Variation in Hospital Cost and 1-Year Episodes of Care after Diaphragmatic Hernia Repair.

BACKGROUND: Diaphragmatic hernia repair is a common operation performed at all types of hospitals. The variation in costs and repeat episodes of care after this operation is not known. STUDY DESIGN: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases for Florida were queried to identify patients undergoing diaphragmatic hernia repair between 2011 and 2018 and the associated inpatient and outpatient encounters within 12 months postoperatively. Hospitals were ranked by cost and grouped into quintiles. All costs and charges were reliability and case-mix adjusted with the use of hierarchical multivariable regression. RESULTS: In total, 8,848 patients underwent diaphragmatic hernia operations at 158 hospitals. The most expensive hospital quintile had lower surgical volume, location in rural settings, and fewer than 100 beds. There was a wide variation in costs after diaphragmatic hernia repair. On unadjusted comparison, index costs were $23,041 more expensive in hospitals in the highest quintile than in the lowest quintile. Cost differences were persistent even after case-mix and reliability adjustment. The variation in adjusted aggregate charges for associated outpatient and inpatient encounters in the first year after the index operation was considerably lower than that of the index hospitalization. CONCLUSION: There is nearly a 2-fold variation in the cost of a diaphragmatic hernia repair across hospitals. Most of the variation occurs during the index surgical encounter and not for repeat encounters during the first postoperative year. As bundled payment models mature, hospitals and payers will need to target this variation to ensure cost-efficiency.

Assessment of Textbook Outcome After Surgery for Stage I/II Non-small Cell Lung Cancer.

Outcomes after cancer resection are traditionally measured individually. Composite metrics, or textbook outcomes, bundle outcomes into a single value to facilitate assessments of quality. We propose a composite outcome for non-small cell lung cancer resections, examine factors associated with the outcome, and evaluate its effect on overall survival. We queried the National Cancer Database for patients with stage I/II non-small cell lung cancer who underwent sublobar resection, lobectomy, or pneumonectomy from 2010 to 2016. We defined the metric as margin-negative resection, sampling of ≥10 lymph nodes, length of stay <75th percentile, no 30-day mortality, no readmission, and receipt of indicated adjuvant therapy. Multivariable logistic regression, Cox proportional hazards modeling, survival analyses, and propensity score matching were used to identify factors associated with the outcome and overall survival. Of 88,208 patients, 70,149 underwent lobectomy, 14,922 underwent sublobar resection, and 3,137 underwent pneumonectomy. Textbook outcome was achieved in 26.3% of patients. Failure to achieve the outcome was most commonly driven by inadequate nodal assessment. Textbook outcome was more likely after minimally invasive surgical approaches (aOR = 1.47; P< 0.001) relative to open resection and less likely after sublobar resection (aOR = 0.20; P< 0.001) relative to lobectomy. Achievement of textbook outcome was associated with an 9.6% increase in 5-year survival (P< 0.001), was independently associated with improved survival (aHR = 0.72; P < 0.001), and remained strongly associated with survival independent of resection extent after propensity matching. One in 4 patients undergoing non-small cell lung cancer resection achieve textbook outcome. Textbook outcome is associated with improved survival and has value as a quality metric.

Trends in utilization of whole-body computed tomography in blunt trauma after MVC: Analysis of the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database.

BACKGROUND: The use of whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) in awake, clinically stable injured patients is controversial. It is associated with unnecessary radiation exposure and increased cost. We evaluate use of computed tomography (CT) imaging during the initial evaluation of injured patients at American College of Surgeons Levels I and II trauma centers (TCs) after blunt trauma. METHODS: We identified adult blunt trauma patients after motor vehicle crash (MVC) from the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database between 2007 and 2016 at Level I or II TCs. We defined awake clinically stable patients as those with systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or higher with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15. Computed tomography imaging had to have been performed within 2 hours of arrival. Whole-body computed tomography was defined as simultaneous CT of the head, chest and abdomen, and selective CT if only one to two aforementioned regions were imaged. Patients were stratified by Injury Severity Score (ISS). RESULTS: There were 217,870 records for analysis; 131,434 (60.3%) had selective CT, and 86,436 (39.7%) had WBCT. Overall, there was an increasing trend in WBCT utilization over the study period (p < 0.001). In patients with ISS less than 10, WBCT was utilized more commonly at Level II versus Level I TCs in patients discharged from the emergency department (26.9% vs. 18.3%, p < 0.001), which had no surgical procedure(s) (81.4% vs. 80.3%, p < 0.001) and no injury of the head (53.7% vs. 52.4%, p = 0.008) or abdomen (83.8% vs. 82.1%, p = 0.001). The risk-adjusted odds of WBCT was two times higher at Level II TC vs. Level I (odds ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval 1.82-1.94; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Whole-body computed tomography utilization is increasing relative to selective CT. This increasing utilization is highest at Level II TCs in patients with low ISSs, and in patients without associated head or abdominal injury. The findings have implications for quality improvement and cost reduction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Care management, Level IV.

State-Level Examination of Clinical Outcomes and Costs for Robotic and Laparoscopic Approach to Diaphragmatic Hernia Repair.

BACKGROUND: Published studies evaluating the effect of robotic assistance on clinical outcomes and costs of care in diaphragmatic hernia repair (DHR) have been limited. STUDY DESIGN: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases for Florida were queried to identify patients undergoing transabdominal DHR between 2011 and 2018 and associated inpatient and outpatient encounters within 12 months after the index operation. Patients undergoing robotic DHR were 1:1:1 propensity score-matched for age, sex, race, Elixhauser comorbidity score, case priority, payer, and facility volume with patients undergoing open and laparoscopic DHR. RESULTS: There were 5,962 patients (67.3%) who underwent laparoscopic DHR, 1,520 (17.2%) who underwent open DHR, and 1,376 (15.5%) who underwent robotic DHR. On comparison of matched cohorts, median index length of stay (3 days; interquartile range [IQR] 2 to 5 days vs 2 days; IQR 1 to 4 days; p < 0.001) and index hospitalization costs ($17,236; IQR $13,231 to $22,183 vs $12,087; IQR $8,881 to $17,439; p < 0.001) for robotic DHR were greater than for laparoscopic DHR. Median length of stay for open DHR (6 days; IQR 4 to 10 days) was longer than that for both laparoscopic and robotic DHR. Median index hospitalization costs for open DHR ($16,470; IQR $11,152 to $23,768) were greater than those for laparoscopic DHR, but less than those for robotic DHR. There were no significant differences between cohorts in the overall rate of post-index care. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic DHR is the most cost-effective approach to DHR. Robotic assistance provides clinical outcomes comparable with laparoscopic DHR, but is associated with increased index cost.

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.

Initial Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy versus Ureteroscopy: A Re-treatment and Cost Analysis Using a Longitudinal, Population-Based Database.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to compare re-treatment rates between shockwave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy to evaluate the effectiveness of these modalities. Additionally, we aimed to compare costs associated with re-treatment. METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Ambulatory Surgery Database for Florida from 2009 to 2015 was used to identify patients who underwent shockwave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy. Patients were tracked for subsequent stone surgeries within 3 months, 6 months and 1 year. Costs of care were estimated and descriptive analyses were performed. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to determine predictors of a second procedure. RESULTS: A total of 98,011 patients underwent initial shockwave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy. Of those who underwent initial shockwave lithotripsy 21.2% had a second surgery (shockwave lithotripsy or ureteroscopy) within 3 months compared to 10% of patients who underwent initial ureteroscopy (p <0.01). On multivariable analysis, patients who underwent initial shockwave lithotripsy were more than twice as likely (OR 2.4, 95% CI 2.3-2.5) to undergo a second procedure within 3 months. Older patients were also more likely to undergo a second surgery, while African Americans, Hispanics, uninsured patients and patients with more comorbidities had decreased odds of undergoing a second surgery (all p <0.05). The per patient cost of the initial procedure plus re-treatment at the 3-month mark was $6,239 for initial shockwave lithotripsy and $5,319 for initial ureteroscopy (p <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing shockwave lithotripsy are more likely than those undergoing ureteroscopy to have additional stone procedures, making shockwave lithotripsy a more expensive intervention.

Assessment of Cancer Center Variation in Textbook Oncologic Outcomes Following Colectomy for Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Traditional metrics may inadequately represent rates of attaining optimal oncologic care. We evaluated a composite "textbook oncologic outcome" (TOO) to assess the incidence of achieving an "optimal" clinical result after colon adenocarcinoma (CA) resection. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried to identify patients undergoing colectomy for non-metastatic CA between 2010 and 2015. TOO was defined as a margin negative resection with an AJCC compliant lymph node evaluation, no prolonged length of stay (LOS) or 30-day readmission/mortality, as well as receipt of stage appropriate adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: Among 170,120 patients who underwent colectomy at 1315 hospitals, 93,204 (54.8%) achieved TOO with large variations observed among facilities. While certain factors were achieved nearly universally (R0 margin, 95.6%; no 30-day mortality, 97.2%), avoidance of prolonged LOS (77.3%) and appropriate adjuvant chemotherapy (83.0%) were achieved less consistently. On multivariable analysis, Black race/ethnicity (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.80-0.85), Medicaid insurance (OR 0.64, 0.61-0.68), and low-volume facility (< 50/year) (OR 0.83, 0.77-0.89) were associated with decreased likelihood of TOO. Achievement of TOO was associated with improved long-term survival (HR 0.45; 95% CI 0.44-0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Roughly one-half of patients undergoing resection of CA achieved an optimal clinical outcome. TOO may be a more useful quality metric to assess patient-centric composite outcomes following surgical procedures.

Unhealthy alcohol and drug use is associated with an increased length of stay and hospital cost in patients undergoing major upper gastrointestinal and pancreatic oncologic resections.

BACKGROUND: Few studies evaluate the impact of unhealthy alcohol and drug use on the risk and severity of postoperative outcomes after upper gastrointestinal and pancreatic oncologic resections. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample was queried to identify patients undergoing total gastrectomy, esophagectomy, total pancreatectomy, and pancreaticoduodenectomy between 2012 and 2015. Unhealthy alcohol and drug use was assessed by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, and National Inpatient Sample coder designation. Multivariable regression was used to identify associations between alcohol and drug use and postoperative complication, duration of stay, hospital cost, and mortality. RESULTS: In the study, 59,490 patients met inclusion criteria; 2,060 (3.5%) had unhealthy alcohol use; 1,265 (2.1%) had unhealthy drug use. Postoperative complication rates were higher in patients with alcohol and drug use than in abstainers (67.5% vs 62.8% vs 57.2%; P < .01). On multivariable regression, alcohol use was independently associated with increased risk of a nonwithdrawal complication (odds ratio 1.33 [1.05, 1.68]), and alcohol and drug use were independently associated with increased length of stay (1.54 [0.12, 2.96]) and 2.22 [0.90, 3.55] days) and cost ($5,471 [$60, $10,881] and $4,022 [$402, $7,643]), but not mortality. CONCLUSION: Unhealthy substance use is associated with increased rates of postoperative complications, prolonged length of stay, and costs in patients undergoing major upper gastrointestinal and pancreatic oncologic resections. Screening and abstinence interventions should be incorporated into the preoperative care pathways for these patients.

Biliary Enteric Reconstruction After Biliary Injury: Delayed Repair Is More Costly Than Early Repair.

BACKGROUND: Bile duct injury (BDI) during cholecystectomy requiring biliary enteric reconstruction (BER) is associated with increased risk of postoperative mortality and substantive increases in costs of care. The impact of the timing of repair on overall costs of care is poorly understood. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Florida State databases (2006-2015) were queried to identify patients undergoing BER within 1-y of cholecystectomy performed for benign biliary disease. Patients were then categorized by the time interval between cholecystectomy to BER: early (≤3 d), intermediate (4 d to 6 wk), or delayed (>6 wk). By repair timing strategy, 1-y outcomes were aggregated, including charges, inpatient costs, aggregate length of stay, and inpatient mortality. RESULTS: Of 563,887 patients undergoing cholecystectomy, 1168 required a BER (0.21%) within 1-y of cholecystectomy. Early BER was performed in 560 patients (47.9%), intermediate BER in 439 patients (37.6%), and delayed BER in 169 (14.5%) patients. On multivariable analysis adjusting for patient, procedure, and facility factors, intermediate BER demonstrated an increased risk of mortality (odds ratio 2.04, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16-3.56) and increased aggregate inpatient cost (+$12,472; 95% CI: $6421-$18,524) relative to early BER. There was no notable difference in adjusted risk of inpatient mortality between the early and delayed BER cohorts (odds ratio 0.90; 95% CI: 0.32-1.25), but delayed BER was associated with increased aggregate inpatient costs (+$45,111; 95% CI: $36,813-$53,409). CONCLUSIONS: When compared with delayed BER, early repair was associated with shorter aggregate inpatient hospitalization without increased postoperative mortality. Intermediate timing of repair is associated with increased costs and risk of mortality.

Non-Hispanic Blacks undergoing distal pancreatectomy have higher risk-adjusted rates of morbidity and are more likely to be high-cost outliers.

BACKGROUND: Few studies evaluate racial disparities in costs and clinical outcomes for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy (DP). METHODS: We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases to identify patients undergoing DP. Multivariable regression (MVR) was used to evaluate the association between race and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: 2,493 patients underwent DP; 265 (10%) were black, and 221 (8%) were of Hispanic ethnicity. On MVR, black and Hispanic patients were less likely than whites to undergo surgery in high volume centers (OR 0.53, 95% CI [0.40, 0.71]; OR 0.45, 95% CI [0.32, 0.62]). Black patients had a greater risk of postoperative complication (OR 1.40, 95% CI [1.07, 1.83]), 90-day readmission (OR 1.53, 95% CI [1.15, 2.02]), prolonged length of stay (OR 1.74, 95% CI [1.25-2.44]), and of being a high cost outliers (OR 1.40, 95% CI [1.02, 1.91]) compared to white patients. CONCLUSION: Black patients have increased risk of having a postoperative complication, prolonged hospitalization, and of being a high-cost outlier than non-Hispanic whites.

Discharge timing: Does targeting an ideal length of stay for patients undergoing colectomy impact readmissions and costs of care?

INTRODUCTION: In colorectal surgery, enhanced recovery protocols reduce length-of-stay (LOS). Concerns remain about increased readmission rates. Using a predictive model targeting ideal LOS (iLOS), we evaluate the impact of discharge timing on readmission. METHODS: The HCUP-SID and AHA databases combined patient and hospital-level data from four states. Colectomy patients were stratified and propensity-matched based. We predicted iLOS using multivariate linear regression, created a discharge timing variable and used multivariate logistic regression to analyze 30-day and 90-day readmissions. RESULTS: Of 100,701 patients, 6903 (6.85%) were Lap-Left, 16,883 (16.77%) were Open-Left, 32,173 (31.95%) were Lap-Right, and 44,742 (44.43%) were Open-Right. Very early discharge (>4d before iLOS) and very late discharge (>4d after iLOS) were predictors of readmission in Lap- Left (p < 0.05) and Open-Right (p < 0.05). In Lap-Right, early discharge was a significant predictor of readmission (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Targeting using iLOS may optimize discharge timing after colectomy and avoid unplanned readmissions.

Do high-volume centers mitigate complication risk and reduce costs associated with performing pancreaticoduodenectomy in ethnic minorities?

INTRODUCTION: Few studies examine the impact of ethnicity on post-operative outcomes and costs associated with pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). METHODS: Multivariable regression (MVR) was used to perform a risk-adjusted comparison of patients within the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Databases undergoing PD. RESULTS: 4742 patients underwent PD. 3871 (81%) were white, 456 (10%) black, and 415 (9%) Hispanic. Black and Hispanics were less likely than whites to undergo PD in high volume centers. Blacks and Hispanics had a higher risk of select post-operative complications, prolonged lengths of stay, and high-cost outliers. When PDs done in high volume centers were evaluated separately, blacks and Hispanics had a lower adjusted-risk of any serious morbidity (OR 0.44, 95% CI [0.33, 0.57], OR 0.56, 95% CI [0.43, 0.73]) than whites but costs for PD among the three ethnic groups were statistically identical. CONCLUSION: Racial and ethnic minorities undergoing PD are less likely to receive care at high-volume centers, are at an increased risk of post-operative morbidity, and have higher odds of being high-cost outliers than NHW.

Trends, Cost, and Mortality From Sepsis After Trauma in the United States: An Evaluation of the National Inpatient Sample of Hospitalizations, 2012-2016.

OBJECTIVES: Identification and outcomes in patients with sepsis have improved over the years, but little data are available in patients with trauma who develop sepsis. We aimed to examine the cost and epidemiology of sepsis in patients hospitalized after trauma. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS: National Inpatient Sample. INTERVENTIONS: Sepsis was identified between 2012 and 2016 using implicit and explicit International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision codes. Analyses were stratified by injury severity score greater than or equal to 15. Annual trends were modeled using generalized linear models. Survey-adjusted logistic regression was used to compare the odds for in-hospital mortality, and the average marginal effects were calculated to compare the cost of hospitalization with and without sepsis. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 320,450 (SE = 3,642) traumatic injury discharges from U.S. hospitals with sepsis between 2012 and 2016, representing 6.0% (95% CI, 5.9-6.0%) of the total trauma population (n = 5,329,714; SE = 47,447). In-hospital mortality associated with sepsis after trauma did not change over the study period (p > 0.40). In adjusted analysis, severe (injury severity score ≥ 15) and nonsevere injured septic patients had an odds ratio of 1.39 (95% CI, 1.31-1.47) and 4.32 (95% CI, 4.06-4.59) for in-hospital mortality, respectively. The adjusted marginal cost for sepsis compared with nonsepsis was $16,646 (95% CI, $16,294-$16,997), and it was greater than the marginal cost for severe injury compared with nonsevere injury $8,851 (95% CI, $8,366-$8,796). CONCLUSIONS: While national trends for sepsis mortality have improved over the years, our analysis of National Inpatient Sample did not support this trend in the trauma population. The odds risk for death after sepsis and the cost of care remained high regardless of severity of injury. More rigor is needed in tracking sepsis after trauma and evaluating the effectiveness of hospital mandates and policies to improve sepsis care in patients after trauma.

Penile Prosthesis Implantation and Timing Disparities After Radical Prostatectomy: Results From a Statewide Claims Database.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with erectile dysfunction (ED) after radical prostatectomy (RP) improve with conservative therapy but some do not; penile prosthesis implantation rates have been sparsely reported, and have used nonrepresentative data sets. AIM: To characterize rates and timing of penile prosthesis implantation after RP and to identify predictors of implantation using a more representative data set. METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and State Ambulatory Surgery databases for Florida from 2006 to 2015 were used. Patients undergoing RP (2006-2012) were tracked longitudinally for penile prosthesis implantation. Patient and clinical data were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was risk-adjusted predictors of prosthesis implantation, and the secondary outcome was predictors of the highest quartile of time between RP and penile prosthesis. RESULTS: Of 29,288 men who had RP, 1,449 (4.9%) patients underwent subsequent prosthesis. The mean time from RP to prosthesis was 2.6 years (median: 2.1; interquartile range [IQR]: 1.2-3.5). Adjusted predictors of prosthesis implantation included open RP (odds ratio [OR]: 1.5, P < .01), African American race (OR: 1.7, P < .01) or Hispanic ethnicity (OR: 3.2, P < .01), and Medicare (OR: 1.4, P < .01) insurance. Oler patients (age >70 years; OR: 0.7, P < .01) and those from the highest income quartile relative to the lowest (OR: 0.8, P < .05) were less likely to be implanted. Adjusted predictors of longer RP-to-implantation time (highest quartile: median: 4.7 years; IQR: 3.9-6.0 years) included open RP (OR: 1.78, P < .01), laparoscopic RP (OR: 4.67, P < .01), Medicaid (OR: 3.03, P < .05), private insurance (OR: 2.57, P < .01), and being in the highest income quartile (OR: 2.52, P < .01). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: These findings suggest ED treatment healthcare disparities meriting further investigation; upfront counseling on all ED treatment modalities and close monitoring for conservative treatment failure may reduce lost quality of life years. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: This study is limited by its use of administrative data, which relies on accurate coding and lacks data on ED questionnaires/prior treatments, patient-level cost, and oncologic outcomes. Quartile-based analysis of income and time between RP and prosthesis limits the conclusions that can be drawn. CONCLUSION: Less than 5% of post-RP patients undergo penile prosthesis implantation, with open RP, Medicare, African American race, and Hispanic ethnicity predicting post-RP implantation; living in the wealthiest residential areas predicts lower likelihood of implantation compared to the least wealthy areas. Patients with the longest time between RP and prosthesis are more likely to live in the wealthiest areas or have undergone open/laparoscopic RP relative to robotic RP. Bajic P, Patel PM, Nelson MH, et al. Penile Prosthesis Implantation and Timing Disparities After Radical Prostatectomy: Results From a Statewide Claims Database. J Sex Med 2020;17:1175-1181.

Assessment of textbook oncologic outcomes following pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Composite outcomes may more accurately reflect patient and provider expectations around optimal care. We sought to determine the impact of achieving a so-called "textbook oncologic outcome" (TOO) among patients undergoing resection of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: Patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) for PDAC between 2006 and 2016 were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB). TOO was defined by: margin negative resection, compliant lymph node evaluation, no prolonged length-of-stay, no 30-day readmission/mortality, and receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. Factors associated with TOO and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using multivariable logistic and Cox regression models, respectively. RESULTS: Among 18 608 patients who underwent PD at 782 hospitals, many patients successfully achieved certain TOO factors such as R0 margin (77.9%) and no 30-day mortality (96.9%), while other TOO criteria such as receipt of adjuvant therapy (48.2%) were achieved less frequently. Overall, only 3124 (16.8%) patients achieved a TOO. Factors associated with lower odds of TOO included: older age, Black race, Medicaid insurance, Community facility, and low PD facility (<20 PD/y) (all P < .05). Achievement of a TOO was associated with lower risk of mortality (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.70-0.77). CONCLUSIONS: While TOO was associated with improved long-term survival, TOO was only achieved in 16.8% of patients undergoing PD.

The Impact of the Affordable Care Act Medicaid Expansion on Vascular Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion increased Medicaid eligibility such that all adults with an income level up to 138% of the federal poverty threshold in 2014 qualified for Medicaid benefits. Prior studies have shown that the ACA Medicaid expansion was associated with increased access to care. The impact of the ACA Medicaid expansion on patients undergoing complex care for major vascular pathology has not been evaluated. METHODS: The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database was used to identify patients undergoing care for major vascular pathology in 6 states from 2010 to 2014. The analysis cohort included adult patients between the ages of 18 and 64 years who underwent a nonemergent surgical procedure for an abdominal aortic aneurysm, thoracic aortic aneurysm, carotid artery stenosis, peripheral vascular disease, or chronic kidney disease. Poisson regression was used to determine the incidence rate ratios (IRRs). RESULTS: There were a total of 83,960 patients in the study cohort. Compared with nonexpansion states, inpatient admissions for Medicaid patients with an abdominal or thoracic aneurysm and carotid stenosis diagnosis increased significantly (IRR, 1.20, 1.27, 1.06, respectively; P < 0.05) in states that expanded Medicaid. Vascular-related surgeries increased for carotid endarterectomy, lower extremity revascularization, lower extremity amputation, and arteriovenous fistula in expansion states (IRR, 1.24, 1.10, 1.11, 1.16, respectively; P < 0.05) compared with nonexpansion states. CONCLUSIONS: In states that expanded Medicaid coverage under the ACA, the rate of vascular-related surgeries and admissions for Medicaid patients increased. We conclude that expanding insurance coverage results in enhanced access to vascular surgery.

The paradox of the robotic approach to inguinal hernia repair in the inpatient setting.

BACKGROUND: Robotics offers improved ergonomics, enhanced visualization, and increased dexterity. Disadvantages include startup, maintenance and instrument costs. Surgeon education notwithstanding, we hypothesized that robotic inguinal hernia repair carries minimal advantages over the open or laparoscopic approach in the inpatient setting. METHODS: The HCUP-SID and AHA datasets were queried for inguinal hernia repair codes. Hospital and patient demographic, financial and comorbidity data were evaluated. Data are presented as mean ±â€¯SEM. RESULTS: 36396 cases (27776 Open, 7104 Laparoscopic and 1516 Robotic) were identified. Total costs were: $13595 ±â€¯104 (Open), $13581 ±â€¯176 (Laparoscopic) and $18494 ±â€¯323 (Robotic). (p < 0.0001 Robotic vs Open, Robotic vs Laparoscopic) Robotic costs were 38% greater than that of the Open and Laparoscopic subsets (p < 0.001 Robotic vs. Open and Laparoscopic). The Open, Laparoscopic and Robotic subsets' length of stay were 4.2, 3.2 and 2.3 days, respectively. (p < 0.0001 among Open, Laparoscopic and Robotic). CONCLUSION: The Robotic approach to the inguinal hernia repair had the lowest length of stay, despite having the highest costs. The benefits of robotic surgery in inguinal hernia repair are unclear in the inpatient setting.

The impact of the affordable care act (ACA) Medicaid Expansion on access to minimally invasive surgical care.

INTRODUCTION: This study aims to evaluate the effect of the ACA Medicaid expansion on the utilization of minimally invasive (MIS) approaches to common general surgical procedures. METHODS: We queried five Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases to evaluate rates of utilization and costs of MIS and open approaches pre and post Medicaid expansion. RESULTS: 117,241 patients met the inclusion criteria. Following the enactment of the ACA, use of both laparoscopic gastric bypass (IRR 1.08; 95% CI: [1.02, 1.15]) and Nissen fundoplication (IRR 1.17; 95% CI [1.09, 1.26]) increased in Medicaid patients treated in expansion states than in those treated in non-expansion states. Simultaneously, the costs reported for self-pay patients increased in expansion states more than in non-expansion states (+$1669; 95% CI [$655, $2682]). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion was associated with increased rates of utilization of MIS approaches to several surgical procedures and a shifting of costs toward patients who were self-insured.

The laparoscopic approach to pancreatoduodenectomy is cost neutral in very high-volume centers.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the impact of minimally invasive approaches to pancreatoduodenectomy on the aggregate costs of care for patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy. METHODS: We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database to identify patients undergoing elective laparoscopic or open pancreatoduodenectomy between 2014 and 2016. RESULTS: In this database, 488 (10%) patients underwent elective laparoscopic; 4,544 (90%) underwent open pancreatoduodenectomy. On adjusted analysis, the risk of perioperative morbidity and overall duration of hospitalization for patients undergoing elective laparoscopic were identical to those for patients undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy. Patients undergoing elective laparoscopic in low (+$10,399, 95% confidence interval [$3,700, $17,098]) and moderate to high (+$4,505, 95% confidence interval [$528, $8,481]) volume centers had greater costs than those undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy in the same centers. In very high-volume centers (>127 pancreatoduodenectomies/year), aggregate costs of care for patients undergoing elective laparoscopic were essentially identical to those undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy in the same centers (+$815, 95% confidence interval [-$1,530, $3,160]). CONCLUSION: Rates of morbidity and overall duration of hospitalization for patients undergoing elective laparoscopic are not different than those undergoing open pancreatoduodenectomy. At low to moderate and high-volume centers, elective laparoscopic is associated with greater aggregate costs of care relative to open pancreatoduodenectomy. At very high-volume centers, elective laparoscopic is cost-neutral.

The laparoscopic approach to distal pancreatectomy is a value-added proposition for patients undergoing care in moderate-volume and high-volume centers.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the impact of the minimally invasive approach to distal pancreatectomy on the aggregate costs of care for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. METHODS: We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database to identify patients undergoing elective laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy or open distal pancreatectomy between 2012 and 2014. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate postoperative outcomes including readmissions to 90 days after distal pancreatectomy. RESULTS: A total of 267 (11%) patients underwent laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy, and a total of 2,214 (89%) underwent open distal pancreatectomy. On multivariable regression, patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had a decreased odds risk of having any severe adverse outcome (odds ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval [0.54-0.97]), prolonged length of stay (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval [0.30-0.79]), and of being in the highest quartile for aggregate costs of care (odds ratio 0.46, 95% confidence interval [0.32-0.66]) relative to those undergoing open distal pancreatectomy. Patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy had a lower average 90-day aggregate cost of care than those undergoing open distal pancreatectomy when procedures were performed in high-volume (-$16,153, 95% CI: [-$23,342 to -$8,964]) centers. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy have a lower risk of severe adverse outcomes, prolonged overall length of stay, and lower associated costs of care relative to those undergoing open distal pancreatectomy. This association is independent of hospital volume.