Drivers of Inpatient Costs After Colorectal Surgery Within a Publicly Funded Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: The morbidity and mortality associated with colorectal resections are responsible for significant healthcare use. Identification of efficiencies is vital for decreasing healthcare cost in a resource-limited system. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the short-term cost associated with all colon and rectal resections. DESIGN: This was a population-based, retrospective administrative analysis. SETTINGS: This analysis was composed of all colon and rectal resections with anastomosis in Canada (excluding Quebec) between 2008 and 2015. PATIENTS: A total of 108,304 patients ≥18 years of age who underwent colon and/or rectal resections with anastomosis were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total short-term inpatient cost for the index admission and the incremental cost of each comorbidity and complication (in 2014 Canadian dollars) were measured. Cost predictors were modeled using hierarchical linear regression and Monte Carlo Markov Chain estimation. RESULTS: Multivariable regression demonstrated that the adjusted average cost of a 50-year-old man undergoing open colon resection for benign disease with no comorbidities or complications was $9270 ((95% CI, $7146-$11,624; p = <0.001). With adjustment for complications, laparoscopic colon resections carried a cost savings of $1390 (95% CI, $1682-$1099; p = <0.001) compared with open resections. Surgical complications were the main driver for increased cost, because anastomotic leaks added $9129 (95% CI, $8583-$9670; p = <0.001). Medical complications such as renal failure requiring dialysis ($16,939 (95% CI, $15,548-$18,314); p = <0.001) carried significant cost. Complications requiring reoperation cost $16,313 (95% CI, $15,739-$16,886; p = <0.001). The costliest complication cumulatively was reoperation, which exceeded $95 million dollars over the course of the study. LIMITATIONS: Inherent biases associated with administrative databases limited this study. CONCLUSIONS: Medical and surgical complications (especially those requiring reoperation) are major drivers of increased resource use. Laparoscopic colorectal resection with or without adjustment for complications carries a clear cost advantage. There is opportunity for considerable cost savings by reducing specific complications or by preoperatively optimizing select patients susceptible to costly complication. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A839.

The value of surgical experience: excess costs associated with the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass learning curve.

BACKGROUND: Gastric bypass has a steep learning curve that is associated with increased adverse outcomes and these adverse outcomes are associated with increases in cost. This study sought to quantify the effect of cumulative procedure volume on inpatient cost and characterize the excess cost associated with a surgeon's learning curve. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of 29 high-volume surgeons during the first 6 years of performing gastric bypass in a regionalized center of excellence system. Cumulative volume was determined using the procedure date and analyzed in blocks of 25 cases. The main outcomes of interest were inpatient cost for the initial hospital stay in 2014 Canadian dollars as well as prolonged length of stay (≥ 3 days). RESULTS: Overall, 11,684 cases were identified from April 2009 to March 2015. After a surgeon's 50th case, the adjusted inpatient cost decreased by $2775 (95% CI $- 4352 to $- 1204 p = 0.001) compared to the first 25 cases. Cost savings were maintained through a surgeon's 400th case. The average cost savings after the 50th case was $2082 (95% CI $- 3194 to $- 962 p < 0.001) and the excess cost attributable to the first 50 cases was $104,077 (95% CI 48,104 to 159,682) per surgeon. Surgeon experience was also associated with a decrease odds of prolonged length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the influence of surgeon experience on improved cost efficiencies. We also characterized that the average excess cost per surgeon of implementing gastric bypass was approximately $104,000. This is relevant to future health system planning as well as providing an economic incentive for impactful training interventions.

A Longitudinal Analysis of Short-Term Costs and Outcomes in a Regionalized Center of Excellence Bariatric Care System.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating how morbidity and costs evolve for new bariatric centers is vital to understanding the expected length of time required to reach optimal outcomes and cost efficiencies. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to evaluate how morbidity and costs changed longitudinally during the first 5 years of a regionalized center of excellence system. METHODS: This was a longitudinal analysis of the first 5 years of a bariatric center of excellence system. The main outcomes of interest were all-cause morbidity and cost for the index admission. Predictors of interest included patient demographics, comorbidities, annual hospital and surgeon volume, fellowship teaching center status, and year of procedure. Hierarchical regression models were used to determine predictors of morbidity and costs. RESULTS: Procedures done in 2012 (OR 0.65, 95%CI 0.52-0.79; p < 0.001), 2013 (OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.51-0.78; p < 0.001), and 2014 (OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.43-0.65; p < 0.001) all conferred a significantly lower odds of morbidity when compared to the initial 2009/2010 years. Surgeon volume was associated with a decreased odds of morbidity as for each increase in 25 bariatric cases per year the odds of all-cause morbidity was 0.94 lower (95%CI 0.88-1.00; p = 0.04). There was no significant variation at the hospital or surgeon level in perioperative outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study determined that volume was important even for high resource, fellowship-trained surgeons. It also found a decrease in morbidity over time for new centers. Lastly, there was little variation in outcomes across hospitals and surgeons suggesting that strict accreditation standards can help to ensure high quality across hospital sites.

The effect of health system factors on outcomes and costs after bariatric surgery in a universal healthcare system: a national cohort study of bariatric surgery in Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Previous data demonstrate that patients who receive bariatric surgery at a Center of Excellence are different than those who receive care at non-accredited centers. Canada provides a unique opportunity to naturally exclude confounders such as insurance status, hospital ownership, and lack of access on comparisons between hospitals and surgeons in bariatric surgery outcomes. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of hospital accreditation and other health system factors on all-cause morbidity after bariatric surgery in Canada. METHODS: This was a population-based study of all patients aged ≥18 who received a bariatric procedure in Canada (excluding Quebec) from April 2008 until March 2015. The main outcomes for this study were all-cause morbidity and costs during the index admission. All-cause morbidity included any documented complication which extended length of stay by 24 h or required reoperation. Risk-adjusted hierarchical regression models were used to determine predictors of morbidity and cost. RESULTS: Overall, 18,398 patients were identified and the all-cause morbidity rate was 10.1%. Surgeon volume and teaching hospitals were both found to significantly decrease the odds of all-cause morbidity. Specifically, for each increase in 25 bariatric cases per year, the odds of all-cause morbidity was 0.94 times lower (95% CI 0.87-1.00, p = 0.03). Teaching hospitals conferred a 0.75 lower odds of all-cause morbidity (95% CI 0.58-0.95, p < 0.001). Importantly, formal accreditation was not associated with a decrease in all-cause morbidity within a universal healthcare system. No health system factors were associated with significant cost differences. CONCLUSION: This national cohort study found that surgeon volume and teaching hospitals predicted lower all-cause morbidity after surgery while hospital accreditation was not a significant factor.

A population-based comparison of 30-day readmission after surgery for colon and rectal cancer: How are they different?

BACKGROUND: An implicit assumption in the analysis of colorectal readmission is that colon and rectal cancer patients are similar enough to analyze together. However, no studies have examined this assumption and whether substantial differences exist between colon and rectal cancer patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the differences in predictors, diagnoses, and costs of readmission between colon and rectal cancer cohorts for 30-day readmission. This study included all patients aged >18 who received an elective colectomy or low anterior resection for colorectal cancer from April 2008 until March 2012 in the province of Ontario. RESULTS: Overall, 13,571 patients were identified and the readmission rates significantly differed between rectal and colon cancer patients (7.1% colon and 10.7% rectal P = 0.001). Diabetes, age, and discharge to long term care were significantly different among colon and rectal patients in the prediction of readmission. Readmission for renal and stoma causes was more prominent in the rectal cohort. The adjusted cost difference for readmission did not significantly differ between rectal and colon cancer $178 ($1,924-1,568 P = 0.84) CONCLUSION: Several important differences in predictors and diagnoses exist between the two cohorts. Conversely, the costs associated with readmission were homogenous between rectal and colon cancer patients. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:354-360. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A population-based analysis of the drivers of short-term costs after bariatric surgery within a publicly funded regionalized center of excellence system.

BACKGROUND: The most significant driver of healthcare utilization for bariatric surgery is the index admission and readmissions within the first 30 days after a procedure. Identifying areas to create efficiencies during this period is essential to decreasing overall healthcare costs. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to characterize the short-term costs of bariatric surgery within a regionalized center of excellence bariatric care system. SETTING: The Ontario Bariatric Network is a regionalized bariatric care system with 4 high-volume Bariatric Centers of Excellence. METHODS: We performed a population-based retrospective analysis including all adult patients who received a bariatric surgical procedure in Ontario from April 2009 until March 2012. Total hospital cost and number of days in hospital was calculated for all index admissions and all readmissions within 30 days of a bariatric surgical procedure. An inverse Gaussian generalized linear model was utilized to model the effect of covariates on costs. A Poisson regression was used to determine the effect on covariates on total days in hospital. RESULTS: After multivariable adjustment, the sleeve gastrectomy procedure decreased costs by $1447 over gastric bypass (95% confidence interval [CI] $1578 to-$1315]); P<.001). This effect increased when adjusting only for preoperative factors with a cost savings of nearly $2000 ($1953) (95% CI-$3250 to-$533; P = .003). Conversely, complications were the major drivers of increased cost as anastomotic leaks added $24,397 (95% CI $20,688-$28,106; P<.001) to healthcare costs. In addition, medical complications, such as respiratory failure/infection ($19,465) (95% CI $11,007-$27,924; P<.001), were also significant cost drivers. CONCLUSION: Major drivers of increased resource utilization included major surgical and medical complications, such as anastomotic leaks and respiratory failure/infection. Days in hospital were affected more by medical complications than surgical complications. Sleeve gastrectomy resulted in a clear short-term cost advantage over Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), and this was likely related to the procedure itself as opposed to differences across procedures in co-morbidity and complication rates.

Regional Variations in the Public Delivery of Bariatric Surgery: An Evaluation of the Center of Excellence Model.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated regional access to bariatric surgery within the high-volume, center of excellence (COE) model of Ontario, Canada. BACKGROUND: In 2009, Ontario implemented Canada's first regionalized bariatric surgical care system based on a COE. Because of this, a small number of COEs service a large population and geographic area. METHODS: This study identified all patients older than 18 years, who received bariatric surgery from April 2009 to March 2012. Morbid obesity-adjusted rates of surgery were then calculated for each neighborhood, and a cluster analysis was performed to determine aggregation of neighborhoods with significantly higher (hot spots) or lower (cold spots) rates of surgery. Ordinal logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of neighborhood access. RESULTS: The cluster analysis identified 49 cold spot neighborhoods, representing 1.7 million people. Forty of these neighborhoods lie within a relatively small area that contains 3 of the 4 COEs. In the multivariate analysis, for every 100 km from the nearest COE, neighborhoods were 0.88 times as likely to live in a hot spot [95% CI (confidence interval): 0.80-0.97; P = 0.012]. In addition, having a bariatric facility within the same administrative health region as the neighborhood made it almost twice as likely to be a hot spot, odds ratio = 1.75 (95% CI: 1.10-2.79; P = 0.018). Low neighborhood socioeconomic status was not associated with decreased delivery of care. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified an unequal delivery of bariatric surgery within Ontario. Both longer distances and not having a bariatric facility within the same health region had significant negative effects. Further research into patient attitudes and referral patterns is required to better characterize these disparities.

Downwardly mobile: the accidental cost of being uninsured.

HYPOTHESIS: Given the pervasive evidence of disparities in screening, hospital admission, treatment, and outcomes due to insurance status, a disparity in outcomes in trauma patients (in-hospital death) among the uninsured may exist, despite preventive regulations (such as the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act). DESIGN: Data were collected from the National Trauma Data Bank from January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2006 (version 7.0). We used multiple logistic regression to compare mortality rates by insurance status. SETTING: The National Trauma Data Bank contains information from 2.7 million patients admitted for traumatic injury to more than 900 US trauma centers, including demographic data, medical history, injury severity, outcomes, and charges. PATIENTS: Data from patients (age, >or=18 years; n = 687 091) with similar age, race, injury severity, sex, and injury mechanism were evaluated for differences in mortality by payer status. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: In-hospital death after blunt or penetrating traumatic injury. RESULTS: Crude analysis revealed a higher mortality for uninsured patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-1.42; P < .001). Controlling for sex, race, age, Injury Severity Score, Revised Trauma Score, and injury mechanism (adjusted for clustering on hospital), uninsured patients had the highest mortality (OR, 1.80; 95% CI, 1.61-2.02; P < .001). Subgroup analysis of young patients unlikely to have comorbidities revealed higher mortality for uninsured patients (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.66-2.15; P < .001), as did subgroup analyses of patients with head injuries (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.42-1.90; P < .001) and patients with 1 or more comorbidities (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.30-1.78; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Uninsured Americans have a higher adjusted mortality rate after trauma. Treatment delay, different care (via receipt of fewer diagnostic tests), and decreased health literacy are possible mechanisms.

Lack of insurance negatively affects trauma mortality in US children.

PURPOSE: Uninsured children face health-related disparities in screening, treatment, and outcomes. To ensure payer status would not influence the decision to provide emergency care, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) was passed in 1986, which states patients cannot be refused treatment or transferred from one hospital to another when medically unstable. Given findings indicating the widespread nature of disparities based on insurance, we hypothesized that a disparity in patient outcome (death) after trauma among the uninsured may exist, despite the EMTALA. METHODS: Data on patients age 17 years or younger (n = 174,921) were collected from the National Trauma Data Bank (2002-2006), containing data from more than 900 trauma centers in the United States. We controlled for race, injury severity score, sex, and injury type to detect differences in mortality among the uninsured and insured. Logistic regression with adjustment for clustering on hospital was used. RESULTS: Crude analysis revealed higher mortality for uninsured children and adolescents compared with the commercially or publicly insured (odds ratio [OR] 2.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.64-3.34; P < .001). Controlling for sex, race, age, injury severity, and injury type, and clustering within hospital facility, uninsured children had the highest mortality compared with the commercially insured (OR, 3.32; 95% CI, 2.95-3.74; P < .001], whereas children and adolescents with Medicaid also had higher mortality (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.33; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that uninsured and publicly insured American children and adolescents have higher mortality after sustaining trauma while accounting for a priori confounders. Possible mechanisms for this disparity include treatment delay, receipt of fewer diagnostic tests, and decreased health literacy, among others.