Surgical-decision making in the setting of unsuspected N2 disease: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: Identification of unsuspected nodal metastasis may occur at the time of operation for a stage I non-small cell lung cancer. Guidelines for this scenario are unclear. Our goal was to assess the cost-effectiveness of aborting the operation in an attempt to first provide neoadjuvant systemic therapy compared with upfront resection. Methods: A computer simulation Markov model with a lifetime horizon was constructed to compare the costs and clinical outcomes, as measured by quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), of upfront resection at the time of identification of unsuspected N2 mediastinal disease vs. aborting initial resection and continuing with neoadjuvant therapy prior to resection. Input parameters for the model were derived from published literature with costs measured from the healthcare perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was evaluated with a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $150,000/QALY. Both deterministic (one-, two-, and three-way) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) were performed to assess the impact of variation in input parameter values on model results. Results: Aborting initial resection in favor of neoadjuvant therapy resulted in both higher costs ($40,415 vs. $29,873) and more QALYs (3.95 vs. 2.84) relative to upfront resection, yielding an ICER of $9,526/QALY. While variation in overall survival had a significant impact on the ICER, perioperative variables did not. As the annual mortality of best-case therapy in the abort group increased from a base-case estimate of 11% to 15%, the ICER exceeded the WTP threshold of $150,000/QALY. Subsequent one- and two-way sensitivity analyses did not find substantially alter the overall results. PSA resulted in aborting resection to be cost-effective in 99.7% of samples, with 13% of samples dominating upfront resection. Conclusions: Treatment of stage IIIa lung cancer requires the input of a multidisciplinary team who must consider cost, quality of life, and overall survival. As new treatments are developed, further analyses should be performed to determine optimal therapy.

Cost and Utilization Outcomes in Huntsman at Home, a Novel Oncology Hospital at Home Program.

OBJECTIVES: In a real-world trial, we previously demonstrated that Huntsman at Home, a novel oncology hospital at home program, was associated with reduced health care utilization and costs. In this study, we sought to understand the impact of Huntsman at Home in specific patient subgroups defined by sex, age, area-level median income, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and current use of systemic anticancer therapy. DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study of the Huntsman Cancer Institute. Electronic Data Warehouse of patients enrolled in Huntsman at Home between August 2018 through October 2019 vs usual-care patients. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 169 patients admitted to Huntsman at Home compared with 198 usual-care patients. METHODS: Five dichotomous subgroups evaluated including sex (female vs male), age (≥65 vs <65), income (≥$78,735 vs <$78,735), Charlson Comorbidity Index (≥2 vs <2), and current systemic anticancer therapy use vs no current systemic anticancer therapy. Groups were compared with patients receiving usual care. Primary outcomes included 30-day costs, hospital length of stay, unplanned hospitalizations, and emergency room visits. RESULTS: Admission to Huntsman at Home was associated with an overall reduction across all 4 health care cost and utilization outcomes. Outcomes favoring admission to Huntsman at Home achieved statistical significance (P < .05) in at least 2 of the 4 outcomes for each subgroup studied. Of the subgroups that did not achieve statistically significant benefit from Huntsman at Home admission in some outcome categories, none of these subgroups favored usual care. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Admission to Huntsman at Home decreased utilization of unplanned health care and reduced costs across a wide spectrum of patient subgroups, suggesting overall consistent benefit from the service. Hospital at home models should be considered as a means by which the quality and efficiency of care can be maximized for patients with cancer.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of 7 treatments in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer: a public-payer perspective.

BACKGROUND: Recently, several new treatment regimens have been approved for treating metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, building on androgen deprivation therapy alone. These include docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy, abiraterone acetate-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy, apalutamide androgen deprivation therapy, enzalutamide androgen deprivation therapy, darolutamide-docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy, and abiraterone-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy with docetaxel. There are no validated predictive biomarkers for choosing a specific regimen. The goal of this study was to conduct a health economic outcome evaluation to determine the optimal treatment from the US public sector (Veterans Affairs). METHODS: We developed a partitioned survival model in which metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer patients transitioned between 3 health states (progression free, progressive disease to castrate resistance state, and death) at monthly intervals based on Weibull survival model estimated from published Kaplan-Meier curves using a Bayesian network meta-analysis of 7 clinical trials (7208 patients). The effectiveness outcome in our model was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Cost input parameters included initial and subsequent treatment costs and costs for terminal care and for managing grade 3 or higher drug-related adverse events and were obtained from the Federal Supply Schedule and published literature. RESULTS: Average 10-year costs ranged from $34 349 (androgen deprivation therapy) to $658 928 (darolutamide-docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy) and mean QALYs ranged from 3.25 (androgen deprivation therapy) to 4.57 (enzalutamide androgen deprivation therapy). Treatment strategies docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy, enzalutamide androgen deprivation therapy docetaxel, apalutamide androgen deprivation therapy, and darolutamide-docetaxel androgen deprivation therapy were eliminated because of dominance (ie, they were more costly and less effective than other strategies). Of the remaining strategies, abiraterone acetate-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy was the most cost-effective strategy at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALY (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios = $21 247/QALY). CONCLUSIONS: Our simulation model found abiraterone acetate-prednisone androgen deprivation therapy to be an optimal first-line treatment for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer from a public (Veterans Affairs) payer perspective.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Six Immunotherapy-Based Regimens and Sunitinib in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Public Payer Perspective.

PURPOSE: Several new treatment combinations have been approved in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). To determine the optimal therapy on the basis of cost and health outcomes, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of approved immunotherapy-tyrosine kinase inhibitor/immunotherapy drug combinations and sunitinib using public payer acquisition costs in the United States. METHODS: We constructed a decision model with a 10-year time horizon. The seven treatment drug strategies included atezolizumab + bevacizumab, avelumab + axitinib, pembrolizumab + axitinib, nivolumab + ipilimumab (NI), nivolumab + cabozantinib, lenvatinib + pembrolizumab, and sunitinib. The effectiveness outcome in our model was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) with utility values on the basis of the published literature. Costs included drug acquisition costs and costs for management of grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events. We used a partitioned survival model in which patients with mRCC transitioned between three health states (progression-free, progressive disease, and death) at monthly intervals on the basis of parametric survival function estimated from published survival curves. To determine cost-effectiveness, we constructed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) by dividing the difference in cost by the difference in effectiveness between nondominated treatments. RESULTS: The least expensive treatment was sunitinib ($357,948 US dollars [USD]-$656,100 USD), whereas the most expensive was either lenvatinib + pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab + axitinib ($959,302 USD-$1,403,671 USD). NI yielded the most QALYs (3.6), whereas avelumab + axitinib yielded the least (2.5). NI had an incremental ICER of $297,465 USD-$348,516 USD compared with sunitinib. In sensitivity analyses, this ICER fell below $150,000 USD/QALY if the initial 4-month cost of NI decreased by 22%-38%. CONCLUSION: NI was the most effective combination for mRCC, but at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 USD/QALY, sunitinib was the most cost-effective approach.

A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Family Health History Platform to Identify and Manage Patients at Increased Risk for Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining comprehensive family health history (FHH) to inform colorectal cancer (CRC) risk management in primary care settings is challenging. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of a patient-facing FHH platform to identify and manage patients at increased CRC risk. DESIGN: Two-site, two-arm, cluster-randomized, implementation-effectiveness trial with primary care providers (PCPs) randomized to immediate intervention versus wait-list control. PARTICIPANTS: PCPs treating patients at least one half-day per week; patients aged 40-64 with no medical conditions that increased CRC risk. INTERVENTIONS: Immediate-arm patients entered their FHH into a web-based platform that provided risk assessment and guideline-driven decision support; wait-list control patients did so 12 months later. MAIN MEASURES: McNemar's test examined differences between the platform and electronic medical record (EMR) in rates of increased risk documentation. General estimating equations using logistic regression models compared arms in risk-concordant provider actions and patient screening test completion. Referral for genetic consultation was analyzed descriptively. KEY RESULTS: Seventeen PCPs were randomized to each arm. Patients (n = 252 immediate, n = 253 control) averaged 51.4 (SD = 7.2) years, with 83% assigned male at birth, 58% White persons, and 33% Black persons. The percentage of patients identified as increased risk for CRC was greater with the platform (9.9%) versus EMR (5.2%), difference = 4.8% (95% CI: 2.6%, 6.9%), p < .0001. There was no difference in PCP risk-concordant action [odds ratio (OR) = 0.7, 95% CI (0.4, 1.2; p = 0.16)]. Among 177 patients with a risk-concordant screening test ordered, there was no difference in test completion, OR = 0.8 [0.5,1.3]; p = 0.36. Of 50 patients identified by the platform as increased risk, 78.6% immediate and 68.2% control patients received a recommendation for genetic consultation, of which only one in each arm had a referral placed. CONCLUSIONS: FHH tools could accurately assess and document the clinical needs of patients at increased risk for CRC. Barriers to acting on those recommendations warrant further exploration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02247336 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02247336.

Minimizing Costs for Dorsal Wrist Ganglion Treatment: A Cost-Minimization Analysis.

PURPOSE: Dorsal wrist ganglions are treated commonly with aspiration, or open or arthroscopic excision in operating room (OR) or procedure room (PR) settings. As it remains unclear which treatment strategy is most cost-effective in yielding cyst resolution, our purpose was to perform a formal cost-minimization analysis from the societal perspective in this context. METHODS: A microsimulation decision analytic model evaluating 5 treatment strategies for dorsal wrist ganglions was developed, ending in either resolution or a single failed open revision surgical excision. Strategies included immediate open excision in the OR, immediate open excision in the PR, immediate arthroscopic excision in the OR, or 1 or 2 aspirations before each of the surgical options. Recurrence and complications rates were pooled from the literature for each treatment type. One-way sensitivity and threshold analyses were performed. RESULTS: The most cost-minimal strategy was 2 aspiration attempts before open surgical excision in the PR setting ($1,603 ± 1,595 per resolved case), followed by 2 aspirations before open excision in the OR ($1,969 ± 2,165 per resolved case). Immediate arthroscopic excision was the costliest strategy ($6,539 ± 264 per resolved case). Single aspiration preoperatively was more cost-minimal than any form of immediate surgery ($2,918 ± 306 and $4,188 ± 306 per resolved case performed in the PR and OR, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: From the societal perspective, performing 2 aspirations before surgical excision in the PR setting was the most cost-minimal treatment strategy, although in reference to surgeons who do not perform this procedure in the PR setting, open excision in the OR was nearly as cost-effective. As patient preferences may preclude routinely performing 2 aspirations, performing at least 1 aspiration before surgical excision improves the cost-effectiveness of dorsal wrist ganglions treatment. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic Decision Analysis II.

Effect of Multidisciplinary Transitional Pain Service on Health Care Use and Costs Following Orthopedic Surgery.

Background: Opioid use disorder is a significant cause of morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. A transitional pain service (TPS) approach to perioperative pain management has been shown to reduce opioid use among patients undergoing orthopedic joint surgery. However, whether TPS also leads to lower health care use and costs is unknown. Methods: We designed this study to estimate the effect of TPS implementation relative to standard care on health care use and associated costs of care following orthopedic surgery. We evaluated postoperative health care use and costs for patients who underwent orthopedic joint surgery at 6 US Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers (VAMCs) between 2018 and 2019 using difference-in-differences analysis. Patients enrolled in the TPS at the Salt Lake City VAMC were matched to control patients undergoing the same surgeries at 5 different VAMCs without a TPS. We stratified patients based on history of preoperative opioid use into chronic opioid use (COU) and nonopioid use (NOU) groups and analyzed them separately. Results: For NOU patients, TPS was associated with a mean increase in the number of outpatient visits (6.9 visits; P < .001), no change in outpatient costs, and a mean decrease in inpatient costs (-$12,170; P = .02) during the 1-year follow-up period. TPS was not found to increase health care use or costs for COU patients. Conclusions: Although TPS led to an increase in outpatient visits for NOU patients, there was no increase in outpatient costs and a decrease in inpatient costs after orthopedic surgery. Further, there was no added cost for managing COU patients with a TPS. These findings suggest that TPS can be implemented to reduce opioid use following joint surgery without increasing health care costs.

Protocol for the models of primary osteoporosis screening in men (MOPS) cluster randomized trial.

Current guidelines recommend primary osteoporosis screening for at-risk men to reduce the morbidity, mortality, and cost associated with osteoporotic fractures. However, analyses in a national Veterans Health Administration cohort of over 4,000,000 men demonstrated that primary osteoporosis screening as it is currently operationalized does not benefit most older Veterans due to inefficient targeting and low subsequent treatment and adherence rates. The overall objective of this study is to determine whether a new model of primary osteoporosis screening reduces fracture risk compared to usual care. We are conducting a pragmatic group randomized trial of 38 primary care teams assigned to usual care or a Bone Health Service (BHS) screening model in which screening and adherence activities are managed by a centralized expert team. The study will: 1) compare the impact of the BHS model on patient-level outcomes strongly associated with fracture rates (eligible proportion screened, proportion meeting treatment criteria who receive osteoporosis medications, medication adherence, and femoral neck bone mineral density); 2) quantify the impact on provider and facility-level outcomes including change in DXA volume, change in metabolic bone disease clinic volume, and PACT provider time and satisfaction; and 3) estimate the impact on health system and policy outcomes using Markov models of screening program cost per quality adjusted life year based from health system and societal perspectives.

A Veterans' Healthcare Administration (VHA) antibiotic stewardship intervention to improve outpatient antibiotic use for acute respiratory infections: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The Core Elements of Outpatient Antibiotic Stewardship provides a framework to improve antibiotic use, but cost-effectiveness data on implementation of outpatient antibiotic stewardship interventions are limited. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Core Element implementation in the outpatient setting. METHODS: An economic simulation model from the health-system perspective was developed for patients presenting to outpatient settings with uncomplicated acute respiratory tract infections (ARI). Effectiveness was measured as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost and utility parameters for antibiotic treatment, adverse drug events (ADEs), and healthcare utilization were obtained from the literature. Probabilities for antibiotic treatment and appropriateness, ADEs, hospitalization, and return ARI visits were estimated from 16,712 and 51,275 patient visits in intervention and control sites during the pre- and post-implementation periods, respectively. Data for materials and labor to perform the stewardship activities were used to estimate intervention cost. We performed a one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) using 1,000,000 second-order Monte Carlo simulations on input parameters. RESULTS: The proportion of ARI patient-visits with antibiotics prescribed in intervention sites was lower (62% vs 74%) and appropriate treatment higher (51% vs 41%) after implementation, compared to control sites. The estimated intervention cost over a 2-year period was $133,604 (2018 US dollars). The intervention had lower mean costs ($528 vs $565) and similar mean QALYs (0.869 vs 0.868) per patient compared to usual care. In the PSA, the intervention was dominant in 63% of iterations. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the CDC Core Elements in the outpatient setting was a cost-effective strategy.

Optimizing Costs and Outcomes for Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from Societal and Health-Care System Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear which carpal tunnel release (CTR) strategy (i.e., which combination of surgical technique and setting) is most cost-effective. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to compare (1) open CTR in the procedure room (OCTR/PR), (2) OCTR in the operating room (OCTR/OR), and (3) endoscopic CTR in the operating room (ECTR/OR). METHODS: A decision analytic model was used to compare costs and health utilities between treatment strategies. Utility and probability parameters were identified from the literature. Medical costs were estimated with Medicare ambulatory surgical payment data. Indirect costs were related to days out of work due to surgical recovery and complications. The effectiveness outcome was quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and one-way sensitivity analyses were performed. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from the societal and health-care system perspectives with use of a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, OCTR/PR was more cost-effective than OCTR/OR and ECTR/OR from the societal perspective. The mean total costs and QALYs per patient were $29,738 ± $4,098 and 0.88 ± 0.08 for OCTR/PR, $30,002 ± $4,098 and 0.88 ± 0.08 for OCTR/OR, and $41,311 ± $4,833 and 0.87 ± 0.08 for ECTR/OR. OCTR/PR was also the most cost-effective strategy from the health-care system perspective. These findings were robust in the probabilistic sensitivity analyses: OCTR/PR was the dominant strategy (greater QALYs at a lower cost) in 55% and 61% of iterations from societal and health-care system perspectives, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that OCTR/PR and OCTR/OR remained more cost-effective than ECTR/OR from a societal perspective under the following conditions: $0 surgical cost of ECTR, 0% revision rate following ECTR, equalization of the return-to-work rate between OCTR and ECTR, or 0 days out of work following ECTR. OCTR/OR became more cost-effective than OCTR/PR with the median nerve injury rate tripling and doubling from societal and health-care system perspectives, respectively, or if surgical direct costs in the PR exceeded those in the OR. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with OCTR/OR and ECTR/OR, OCTR/PR minimizes costs to the health-care system and society while providing favorable outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Decision Analysis Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibition vs. cisplatin-based chemotherapy in muscle invasive bladder cancer.

BACKGROUND: Multiple single-arm clinical trials showed promising pathologic complete response rates with neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing neoadjuvant ICIs with cisplatin-based chemotherapy (CBC). METHODS: We applied a decision analytic simulation model with a health care payer perspective to compare neoadjuvant ICIs vs. CBC. For the primary analysis we compared pembrolizumab with ddMVAC. We performed a secondary analysis with gemcitabine/cisplatin as CBC and exploratory analyses with atezolizumab or nivolumab/ipilimumab as ICI. We input pathologic complete response rates from trials or meta-analysis and costs from average sales price. Outcomes of interest included costs, 2-year recurrence-free survival (RFS), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of cost per 2-year RFS. A threshold analysis estimated a price reduction for ICI to be cost-effective and one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: The incremental cost of pembrolizumab compared with ddMVAC was $8,041 resulting in an incremental improvement of 1.5% in 2-year RFS for an ICER of $522,143 per 2-year RFS. A 21% reduction in cost of pembrolizumab would render it more cost-effective with an ICER of $100,000 per 2-year RFS. GC required an 89% pembrolizumab cost reduction to achieve an ICER of $100,000 per 2-year RFS. Atezolizumab appeared to be more cost-effective than ddMVAC. CONCLUSIONS: ICIs were not cost-effective as neoadjuvant therapies, except when atezolizumab was compared with ddMVAC. Randomized clinical trials, larger sample sizes and longer follow-up are required to better understand the value of ICIs as neoadjuvant treatments.

Factors That Contribute to Cost Differences Based on ICU of Admission in Neonates Undergoing Congenital Heart Surgery: A Novel Decomposition Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We leveraged decomposition analysis, commonly used in labor economics, to understand determinants of cost differences related to location of admission in children undergoing neonatal congenital heart surgery. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Pediatric Health Information Systems database. PATIENTS: Neonates (<30 d old) undergoing their index congenital heart surgery between 2004 and 2013. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A decomposition analysis with bootstrapping determined characteristic (explainable by differing covariate levels) and structural effects (if covariates are held constant) related to cost differences. Covariates included center volume, age at admission, prematurity, sex, race, genetic or major noncardiac abnormality, Risk Adjustment for Congenital Heart Surgery-1 score, payor, admission year, cardiac arrest, infection, and delayed sternal closure.Of 19,984 infants included (10,491 [52%] to cardiac ICU/PICU and 9,493 [48%] to neonatal ICU), admission to the neonatal ICU had overall higher average costs ($24,959 ± $3,260; p < 0.001) versus cardiac ICU/PICU admission. Characteristic effects accounted for higher costs in the neonatal ICU ($28,958 ± $2,044; p < 0.001). Differing levels of prematurity, genetic syndromes, hospital volume, age at admission, and infection contributed to higher neonatal ICU costs, with infection rate providing the most significant contribution ($13,581; p < 0.001). Aggregate structural effects were not associated with cost differences for those admitted to the neonatal ICU versus cardiac ICU/PICU (p = 0.1). Individually, prematurity and age at admission were associated with higher costs due to structural effects for infants admitted to the neonatal ICU versus cardiac ICU/PICU. CONCLUSIONS: The difference in cost between neonatal ICU and cardiac ICU/PICU admissions is largely driven by differing prevalence of risk factors between these units. Infection rate was a modifiable factor that accounted for the largest difference in costs between admitting units.

Reducing the pain: A cost-effectiveness analysis of transversus abdominis plane block using liposomal bupivacaine for outpatient laparoscopic ventral hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: Transversus abdominis plane block with liposomal bupivacaine has been studied as an effective method of reducing the need for postoperative opioids and increasing same-day discharge rates. However, less is known about the cost-effectiveness of this strategy relative to opioids alone for hernia repair. We performed an economic evaluation of these strategies using a computer simulation model. METHODS: A decision tree was constructed to determine cost-effectiveness as measured by incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year. Base-case costs, quality-adjusted life-year values, and probabilities were derived from published studies and Medicare fee schedules. For input parameters for which we could not find values in the published literature, we used expert opinion. A 1-month time horizon was selected to focus on the immediate postoperative period. Finally, we performed 1-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane block was a dominant strategy yielding a $456.75 decrease in cost and an 0.1 increase in quality-adjusted life-years relative to opioids alone. In 1-way sensitivity analysis of cost incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, values were most sensitive to variations in the amount saved by same-day discharge and the cost of bupivacaine. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, transversus abdominis plane strategy was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000/quality-adjusted life-year in 94.5% of iterations and at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year in 97.1% of iterations. CONCLUSION: The use of liposomal bupivacaine transversus abdominis plane block resulted in cost savings and improved quality-adjusted life-years in base-case analyses and was cost-effective at conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds in the majority of iterations in probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

Inpatient Versus Outpatient Treatment of Gartland Type II Supracondylar Humerus Fractures: A Cost and Safety Comparison.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to increase health care value, there has been a recent focus on the transition of traditionally inpatient procedures to an outpatient setting. We hypothesized that in the treatment of Gartland extension type II supracondylar humerus fractures (SCHF), outpatient surgery can be performed safely and with similar clinical and radiographic outcomes compared with urgent inpatient treatment with an overall reduction in cost. METHODS: We compared a prospective cohort of Gartland type II SCHF treated primarily as outpatients (postprotocol) to a retrospective cohort treated primarily as urgent inpatients (preprotocol), excluding patients with preoperative neurovascular injury, open fracture, additional ipsilateral upper extremity fracture, and prior ipsilateral SCHF. Inpatient versus outpatient treatment was also compared. Outcomes including perioperative factors, complications, readmission, reoperation, postoperative radiographic measurements, and direct hospital costs underwent univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: A total of 220 patients in the postprotocol cohort (88 inpatients and 132 outpatients) and 129 in the preprotocol cohort (97 inpatients and 32 outpatients) were analyzed. There were no differences in operative times, number of pins, conversion to open reductions, readmissions, or reoperations between cohorts or groups, and no cases developed postoperative neurovascular injuries or compartment syndromes. Total complications did not differ between the preprotocol and postprotocol cohorts; however, were higher in the inpatient group (3.8% vs. 0%; P=0.016) in the univariate, but not multivariate analysis. There were no differences in Baumann angle or humerocondylar angle. Significantly more inpatients' anterior humeral line fell outside of the middle third of the capitellum in the univariate, but not multivariate analysis. There were significant reductions in total cost per patient between the preprotocol and postprotocol cohorts (marginal effect, -$215; P<0.0001) and between the inpatient and outpatient groups (marginal effect, -$444; P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed treatment of Gartland type II SCHF in the outpatient setting can be performed safely and with similar clinical and radiographic outcomes to those treated urgently as inpatients with a significant cost reduction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic level III-retrospective comparative study.

Provider Practice Competition and Adoption of Medicare's Oncology Care Model.

BACKGROUND: There is a concern that the Oncology Care Model (OCM), a voluntary bundled payment program, may incentivize mergers and acquisitions among physician practices leading to reduced competition and price increases. These concerns are heightened if OCM is preferentially adopted in competitive health care markets because it could result in reduced competition, but little is known about the characteristics of markets where OCM is adopted. OBJECTIVE: To measure the association between regional market competition among medical oncologists with the initial adoption of OCM. RESEARCH DESIGN: The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), a measure of competition, was calculated for hospital referral regions (HRRs) using secondary data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The relationship between HHI and OCM adoption was assessed using a 2-part regression model adjusting for the market-level number of practices, physician density, average practice size, sociodemographic characteristics, and medical resources. A count model on all HRRs was also estimated to assess an overall effect. SUBJECTS: A total of 10,788 physicians in 3,537 practices who billed Medicare for oncology services in 2015. RESULTS: OCM was adopted in 114 (37%) of the 306 HRRs. We found that practices in competitive health care markets were more likely to adopt OCM than in noncompetitive markets. Two-part regression analysis indicated a nonlinear relationship between HHI and OCM adoption. Average practice size, number of practices in an HRR, and the hospital bed rate were positively associated with adoption, whereas the rate of full-time equivalent hospital employees to 1000 residents was negatively associated with adoption. CONCLUSIONS: OCM adoption was higher in HRRs with greater competition. Careful monitoring of market-level changes among OCM adopters should be undertaken to ensure that the benefits of the OCM outweigh the negative consequences of possible changes in competition.

A Cost-Minimization Analysis of Intraoperative Costs in Arthroscopic Bankart Repair, Open Latarjet, and Distal Tibial Allograft.

BACKGROUND: The optimal surgical treatment of anterior shoulder instability remains controversial. HYPOTHESIS: (1) Implants and facility-related costs are the primary drivers of variation in direct costs between arthroscopic Bankart and Latarjet procedures, and (2) distal tibial allograft (DTA) is more costly than Latarjet as a function of the graft expense. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Intraoperative cost data were derived for all arthroscopic anterior stabilizations and Latarjet and DTA procedures performed at a single academic institution from January 2012 to September 2017. Cost comparisons were made between those undergoing arthroscopic stabilization and Latarjet and between Latarjet and DTA. Multivariate regressions were performed to determine the difference in direct costs accounting for various patient- and surgery-related factors. RESULTS: A total of 87 arthroscopic stabilizations, 44 Latarjet procedures, and 5 DTA procedures were performed during the study period. Arthroscopic Bankart repair was found to be 17% more costly than Latarjet, with suture anchor implant cost being the primary driver of cost. DTA was 2.9-fold more costly than Latarjet, with greater costs across all domains. Multivariate analysis also found the number of prior arthroscopic procedures performed (P = .007) and whether the procedure was performed in an ambulatory or inpatient setting (P < .0001) to be significantly associated with higher direct costs. CONCLUSION: Latarjet is less costly than arthroscopic Bankart repair, largely because of implant cost. Value-driven strategies to narrow the cost differential could focus on performing these procedures in an outpatient setting in addition to reducing overall implant cost for arthroscopic procedures. Perceived potential benefits of DTA over Latarjet may be outweighed by higher costs.

An electronic family health history tool to identify and manage patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States. Approximately 3-10% of the population has an increased risk for colorectal cancer due to family history and warrants more frequent or intensive screening. Yet, < 50% of that high-risk population receives guideline-concordant care. Systematic collection of family health history and decision support may improve guideline-concordant screening for patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. We seek to test the effectiveness of a web-based, systematic family health history collection tool and decision support platform (MeTree) to improve risk assessment and appropriate management of colorectal cancer risk among patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs primary care practices. METHODS: In this ongoing randomized controlled trial, primary care providers at the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System and the Madison VA Medical Center are randomized to immediate intervention or wait-list control. Veterans are eligible if assigned to enrolled providers, have an upcoming primary care appointment, and have no conditions that would place them at increased risk for colorectal cancer (such as personal history, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease). Those with a recent lower endoscopy (e.g. colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy) are excluded. Immediate intervention patients put their family health history information into a web-based platform, MeTree, which provides both patient- and provider-facing decision support reports. Wait-list control patients access MeTree 12 months post-consent. The primary outcome is the risk-concordant colorectal cancer screening referral rate obtained via chart review. Secondary outcomes include patient completion of risk management recommendations (e.g. colonoscopy) and referral for genetic consultation. We will also conduct an economic analysis and an assessment of providers' experience with MeTree clinical decision support recommendations to inform future implementation efforts if the intervention is found to be effective. DISCUSSION: This trial will assess the feasibility and effectiveness of patient-collected family health history linked to decision support to promote risk-appropriate screening in a large healthcare system such as the Department of Veterans Affairs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02247336 . Registered on 25 September 2014.

Barriers to Timely Presentation of Patients with Surgical Conditions at Tamale Teaching Hospital in Northern Ghana.

BACKGROUND: Improving access to surgical services and understanding the barriers to receiving timely care are necessary to save lives. The aim of this study was to assess barriers to timely presentation to an appropriate medical facility using the Three-Delay model, for patients presenting to Tamale Teaching Hospital, in northern Ghana. METHODS: In 2013, patients with delays in seeking surgical care were prospectively identified. Pairwise correlation coefficients between delay in presentation and factors associated with delay were conducted and served as a foundation for a multivariate log-linear regression model. RESULTS: A total of 718 patients presented with an average delay of 22.1 months. Delays in receiving care were most common (56.4%), while delays in seeking care were seen in 52.3% of patients. "Initially seeking treatment at the nearest facility, but appropriate care was unavailable" was reported by 56.4% and predicted longer delays (p < 0.001). 42.9% of patients had delays secondary to treatment from a traditional or religious healer, which also predicted longer delays (p < 0.001). On multivariate regression, emergent presentation was the strongest predictor of shorter delays (OR 0.058, p = 0.002), while treatment from a traditional or religious healer and initially seeking treatment at another hospital predicted longer delays (OR 7.6, p = 0.008, and OR 4.3, p  = 0.006, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Barriers to care leading to long delays in presentation are common in northern Ghana. Interventions should focus on educating traditional and religious healers in addition to building surgical capacity at district hospitals.

Patient- and Procedure-Specific Variables Driving Total Direct Costs of Outpatient Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have investigated the influence of patient-specific variables or procedure-specific factors on the overall cost of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in an ambulatory surgery setting. PURPOSE: To determine patient- and procedure-specific factors influencing the overall direct cost of outpatient arthroscopic ACLR utilizing a unique value-driven outcomes (VDO) tool. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (economic and decision analysis); Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: All ACLRs performed by 4 surgeons over 2 years were retrospectively reviewed. Cost data were derived from the VDO tool. Patient-specific variables included age, body mass index, comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, smoking status, preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Computerized Adaptive Testing (PF-CAT) score, and preoperative Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score. Procedure-specific variables included graft type, revision status, associated injuries and procedures, time from injury to ACLR, surgeon, and operating room (OR) time. Multivariate analysis determined patient- and procedure-related predictors of total direct costs. RESULTS: There were 293 autograft reconstructions, 110 allograft reconstructions, and 31 hybrid reconstructions analyzed. Patient-specific factors did not significantly influence the ACLR cost. The mean OR time was shorter for allograft reconstruction (P < .001). Predictors of an increased direct cost included the use of an allograft or hybrid graft (44.5% and 33.1% increase, respectively; P < .001), increased OR time (0.3% increase per minute; P < .001), surgeon 3 or 4 (9.1% or 5.9% increase, respectively; P < .001 or P = .001, respectively), and concomitant meniscus repair (24.4% increase; P < .001). Within the meniscus repair cohort, all-inside, root, and combined repairs correlated with a 15.5%, 31.4%, and 53.2% increased mean direct cost, respectively, compared with inside-out repairs (P < .001). CONCLUSION: This study failed to identify modifiable patient-specific factors influencing direct costs of ACLR. Allografts and hybrid grafts were associated with an increased total direct cost. Meniscus repair independently predicted an increased direct cost, with all-inside, root, and combined repairs being costlier than inside-out repairs. The time-saving potential of all-inside meniscus repair was not realized in this study, making implant use a significant factor in the overall cost of ACLR with meniscus repair.

The use of mesh for inguinal hernia repair in northern Ghana.

BACKGROUND: Despite the recognition that inguinal hernia (IH) repair is cost-effective, repair rates in low- and middle-income countries remain low. Estimated use of mesh in low- and middle-income countries also remains low despite publications about low-cost, noncommercial mesh. The purpose of our study was to assess the current state of IH repair in the northern and transitional zone of Ghana. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of surgical case logs of IH repairs from 2013 to 2017 in 41 hospitals was performed. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine predictors of mesh use. RESULTS: Eight thousand eighty male patients underwent IH repair. The range of IH repair in each region was 96 to 295 (overall 123) per 100,000 population. Most cases were performed at district hospitals (84%) and repaired nonurgently (93%) by nonsurgeon physicians (66%). Suture repair was most common (85%) although mesh was used in 15%. The strongest predictor of mesh use was when a surgeon performed surgery (odds ratio [OR] 3.13, P <0.001), followed by surgery being performed in a teaching hospital (OR 2.31, P <0.001). Repair at a regional hospital was a negative predictor of mesh use (OR 0.08, P <0.001) as was the use of general anesthesia (OR 0.40, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most IH repairs are performed in district hospitals, by nonsurgeon physicians, and without mesh. Rates of repair and the use of mesh are higher than previous estimates in Ghana and Sub-Saharan Africa but not as high as high-income countries.