aged woman who presented with progressive jaundice and was suspected to have rebound choledocholithiasis, which was initially managed with balloon extraction through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography at her first presentation. Healthcare in Pakistan, like many other developing countries, is divided into public and private sectors. The public sector is not always completely free of cost. Patients seeking specialised care in the public sector may find lengthy waiting times for an urgent procedure due to a struggling system and a lack of specialists and technical expertise. Families of many patients find themselves facing 'catastrophic healthcare expenditure', an economic global health quandary much ignored.

For-Profit Hospitals Out of Business? Financial Sustainability During the COVID-19 Epidemic Emergency Response.

This perspective argues that for-profit hospitals will be heavily affected by epidemic crises, including the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. Policy-makers should be aware that for-profit hospitals in particular are likely to face financial distress. The suspension of all non-urgent elective surgery and the relegation of market-based mechanisms that determines the allocation and compensation of care puts the financial state of these hospitals at serious risk. We identify three organisational factors that determine which hospitals might be most affected (ie, care-portfolio, size and whether it is private equity [PE]-owned). In addition, we analyse contextual factors that could explain the impact of financial distress among for-profit hospitals on the wider healthcare system.

Evaluation of costs and outcomes of physician-owned hospitals across common surgical procedures.

INTRODUCTION: The Affordable Care Act introduced restrictions on the creation of new physician-owned hospitals (POH). We sought to define whether POH status was associated with differences in care. METHODS: Patients undergoing one of ten surgical procedures were identified using Medicare Standard Analytic Files. Patient and hospital-level characteristics and outcomes between POH and non-POH were compared. RESULTS: Among 1,255,442 patients identified, 14,560 (1.2%) were treated at POH. A majority of POHs were in urban areas (n = 30, 90.9%) and none were in low socioeconomic status areas. Patients at POH were slightly younger (POH:72, IQR:68-77 vs. non-POH:73, IQR:69-79) and healthier (CCI; POH:2; IQR: 1-3 vs. non-POH: 3; IQR: 1-4). Patients at non-POH had higher odds of postoperative complications (OR:1.67, 95%CI:1.55-1.80) and slightly higher medical expenditures (POH:$11,347, IQR:$11,139-$11,936 vs. non-POH:$13,389, IQR:$11,381-$19,592). CONCLUSIONS: POH were more likely to be located in socioeconomic advantaged areas, treat healthier patients and have lower associated expenditures.

Utilisation and financial protection for hospital care under publicly funded health insurance in three states in Southern India.

BACKGROUND: Many LMICs have implemented Publicly Funded Health Insurance (PFHI) programmes to improve access and financial protection. The national PFHI scheme implemented in India for a decade has been recently modified and expanded to cover free hospital care for 500 million persons. Since increase in annual cover amount is one of the main design modifications in the new programme, the relevant policy question is whether such design change can improve financial protection for hospital care. An evaluation of state-specific PFHI programmes with vertical cover larger than RSBY can help answer this question. Three states in Southern India - Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have been pioneers in implementing PFHI with a large insurance cover. METHODS: The current study was meant to evaluate the PFHI in above three states in improving utilisation of hospital services and financial protection against expenses of hospitalization. Two cross-sections from National Sample Survey's health rounds, the 60th round done in 2004 and the 71st round done in 2014 were analysed. Instrumental Variable method was applied to address endogeneity or the selection problem in insurance. RESULTS: Enrollment under PFHI was not associated with increase in utilisation of hospital care in the three states. Private hospitals dominated the empanelment of facilities under PFHI as well as utilisation. Out of Pocket Expenditure and incidence of Catastrophic Health Expenditure did not decrease with enrollment under PFHI in the three states. The size of Out of Pocket Expenditure was significantly greater for utilisation in private sector, irrespective of insurance enrollment. CONCLUSION: PFHI in the three states used substantially larger vertical cover than national scheme in 2014. The three states are known for their good governance. Yet, the PFHI programmes in all three states failed in fulfilling their fundamental purpose. Increasing vertical cover of PFHI and using either 'Trusts' or Insurance-companies as purchasers may not give desired results in absence of adequate regulation. The study raises doubts regarding effectiveness of contracting under PFHIs to influence provider-behavior in the Indian context. Further research is required to find solutions for addressing gaps that contribute to poor financial outcomes for patients under PFHI.

The cost of stroke in private hospitals in Brazil: a one-year prospective study / O custo do AVC em hospitais privados no Brasil: um estudo prospectivo

ABSTRACT Few studies from low- and middle-income countries have assessed stroke and cerebral reperfusion costs from the private sector. Objective To measure the in-hospital costs of ischemic stroke (IS), with and without cerebral reperfusion, primary intracerebral hemorrhage (PIH), subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) and transient ischemic attacks (TIA) in two private hospitals in Joinville, Brazil. Methods Prospective disease-cost study. All medical and nonmedical costs for patients admitted with any stroke type or TIA were consecutively determined in 2016-17. All costs were adjusted to the gross domestic product deflator index and purchasing power parity. Results We included 173 patients. The median cost per patient was US$3,827 (IQR: 2,800-8,664) for the 131 IS patients; US$2,315 (IQR: 1,692-2,959) for the 27 TIA patients; US$16,442 (IQR: 5,108-33,355) for the 11 PIH patients and US$28,928 (IQR: 12,424-48,037) for the four SAH patients (p < 0.00001). For the six IS patients who underwent intravenous thrombolysis, the median cost per patient was US$11,463 (IQR: 8,931-14,291), and for the four IS patients who underwent intra-arterial thrombectomy, the median cost per patient was US$35,092 (IQR: 31,833-37,626; p < 0.0001). A direct correlation was found between cost and length of stay (r = 0.67, p < 0.001). Conclusions Stroke is a costly disease. In the private sector, the costs of cerebral reperfusion for IS treatment were three-to-ten times higher than for usual treatments. Therefore, cost-effectiveness studies are urgently needed in low- and middle-income countries.

RESUMO Poucos estudos determinam o custo do AVC em países de baixa e média renda nos setores privados. Objetivos Mensurar o custo hospitalar do tratamento do(a): AVC isquêmico com e sem reperfusão cerebral, hemorragia intracerebral primária (HIP), hemorragia subaracnóidea e ataque isquêmico transitório (AIT) em hospitais privados de Joinville, Brasil. Métodos Estudo prospectivo de custo de doença. Os custos médicos e não médicos dos pacientes admitidos com qualquer tipo de AVC ou AIT foram consecutivamente verificados em 2016-17. Os valores foram ajustados ao índice do deflator do produto interno bruto e à paridade do poder de compra. Resultados Nós incluímos 173 pacientes. A mediana de custo por paciente foi de US$ 3.827 (IQR: 2.800-8.664) para os 131 pacientes com AVC isquêmico; US$ 2.315 (1.692-2.959) para os 27 pacientes com AIT; US$ 16.442 (5.108-33.355) para os 11 pacientes com HIP e US$ 28.928 (12.424-48.037) para os quatro pacientes com HSA (p < 0,00001). Para seis pacientes submetidos à trombólise intravenosa, a mediana do custo por paciente foi de US$ 11.463 (8.931-14.291) e, para quatro pacientes submetidos à trombectomia intra-arterial, a mediana de custo por paciente foi de US$ 35.092 (31.833-37.626; p < 0,0001). Uma correlação direta foi encontrada entre custo e tempo de permanência (r = 0,67, p < 0,001). Conclusão O AVC é uma doença cara. Em ambiente privado, os custos da reperfusão cerebral foram de três a dez vezes superiores aos tratamentos habituais do AVC isquêmico. Portanto, estudos de custo-efetividade são urgentemente necessários em países de baixa e média rendas.

Posterior lumbar fusions at physician-owned hospitals - is it time to reconsider the restrictions of the Affordable Care Act?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Caused by perceptions regarding unnecessary healthcare resource utilization, high costs of care, and financial incentives towards "cherry-picking" cases in physician owned hospitals, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 imposed restrictions on existing physician-owned hospitals from expanding. Despite an increasing number of individuals requiring access to spine surgical care, no study has evaluated the surgical safety and costs of elective posterior lumbar fusions (PLFs) being performed in physician-owned vs. non-physician-owned hospitals. PURPOSE: We assessed differences in 90-day costs and outcomes between patients undergoing elective 1- to 3-level PLFs at physician-owned hospitals vs. nonphysician-owned hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of 2007 to 2014 100% Medicare claims database. PATIENT SAMPLE: The 2007 to 2014 Medicare 100% Standard Analytical Files (SAF100) was queried using International Classification of Diseases 9th Edition (ICD-9) procedure code for patients undergoing elective 1- to 3-level PLFs (81.07, 81.08, and 81.62). The Medicare Hospital Compare database was used to identify provider codes for physician-owned hospitals. These provider codes were cross-referenced to identify records of patients receiving elective PLFs at these hospitals from the SAF100 database. OUTCOME MEASURES: Ninety day complications, readmissions, emergency department (ED) visits, charges, and costs. METHODS: Multivariate logistic and linear regression analyses were used to assess significant differences in 90-day complications, readmissions, charges and costs between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 6,679 (2.9%) patients received an elective PLF at a physician-owned hospital (N=39; 2.2%) whereas 225,090 (97.1%) received surgery at nonphysician-owned hospital (N=1,774; 97.8%). After controlling for age, gender, region, hospital factors (socio-economic status area, urban vs. rural location and volume) and Elixhauser co-morbidity index, undergoing surgery at physician-owned hospital was associated with lower odds of thromboembolic complications (OR 0.66 [95% CI 0.53-0.82]; p<.001), urinary tract infections (OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.79-0.95]; p=.002) and renal complications (OR 0.52 [95% CI 0.43-0.63]; p<.001) within 90-days following the surgery. Patients undergoing PLFs at physician-owned hospitals vs. nonphysician-owned hospitals also had lower risk-adjusted inpatient charges (-$10,218), inpatient costs (-$2,302), 90-day charges (-$9,780) and 90-day costs (-$2,324). No significant differences were noted between physician-owned and nonphysician-owned hospitals with regards to 90-day wound complications (OR 1.08 [95% CI 0.94-1.22]; p=.279), pulmonary complications (OR 1.06 [95% CI 0.97-1.17]; p=.187), cardiac complications (OR 0.92 [95% CI 0.83-1.01]; p=.089), septic complications (OR 0.77 [95% CI 0.56-1.01]; p=.073), all-cause ED visits (OR 0.96 [95% CI 0.89-1.04]; p=.311), revision surgery (OR 1.09 [95% CI 0.72-1.59]; p=.653) and readmissions (OR 0.98 [95% CI 0.89-1.08]; p=.680). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that patients undergoing elective 1- to 3-level PLFs at physician-owned hospitals do not experience a greater number of complications and/or readmissions while having lower risk-adjusted charges and costs over the 90-day episode of care. The findings call on the need for revaluation/reconsideration of the ACAs restriction on the expansion of these physician-owned hospitals.

Does DRG funding encourage hospital specialization? Evidence from the Italian National Health Service.

The impact of diagnosis-related group (DRG)-based funding has been analyzed along a wide range of dimensions. Its effects on hospital specialization, however, have been investigated only sparsely. This paper examines such effects in the context of the Italian National Health Service, where decentralization has produced a significant degree of variation in funding arrangements. To this end, a 9-year panel data set covering 762 Italian public and private hospitals was analyzed using a finite mixture model approach. Hospital specialization was measured by the internal Herfindahl-Hirschman Index. Three variables were introduced as proxies for the choices made by Italian Regions with respect to the development and use of their DRG systems. The best finite mixture model identified three groups of hospitals, two of which sizeable. Of these, one included nearly all public hospitals, while the other was composed almost exclusively of small and medium-sized investor-owned hospitals. Averagely, private and smaller hospitals showed a stronger tendency to specialize over time. The positive impact of DRG funding on the hospitals' propensity to specialize found only limited empirical support. Moreover, it emerged as comparatively much smaller for public hospitals vis à vis private ones.

Ear, nose, and throat surgical access for remote living Indigenous children: What is the least costly model?

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: This costing evaluation compares three service delivery models for ear, nose, and throat (ENT) surgery for remote living Indigenous children to improve their hearing outcomes, with the aim to identify the least costly model. METHODS: The main outcome measure presented was the incremental cost difference between the base case (Model 1) and two alternative models (Model 2, 3). The costs in 2017 Australian dollars are assessed from two viewpoints: (1) health system perspective, and (2) patients and their families including travel out-of-pocket expenses, presented separately according to the funding source. RESULTS: Findings indicate that the least costly model offered low-risk ENT surgery from a state funded hospital in a remote setting, with high use of videoconference technology: TeleHealth (Model 3) could save $3626 to $5067 per patient, compared with patients travelling to a regional centre public hospital (Model 1). A federally funded scheme which allowed groups of patients to access a direct flight charter transfer to the private hospital in regional centre (Model 2) reduced the cost by $2178 to $2711 per patient when compared with standard care (Model 1). From a societal perspective, Model 1 required out-of-pocket patient expenses, with greater time away from home, and hence appears the least preferred option. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity analyses also demonstrate that Model 3 would be the more economical model for providing ENT surgery for remote living children. By proving an accurate assessment of the true costs of delivering these important ear and hearing health services, strategic health service planners may be better informed and sufficient budgets can be allocated to provide improved service delivery. The benefits of Model 3, over Models 1 or 2, would also incorporate improvements to patient safety as a result of reducing patient travel, which should in-turn, reduce failure-to-attend rates.

Cost Incurred by the Family for Surgery in Their Children: A Bangladesh Perspective.

BACKGROUND: Cost of getting health services is a major concern in Bangladesh as well as in many other countries. A family has to bear more than half of the health care cost despite many facilities provided by the public hospitals. This out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditure drives many families under the poverty line. The aim of this study was to find out the exact cost incurred by the family for a surgical operation of their child in the public and private sectors in Bangladesh. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted to find out the cost of child surgery in different settings of public and private hospitals in Chittagong division, Bangladesh. Cost of herniotomy was then compared across different settings. RESULTS: In this study, cost of operation in urban private hospitals was highest mostly due to surgeon and anesthetist fee. The cost was lowest in outreach programs as surgeon fee, anesthetist fee and accommodation cost was nil; food and transport cost was minimum. However, cost of accommodation, food, transport and medicine contributed significantly to OOP expenditure especially in tertiary-level public hospitals, in both indoor and day care settings, and also in private urban hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides some insight into the OOP expenditure in different health care settings in Bangladesh. This study might be useful in developing a strategy to minimize the OOP expenditure in this country.

Cost-effectiveness of posaconazole in private and public Brazilian hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Posaconazole is used for the prophylaxis of invasive fungal disease (IFD). Previous studies have shown it to be cost-effective compared to fluconazole/itraconazole. However, posaconazole has never been economically evaluated in developing countries. AIMS: The aim of the present study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of posaconazole compared to fluconazole in public (SUS) and private hospitals (PHS) in Brazil. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness simulation was conducted on the basis of a pivotal study on the use of posaconazole in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients, adjusting the costs to Brazilian data. RESULTS: A pharmacoeconomic analysis was performed on a hypothetical sample of 100 patients in each drug group. The total cost of posaconazole use alone was USD$ 220,656.31, whereas that for fluconazole was USD$ 83,875.00. Our results showed that patients with IFD remain hospitalized for an additional 12 days, at an average cost of USD$ 850.85 per patient per day. The total money spent by PHS for 100 patients for 100 days was USD$ 342,318.00 for the posaconazole group and USD$ 302,039.00 for the fluconazole group. An analysis of sensitivity (10%) revealed no intergroup difference. CONCLUSIONS: In Brazil posaconazole is cost-effective, and should be considered for the prophylaxis of patients with AMD/myelodysplasia (AML/MDS) undergoing chemotherapy.

Impact of the affordability of novel agents in patients with multiple myeloma: Real-world data of current clinical practice in Mexico.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) has become costly and difficult to access for patients living in low-income to middle-income countries. METHODS: The current retrospective study included 148 patients in Mexico with newly diagnosed MM, and was performed to compare the outcomes of patients with and without access to novel agents. The records of 77 patients admitted to a public hospital (PubC) and 71 patients cared for within private health systems (PrivC) from November 2007 to July 2016 were reviewed. RESULTS: Compared with those treated in PrivC, patients receiving care at PubC were more likely to be diagnosed with advanced disease. A thalidomide-based regimen was the most common induction treatment used at PubC, whereas a bortezomib-based regimen was used most often in PrivC. The median follow-up was 41 months. Patients in PrivC demonstrated better response rates and survival; 65% of patients treated in PrivC versus 41% treated at PubC achieved a very good partial response or better (P = .005). The median progression-free survival and median overall survival were 23 months and 51 months, respectively, for patients treated at PubC and 41 months and 79 months, respectively, for those treated in PrivC (P<.001). More patients underwent autologous stem cell transplantation in PrivC. When adjustments were made for covariates, patients treated at PubC experienced a higher risk of death compared with patients receiving care in PrivC (hazard ratio, 2.0; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-4.3 [P = .04]). CONCLUSIONS: Stage at diagnosis, induction regimen, and autologous stem cell transplantation were found to be contributors to survival disparities between patients with MM treated at PubC compared with PrivC in Mexico. These findings underscore the need to improve access to novel agents and stem cell transplantation in public health systems. Cancer 2018;124:1946-53. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Direct cost comparison of totally endoscopic versus open ear surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Totally endoscopic ear surgery is a relatively new method for managing chronic ear disease. This study aimed to test the null hypothesis that open and endoscopic approaches have similar direct costs for the management of attic cholesteatoma, from an Australian private hospital setting. METHODS: A retrospective direct cost comparison of totally endoscopic ear surgery and traditional canal wall up mastoidectomy for the management of attic cholesteatoma in a private tertiary setting was undertaken. Indirect and future costs were excluded. A direct cost comparison of anaesthetic setup and resources, operative setup and resources, and surgical time was performed between the two techniques. RESULTS: Totally endoscopic ear surgery has a mean direct cost reduction of AUD$2978.89 per operation from the hospital perspective, when compared to canal wall up mastoidectomy. CONCLUSION: Totally endoscopic ear surgery is more cost-effective, from an Australian private hospital perspective, than canal wall up mastoidectomy for attic cholesteatoma.

Reconsidering the Affordable Care Act's Restrictions on Physician-Owned Hospitals: Analysis of CMS Data on Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Concerns about financial incentives and increased costs prompted legislation limiting the expansion of physician-owned hospitals in 2010. Supporters of physician-owned hospitals argue that they improve the value of care by improving quality and reducing costs. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether physician-owned and non-physician-owned hospitals differ in terms of costs, outcomes, and patient satisfaction in the setting of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: With use of the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Inpatient Charge Data, we identified 45 physician-owned and 2,657 non-physician-owned hospitals that performed ≥11 primary TKA and THA procedures in 2014. Cost data, patient-satisfaction scores, and risk-adjusted complication and 30-day readmission scores for knee and hip arthroplasty patients were obtained from the multiyear CMS Hospital Compare database. RESULTS: Physician-owned hospitals received lower mean Medicare payments than did non-physician-owned hospitals for THA and TKA procedures ($11,106 compared with $12,699; p = 0.002). While the 30-day readmission score did not differ significantly between the 2 types of hospitals (4.48 compared with 4.62 for physician-owned and non-physician-owned, respectively; p = 0.104), physician-owned hospitals had a lower risk-adjusted complication score (2.83 compared with 3.04; p = 0.015). Physician-owned hospitals outperformed non-physician-owned hospitals in all patient-satisfaction categories, including mean linear scores for recommending the hospital (93.9 compared with 87.9; p < 0.001) and overall hospital rating (93.4 compared with 88.4; p < 0.001). When controlling for hospital demographic variables, status as a non-physician-owned hospital was an independent risk factor for being in the upper quartile of all inpatient payments for Medicare Severity-Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) 470 (odds ratio, 3.317; 95% confidence interval, 1.174 to 9.371; p = 0.024), which may be because of a difference in CMS payment methodology. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that physician-owned hospitals are associated with lower mean Medicare costs, fewer complications, and higher patient satisfaction following THA and TKA than non-physician-owned hospitals. Policymakers should consider these data when debating the current moratorium on physician-owned hospital expansion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Pediatric laparoscopic appendectomy, risk factors, and costs associated with nationwide readmissions.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies of readmission after pediatric laparoscopic appendectomy have been limited to individual hospitals or noncompeting public pediatric hospitals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the risk factors and costs associated with nonelective, 30-d readmissions in pediatric patients nationwide across public and private hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Nationwide Readmission Database for 2013 was queried for all patients under the age of 18 y with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. Using multivariate logistic regression with 26 different variables, the odds ratios (ORs) for nonelective readmissions within 30 d were determined. The costs of readmission were calculated as well as the most common diagnoses on readmission. RESULTS: In 2013, there were 12,730 patients under the age of 18 y undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy, and 3.4% were readmitted within 30 d. The overall mean age was 11.6 ± 3.8 y, and the mean age of the readmitted patients was 10.7 ± 4.0 whereas the mean age of patients not readmitted was 11.6 ± 3.8 (P < 0.01, 95% CI: 0.54-1.26). The total cost of readmissions was $3,645,502 with a weighted nationwide estimated cost of $10,351,690. The mean readmission cost was $8304 ± 7864. The most common diagnosis group on readmission was postoperative, posttraumatic, other device infections (36.0%), whereas the most common principal diagnosis was other postoperative infection (38.5%) and the most common secondary diagnosis was peritoneal abscess (11.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Readmission within 30 d after laparoscopic appendectomy in pediatric patients represents a significant resource burden. This study elucidates the patient characteristics that predispose these patients to readmission. Efforts to reduce these readmissions should be focused around preventing infections in patients with these predisposing risk factors.

[Infantile acquired brain injury, a personal experience. Demands from the socio-familial point of view]. / Daño cerebral sobrevenido infantil, una experiencia personal. Reclamaciones desde el punto de vista sociofamiliar.

We report on the experience of a family in which the youngest child has acquired brain injury and the struggle undertaken by the family to improve the neurorehabilitation resources in the public health service. The article outlines the main demands, from the socio-familial point of view, as regards the improvement of neurological rehabilitation and the resources needed to deliver it.

TITLE: Daño cerebral sobrevenido infantil, una experiencia personal. Reclamaciones desde el punto de vista sociofamiliar.Se describe la experiencia de una familia en la que el hijo menor tiene daño cerebral sobrevenido y la lucha emprendida por la familia para mejorar los recursos neurorrehabilitadores de la sanidad publica. Se recogen las principales reclamaciones, desde el punto de vista sociofamiliar, en cuanto a la mejora en la atencion neurorrehabilitadora y los recursos necesarios.