Trends in performance of hospital outpatient procedures and associated 30-day costs among Medicare beneficiaries from 2011 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: United States healthcare has increasingly transitioned to outpatient care delivery. The degree to which Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) have been able to shift surgical procedures from inpatient to outpatient settings despite higher patient complexity is unknown. METHODS: This observational study used a 20% sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older undergoing eight elective procedures from 2011 to 2018 to model trends in procedure site (hospital outpatient vs. inpatient) and 30-day standardized Medicare costs, overall and by hospital teaching status. RESULTS: Of the 1,222,845 procedures, 15.9% occurred at AMCs. There was a 2.42% per-year adjusted increase (95% CI 2.39%-2.45%; p < .001) in proportion of outpatient hospital procedures, from 68.9% in 2011 to 85.4% in 2018. Adjusted 30-day standardized costs declined from $18,122 to $14,353, (-$560/year, 95% CI -$573 to -$547; p < .001). Patients at AMCs had more chronic conditions and higher predicted annual mortality. AMCs had a lower proportion of outpatient procedures in all years compared to non-AMCs, a difference that was statistically significant but small in magnitude. AMCs had higher costs compared to non-AMCs and a lesser decline over time (p < .001 for the interaction). AMCs and non-AMCs saw a similar decline in 30-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a substantial shift toward outpatient procedures among Medicare beneficiaries with a decrease in total 30-day Medicare spending as well as 30-day mortality. Despite a higher complexity population, AMCs shifted procedures to the outpatient hospital setting at a similar rate as non-AMCs. IMPLICATIONS: The trend toward outpatient procedural care and lower spending has been observed broadly across AMCs and non-AMCs, suggesting that Medicare beneficiaries have benefited from more efficient delivery of procedural care across academic and community hospitals.

Value of Ambulatory Modified Radical Mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Modified radical mastectomy (MRM) still is largely performed in inpatient settings. This study sought to determine the value (expenditures and complications) of ambulatory MRM. METHODS: Health Care Utilization Project (HCUP) state databases from 2016 were queried for patients who underwent MRM. The study examined rates of 30-day readmission for surgical-site infection (SSI) or hematoma, charges by index care setting, and predictors of 30-day readmission. RESULTS: Overall, 8090 patients underwent MRM: 5113 (63 %) inpatient and 2977 (37 %) ambulatory patients. Compared with the patients who underwent inpatient MRM, those who underwent ambulatory MRM were older (61 vs. 59 years), more often white (66 % vs. 57 %), in the lowest income quartile (28 % vs. 21 %), insured by Medicare (43 % vs. 33 %) and residents in a small metro area (6 % vs. 4 %) (all p < 0.01). Of the 5113 patients treated as inpatients, 126 (2.5 %) were readmitted, whereas 50 (1.7 %) of the ambulatory patients were readmitted (p = 0.02). The adjusted charge for inpatient MRM without readmission was $113,878 (range, $107,355-120,402) compared with $94,463 (range, $86,021-102,907) for ambulatory MRM, and the charge for inpatient MRM requiring readmission was $159,355 (range, $147,142-171,568) compared with $139,940 (range, $125,808-154,073) for ambulatory MRM (all p < 0.01). This difference remained significant after adjustment for hospital length of stay. Adjusted logistic regression showed that the ambulatory setting was protective for readmission (odds ratio, 0.49; 95 % confidence interval, 0.35-0.70; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The analyses suggest that ambulatory MRM is both safe and less expensive. The findings advocate that MRM, a last holdout of inpatient care within breast surgical oncology, can be transitioned to the ambulatory setting for appropriate patients.

Longitudinal Trends in 30-Day Mortality Between Multi-Site and Single-Site Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Quality leaders are concerned that creation of multi-hospital health systems may lead to surgeons traveling to and from distant hospitals and thus to more fragmented surgical care and worse outcomes for their patients. Despite this concern, little empirical data exist on outcomes of multi-site versus single-site surgeons. METHODS: Using national Medicare data, we assessed trends in the number of multi-site vs. single-site surgeons from 2011 to 2016. We performed a multivariable regression analysis to compare overall 30-day mortality differences, stratified by system and rural status, and examined trends over time. RESULTS: The number of multi-site surgeons and the percentage of multi-site surgeons per hospital decreased over time (24.2%-19.0%; 44.3%-41.8%). Overall, multi-site surgeons had lower 30-day mortality than single-site surgeons (2.24% vs 2.50%, P < 0.01). When stratified by system status, multi-site surgeons performed better in-system (2.47% vs 2.58%, P < 0.01); by rural status, multi-site surgeons had lower mortality in non-rural hospitals (2.42% vs 2.51%, P < 0.01). The statistically significant but small mortality advantage of multi-site versus single-site surgeons decreased over time, such that by 2016 there was no difference in outcomes between multi-site and single-site surgeons. CONCLUSION: For the majority of study years, multi-site surgeons had lower 30-day mortality than single-site surgeons, but this trend narrowed until outcomes were equivalent by 2016. Surgeons operating at multiple hospitals can provide surgical care to patients without any evidence of increased mortality.