Cost Analysis of Treatments for Ureteropelvic Junction Obstruction.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ureteropelvic junction obstruction is a common urologic condition that accounts for approximately $12 million in inpatient spending annually. Few studies have assessed the costs related to treatment. We sought to examine the cost of care for patients treated for ureteropelvic junction obstruction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the MarketScan® database to identify adults from 18 to 64 years old treated with minimally invasive pyeloplasty, open pyeloplasty, and endopyelotomy for ureteropelvic junction obstruction between 2002 and 2010. Our primary outcome was total expenditures related to the surgical episode, defined as the period from 30 days prior until 30 days after the index surgery. We fit a multinomial linear regression model to evaluate cost of the surgical episode, adjusting for age, gender, comorbidity, benefit plan type, and region of residence. RESULTS: We identified 1251 endopyelotomies, 717 open pyeloplasties, and 1048 minimally invasive pyeloplasties. The adjusted mean costs were $16,379 for endopyelotomy, $22,421 for open pyeloplasty, and $22,843 for minimally invasive pyeloplasty (p < 0.0001, ANCOVA). Both open and minimally invasive pyeloplasties were more costly than endopyelotomy (both p < 0.0001, comparison between groups). However, the cost of open and minimally invasive pyeloplasties was similar (p = 0.57, comparison between groups). CONCLUSIONS: Among the three treatments, endopyelotomy was the least expensive in the immediate perioperative period. Open and minimally invasive pyeloplasties were similar in cost, but both more expensive than endopyelotomies. The similar cost between the two pyeloplasty approaches provides additional evidence that minimally invasive pyeloplasty should be considered the standard treatment for ureteropelvic junction obstruction.

Medicare payments for outpatient urological surgery by location of care.

PURPOSE: The cost implications associated with offloading outpatient surgery from hospitals to ambulatory surgery centers and the physician office remain poorly defined. Therefore, we determined whether payments for outpatient surgery vary by location of care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using national Medicare claims from 1998 to 2006, we identified elderly patients who underwent 1 of 22 common outpatient urological procedures. For each procedure we measured all relevant payments (in United States dollars) made during the 30-day claims window that encompassed the procedure date. We then categorized payment types (hospital, physician and outpatient facility). Finally, we used multivariable regression to compare price standardized payments across hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers and the physician office. RESULTS: Average total payments for outpatient surgery episodes varied widely from $200 for urethral dilation in the physician office to $5,688 for hospital based shock wave lithotripsy. For all but 2 procedure groups, ambulatory surgery centers and physician offices were associated with lower overall episode payments than hospitals. For instance, average total payments for urodynamic procedures performed at ambulatory surgery centers were less than a third of those done at hospitals (p <0.001). Compared to hospitals, office based prostate biopsies were nearly 75% less costly (p <0.001). Outpatient facility payments were the biggest driver of these differences. CONCLUSIONS: These data support policies that encourage the provision of outpatient surgery in less resource intensive settings.

Surgical quality among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing outpatient urological surgery.

PURPOSE: The cost efficiency gains achieved from moving procedures to ambulatory surgery centers and offices may be mitigated if the quality of surgical care at these facilities is not comparable to that at the hospital. Motivated by this, we assessed short-term morbidity and mortality for patients by location of care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a national sample of Medicare claims (1998 to 2006), we identified elderly beneficiaries who underwent one of 22 common outpatient urological procedures. After determining the facility type where each procedure was performed, we measured 30-day mortality, unexpected admissions and postoperative complications. Finally, we fit multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate the association between occurrence of an adverse event and the ambulatory setting where surgical care was delivered. RESULTS: During the study period, there was a substantial increase in the frequency of nonhospital based outpatient surgery. Compared to ambulatory surgery centers and offices, hospitals treated more women (p <0.001). Those patients also tended to be less healthy (p <0.001). While patients experienced fewer postoperative complications following surgery at an ambulatory surgery center, procedures performed outside the hospital were associated with a higher likelihood of a same day admission (ambulatory surgery centers OR 6.96, 95% CI 4.44-10.90 and offices OR 3.64, 95% CI 2.48-5.36). However, notably with case mix adjustment the probability of any adverse event was exceedingly low across all ambulatory settings. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that small but measurable variation in surgical quality exists by location of care delivery.