The cost of keeping patients waiting: retrospective treatment-control study of additional healthcare utilisation for UK patients awaiting elective treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Long waiting times for elective hospital treatments are common in many countries. This study seeks to address a deficit in the literature concerning the effect of long waits on the wider consumption of healthcare resources. METHODS: We carried out a retrospective treatment-control study in a healthcare system in South West England from 15 June 2021 to 15 December 2021. We compared weekly contacts with health services of patients waiting over 18 weeks for treatment ('Treatments') and people not on a waiting list ('Controls'). Controls were matched to Treatments based on age, sex, deprivation and multimorbidity. Treatments were stratified by the clinical specialty of the awaited hospital treatment, with healthcare usage assessed over various healthcare settings. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests assessed whether there was an increase in healthcare utilisation and bootstrap resampling was used to estimate the magnitude of any differences. RESULTS: A total of 44,616 patients were waiting over 18 weeks (the constitutional target in England) for treatment during the study period. There was an increase (p < 0.0004) in healthcare utilisation for all specialties. Patients in the Cardiothoracic Surgery specialty had the largest increase, with 17.9 [interquartile-range: 4.3, 33.8] additional contacts with secondary care and 17.3 [-1.1, 34.1] additional prescriptions per year. CONCLUSION: People waiting for treatment consume higher levels of healthcare than comparable individuals not on a waiting list. These findings are relevant for clinicians and managers in better understanding patient need and reducing harm. Results also highlight the possible 'false economy' in failing to promptly resolve long elective waits.

The effect of a bundle intervention for ambulatory otorhinolaryngology procedures on same-day case cancellation rate and associated costs.

Cancellations within 24 h of planned elective surgical procedures reduce operating theatre efficiency, add unnecessary costs and negatively affect patient experience. We implemented a bundle intervention that aimed to reduce same-day case cancellations. This consisted of communication tools to improve patient engagement and new screening instruments (automated estimation of ASA physical status and case cancellation risk score plus four screening questions) to identify patients in advance (ideally before case booking) who needed comprehensive pre-operative risk stratification. We studied patients scheduled for ambulatory surgery with the otorhinolaryngology service at a single centre from April 2021 to December 2022. Multivariable logistic regression and interrupted time-series analyses were used to analyse the effects of this intervention on case cancellations within 24 h and costs. We analysed 1548 consecutive scheduled cases. Cancellation within 24 h occurred in 114 of 929 (12.3%) cases pre-intervention and 52 of 619 (8.4%) cases post-intervention. The cancellation rate decreased by 2.7% (95%CI 1.6-3.7%, p < 0.01) during the first month, followed by a monthly decrease of 0.2% (95%CI 0.1-0.4%, p < 0.01). This resulted in an estimated $150,200 (£118,755; €138,370) or 35.3% cost saving (p < 0.01). Median (IQR [range]) number of days between case scheduling and day of surgery decreased from 34 (21-61 [0-288]) pre-intervention to 31 (20-51 [1-250]) post-intervention (p < 0.01). Patient engagement via the electronic health record patient portal or text messaging increased from 75.9% at baseline to 90.8% (p < 0.01) post-intervention. The primary reason for case cancellation was patients' missed appointment on the day of surgery, which decreased from 7.2% pre-intervention to 4.5% post-intervention (p = 0.03). An anaesthetist-driven, clinical informatics-based bundle intervention decreases same-day case cancellation rate and associated costs in patients scheduled for ambulatory otorhinolaryngology surgery.

Patient Out-of-Pocket Cost Burden With Elective Orthopaedic Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for medical and surgical care can result in substantial financial burden for patients and families. Relatively little is known regarding OOP costs for commercially insured patients receiving orthopaedic surgery. The aim of this study is to analyze the trends in OOP costs for common, elective orthopaedic surgeries performed in the hospital inpatient setting. METHODS: This study used an employer-sponsored insurance claims database to analyze billing data of commercially insured patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery between 2014 and 2019. Patients who received single-level anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF), single-level posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and total hip arthroplasty (THA) were identified. OOP costs associated with the surgical episode were calculated as the sum of deductible payments, copayments, and coinsurance. Monetary data were adjusted to 2019 dollars. General linear regression, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for analysis, as appropriate. RESULTS: In total, 10,225 ACDF, 28,841 PLF, 70,815 THA, and 108,940 TKA patients were analyzed. Most patients in our study sample had preferred provider organization insurance plans (ACDF 70.3%, PLF 66.9%, THA 66.2%, and TKA 67.0%). The mean OOP costs for patients, by procedure, were as follows: ACDF $3,180 (SD = 2,495), PLF $3,166 (SD = 2,529), THA $2,884 (SD = 2,100), and TKA $2,733 (SD = 1,994). Total OOP costs increased significantly from 2014 to 2019 for all procedures (P < 0.0001). Among the insurance plans examined, patients with high-deductible health plans had the highest episodic OOP costs. The ratio of patient contribution (OOP costs) to total insurer contribution (payments from insurers to providers) was 0.07 for ACDF, 0.04 for PLF, 0.07 for THA, and 0.07 for TKA. CONCLUSION: Among commercially insured patients who underwent elective spinal fusion and major lower extremity joint arthroplasty surgery, OOP costs increased from 2014 to 2019. The OOP costs for elective orthopaedic surgery represent a substantial and increasing financial burden for patients.

Factors Associated With High Resource Use in Elective Adult Cardiac Surgery From 2005 to 2016.

BACKGROUND: Lack of consensus remains about factors that may be associated with high resource use (HRU) in adult cardiac surgical patients. This study aimed to identify patient-related, hospital, and perioperative characteristics associated with HRU admissions involving elective cardiac operations. METHODS: Data from the National Inpatient Sample was used to identify patients who underwent coronary artery bypass graft, valve replacement, and valve repair operations between 2005 and 2016. Admissions with HRU were defined as those in the highest decile for total hospital costs. Multivariable regressions were used to identify factors associated with HRU. RESULTS: An estimated 1,750,253 hospitalizations coded for elective cardiac operations. The median hospitalization cost was $34,700 (interquartile range, $26,800- to $47,100), with the HRU (N = 175,025) cutoff at $66,029. Although HRU patients comprised 10% of admissions, they accounted for 25% of cumulative costs. On multivariable regression, patient-related characteristics predictive of HRU included female sex, older age, higher comorbidity burden, non-White race, and highest income quartile. Hospital factors associated with HRU were low-volume hospitals for both coronary artery bypass graft and valvular operations. Among postoperative outcomes, mortality, infectious complications, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use, and hospitalization for more than 8 days were associated with greater odds of HRU. CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide study of elective cardiac surgical patients, several important patient-related and hospital factors, including patients' race, comorbidities, postoperative infectious complications, and low hospital operative volume were identified as predictors of HRU. These highly predictive factors may be used for benchmarking purposes and improvement in surgical planning.

Elective versus nonelective brain tumor resections: a 5-year propensity score matching cost comparison analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Elective surgical cases generally have lower costs, higher profit margins, and better outcomes than nonelective cases. Investigating the differences in cost and profit between elective and nonelective cases would help hospitals in planning strategies to withstand financial losses due to potential pandemics. The authors sought to evaluate the exact cost and profit margin differences between elective and nonelective supratentorial tumor resections at a single institution. METHODS: The authors collected economic analysis data in all patients who underwent supratentorial tumor resection at their institution between January 2014 and December 2018. The patients were grouped into elective and nonelective cases. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for heterogeneity of baseline characteristics between the two groups. RESULTS: There were 143 elective cases and 232 nonelective cases over the 5 years. Patients in the majority of elective cases had private insurance and in the majority of nonelective cases the patients had Medicare/Medicaid (p < 0.01). The total charges were significantly lower for elective cases ($168,800.12) compared to nonelective cases ($254,839.30, p < 0.01). The profit margins were almost 6 times higher for elective than for nonelective cases ($13,025.28 vs $2,128.01, p = 0.04). After propensity score matching, there was still a significant difference between total charges and total cost. CONCLUSIONS: Elective supratentorial tumor resections were associated with significantly lower costs with shorter lengths of stay while also being roughly 6 times more profitable than nonelective cases. These findings may help future planning for hospital strategies to survive financial losses during future pandemics that require widespread cancellation of elective cases.

Nationwide Readmissions Analysis of Minimally Invasive Versus Open Ventral Hernia Repair: A Retrospective Population-Based Study.

INTRODUCTION: Minimally invasive ventral hernia repair (MISVHR) has been performed for almost 30 years; recently, there has been an accelerated adoption of the robotic platform leading to renewed comparisons to open ventral hernia repair (OVHR). The present study evaluates patterns and outcomes of readmissions for MISVHR and OVHR patients. METHODS: The Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) was queried for patients undergoing OVHR and MISVHR from 2016 to 2018. Demographic characteristics, complications, and 90-day readmissions were determined. A subgroup analysis was performed to compare robotic ventral hernia repair (RVHR) vs laparoscopic hernia repair (LVHR). Standard statistical methods and logistic regression were used. RESULTS: Over the 3-year period, there were 25 795 MISVHR and 180 635 OVHR admissions. Minimally invasive ventral hernia repair was associated with a lower rate of 90-day readmission (11.3% vs 17.3%, P < .01), length of stay (LOS) (4.0 vs 7.9 days, P < .01), and hospital charges ($68,240 ± 75 680 vs $87,701 ± 73 165, P < .01), which remained true when elective and non-elective repairs were evaluated independently. Postoperative infection was the most common reason for readmission but was less common in the MISVHR group (8.4% vs 16.8%, P < .01). Robotic ventral hernia repair increased over the 3-year period and was associated with decreased LOS (3.7 vs 4.1 days, P < .01) and comparable readmissions (11.3% vs 11.2%, P = .74) to LVHR, but was nearly $20,000 more expensive. In logistic regression, OVHR, non-elective operation, urban-teaching hospital, increased LOS, comorbidities, and payer type were predictive of readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Open ventral hernia repair was associated with increased LOS and increased readmissions compared to MISVHR. Robotic ventral hernia repair had comparable readmissions and decreased LOS to LVHR, but it was more expensive.

Healthcare Resource Utilization in Inguinal Hernia Repair: A Three-Year Cost Evaluation of Truven Health Marketscan Research Databases.

BACKGROUND: Inguinal hernia repair is the most commonly performed elective operation in the United States, with over 800,000 cases annually. While clinical outcomes comparing laparoscopic versus open techniques have been well documented, there is little data comparing costs associated with these techniques. This study evaluates the cost of healthcare resources during the 90-d postoperative period following inguinal hernia repair. METHODS: We analyzed data from the Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases. Adult patients with an ICD-9 or CPT code for inguinal hernia repair from 2012 to 2014 were included. Patients with continuous enrollment for 6 mo prior to surgery and 6 mo after surgery were analyzed. Related healthcare service costs (readmission and/or ER visit and/or outpatient visit) were calculated by clinical classification software and generalized linear modeling was used to compare healthcare utilization between groups. RESULTS: 124,582 cases were identified (open = 84,535; lap = 40,047). Index surgery cost was 41% higher in laparoscopic cases. The cost for readmission was close to $25,000 and similar between both groups, but the laparoscopic group were 12% less likely to be readmitted for surgical complications within 90-d when compared to the open group. Cost of bilateral laparoscopic repair is less than that of serial unilateral open repairs. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair carries a higher index surgery cost than open repair. However, open repair has an increased rate of readmission. To maximize value, efforts should be directed at minimizing readmissions and improving identification of bilateral hernias at the time of initial presentation.

Initial Outcomes of a Novel Irrigating Wound Protector for Reducing the Risk of Surgical Site Infection in Elective Colectomies.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) rates in elective colorectal surgery remain high due to intraoperative exposure of colonic bacteria at the surgical site. We aimed to evaluate 30-day SSI outcomes of a novel wound retractor that combines barrier protection with continuous wound irrigation in elective colorectal resection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective single-center cohort-matched analysis included all patients undergoing elective colorectal resection utilizing the novel irrigating wound protector (IWP) from April 2015 to July 2019. A control cohort of patients who underwent the same procedures with a standard wound protector over the same time period were also identified. Patients from both groups were matched for procedure type, procedure approach, pathology requiring operation, age, sex, race, body mass index, diabetes, smoker status, hypertension, presence of disseminated cancer, current steroid or immunosuppressant use, wound classification, and American Society of Anesthesiologist classification. SSI frequency, SSI subtype (superficial, deep, or organ space), hospital length of stay (LOS) and associated procedure were tabulated through 30 postoperative days. Fisher's exact test and number needed to treat (NNT) were used to compare SSI rates and estimate cost between both groups. RESULTS: The IWP group had 41 patients. The control group had 82 patients. Control-matched variables were similar for both groups. 30-day SSI rates were significantly lower in the IWP group (P=0.0298). length of stay was significantly shorter in the IWP group (P=0.0150). The NNT for the IWP to prevent one episode of SSI was 8.2 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The novel IWP device shows promise to reducing the risk of SSI in elective colorectal surgery.

Impact of hospital volume on resource use after elective cardiac surgery: A contemporary analysis.

BACKGROUND: Institutional experience has been associated with reduced mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting and valve operations. Using a contemporary, national cohort, we examined the impact of hospital volume on hospitalization costs and postdischarge resource utilization after these operations. METHODS: Adults undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting or valve operations were identified in the 2016 to 2017 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Institutions were grouped into volume quartiles based on annual elective cardiac surgery caseload, and comparisons were made between the lowest and highest quartiles, using generalized linear models. RESULTS: Of an estimated 296,510 patients, 24.8% were treated at low-volume hospitals and 25.2% at high-volume hospitals. Compared with patients treated at low-volume hospitals, patients managed at high-volume hospitals were younger, had more comorbidities, and more frequently underwent combined coronary artery bypass grafting valve (13.0% vs 12.3%, P < .001) and multivalve operations (6.2% vs 3.1%, P < .001). After adjustment, operations at high-volume hospitals were associated with a $7,600 reduction (95% confidence interval $4,700-$10,500) in costs. High-volume hospitals were also associated with reduced odds of mortality, non-home discharge, and 30-day non-elective readmission compared to low-volume hospitals. CONCLUSION: Despite increased complexity at high-volume centers, greater operative volume was independently associated with reduced hospitalization costs and mortality after elective cardiac operations. Reduction in non-home discharge and readmissions suggests this effect to extend beyond acute hospitalization, which may guide value-based care paradigms.

Association of Medicare Mandatory Bundled Payment Program With the Receipt of Elective Hip and Knee Replacement in White, Black, and Hispanic Beneficiaries.

Importance: The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) model was designed to reduce the cost and improve the quality of hip or knee replacement among Medicare beneficiaries. Yet whether this model may exacerbate existing racial/ethnic disparities in access to the surgery is unclear. Objective: To examine the association of the CJR model with the receipt of elective hip or knee replacement across White, Black, and Hispanic Medicare beneficiaries. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare claims from 2013 through 2017 among White, Black, and Hispanic Medicare beneficiaries undergoing elective joint replacement in 65 treatment (selected for CJR participation) and 101 control metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). Exposures: Starting in April 2016, hospitals in the treatment MSAs were required to participate in the CJR model and were accountable for expenditures occurring during patients' hospitalization for hip or knee replacement and 90 days after the hospital discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: Beneficiary-level elective hip or knee replacement receipt in a given year. Results: Among 17 243 304 patients, 9 839 996 (57%) were women; 2 107 425 (12%) were age 85 years or older. Of the final sample, 14 632 434 (85%) were White beneficiaries, 1 518 629 (9%) were Black beneficiaries, and 1 092 241 (6%) were Hispanic beneficiaries. The CJR model was associated with an increase of 1.6 elective hip or knee replacements per 1000 beneficiary-years for Hispanic beneficiaries (95% CI, 0.06-2.05) and a decrease of 0.64 replacements for Black beneficiaries (95% CI, -1.25 to -0.02). No evidence was found for any changes for White beneficiaries per 1000 beneficiary-years (0.04 replacements, 95% CI, -0.35 to 0.42 replacements). The Black-White difference in the rate of elective hip or knee replacement per 1000 beneficiary-years further widened by 0.68 replacements (-0.68, 95% CI, -1.20 to -0.15). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, the CJR model was associated with increased receipt of elective hip or knee replacement among Hispanic beneficiaries, decreased receipt among Black beneficiaries, and no change in receipt among White beneficiaries. The decreased receipt of elective hip or knee replacement among Black beneficiaries may suggest that value-based payment models, including the CJR model, could be monitored for unintended consequences. However, the lack of similar findings among Hispanic beneficiaries suggests that payment models may have differential impacts across racial/ethnic groups.

Charlson comorbidity index is predictive of postoperative clinical outcome after single-level posterior lumbar interbody fusion surgery.

BACKGROUND: In several previous studies, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) score was associated with postoperative complications, mortality, and re-admission. There are few reports about the influence of CCI score on postoperative clinical outcome. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of comorbidities as calculated with CCI on postoperative clinical outcomes after PLIF. METHODS: Three hundred sixty-six patients who underwent an elective primary single-level PLIF were included. Postoperative clinical outcome was evaluated with the Japanese Orthopaedic Association lumbar score (JOA score). The correlation coefficient between the CCI score and postoperative improvement in JOA score was investigated. Patients were divided into three groups according to their CCI score (0, 1, and 2+). JOA improvement rate, length of stay (LOS), and direct cost were compared between each group. Postoperative complications were also investigated. RESULTS: There was a weak negative relationship between CCI score and JOA improvement rate (r = - 0.20). LOS and direct cost had almost no correlation with CCI score. The JOA improvement rate of group 0 and group 1 was significantly higher than group 2+. LOS and direct cost were also significantly different between group 0 and group 2+. There were 14 postoperative complications. Adverse postoperative complications were equivalently distributed in each group, and not associated with the number of comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: A higher CCI score leads to a poor postoperative outcome. The recovery rate of patients with two or more comorbidities was significantly higher than in patients without comorbidities. However, the CCI score did not influence LOS and increased direct costs. The surgeon must take into consideration the patient's comorbidities when planning a surgical intervention in order to achieve a good clinical outcome.

Resource requirements for reintroducing elective surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: modelling study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 response required the cancellation of all but the most urgent surgical procedures. The number of cancelled surgical procedures owing to Covid-19, and the reintroduction of surgical acivirt, was modelled. METHODS: This was a modelling study using Hospital Episode Statistics data (2014-2019). Surgical procedures were grouped into four urgency classes. Expected numbers of surgical procedures performed between 1 March 2020 and 28 February 2021 were modelled. Procedure deficit was estimated using conservative assumptions and the gradual reintroduction of elective surgery from the 1 June 2020. Costs were calculated using NHS reference costs and are reported as millions or billions of euros. Estimates are reported with 95 per cent confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 4 547 534 (95 per cent c.i. 3 318 195 to 6 250 771) patients with a pooled mean age of 53.5 years were expected to undergo surgery between 1 March 2020 and 28 February 2021. By 31 May 2020, 749 247 (513 564 to 1 077 448) surgical procedures had been cancelled. Assuming that elective surgery is reintroduced gradually, 2 328 193 (1 483 834 - 3 450 043) patients will be awaiting surgery by 28 February 2021. The cost of delayed procedures is €5.3 (3.1 to 8.0) billion. Safe delivery of surgery during the pandemic will require substantial extra resources costing €526.8 (449.3 to 633.9) million. CONCLUSION: As a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic, provision of elective surgery will be delayed and associated with increased healthcare costs.

Wound infection following implant removal of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella; a protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial investigating the (cost-)effectiveness of 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin compared to placebo (WIFI-2 trial).

BACKGROUND: Elective implant removal (IR) after fracture fixation is one of the most common procedures within (orthopedic) trauma surgery. The rate of surgical site infections (SSIs) in this procedure is quite high, especially below the level of the knee. Antibiotic prophylaxis is not routinely prescribed, even though it has proved to lower SSI rates in other (orthopedic) trauma surgical procedures. The primary objective is to study the effectiveness of a single intravenous dose of 2 g of cefazolin on SSIs after IR following fixation of foot, ankle and/or lower leg fractures. METHODS: This is a multicenter, double-blind placebo controlled trial with a superiority design, including adult patients undergoing elective implant removal after fixation of a fracture of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Exclusion criteria are: an active infection, current antibiotic treatment, or a medical condition contraindicating prophylaxis with cefazolin including allergy. Patients are randomized to receive a single preoperative intravenous dose of either 2 g of cefazolin or a placebo (NaCl). The primary analysis will be an intention-to-treat comparison of the proportion of patients with a SSI at 90 days after IR in both groups. DISCUSSION: If 2 g of prophylactic cefazolin proves to be both effective and cost-effective in preventing SSI, this would have implications for current guidelines. Combined with the high infection rate of IR which previous studies have shown, it would be sufficiently substantiated for guidelines to suggest protocolled use of prophylactic antibiotics in IR of foot, ankle, lower leg or patella. Trial registration Nederlands Trial Register (NTR): NL8284, registered on 9th of January 2020, https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/8284.

The Cost of Quarantine: Projecting the Financial Impact of Canceled Elective Surgery on the Nation's Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to quantify the financial impact of elective surgery cancellations in the US during COVID-19 and simulate hospitals' recovery times from a single period of surgery cessation. BACKGROUND: COVID-19 in the US resulted in cessation of elective surgery-a substantial driver of hospital revenue-and placed patients at risk and hospitals under financial stress. We sought to quantify the financial impact of elective surgery cancellations during the pandemic and simulate hospitals' recovery times. METHODS: Elective surgical cases were abstracted from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2016-2017). Time series were utilized to forecast March-May 2020 revenues and demand. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to calculate the time to clear backlog cases and match expected ongoing demand in the post-COVID period. Subset analyses were performed by hospital region and teaching status. RESULTS: National revenue loss due to major elective surgery cessation was estimated to be $22.3 billion (B). Recovery to market equilibrium was conserved across strata and influenced by pre- and post-COVID capacity utilization. Median recovery time was 12-22 months across all strata. Lower pre-COVID utilization was associated with fewer months to recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to mitigate the predicted revenue loss of $22.3B due to major elective surgery cessation will vary with hospital-specific supply-demand equilibrium. If patient demand is slow to return, hospitals should focus on marketing of services; if hospital capacity is constrained, efficient capacity expansion may be beneficial. Finally, rural and urban nonteaching hospitals may face increased financial risk which may exacerbate care disparities.

Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy is cost-effective when performed in high volume centers: A five state analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies comparing the efficacy of laparoscopic (LHR) and open hepatic resection (OHR) have not evaluated inpatient costs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases to identify patients undergoing hepatic resection between 2010 and 2014. RESULTS: 10,239 patients underwent hepatic resection. 865 (8%) underwent LHR and 9374 (92%) underwent OHR. On adjusting for hospital volume, patients undergoing LHR had a lower risk of respiratory (OR 0.64, 95% CI [0.52, 0.78]), wound (OR 0.48; 95% CI [0.29, 0.79]) and hematologic (OR 0.57; 95% CI [0.44, 0.73]) complication as well as a lower risk of being in the highest quartile of cost (0.58; 95% CI [0.43, 0.77]) than those undergoing OHR. Patients undergoing LHR in very high volume (>314 hepatectomies/year) centers had lower risk-adjusted 90-day aggregate costs of care than those undergoing OHR (-$8022; 95% CI [-$11,732, -$4311). DISCUSSION: Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy is associated with lower risk of postoperative complication than OHR. This translates to lower aggregate costs in very high-volume centers.

Optimizing Surveillance and Re-intervention Strategy Following Elective Endovascular Repair of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: EVAR for abdominal aortic aneurysm has an initial survival advantage over OR, but more frequent complications increase costs and long-term aneurysm-related mortality. Randomized controlled trials of EVAR versus OR have shown EVAR is not cost-effective over a patient's lifetime. However, in the EVAR-1 trial, postoperative surveillance may have been sub-optimal, as the importance of sac growth as a predictor of graft failure was overlooked. METHODS: Real-world data informed a discrete event simulation model of postoperative outcomes following EVAR. Outcomes observed EVAR-1 were compared with those from 5 alternative postoperative surveillance and re-intervention strategies. Key events, quality-adjusted life years and costs were predicted. The impact of using complication and rupture rates from more recent devices, imaging and re-intervention methods was also explored. RESULTS: Compared with observed EVAR-1 outcomes, modeling full adherence to the EVAR-1 scan protocol reduced abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) deaths by 3% and increased elective re-interventions by 44%. European Society re-intervention guidelines provided the most clinically effective strategy, with an 8% reduction in AAA deaths, but a 52% increase in elective re-interventions. The cheapest and most cost-effective strategy used lifetime annual ultrasound in primary care with confirmatory computed tomography if necessary, and reduced AAA-related deaths by 5%. Using contemporary rates for complications and rupture did not alter these conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: All alternative strategies improved clinical benefits compared with the EVAR-1 trial. Further work is needed regarding the cost and accuracy of primary care ultrasound, and the potential impact of these strategies in the comparison with OR.

Screening and treating pre-operative anaemia and suboptimal iron stores in elective colorectal surgery: a cost effectiveness analysis.

Our study investigated whether pre-operative screening and treatment for anaemia and suboptimal iron stores in a patient blood management clinic is cost effective. We used outcome data from a retrospective cohort study comparing colorectal surgery patients admitted pre- and post-implementation of a pre-operative screening programme. We applied propensity score weighting techniques with multivariable regression models to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics between groups. Episode-level hospitalisation costs were sourced from the health service clinical costing data system; the economic evaluation was conducted from a Western Australia Health System perspective. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost per unit of red cell transfusion avoided. We compared 441 patients screened in the pre-operative anaemia programme with 239 patients not screened; of the patients screened, 180 (40.8%) received intravenous iron for anaemia and suboptimal iron stores. The estimated mean cost of screening and treating pre-operative anaemia was AU$332 (£183; US$231; €204) per screened patient. In the propensity score weighted analysis, screened patients were transfused 52% less red cell units when compared with those not screened (rate ratio = 0.48, 95%CI 0.36-0.63, p < 0.001). The mean difference in total screening, treatment and hospitalisation cost between groups was AU$3776 lower in the group screened (£2080; US$2629; €2325) (95%CI AU$1604-5947, p < 0.001). Screening elective patients pre-operatively for anaemia and suboptimal iron stores reduced the number of red cell units transfused. It also resulted in lower total costs than not screening patients, thus demonstrating cost effectiveness.

Quantifying the risk-adjusted hospital costs of postoperative complications after lower extremity bypass in patients with claudication.

OBJECTIVE: Increasing evidence has shown that the risks associated with surgical revascularization for intermittent claudication outweigh the benefits. The aim of our study was to quantify the cost of care associated with perioperative complications after elective lower extremity bypass (LEB) in patients presenting with intermittent claudication. METHODS: All patients undergoing first-time LEB for claudication in the Healthcare Database (2009-2015) were included. The primary outcome was in-hospital postoperative complications, including major adverse limb events (MALE), major adverse cardiac events (MACE), acute kidney injury, and wound complications. The overall crude hospital costs are reported, and a generalized linear model with log link and inverse Gaussian distribution was used to calculate the predicted hospital costs for specific complications. RESULTS: Overall, 7154 patients had undergone elective LEB for claudication during the study period. The median age was 66 years (interquartile range, 59-73 years), 67.5% were male, and 75.3% were white. Two thirds of patients (61.2%) had Medicare insurance, followed by private insurance (26.9%), Medicaid (7.7%), and other insurance (4.2%). In-hospital complications occurred in 8.5% of patients, including acute kidney injury in 3.0%, MALE in 2.8%, wound complications in 2.3%, and MACE in 1.0%. The overall median crude hospital cost was $11,783 (interquartile range, $8911-$15,767) per patient. The incremental increase in cost associated with a postoperative complication was significant, ranging from $6183 (95% confidence interval, $4604-$7762) for MALE to $10,485 (95% confidence interval, $6529-$14,441) for MACE after risk adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative complications after elective LEB for claudication are not uncommon and increase the in-hospital costs by 46% to 78% depending on the complication. Surgical revascularization for claudication should be used sparingly in carefully selected patients.

Plastic surgery procedure unit: A streamlined care model for minor and intermediate procedures: A cost-benefit analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The advent of wide-awake local anaesthesia has led to a reduced need for main theatre for trauma and elective plastic procedures. This results in significant cost-benefits for the institution. This study aims to show how a dedicated 7 days/ week plastic surgery procedural (PSP) unit, performing both elective and trauma surgeries, can lead to significant cost-benefits for the institution. METHODS: Retrospective review of all cases performed in the PSP unit between 1 September and 31 August 2018. We utilised hospital directory admissions data and the hospital's intranet operating theatre system to calculate hospital days saved. Cost analysis was performed using Saolta financial data. RESULTS: A total of 3058 operations were performed. Of these operations, 2388 cases were elective and 670 were trauma cases. The average waiting time for trauma cases for main operating theatre was 1.4 days, saving a total of 487 hospital days. The total savings associated with hospital bed days were €347,861. The estimated resource savings from performing a procedure in PSP compared with main theatre with regional anaesthesia were €529.00 and €391.00 without regional anaesthesia. The cost saved due to resources was therefore €337,226. The total cost-benefit associated with performing surgeries in PSP including hospital days and resources saved was calculated as €685,087. CONCLUSION: This study shows the benefit of performing elective and trauma operations in minor procedure units such as PSP. PSP results in a more efficient service, reducing waiting times for surgery, shorter hospital stay, reduced operating cost and an overall significant cost saving.

Where Is the Value in Ambulatory Versus Inpatient Surgery?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the effect of index surgical care setting on perioperative costs and readmission rates across 4 common elective general surgery procedures. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Facility fees seem to be a driving force behind rising US healthcare costs, and inpatient-based fees are significantly higher than those associated with ambulatory services. Little is known about factors influencing where patients undergo elective surgery. METHODS: All-payer claims data from the 2014 New York and Florida Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project were used to identify 73,724 individuals undergoing an index hernia repair, primary total or partial thyroidectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, or laparoscopic appendectomy in either the inpatient or ambulatory care setting. Inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted gamma generalized linear and logistic regression was employed to compare costs and 30-day readmission between inpatient and ambulatory-based surgery, respectively. RESULTS: Approximately 87% of index surgical cases were performed in the ambulatory setting. Adjusted mean index surgical costs were significantly lower among ambulatory versus inpatient cases for all 4 procedures (P < 0.001 for all). Adjusted odds of experiencing a 30-day readmission after thyroidectomy [odds ratio (OR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.53-0.93; P = 0.03], hernia repair (OR 0.28, 95% CI, 0.20-0.40; P < 0.001), and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (OR 0.37, 95% CI, 0.32-0.43; P < 0.001) were lower in the ambulatory versus inpatient setting. Readmission rates among ambulatory versus inpatient-based laparoscopic appendectomy were comparable (OR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.31-1.26; P = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory surgery offers significant costs savings and generally superior 30-day outcomes relative to inpatient-based care for appropriately selected patients across 4 common elective general surgery procedures.