Frequency of endoscopic surveillance for Barrett's esophagus is influenced by health insurance status: results from a population-based analysis.

Factors that influence the frequency of surveillance endoscopy for nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus are not well understood. The objective of this study is to assess factors which influence the frequency of endoscopic surveillance for Barrett's esophagus, including health insurance/third-party payer status. Cases of nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy with biopsy were identified using longitudinal data from the Healthcare Utilization Project database in 2005-2006 and followed through 2011. The threshold for appropriate surveillance utilization was defined as two to four surveillance esophagogastroduodenoscopies over a standardized 5-year period. Patients' insurance status was designated as either Medicare, Medicaid, private, or noninsured. 36,676 cases of nondysplastic Barrett's esophagus were identified. Among these, 4,632 patients (12.6%) underwent between two and four surveillance esophagogastroduodenoscopies in 5 years of follow-up versus 31,975 patients (87.3%) who underwent fewer than two esophagogastroduodenoscopies during follow-up. Multivariate analysis found that Barrett's patients insured through Medicaid (OR 1.273; 95% CI = 1.065-1.522) or without insurance (OR = 2.453; 95% CI = 1.67-3.603) were at increased likelihood of being under-surveilled. This study identified a difference in frequency of surveillance esophagogastroduodenoscopy for Barrett's esophagus by payer status. Patients without health insurance and those whose primary insurance was Medicaid were at increased odds for under-surveillance. These data suggest that a more robust system for tracking and ensuring longitudinal follow-up of patients with Barrett's esophagus, with attention to the uninsured and underinsured population, may be needed to ensure optimal surveillance.

Epidemiology and cost of ventral hernia repair: making the case for hernia research.

PURPOSE: Ventral hernia repair (VHR) lacks standardization of care and exhibits variation in delivery. Complications of VHR, notably recurrence and infection, increase costs. Efforts at obtaining federal funding for VHR research are frequently unsuccessful, in part due to misperceptions that VHR is not a clinical challenge and has minimal impact on healthcare resources. We analyzed national trends for VHR performance and associated costs to demonstrate potential savings resulting from an improvement in outcomes. METHODS: Inpatient non-federal discharges for VHR were identified from the 2001-2006 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project, supplemented by the Center for Disease Control 2006 National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery for outpatient estimates. The total number of VHRs performed in the US was estimated along with associated costs. Costs were standardized to 2010 US dollars using the Consumer Price Index and reported as mean with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: The number of inpatient VHRs increased from 126,548 in 2001 to 154,278 in 2006. Including 193,543 outpatient operations, an estimated 348,000 VHRs were performed for 2006. Inpatient costs consistently rose with 2006 costs estimated at US $15,899 (95% CI $15,394-$16,404) per operation. Estimated cost for outpatient VHR was US $3,873 (95% CI $2,788-$4,958). The total cost of VHR for 2006 was US $3.2 billion. CONCLUSIONS: VHRs continue to rise in incidence and cost. By reducing recurrence rate alone, a cost saving of US $32 million dollars for each 1% reduction in operations would result. Further research is necessary for improved understanding of ventral hernia etiology and treatment and is critical to cost effective healthcare.

National analysis of in-hospital resource utilization in choledocholithiasis management using propensity scores.

BACKGROUND: Two treatment options exist for choledocholithiasis (CDL): endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and common bile duct exploration (CBDE). Resource utilization measured by total in-hospital charges (THC) and length of stay (LOS) was compared using the propensity score (PS). In this study, PS was the probability that a patient received CBDE based on comorbidities and demographics. The power of this method lies in balancing groups on variables by PS, resulting in 90% bias reduction and improved inferential validity compared to traditional analytic techniques. METHODS: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) patients with CDL who had ERCP or CBDE were identified in the 2002 U.S. Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Patients were ordered into five PS balanced strata. Mean THC, LOS, and estimated costs were compared. A linear regression model was used to estimate the contribution that LOS had on estimated costs. Monetary values were adjusted to 2004 dollars. RESULTS: A total of 40,982 patients underwent LC with CDL in 2002; 27,739 had either ERCP (93%) or CBDE (7%). Mean age was 52.7 +/- 0.4 years, with 74% women. Mean THC were less for CBDE (25,200 dollars +/- 1,800 dollars) than for ERCP (29,900 dollars +/- 800 dollars, p < 0.05). Mean LOS was less for CBDE (4.9 +/- 0.2 days) than for ERCP (5.6 +/- 0.1 days, p < 0.05). PS adjusted analysis revealed an estimated overall cost savings of 4,500 dollars +/- 1,600 dollars and reduced LOS (0.6 +/- 0.2 days) per hospitalization for CBDE. Mean THC, LOS, and estimated costs across PS score balanced strata were generally higher in the ERCP group compared to the CBDE group. LOS contributed 53% to increased THC and 62% of estimated costs. A higher cumulative incidence of complications was evident with CBDE (0.5-4.6%) compared to ERCP (0.3-3.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this PS analysis, CBDE incurs less THC, reduces LOS, and has less estimated costs for CDL compared to ERCP. Furthermore, CBDE appears to be dramatically underutilized.

Cost perspectives of laparoscopic and open appendectomy.

BACKGROUND: Despite multiple studies comparing laparoscopic and open appendectomies, the clinically and economically superior procedure still is in question. A cost analysis was performed using both institutional and societal perspectives. METHODS: A decision analytic model was developed to evaluate laparoscopic and open appendectomies. The institutional perspective addressed direct health care costs, whereas the societal perspective addressed direct and indirect health care costs. Baseline values and ranges were taken from randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and Medicare databases. RESULTS: From the institutional perspective, open appendectomy is the least expensive strategy, with an expected cost of $5,171, as compared with $6,118 for laparoscopic appendectomy. The laparoscopic approach is less expensive if open appendectomy wound infection rates exceed 23%. From the societal perspective, laparoscopic appendectomy is the least expensive strategy, with an expected cost of $10,400, as compared with $12,055 for open appendectomy. CONCLUSIONS: The decision analysis demonstrated an economic advantage to the hospital of open appendectomy. In contrast, laparoscopic appendectomy represents a better economic choice for the patient.

The role of laparoscopy in the management of suspected pancreatic and periampullary malignancies.

Laparoscopic evaluation of patients with suspected periampullary malignancies has been utilized more frequently in recent years. Its exact role with regard to staging and surgical bypass for palliation have yet to be clearly defined. To better define the role of laparoscopy in the evaluation and palliation of periampullary malignancy, a retrospective review of the Duke experience was carried out. Fifty-three patients with suspected pancreatic or periampullary malignancies were referred for surgical evaluation at Duke University Medical Center between 1993 and 1995. All patients underwent CT scanning and lesions were classified as resectable or unresectable based on previously established criteria. Patients either underwent laparoscopic evaluation (n = 30; 11 with laparoscopic palliation) or proceeded directly to celiotomy (n = 23). Charts were reviewed for postoperative course including complications, length of stay, and hospital costs. Although laparoscopy had a sensitivity of 93.3% for metastatic disease, CT scans accurately staged 86.8% of patients missing only one patient with peritoneal/hepatic disease. Based on these results, laparoscopy may not be beneficial for every patient with a suspected pancreatic malignancy. Retrospectively an attempt was made to determine which patients benefited from laparoscopy and which patients are best served by proceeding directly to open exploration. From these data we devised an algorithm that outlines an efficient and cost-effective approach for this patient population.

Laparoscopic ventral and incisional hernioplasty.

BACKGROUND: While the first laparoscopic ventral hernia repair was reported in 1992, there have been no studies comparing laparoscopic to conventional ventral herniorrhaphy. METHODS: Twenty-one ventral hernias repaired laparoscopically are compared to a similar group of 16 patients undergoing traditional open repair during a 2-year period. Operative and hospital courses along with outcomes and cost analysis are analyzed. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between groups in number of previous abdominal operations, prior hernia repairs, and comorbidities. Patients undergoing open repair were older with larger fascial defects. Open repairs had a shorter operative time as compared to the laparoscopic group, but statistically longer postoperative stays and costs. Postoperative complications occurred in 31% of the open group and 23% of the laparoscopic group. There were two recurrences in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic herniorrhaphy is as safe and effective as the traditional open technique with shorter length of stay and decreased hospital costs.