The actual, long-term cost of intentional injury care among a cohort of Maryland Medicaid recipients.

BACKGROUND: Intentional injury (both self-harm and interpersonal) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, yet there are little data on the per-person cost of caring for these patients. Extant data focus on hospital charges related to the initial admission but does not include actual dollars spent or follow-up outpatient care. The Affordable Care Act has made Medicaid the primary payor of intentional injury care (39%) in the United States and the ideal source of cost data for these patients. We sought to determine the total and per-person long-term cost (initial event and following 24 months) of intentional injury among Maryland Medicaid recipients. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of Maryland Medicaid claims was performed. Recipients who submitted claims after receiving an intentional injury, as defined by the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, between October 2015 and October 2017, were included in this study. Subjects were followed for 24 months (last participant enrolled October 2017 and followed to October 2019). Our primary outcome was the dollars paid by Medicaid. We examined subgroups of patients who harmed themselves and those who received repeated intentional injury. RESULTS: Maryland Medicaid paid $11,757,083 for the care of 12,172 recipients of intentional injuries between 2015 and 2019. The per-person, 2-year health care cost of an intentional injury was a median of $183 (SD, $5,284). These costs were highly skewed: min, $2.56; Q1 = 117.60, median, $182.80; Q3 = $480.82; and max, $332,394.20. The top 5% (≥95% percentile) required $3,000 (SD, $6,973) during the initial event and $8,403 (SD, $22,024) per served month thereafter, or 55% of the overall costs in this study. CONCLUSION: The long-term, per-person cost of intentional injury can be high. Private insurers were not included and may experience different costs in other states. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic and Value Based Evaluations; level III.

Molecular Adsorbent Recirculating System Effectively Replaces Hepatic Function in Severe Acute Liver Failure.

BACKGROUND DATA: Patients with severe acute liver failure (ALF) have extreme physiologic dysfunction and often die if transplantation is not immediately available. Patients may be supported with MARS (Baxter International Inc., Deerfield, IL) until transplantation or spontaneous recovery occurs. We present the largest series in the United States of MARS therapy as temporary hepatic replacement for ALF. METHODS: MARS was used to support patients with severe liver trauma (SLT), in ALF patients as a bridge to transplantation (BTT), and as definitive therapy for toxic ingestion or idiopathic liver failure (DT) in a level 1 trauma center and large transplant center. Patient demographics, etiology of ALF, and laboratory values were recorded. Endpoints were patient survival ± liver transplant and/or recovery of liver function. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients with severe ALF received MARS therapy. Five patients with SLT had a 60% survival with recovery of liver and renal function. Thirteen patients received MARS as a BTT, of which 9 were transplanted with a 1-year survival of 78% (program overall survival 85% at 1 year). All 4 who were not transplanted expired. Nine patients with ALF from toxic ingestion received MARS as DT with liver recovery and survival in 67%. MARS therapy resulted in significant improvement in liver function, coagulation, incidence of encephalopathy, and creatinine. CONCLUSIONS: MARS therapy successfully replaced hepatic function in ALF allowing time for spontaneous recovery or transplantation. Spontaneous recovery was remarkably common if support can be sustained.

Disclosing a diagnosis of cancer: where and how does it occur?

PURPOSE: While disclosing a cancer diagnosis to a patient is common practice, how it is disclosed and the impact it has on the patient are poorly understood. We examined how cancer diagnoses were first given to patients and the impact of different aspects of disclosure on patient satisfaction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We provided a self-administered questionnaire to a total of 460 oncology patients of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) being treated at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Center in Bethesda, MD. RESULTS: Of the 437 patients who completed the survey, 54% were told their diagnosis in-person in the physician's office, 18% by phone, and 28% in the hospital. Forty-four percent of patients reported discussions of 10 minutes or fewer, 53% reported discussions lasting longer than 10 minutes, and 5% could not remember. Treatment options were not discussed for 31% of those who could clearly remember. Higher mean satisfaction scores were associated with diagnoses revealed in person rather than over the phone (68.2 +/- 1.6 v 47.2 +/- 3.7), diagnoses revealed in a personal setting rather than an impersonal setting (68.9 +/- 1.6 v 55.7 +/- 2.8), discussions lasting longer than 10 minutes rather than fewer than 10 minutes (73.5 +/- 1.9 v 54.1 +/- 2.4), and inclusion of treatment options rather than exclusion (72.0 +/- 1.9 v 50.7 +/- 3.2; P < .001 for each aspect). CONCLUSION: Physicians should disclose a cancer diagnosis in a personal setting, discussing the diagnosis and treatment options for a substantial period of time whenever possible.

Private Practice Administrative Costs Influenced by Insurance Payer Mix.

BACKGROUND: Increased staffing and oncology drug costs per physician, combined with decreased drug revenue, have made private hematology-oncology practices susceptible to increased financial risk. We hypothesized that practices with a higher combined commercial insurance (CCI) mix would experience greater inefficiencies in insurance billing (IB) processes and higher IB administrative costs. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to a national pool of private hematology-oncology practices. Practices were identified through the ASCO online registry. Participants self-reported insurance information. T and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare high (50% or more) Medicare payer mix groups and high (50% or more) CCI payer mix groups for practice operation indicators. These tests were also used to compare denial processing cost per Medicare patient and CCI patient. RESULTS: Among the 33 practices that responded to the survey, the mean total IB administrative cost for high Medicare payer mix groups was $191,646.25 (standard deviation [SD], $173,031.63), significantly lower (P = .0454) than the mean for high CCI groups at $476,280.00 (SD, $475,408.57). The mean annual cost per IB support staff member was significantly higher (P = .0453) in the high CCI group at $49,778.67 (SD = $14,896.32) compared with the mean cost in the high Medicare group, which was $39,413.08 (SD, $12,068.17). Medicare patient denial processing cost was significantly lower (P = .0237) than that for CCI patients. CONCLUSION: Practices with a high Medicare payer mix experience both lower mean cost per FTE IB support staff member and total overall IB administrative cost. Processing denials for reimbursement for Medicare patients requires fewer practice resources than does processing for CCI patients.

NCI designated cancer center funding not influenced by organizational structure.

BACKGROUND: National Cancer Institutes (NCI) designated cancer centers use one of three organizational structures. The hypothesis of this study is that there are differences in the amount of annual NCI funding per faculty member based on a cancer center's organizational structure. The study also considers the impact of secondary factors (i.e., the existence of a clinical program, the region and the size of the city in which the cancer center is located) on funding and the number of Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) investigators at each cancer center. RESULTS: Of the 63 cancer centers, 44 use a matrix structure, 16 have a freestanding structure, and three have a Department of Oncology structure. Kruskal-Wallis tests reveal no statistically significant differences in the amount of funding per faculty member or the number of HHMI investigators between centers with a matrix, freestanding or Department of Oncology structure. METHODS: Online research and telephone interviews with each cancer center were used to gather information, including: organizational structure, the presence of a clinical program, the number of faculty members, and the number of Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigators. Statistical tests were used to assess the impact which organizational structure has on the amount of funding per faculty member and number of HHMI investigators. CONCLUSION: While the results seem to suggest that the organizational structure of a given cancer center does not impact the amount of NCI funding or number of HHMI investigators which it attracts, the existence of this relationship is likely masked by the small sample size in this study. Further studies may be appropriate to examine the effect organizational structure has on other measurements which are relevant to cancer centers, such as quality and quantity of research produced.