Disparities in the Receipt of Systemic Treatment in Metastatic Melanoma.

BACKGROUND: In 2011, immunotherapy and targeted therapy revolutionized melanoma treatment. However, inequities in their use may limit the benefits seen by certain patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients in the National Cancer Database for patients with stage IV melanoma from 2 time periods: 2004-2010 and 2016-2020, distinguishing between those who received systemic therapy and those who did not. We investigated the rates and factors associated with treatment omission. We employed Kaplan-Meier analysis to explore the impact of treatment on overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 19,961 patients met the inclusion criteria: 7621 patients were diagnosed in 2004-2010 and 12,340 patients in 2016-2020, of whom 54.9% and 28.3% did not receive systemic treatment, respectively. The rate of "no treatment" has decreased to a plateau of ∼25% in 2020. Median overall survival was improved with treatment in both time periods (2004-2010: 8.8 vs. 5.6 mo [ P <0.05]; and 2016-2020: 25.9 vs. 4.3 mo [ P <0.05]). Nonmedical factors associated with the omission of treatment in both periods included low socioeconomic status, Medicaid or no health insurance, and treatment at low-volume centers. In the period from 2016 to 2020, patients treated at nonacademic programs were also less likely to receive treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic therapies significantly improve survival for patients with metastatic melanoma, but significant disparities exist with their receipt. Local efforts are needed to ensure all patients benefit from these revolutionary treatments.

Patient and provider factors predict non-surgical management for complex upper gastrointestinal cancers.

BACKGROUND: Surgery is the only potentially curative treatment for non-metastatic upper gastrointestinal cancers. We analyzed patient and provider characteristics associated with non-surgical management. METHODS: We queried the National Cancer Database for patients with upper gastrointestinal cancers from 2004 to 2018 who underwent surgery, refused surgery, or for whom surgery was contraindicated. Multivariate logistic regression identified factors associated with surgery being refused or contraindicated, and Kaplan-Meier curves assessed survival. RESULTS: We identified 249,813 patients based on our selection criteria-86.3% had surgery, 2.4% refused, and for 11.3%, surgery was contraindicated. Median overall survival was 48.2 months for patients who underwent surgery versus 16.3 and 9.4 months for the refusal and contraindicated groups. Medical and non-medical factors predicted both surgery refusals and contraindications, such as increasing age (odds ratio = 1.07 and 1.03, respectively, P < .001), Black race (odds ratio = 1.72 and 1.45, P < .001), comorbidities (Charlson-Deyo score 2+, odds ratio = 1.18 and 1.66, P < .001), low socioeconomic status (odds ratio = 1.70 and 1.40, P < .001), no health insurance (odds ratio = 3.26 and 2.34, P < .001), community cancer programs (odds ratio = 1.43 and 1.40, P < .001), low volume facilities (odds ratio = 1.82 and 1.52, P < .001), and stage 3 disease (odds ratio = 1.51 and 6.50, P < .001). On subset analysis (excluding patients age >70, Charlson-Deyo score 2+, and stage 3 cancer), non-medical predictors of both outcomes were similar. CONCLUSION: Refusal of and medical contraindications for surgery profoundly impact overall survival. The same factors (ie, race, socioeconomic status, hospital volume, and hospital type) predict these outcomes. These findings suggest variation and potential bias that may exist between physicians and patients discussing cancer surgery.

Understanding Factors Leading to Surgical Attrition for "Resectable" Gastric Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: We used a novel combined analysis to evaluate various factors associated with failure to surgical resection in non-metastatic gastric cancer. METHODS: We identified factors associated with the receipt of surgery in publicly available clinical trial data for gastric cancer and in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for patients with stages I-III gastric adenocarcinoma. Next, we evaluated variable importance in predicting the receipt of surgery in the NCDB. RESULTS: In published clinical trial data, 10% of patients in surgery-first arms did not undergo surgery, mostly due to disease progression and 15% of patients in neoadjuvant therapy arms failed to reach surgery. Effects related to neoadjuvant administration explained the increased attrition (5%). In the NCDB, 61.7% of patients underwent definitive surgery. In a subset of NCDB patients resembling those enrolled in clinical trials (younger, healthier, and privately insured patients treated at high-volume and academic centers) the rate of surgery was 79.2%. Decreased likelihood of surgery was associated with advanced age (OR 0.97, p < 0.01), Charlson-Deyo score of 2+ (OR 0.90, p < 0.01), T4 tumors (OR 0.39, p < 0.01), N+ disease (OR 0.84, p < 0.01), low socioeconomic status (OR 0.86, p = 0.01), uninsured or on Medicaid (OR 0.58 and 0.69, respectively, p < 0.01), low facility volume (OR 0.64, p < 0.01), and non-academic cancer programs (OR 0.79, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Review of clinical trials shows attrition due to unavoidable tumor and treatment factors (~ 15%). The NCDB indicates non-medical patient and provider characteristics (i.e., age, insurance status, facility volume) associated with attrition. This combined analysis highlights specific opportunities for improving potentially curative surgery rates.

Black race is independently associated with underutilization of preoperative chemotherapy in clinical stage T2 or higher gastric adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Consensus guidelines recommend for perioperative chemotherapy and surgery for patients with clinical stage (cT) T2 or greater gastric adenocarcinoma. We compared adherence to guidelines in these patients stratified by race. METHODS: Non-Hispanic White and Black patients with resected ≥cT2 gastric adenocarcinoma were identified within the National Cancer Database (2008-2017). We compared administration of preoperative chemotherapy by race, adjusting for clinicodemographic variables. We performed marginal standardization of logistic regression to calculate adjusted probabilities of administration of preoperative chemotherapy in patients under the age of 80 years with insurance. RESULTS: A total of 13,850 patients were identified (White = 12,161; Black = 1,689). Black race was associated with lower likelihood of receiving preoperative chemotherapy than White race (odds ratio = 0.46, 95% confidence interval: 0.39-0.54). Other factors associated with lower likelihood of preoperative chemotherapy included age ≥70 years, female sex, treatment at community facilities, non-private or no health insurance, and cT4 disease. Factors associated with higher likelihood of preoperative chemotherapy included treatment at high-volume facilities, longer distance to facility, higher education and income levels, cT3 disease, and cN+ disease. In patients <80 years with insurance, marginal standardization models demonstrated that Black race was associated with a lower adjusted probability of receiving preoperative chemotherapy regardless of age, insurance payor, facility type/volume, distance to facility, cT stage, cN stage, sex, and education/income levels. CONCLUSION: Black race was associated with underutilization of preoperative chemotherapy for cT2 or greater gastric cancer, in discordance to published guidelines. The etiology of these disparities is multifactorial, and correcting the root causes represents a critical area for improvement.

Black race is independently associated with underutilization of transplantation for clinical T1 hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer mortality. Operative management of early disease includes ablation, resection, and transplantation. We compared the operative management of early-stage HCC in patients stratified by race. METHODS: We identified patients with cT1 HCC and Charlson-Deyo score 0-1 in the National Cancer Database (2004-2016). We compared operative/non-operative management by race, adjusting for clinicodemographic variables. We performed marginal standardization of logistic regression to ascertain adjusted probabilities of resection or transplantation in patients under 70 years of age with insurance. RESULTS: A total of 25,029 patients were included (White = 20,410; Black = 4619). After adjusting for clinico demographic variables, Black race was associated with a lower likelihood of undergoing operative intervention (OR 0.89,p = 0.009). Black patients were more likely to undergo resection (OR 1.23,p < 0.001) and less likely to undergo transplantation (OR 0.60,p < 0.001). Marginal standardization models demonstrated Black race was associated with increased probability of resection in patients >50yrs, with private insurance/Medicare, and lower probability of transplantation regardless of age or insurance payor. CONCLUSION: Black race is associated with lower rates of hepatic transplantation and higher rates of hepatic resection for early HCC regardless of age or insurance payor. The etiology of these disparities is multifactorial and correcting the root causes represents a critical area for improvement.

Medicaid expansion and the management of pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act has improved access to screening and treatment for certain cancers. It is unclear how this policy has affected the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences (DID) approach, we analyzed Medicaid and uninsured patients in the National Cancer Data Base during two time periods: pre-expansion (2011-2012) and postexpansion (2015-2016). We investigated changes in cancer staging, treatment decisions, and surgical outcomes. RESULTS: In this national cohort, pancreatic cancer patients in expansion states had increased Medicaid coverage relative to those in nonexpansion states (DID = 17.49, p < 0.01). Medicaid expansion also led to an increase in early-stage diagnoses (Stage I/II, DID = 4.71, p = 0.03), higher comorbidity scores among surgical patients (Charlson/Deyo score 0: DID = -13.69, p = 0.02), a trend toward more neoadjuvant radiation (DID = 6.15, p = 0.06), and more positive margins (DID = 11.69, p = 0.02). There were no differences in rates of surgery, postoperative outcomes, or overall survival. CONCLUSION: Medicaid expansion was associated with improved insurance coverage and earlier stage diagnoses for Medicaid and uninsured pancreatic cancer patients, but similar surgical outcomes and overall survival. These findings highlight both the benefits of Medicaid expansion and the potential limitations of policy change to improve outcomes for such an aggressive malignancy.

A National Assessment of Optimal Oncologic Surgery for Distal Pancreatic Adenocarcinomas.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to create a composite measure, optimal oncologic surgery (OOS), for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma and identify factors associated with OOS. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy were identified from the National Cancer Database between 2010 and 2016. Patients were stratified based on receipt of OOS. Criteria for OOS included 90-day survival, no 30-day readmission, length of stay ≤7 days, negative resection margins, ≥12 lymph nodes harvested, and receipt of chemotherapy. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify predictors of OOS. Survival curves and a Cox proportional hazards model were created to compare survival and identify risk factors for mortality. RESULTS: Three thousand five hundred forty-six patients were identified. The rate of OOS was 22.3%. Diagnosis after 2012, treatment at an academic medical center, and a minimally invasive surgical approach (MIS) were associated with OOS. Survival was superior for patients undergoing OOS. Decreasing age at diagnosis, fewer comorbidities, surgery at an academic medical center, MIS, and lower pathologic stage were also associated with improved survival on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of OOS for distal pancreatectomy are low. Time trends show increasing rates of OOS that may be related to increasing MIS, adjuvant chemotherapy, and referrals to academic medical centers.

Patient Factors Limit Colon Cancer Survival at Safety-Net Hospitals: A National Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Safety-net hospitals serve a vital role in society by providing care for vulnerable populations. Existing data regarding oncologic outcomes of patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals are limited and variable. The objective of this study was to delineate disparities in treatment and outcomes for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified 802,304 adult patients with colon adenocarcinoma from the National Cancer Database between 2004-2016. Patients were stratified according to safety-net burden of the treating hospital as previously described. Patient, tumor, facility, and treatment characteristics were compared between groups as were operative and short-term outcomes. Cox proportional hazards regression was utilized to compare overall survival between patients treated at high, medium, and low burden hospitals. RESULTS: Patients treated at safety-net hospitals were demographically distinct and presented with more advanced disease. They were also less likely to receive surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, negative resection margins, adequate lymphadenectomy, or a minimally invasive operative approach. On multivariate analysis adjusting for patient and tumor characteristics, survival was inferior for patients at safety-net hospitals, even for those with stage 0 (in situ) disease. CONCLUSION: This analysis revealed inferior survival for patients with colon cancer treated at safety-net hospitals, including those without invasive cancer. These findings suggest that unmeasured population differences may confound analyses and affect survival more than provider or treatment disparities.

Impact of Socioeconomic Status on Presentation and Outcomes in Colorectal Peritoneal Metastases Following Cytoreduction and Chemoperfusion: Persistent Inequalities in Outcomes at a High-Volume Center.

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemoperfusion (CRS HIPEC) can offer significant survival advantage for select patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CRPM). Low socioeconomic status (SES) is implicated in disparities in access to care. We analyze the impact of SES on postoperative outcomes and survival at a high-volume tertiary CRS HIPEC center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study examining patients who underwent CRS HIPEC for CRPM from 2000 to 2018. Patients were grouped according to SES. Baseline characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and survival were examined between groups. RESULTS: A total of 226 patients were analyzed, 107 (47%) low-SES and 119 (53%) high-SES patients. High-SES patients were younger (52 vs. 58 years, p = 0.01) and more likely to be White (95.0% vs. 91.6%, p = 0.06) and privately insured (83% vs. 57%, p < 0.001). They traveled significantly further for treatment and had lower burden of comorbidities and frailty (p = 0.01). Low-SES patients more often presented with synchronous peritoneal metastases (48% vs. 35%, p = 0.05). Following CRS HIPEC, low-SES patients had longer length of stay and higher burden of postoperative complications, 90-day readmission, and 30-day mortality. Median overall survival following CRS HIPEC was worse for low-SES patients (17.8 vs. 32.4 months, p = 0.02). This disparity persisted on multivariate survival analysis (low SES: HR = 1.46, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Despite improving therapies for CRPM, low-SES patients remain at a significant disadvantage. Even patients who overcome barriers to care experience worse short- and long-term outcomes. Improving access and addressing these disparities is crucial to ensure equitable outcomes and improve patient care.

Impact of Resection Margin Status in Patients with Pancreatic Cancer: a National Cohort Study.

AIM: To assess the predictors and influence of resection margins and the role of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy on survival for a national cohort of patients with resected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Data Base between 2004 and 2016, 56,532 patients were identified who underwent surgical resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Univariate and multivariate models were employed to identify factors predicting R0/R1 resection and assess the impact on survival. RESULTS: In total, 48,367 (85.6%) patients were found to have negative margins (R0) compared to 8165 (14.4%) who had microscopic residual tumor (R1). Factors predicting positive margin on univariate analysis included male gender, Medicare, advanced stage, moderately or poorly differentiated tumor, lymphovascular invasion, and tumors > 2 cm. Factors predicting R0 resection included receipt of neoadjuvant therapy and treatment at an Academic/Research Center. Following adjustment for other factors, margin status remained an independent predictor for overall survival (HR: 1.24; 95% CI 1.22-1.27, p < 0.001) (1-, 3-, and 5-year overall survival rates (R0: 77%, 37%, and 25% vs R1: 62%, 19%, and 10%). CONCLUSIONS: A positive margin predicts a poorer survival than R0 resections regardless of stage and receipt of adjuvant therapy. Several modifiable factors significantly predict the likelihood of R0 resection including neoadjuvant treatment and treatment at Academic/Research Programs. Knowledge about these factors can help guide patient management by offering neoadjuvant treatment modalities at Academic as well as Community hospitals.

Association Between Medicaid Expansion and Diagnosis and Management of Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Affordable Care Act facilitated improved insurance coverage for states that expanded Medicaid coverage, but the impact on cancer outcomes is unclear. This study compared changes in the diagnosis and management of colon cancer in states that did and did not participate in Medicaid expansion. STUDY DESIGN: Using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences (DID) approach, we analyzed Medicaid and uninsured patients in the National Cancer Data Base during 2 time periods: pre (2011-2012) and post expansion (2015-2016). Patients in non-expansion states were compared with those in January 2014 expansion states with regard to changes in patient and facility characteristics, cancer staging, treatment decisions, and surgical outcomes. RESULTS: Along with increased Medicaid coverage (DID = 20.27; p < 0.001), patients in expansion states had an increase in stage I diagnoses (DID = 2.97; p = 0.035), distance traveled (miles, DID = 6.67; p = 0.005), and treatment at integrated network programs (DID = 2.67; p = 0.045). More early-stage patients were treated within 30 days (DID = 7.24; p = 0.035) and more stage IV patients received palliative care (DID = 5.01; p = 0.048). Among surgical patients, Medicaid expansion correlated with fewer urgent cases (< 7 days, DID = -5.88; p = 0.008) and more minimally invasive surgery (DID = 5.00; p = 0.022). There were no observed differences in postoperative outcomes or adjuvant chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion correlated with earlier diagnosis, enhanced access, and improved surgical care for colon cancer patients. These findings highlight the importance of improving health insurance coverage and can help guide future policy efforts.

The Importance of Safety-Net Hospitals in Emergency General Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Safety-net hospitals provide care to an inherently underprivileged patient population. These hospitals have previously been shown to have inferior surgical outcomes after complex, elective procedures, but little is known about how hospital payer-mix correlates with outcomes after more common, emergent operations. METHODS: The University HealthSystem Consortium database was queried for all emergency general surgery procedures performed from 2009 to 2015. Emergency general surgery was defined as the seven operative procedures recently identified as contributing most to the national burden. Only urgent and emergent admissions were included (n = 653,305). Procedure-specific cohorts were created and hospitals were grouped according to safety-net burden. Multivariate analyses were done to study the effect of safety-net burden on hospital outcomes. RESULTS: For all seven emergency procedures, patients at hospitals with a high safety-net burden were more likely to be young and black (p < 0.01 each). Patients at high-burden hospitals had similar severity of illness scores to those at other hospitals. Compared with lower burden hospitals, in-hospital mortality rates at high-burden hospitals were similar or lower in five of seven procedures (p = NS or < 0.01, respectively). After adjusting for patient factors, high-burden hospitals had similar or lower odds of readmission in six of seven procedures, hospital length of stay in four of seven procedures, and cost of care in three of seven procedures (p = NS or < 0.01, respectively). CONCLUSION: Safety-net hospitals provide emergency general surgery services without compromising patient outcomes or incurring greater healthcare resources. These data may help inform the vital role these institutions play in the healthcare of vulnerable patients in the USA.

Enhanced Recovery after Colorectal Surgery: Can We Afford Not to Use It?

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) aim to reduce length of stay without adversely affecting short-term outcomes. High pharmaceutical costs associated with ERP regimens, however, remain a significant barrier to widespread implementation. We hypothesized that ERP would reduce hospital costs after elective colorectal resections, despite the use of more expensive pharmaceutical agents. STUDY DESIGN: An ERP was implemented in January 2016 at our institution. We collected data on consecutive colorectal resections for 1 year before adoption of ERP (traditional, n = 160) and compared them with consecutive resections after universal adoption of ERP (n = 146). Short-term surgical outcomes, total direct costs, and direct hospital pharmacy costs were compared between patients who received the ERP and those who did not. RESULTS: After implementation of the ERP, median length of stay decreased from 5.0 to 3.0 days (p < 0.01). There were no differences in 30-day complications (8.1% vs 8.9%) or hospital readmission (11.9% vs 11.0%). The ERP patients required significantly less narcotics during their index hospitalization (211.7 vs 720.2 morphine equivalence units; p < 0.01) and tolerated a regular diet 1 day sooner (p < 0.01). Despite a higher daily pharmacy cost ($477 per day vs $318 per day in the traditional cohort), the total direct pharmacy cost for the hospitalization was reduced in ERP patients ($1,534 vs $1,859; p = 0.016). Total direct cost was also lower in ERP patients ($9,791 vs $11,508; p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an ERP for patients undergoing elective colorectal resection substantially reduced length of stay, total hospital cost, and direct pharmacy cost without increasing complications or readmission rates. Enhanced recovery pathway after colorectal resection has both clinical and financial benefits. Widespread implementation has the potential for a dramatic impact on healthcare costs.

Equivalent Treatment and Survival after Resection of Pancreatic Cancer at Safety-Net Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Due to disparities in access to care, patients with Medicaid or no health insurance are at risk of not receiving appropriate adjuvant treatment following resection of pancreatic cancer. We have previously shown inferior short-term outcomes following surgery at safety-net hospitals. Subsequently, we hypothesized that safety-net hospitals caring for these vulnerable populations utilize less adjuvant chemoradiation, resulting in inferior long-term outcomes. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Cancer Data Base was queried for patients diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (n = 32,296) from 1998 to 2010. Hospitals were grouped according to safety-net burden, defined as the proportion of patients with Medicaid or no insurance. The highest quartile, representing safety-net hospitals, was compared to lower-burden hospitals with regard to patient demographics, disease characteristics, surgical management, delivery of multimodal systemic therapy, and survival. RESULTS: Patients at safety-net hospitals were less often white, had lower income, and were less educated. Safety-net hospital patients were just as likely to undergo surgical resection (OR 1.03, p = 0.73), achieving similar rates of negative surgical margins when compared to patients at medium and low burden hospitals (70% vs. 73% vs. 66%). Thirty-day mortality rates were 5.6% for high burden hospitals, 5.2% for medium burden hospitals, and 4.3% for low burden hospitals. No clinically significant differences were noted in the proportion of surgical patients receiving either chemotherapy (48% vs. 52% vs. 52%) or radiation therapy (26% vs. 30% vs. 29%) or the time between diagnosis and start of systemic therapy (58 days vs. 61 days vs. 53 days). Across safety-net burden groups, no difference was noted in stage-specific median survival (all p > 0.05) or receipt of adjuvant as opposed to neoadjuvant systemic therapy (82% vs. 85% vs. 85%). Multivariate analysis adjusting for cancer stage revealed no difference in survival for safety-net hospital patients who had surgery and survived > 30 days (HR 1.02, p = 0.63). CONCLUSION: For patients surviving the perioperative setting following pancreatic cancer surgery, safety-net hospitals achieve equivalent long-term survival outcomes potentially due to equivalent delivery of multimodal therapy at non-safety-net hospitals. Safety-net hospitals are a crucial resource that provides quality long-term cancer treatment for vulnerable populations.

Cost of achieving equivalent outcomes in sicker patients after liver transplant.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to characterize variability in cost after straightforward orthotopic liver transplant (OLT). METHODS: Using the University HealthSystem Consortium and Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients databases, we identified patients who underwent OLT between 2011 and 2014. Patients meeting criteria for straightforward OLT, defined as length of stay < 14 days with discharge to home, were selected (n = 5763) and grouped into tertiles (low, medium, high) according to cost of perioperative stay. RESULTS: Patients undergoing straightforward OLT were of similar demographics regardless of cost. High cost patients were more likely to require preoperative hemodialysis, had higher severity of illness, and higher model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) (p < 0.01). High cost patients required greater utilization of resources including lab tests, blood transfusions, and opioids (p < 0.01). Despite having higher burden of disease and requiring increased resource utilization, high cost OLT patients with a straightforward perioperative course were shown to have identical 2-year graft and overall survival compared to lower cost patients (p = 0.82 and p = 0.63), respectively. CONCLUSION: Providing adequate perioperative care for OLT patients with higher severity of illness and disease burden requires increased cost and resource utilization; however, doing so provides these patients with long term survival equivalent to more routine patients.

Opportunities to Improve Care of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Vulnerable Patient Populations.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with Medicaid or no health insurance have inferior survival compared with privately insured patients. Safety-net hospitals that care for these patients are often criticized for their inferior outcomes. We hypothesized that HCC survival was related to appropriate surgical management. STUDY DESIGN: The American College of Surgeons National Cancer Database was queried for patients diagnosed with HCC (n = 111,481) from 1998 to 2010. Hospitals were stratified according to safety-net burden, defined as the percentage of patients with Medicaid or no insurance. The highest quartile, representing safety-net hospitals, was compared with lower-burden hospitals with regard to patient demographics, cancer presentation, surgical management, and survival. RESULTS: Patients at safety-net hospitals were less often white, had less income and education, but presented with similar stage HCC. Safety-net hospital patients were less likely to receive surgery (odds ratio 0.77; p < 0.01), and among curable patients (stages 1 and 2) who underwent surgical intervention, liver transplantation and resection were performed less often at safety-net hospitals than at other hospitals (50.7% vs 66.7%). Procedure-specific mortality rates were also higher at safety net hospitals (p < 0.01). However, multivariate analysis adjusting for cancer stage and type of surgery revealed similar survival for safety-net hospital patients who had surgery and survived for longer than 30 days (p = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: Vulnerable patients with HCC are commonly treated at safety-net hospitals, are less likely to receive curative surgery, and have worse short-term outcomes. However, safety-net patients who can endure liver surgery have a similar prognosis as patients at nonsafety-net hospitals. Providing equal access to surgery may improve survival for vulnerable populations of HCC patients.

Case mix-adjusted cost of colectomy at low-, middle-, and high-volume academic centers.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to regionalize surgery based on thresholds in procedure volume may have consequences on the cost of health care delivery. This study aims to delineate the relationship between hospital volume, case mix, and variability in the cost of operative intervention using colectomy as the model. METHODS: All patients undergoing colectomy (n = 90,583) at 183 academic hospitals from 2009-2012 in The University HealthSystems Consortium Database were studied. Patient and procedure details were used to generate a case mix-adjusted predictive model of total direct costs. Observed to expected costs for each center were evaluated between centers based on overall procedure volume. RESULTS: Patient and procedure characteristics were significantly different between volume tertiles. Observed costs at high-volume centers were less than at middle- and low-volume centers. According to our predictive model, high-volume centers cared for a less expensive case mix than middle- and low-volume centers ($12,786 vs $13,236 and $14,497, P < .01). Our predictive model accounted for 44% of the variation in costs. Overall efficiency (standardized observed to expected costs) was greatest at high-volume centers compared to middle- and low-volume tertiles (z score -0.16 vs 0.02 and -0.07, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Hospital costs and cost efficiency after an elective colectomy varies significantly between centers and may be attributed partially to the patient differences at those centers. These data demonstrate that a significant proportion of the cost variation is due to a distinct case mix at low-volume centers, which may lead to perceived poor performance at these centers.

Hospital resources are associated with value-based surgical performance.

BACKGROUND: We have previously shown that inferior outcomes at safety-net hospitals are largely dependent on hospital factors. We hypothesized that hospitals providing "high value" care (low cost and better outcomes) would have advantages in human and financial resources. METHODS: The University HealthSystems Consortium Clinical Database and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey were used to examine hospitals performing eight complex surgical procedures from 2009 to 2013. Hospitals in the lowest quartiles of both mortality rate and cost were characterized as high value (n = 45), whereas those in the highest quartiles of both cost and mortality were low value (n = 45). Hospital size, staffing, and financial characteristics were compared between these two groups. RESULTS: On average, high-value hospitals had lower proportions of Medicaid patient days (17% versus 30%; P < 0.01), higher proportions of outpatient surgery (63% versus 53%; P < 0.01), and spent more on capital expenditures per bed ($155,710 versus $62,434; P < 0.05). Also, high-value hospitals employed more hospitalists (0.08 versus 0.04 per bed; P < 0.01), had more privileged physicians (2.04 versus 1.25 per bed; P < 0.01), and had more full-time equivalent personnel (8.48 versus 6.79 per bed; all P < 0.05). As a result, these hospitals appeared to be more efficient; high-value hospitals had more total admissions per bed (46 versus 38; P < 0.01), fewer days per admission (5.20 versus 5.77; P < 0.01), and more inpatient surgeries per bed (15.7 versus 12.6; all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals that invest in more human resources and demonstrate increased throughput perform complex surgery at higher "value" (i.e., lower costs and mortality). Value-based purchasing initiatives that link hospital reimbursement to unadjusted surgical outcomes may exacerbate, rather than improve, disparities in surgical care that currently exist.