Cost Effectiveness of Additional Preoperative Telephone Call to Increase Surgical Preparedness: Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: There is a need for cost effective interventions that increase surgical preparedness in urogynecology. METHODS: We performed an ancillary prospective economic evaluation of the Telehealth Intervention to Increase Patient Preparedness for Surgery (TIPPS) Trial, a randomized multicenter trial that evaluated the impact of a preoperative telehealth call on surgical preparedness in women undergoing urogynecologic surgery. A within-trial analysis from the health care sector and societal perspective was performed. Cost-effectiveness was computed from health care sector and societal perspectives, with an 8-week time horizon. RESULTS: A total of 126 women were included in our analysis. QALYs gained were similar between groups (telehealth 0.1414 + 0.0249; usual care 0.1409 + 0.0179). The cumulative mean per-person costs at 8 weeks from the healthcare sector perspective were telehealth call: $8696 +/- 3341; usual care: $8473 +/- 3118 (p = 0.693) and from the societal perspective were telehealth call: $11,195 + 5191; usual care: $11,213 +/- 4869 (p = 0.944). The preoperative telehealth call intervention was not cost effective from the health care sector perspective with an ICER of $460,091/QALY (95%CI -$7,382,608/QALY, $7,673,961) using the generally accepted maximum willingness to pay threshold of $150,000/QALY (Neumann et al. N Engl J Med. 371(9):796-7, 2014). From the societal perspective, because incremental costs per QALY gained were negative $-35,925/QALY (95%CI, -$382,978/QALY, $317,226), results suggest that preoperative telehealth call dominated usual care. CONCLUSIONS: A preoperative telehealth call is cost effective from the society perspective. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with http://ClinicalTrials.gov . Date of registration: March 26, 2019 Date of initial participant enrollment: June 5, 2019 URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT03890471 Clinical trial identification number: NCT03890471.

Medium-Term Outcomes of Conservative and Surgical Treatments for Stress Urinary Incontinence: A Medicare Claims Analysis: Developed by the AUGS Payment Reform Committee.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the 3- to 5-year retreatment outcomes for conservatively and surgically treated urinary incontinence (UI) in a population of women 66 years and older. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used 5% Medicare data to evaluate UI retreatment outcomes of women undergoing physical therapy (PT), pessary treatment, or sling surgery. The data set used inpatient, outpatient, and carrier claims from 2008 to 2016 in women 66 years and older with fee-for-service coverage. Treatment failure was defined as receiving another UI treatment (pessary, PT, sling, Burch urethropexy, or urethral bulking) or repeat sling. A secondary analysis was performed where additional treatment courses of PT or pessary were also considered a treatment failure. Survival analysis was used to evaluate the time from treatment initiation to retreatment. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2013, 13,417 women were included with an index UI treatment, and follow-up continued through 2016. In this cohort, 41.4% received pessary treatment, 31.8% received PT, and 26.8% underwent sling surgery. In the primary analysis, pessaries had the lowest treatment failure rate compared with PT (P<0.001) and sling surgery (P<0.001; survival probability, 0.94 [pessary], 0.90 [PT], 0.88 [sling]). In the analysis where retreatment with PT or a pessary was considered a failure, sling surgery had the lowest retreatment rate (survival probability, 0.58 [pessary], 0.81 [PT], 0.88 [sling]; P<0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: In this administrative database analysis, there was a small but statistically significant difference in treatment failure among women undergoing sling surgery, PT, or pessary treatment, but pessary use was commonly associated with the need for repeat pessary fittings.

Validation of the Surgical Preparedness Assessment in women with pelvic floor disorders.

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: We sought to further develop and validate the Surgical Preparedness Assessment (SPA) scale to evaluate patient preparedness for urogynecological surgery. METHODS: This was a planned ancillary analysis of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the impact of a preoperative telehealth call on patient preparedness for urogynecological surgery. Patients completed the Preoperative Preparedness Questionnaire (PPQ), the modified Preparedness for Colorectal Cancer Surgery Questionnaire (PCSQ), the Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI-20), the Satisfaction Decision Scale (SDS), and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS). Content validity was established through expert opinion and patient cognitive interviews. Factor analysis identified item grouping into domains. Cronbach's alpha reported internal consistency. Known group validity was assessed by comparing intervention arms. External validity was evaluated by comparing intervention arms and correlations with SDS and DRS. RESULTS: Eleven items and 3 domains met the criteria (information needs, satisfaction and pain, and catheterization). Cronbach's alpha values were acceptable for domains and ranged from 0.74 to 0.93. SPA scores did not correlate with other patient-reported outcomes. Mean SPA scores were lower among women who received a telehealth call vs those who did not (1.30 ± 0.31 vs 1.51 ± 0.44; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The content-valid SPA demonstrates high internal consistency and known group validity.

The Use of Ancillary Services Under a Bundled Care Versus a Fee-For-Service Payment Model.

OBJECTIVES: Colocated services in a team-based integrated practice unit (IPU) optimize care of pelvic floor disorders. Our goal was to compare ancillary service utilization in a multidisciplinary IPU between patients covered by a bundled payment model (BPM) versus a traditional fee-for-service model (FFSM). METHODS: Medical records of women attending an IPU for pelvic floor disorders with colocated services, including nutrition, social work, psychiatry, physical therapy, and subspecialty care between October 2017 and December 2018, were included in this retrospective chart review. All patients were offered treatment with ancillary services according to standardized care pathways. Data extracted included patient demographics, pelvic floor disorder diagnoses, baseline severity measures, payment model, and ancillary services used. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression identified variables predicting higher uptake of ancillary services. RESULTS: A total of 575 women with pelvic floor disorders presented for care during the study period, of which 35.14% attended at least 1 appointment with any ancillary services provider. Ancillary service utilization did not differ between patients in the BPM group and those in the FFSM group (36.22 vs 33.47%; P = 0.489). Social work services were more likely to be used by the BPM compared with the FFSM group (15.95 vs 6.28%; P < 0.001). The diagnosis of fecal incontinence was associated with a higher chance of using any ancillary service (odds ratio, 4.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.81-13.33; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: One third of patients with pelvic floor disorders receiving care in an IPU used colocated ancillary services. Utilization does not differ between payment models.

Creating a bundled care payment model for treatment of pelvic floor disorders: introducing value into urogynecology.

Ineffective healthcare delivery and expenditures associated with the traditional fee for service in-person models have turned attention toward alternative payment models as a means of enhancing healthcare quality in the United States. Bundled care payment models are a form of alternate payment models that provide a single reimbursement for all services rendered for an episode of care and have been developed extensively in primary care settings with limited literature in urogynecology. We describe the process used to create a bundled care payment model for women seeking care in a subspecialty clinic for pelvic floor disorders in partnership with our safety net insurer. The process included estimation of prior average spend, the design of an integrated practice unit, creation of pelvic floor pathways, approximation of utilization rates, and estimation of reimbursement and expenses.