Morbidity, mortality, and health care costs for patients undergoing spine surgery following the ACGME resident duty-hour reform: Clinical article.

OBJECT: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) implemented resident duty-hour restrictions on July 1, 2003, in concern for patient and resident safety. Whereas studies have shown that duty-hour restrictions have increased resident quality of life, there have been mixed results with respect to patient outcomes. In this study, the authors have evaluated the effect of duty-hour restrictions on morbidity, mortality, length of stay (LOS), and charges in patients who underwent spine surgery. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to evaluate the effect of duty-hour restrictions on complications, mortality, LOS, and charges by comparing the prereform (2000-2002) and postreform (2005-2008) periods. Outcomes were compared between nonteaching and teaching hospitals using a difference-in-differences (DID) method. Results A total of 693,058 patients were included in the study. The overall complication rate was 8.6%, with patients in the postreform era having a significantly higher rate than those in the pre-duty-hour restriction era (8.7% vs. 8.4%, p < 0.0001). Examination of hospital teaching status revealed complication rates to decrease in nonteaching hospitals (8.2% vs. 7.6%, p < 0.0001) while increasing in teaching institutions (8.6% vs. 9.6%, p < 0.0001) in the duty-hour reform era. The DID analysis to compare the magnitude in change between teaching and nonteaching institutions revealed that teaching institutions to had a significantly greater increase in complications during the postreform era (p = 0.0002). The overall mortality rate was 0.37%, with no significant difference between the pre- and post-duty-hour eras (0.39% vs. 0.36%, p = 0.12). However, the mortality rate significantly decreased in nonteaching hospitals in the postreform era (0.30% vs. 0.23%, p = 0.0008), while remaining the same in teaching institutions (0.46% vs. 0.46%, p = 0.75). The DID analysis to compare the changes in mortality between groups revealed that the difference between the effects approached significance (p = 0.069). The mean LOS for all patients was 4.2 days, with hospital stay decreasing in nonteaching hospitals (3.7 vs. 3.5 days, p < 0.0001) while significantly increasing in teaching institutions (4.7 vs. 4.8 days, p < 0.0001). The DID analysis did not demonstrate the magnitude of change for each group to differ significantly (p = 0.26). Total patient charges were seen to rise significantly in the post-duty-hour reform era, increasing from $40,000 in the prereform era to $69,000 in the postreform era. The DID analysis did not reveal a significant difference between the changes in charges between teaching and nonteaching hospitals (p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of duty-hour restrictions was associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications for patients undergoing spine surgery. Therefore, contrary to its intended purpose, duty-hour reform may have resulted in worse patient outcomes. Additional studies are needed to evaluate strategies to mitigate these effects and assist in the development of future health care policy.

Worse outcomes for patients undergoing brain tumor and cerebrovascular procedures following the ACGME resident duty-hour restrictions.

OBJECT: On July 1, 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) implemented duty-hour restrictions for resident physicians due to concerns for patient and resident safety. Though duty-hour restrictions have increased resident quality of life, studies have shown mixed results with respect to patient outcomes. In this study, the authors have evaluated the effect of duty-hour restrictions on morbidity, mortality, length of stay, and charges in patients who underwent brain tumor and cerebrovascular procedures. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was used to evaluate the effect of duty-hour restrictions on complications, mortality, length of stay, and charges by comparing the pre-reform (2000-2002) and post-reform (2005-2008) periods. Outcomes were compared between nonteaching and teaching hospitals using a difference-in-differences (DID) method. RESULTS: A total of 90,648 patients were included in the analysis. The overall complication rate was 11.7%, with the rates not significantly differing between the pre- and post-duty hour eras (p = 0.26). Examination of hospital teaching status revealed that complication rates decreased in nonteaching hospitals (12.1% vs 10.4%, p = 0.0004) and remained stable in teaching institutions (11.8% vs 11.9%, p = 0.73) in the post-reform era. Multivariate analysis demonstrated a significantly higher complication risk in teaching institutions (OR 1.33 [95% CI 1.11-1.59], p = 0.0022), with no significant change in nonteaching hospitals (OR 1.11 [95% CI 0.91-1.37], p = 0.31). A DID analysis to compare the magnitude in change between teaching and nonteaching institutions revealed that teaching hospitals had a significantly greater increase in complications during the post-reform era than nonteaching hospitals (p = 0.040). The overall mortality rate was 3.0%, with a significant decrease occurring in the post-reform era in both nonteaching (5.0% vs 3.2%, p < 0.0001) and teaching (3.2% vs 2.3%, p < 0.0001) hospitals. DID analysis to compare the changes in mortality between groups did not reveal a significant difference (p = 0.40). The mean length of stay for all patients was 8.7 days, with hospital stay decreasing from 9.2 days to 8.3 days in the post-reform era (p < 0.0001). The DID analysis revealed a greater length of stay decrease in nonteaching hospitals than teaching institutions, which approached significance (p = 0.055). Patient charges significantly increased in the post-reform era for all patients, increasing from $70,900 to $96,100 (p < 0.0001). The DID analysis did not reveal a significant difference between the changes in charges between teaching and nonteaching hospitals (p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of duty-hour restrictions correlated with an increased risk of postoperative complications for patients undergoing brain tumor and cerebrovascular neurosurgical procedures. Duty-hour reform may therefore be associated with worse patient outcomes, contrary to its intended purpose. Due to the critical condition of many neurosurgical patients, this patient population is most sensitive and likely to be negatively affected by proposed future increased restrictions.

Insurance disparities in the outcomes of spinal cord stimulation surgery.

OBJECTIVES: The Affordable Care Act aims to expand health insurance and to help narrow existing health care disparities. Medicaid patients have previously been noted to be at an increased risk for impaired access to health care, delayed medical treatment, and the receipt of substandard care. Conversely, those with commercial insurance may be subject to overtreatment. The goal of this study was to evaluate how Medicaid versus commercial insurance status affects outcomes following spinal cord stimulation (SCS) surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 13,774 patients underwent either percutaneous or paddle permanent SCS implantation, selected from the Thomson Reuter's MarketScan database between 2000 and 2009. Patients were characterized by age at initial procedure, gender, baseline comorbidity burden, procedure-associated diagnosis code, follow-up, and type of insurance (Medicaid vs. commercial insurance). Outcome measures included probability of reoperation, timing and type of reoperation, presence of postoperative complications (immediate, 30 days, and 90 days), and overall utilization of health resources postoperatively. Multivariate analysis was performed comparing the relative effect of insurance status on outcomes following initial surgery. RESULTS: Medicaid patients had greater healthcare resource utilization as measured by medications prescribed, emergency department visits, and length of stay; however, commercially insured patients had significantly higher overall costs ($110,908 vs. $64,644, p < 0.0001). Commercial and Medicaid patients did not significantly differ in their complication rates during the index hospitalization or at 30 days or 90 days postoperatively. The group were also not significantly different in their two-year reoperation rates (7.32% vs. 5.06%, p = 0.0513). CONCLUSIONS: There are substantial insurance disparities that affect healthcare utilization and overall cost following SCS. Efforts for national healthcare reform should examine system factors that will reduce socioeconomic disparities in outcomes following SCS.

Outcomes of percutaneous and paddle lead implantation for spinal cord stimulation: a comparative analysis of complications, reoperation rates, and health-care costs.

OBJECTIVES: Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is a well-established modality for the treatment of chronic pain, and can utilize percutaneous or paddle leads. While percutaneous leads are less invasive, they have been shown to have higher lead migration rates. In this study, we compared the long-term outcomes and health-care costs associated with paddle and percutaneous lead implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We utilized the MarketScan data base to examine patients who underwent percutaneous or paddle lead SCS system implantation from 2000 to 2009. Outcomes including complications, reoperation rates, and health-care costs were evaluated in propensity score matched cohorts using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The study cohort was comprised of 13,774 patients. At 90 days following the initial procedure, patients in the SCS paddle group were more likely to develop a postoperative complication than patients receiving percutaneous systems (3.4% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.0005). Two-year (6.3% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.0056) and long-term (five+ years) (22.9% vs. 8.5%, p < 0.0008) reoperation rates were significantly higher in those with percutaneous lead systems. However, long-term health-care costs were similar for those receiving paddle and percutaneous leads ($169,768 vs. $186,139, p = 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: While the implantation of paddle leads is associated with slightly higher initial postoperative complications, these leads are associated with significantly lower long-term reoperation rates. Nonetheless, long-term health-care costs are similar between paddle and percutaneous leads. Additional improvements in SCS technologies that address the shortcomings of current systems are needed to reduce the risk of reoperation due to hardware failure. Further study is required to evaluate the efficacy of newer percutaneous and paddle SCS systems and examine their comparative outcomes.

Disparities in the outcomes of lumbar spinal stenosis surgery based on insurance status.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using Thomson Reuter's MarketScan database. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent to which Medicaid versus commercial insurance status affects outcomes after lumbar stenosis surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The Affordable Care Act aims to expand health insurance and to help narrow existing health care disparities. Medicaid patients have previously been noted to be at an increased risk for impaired access to health care. Conversely, those with commercial insurance may be subject to overtreatment. We examine the surgical treatment of low back pain as an example that has raised significant public health concerns. METHODS: A total of 28,462 patients, ages 18 and older, were identified who had undergone laminectomy or fusion for spinal stenosis between 2000 and 2009. Patients were characterized by baseline demographic information, comorbidity burden, and type of insurance (Medicaid vs. commercial insurance). Multivariate analysis was performed comparing the relative effect of insurance status on reoperation rates, timing and type of reoperations, postoperative complications, and total postoperative health resource use. RESULTS: Medicaid patients had similar reoperation rates to commercially insured patients at 1 year (4.60% vs. 5.42%, P = .38); but had significantly lower reoperation rates at 2 (7.22% vs. 10.30%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.661; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.533-0.820; P = .0002) and more than 2 years (13.92% vs. 16.89%; aOR = 0.722; 95% CI, 0.612-0.851; P <.0001). Medicaid patients were particularly less likely to undergo fusion as a reoperation (aOR = 0.478; 95% CI, 0.377-0.606; P < 0001). Medicaid patients had greater health care resource utilization as measured by hospital days, outpatient services and medications prescribed; however, commercially insured patients had significantly higher overall health utilization costs at 1 and 2 years. CONCLUSION: There are insurance disparities that affect important surgical outcomes after initial surgery for spinal stenosis. Efforts for national health care reform should include explicit efforts to identify such system factors that will reduce current inequities in care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.