The Cost of Ambulatory Breast Reduction: Hospital Reimbursement Versus Surgeon Payments.

Introduction: Reduction mammoplasty (RM) is one of the most common operations performed in plastic surgery. While US national surgical expenditures have risen in recent years, studies have reported decreasing reimbursement rates for plastic surgeons. The purpose of this study is to characterize the trends in charges and payments for a common plastic surgery operation, ambulatory RM, for facilities and physicians. Methods: A Medicare patient records database was used to capture hospital, surgeon, and anesthesiologist charges and payments for ambulatory RM from 2005 to 2014. Values were adjusted for inflation. A ratio of hospital to surgeon charges and payments were calculated: charge multiplier (CM) and payment multiplier (PM), respectively. Charges, payments, Charlson comorbidity index, CM, and PM values were analyzed for trends. Results: This study included 1001 patients. During the study period, the facility charge for RM per patient increased from $8477 to $11,102 (31% increase; p < .0005), and the surgeon charge increased from $7088 to $7199 (2% increase; p = .0009). Facility payments increased from $3661 to $3930 (7% increase; p < .0005), and surgeon payments decreased from $1178 to $1002 (15% decrease; p < .0005). CM increased from 1.2 to 1.54, and PM increased from 3.11 to 3.92. Conclusions: Charges and payments to facilities for ambulatory RM increased disproportionately to that of surgeons, likely due in part to rising administrative costs in health care delivery. This may disincentivize plastic surgeons from offering RM at hospital-based surgical centers, limiting patient access to this operation.

Introduction: La mammoplastie de réduction (MR) est l'une des interventions les plus courantes pratiquées en chirurgie plastique. Alors que les dépenses chirurgicales aux États-Unis ont augmenté au niveau national au cours des dernières années, les études ont signalé une diminution des taux de remboursement pour les chirurgiens plasticiens. L'objectif de cette étude est de définir les tendances dans les frais et paiements pour une intervention courante de chirurgie plastique, une MR ambulatoire, pour les établissements et pour les médecins. Méthodes: Une base de données des dossiers de patients Medicare a été utilisée pour collecter les frais pour les hôpitaux, les chirurgiens et les anesthésiologistes ainsi que les paiements pour MR ambulatoires de 2005 à 2014. Les valeurs ont été ajustées pour tenir compte de l'inflation. Des ratios des frais hôpital/chirurgien et des paiements ont été calculés : respectivement, un facteur de multiplication des frais (MF) et des paiements (MP). Les tendances de la valeur des frais, des paiements, de l'indice de comorbidité de Charlson, du MF et du MP ont été analysées. Résultats: Cette étude a inclus 1001 patients. Au cours de la période de l'étude, les frais pour MR par patient à la charge de l'établissement ont augmenté de 8 477 $ à 11 102 $, soit une augmentation de 31 % (P < 0,0005) et les frais du chirurgien sont passés de 7 088 $ à 7 199 $, soit une augmentation de 2 % (P = 0,0009). Les paiements de l'établissement ont augmenté de 3 661 $ à 3 930 $, soit une augmentation de 7 % (P < 0,0005) et les paiements du chirurgien ont diminué de 1 178 $ à 1 002 $, soit une diminution de 15 % (P < 0,0005). Le facteur MF est passé de 1,2 à 1,54 et le facteur MP est passé de 3,11 à 3,92. Conclusions: Les frais et paiements aux établissements pour MR ambulatoire ont augmenté de manière disproportionnée par rapport à ceux des chirurgiens, probablement en partie à cause de l'augmentation des coûts administratifs croissants de l'administration des soins. Cela pourrait inciter les chirurgiens plasticiens à ne plus offrir de MR dans les centres chirurgicaux hospitaliers et pourrait donc limiter l'accès des patients à cette opération.

Cost-Effectiveness of Universal Screening for Blunt Cerebrovascular Injury: A Markov Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Blunt cerebrovascular injury (BCVI) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality after blunt trauma. Numerous screening strategies exist, although which is used is institution- and physician-dependent. We sought to identify the most cost-effective screening strategy for BCVI, hypothesizing that universal screening would be optimal among the screening strategies studied. STUDY DESIGN: A Markov decision analysis model was used to compare the following screening strategies for identification of BCVI: (1) no screening; (2) Denver criteria; (3) extended Denver criteria; (4) Memphis criteria; and (5) universal screening. The base-case scenario modeled 50-year-old patients with blunt traumatic injury excluding isolated extremity injures. Patients with BCVI detected on imaging were assumed to be treated with antithrombotic therapy, subsequently decreasing risk of stroke and mortality. One-way sensitivity analyses were performed on key model inputs. A single-year horizon was used with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS: The most cost-effective screening strategy for patients with blunt trauma among the strategies analyzed was universal screening. This method resulted in the lowest stroke rate, mortality, and cost, and highest quality-adjusted life-year. An estimated 3,506 strokes would be prevented annually as compared with extended Denver criteria (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $71,949 for universal screening vs incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $12,736 for extended Denver criteria per quality-adjusted life-year gained) if universal screening were implemented in the US. In 1-way sensitivity analyses, universal screening was the optimal strategy when the incidence of BCVI was greater than 6%. CONCLUSIONS: This model suggests universal screening may be the cost-effective strategy for BCVI screening in blunt trauma for certain trauma centers. Trauma centers should develop institutional protocols that take into account individual BCVI rates.

Disparities in the Use of Sentinel Lymph Node Dissection for Early Stage Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have long established the long-term safety of omitting axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) after sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) in patients with clinically node-negative early stage breast cancer. The variations in utilization of SLND and ALND in this patient population, however, are currently unknown. METHODS: Adult female patients (40 years and older) within the National Cancer Database diagnosed with breast cancer between January 2013 and December 2015, who had clinical T1-T2 and N0 disease, and who underwent either SLND (with or without subsequent ALND) or ALND were included. Differences in utilization across race, ethnicity, insurance type, facility, and residential characteristics were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Overall, 271,689 patients were included, of which 26,527 (10%) received ALND and 245,162 (90%) underwent SLND. After adjusting for demographics and cancer characteristics, black (odds ratio [OR], 1.11; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.06-1.17) and Hispanic women (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.10-1.24) were more likely to receive ALND. Patients without health insurance (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.19-1.47), compared with private health insurance, and those receiving treatment at community cancer centers (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.53-1.67), compared with academic/research centers, were also more likely to receive ALND. CONCLUSIONS: Although the vast majority of women undergo SLND, significant disparities exist in its utilization for early stage breast cancer, with traditionally underserved patients receiving unwarranted extensive axillary surgery. Increased patient and surgeon education is needed to decrease variations in care that can affect patient's quality of life.