Inappropriate wrist MRI: did guidelines have an impact?

OBJECTIVES: To assess the national prevalence and cost of inappropriate MRI in patients with wrist pain prior to and following American College of Radiology (ACR) guideline publication. STUDY DESIGN: We used administrative claims from the IBM MarketScan Research Databases to evaluate the appropriateness of wrist MRI in a national cohort of patients with commercial insurance or Medicare Advantage. METHODS: Adult patients with a diagnosis of wrist pain between 2016 and 2019 were included and followed for 1 year. We made assessments of appropriateness based on ACR guidelines for specific wrist pain etiologies. We tabulated the total costs and out-of-pocket expenses associated with inappropriate MRI studies using weighted mean payments for facility and professional fees. We performed segmented logistic regression on interrupted time series data to identify predictors of receiving inappropriate imaging and the impact of guideline publication on MRI use. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 867,119 individuals. Of these, 40,164 individuals (4.6%) had MRI, of whom 52.6% received an inappropriate study. Inappropriate studies accounted for $44,493,234 in total payments and $8,307,540 in out-of-pocket expenses. The interrupted time series found an approximately 1% monthly decrease in the odds of receiving an inappropriate study after guideline dissemination. CONCLUSIONS: MRI as a diagnostic tool for wrist pain is often inappropriate and expensive. Our findings support interventions to increase guideline adherence, such as integrated clinical decision support tools.

Video-Based Assessment of Microsurgical Trainees: An Evaluation of Gender Bias.

BACKGROUND: Gender bias in graduate medical evaluations remains a challenging issue. This study evaluates implicit gender bias in video-based evaluations of microsurgical technique, which has not previously been described in the literature. METHODS: Two videos were recorded of microsurgical anastomosis; the first was performed by a hand/microsurgery fellow and the second by an expert microsurgeon. A total of 150 surgeons with microsurgical experience were recruited to evaluate the videos; they were told these videos depicted a surgical trainee 1 month into fellowship followed by the same trainee 10 months later. The only variable was the name ("Rachel" or "David") that each participant was randomly assigned to evaluate. Participants were asked to score each video for quality, technique, efficiency, as well as overall progression and development after the second video compared with the initial video. To focus on bias, these outcome measures were selected to be purposefully subjective and all ratings were based on a subjective 1to 10 scale (10 = excellent). RESULTS: The analysis included 150 participants (75% male). There were no statistically significant differences in scores between the "female" and "male" trainee. The trainees received the same median initial (1-month video) and final (11th-month video) scores for all criteria except initial technique, in which the female trainee received a 7 and the male trainee received an 8. Notably, 11-month scores were consistently the same or lower than 1-month scores for both study groups (p < 0.001). There were also no differences within either study group based on participant sex. Microsurgery practitioners overall rated both groups lower than those who do not currently practice microsurgery. CONCLUSION: Our study did not identify a gender bias in this evaluation method. Further investigation into how we assess and grade trainees as well as the presence and impact of implicit biases on varying surgical assessment methods is warranted.

Health-Care Patterns for Three Common Elective Surgeries: Implications for Bundled Payment Models.

INTRODUCTION: The study objectives were to assess the timing, duration, and nature of health-care service utilization before and after three common elective surgical procedures not currently included in federal episode-based bundled payment programs. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing one of three low-risk surgical procedures (breast reduction, upper extremity nerve decompression, and panniculectomy) between 2010 and 2017 using a private insurer's national claims database. All professional and facility billing claims for health-care services were identified during the 12-mo preoperative and 12-mo postoperative periods for each patient. We compared trends in monthly utilization of health-care services to estimate surgery-related utilization patterns with interrupted time series analyses. RESULTS: The cohort included 7885 patients receiving breast reduction, 99,404 patients receiving upper extremity nerve decompression, and 955 patients receiving panniculectomy. The mean monthly encounters gradually increased before each procedure, with a gradual decline in services postoperatively. Claims in the preoperative period for all procedures were primarily diagnostic testing and outpatient evaluation and management. There was limited use of postacute care services across the surgical procedures. There were notable differences in service utilization between the three surgeries, including differing inflection points for preoperative services (approximately 7 mo for breast reduction and panniculectomy, compared with at least 9 mo for nerve decompression) and postoperative services (up to 3 mo for panniculectomy and 4 mo for nerve decompression, compared with 6 mo for breast reduction). CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights important differences in utilization of health-care services by type of surgery. These findings suggest that prior to expanding episode-based bundled payment models to surgical conditions with limited utilization of postacute care services and fewer complications, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and private payers should consider tailoring the timing and duration of clinical episodes to individual surgical procedures.

Engaging Operational Partners Is Critical for Successful Implementation of Research Products: a Coincidence Analysis of Access-Related Projects in the Veterans Affairs Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has prioritized timely access to care and has invested substantially in research aimed at optimizing veteran access. However, implementing research into practice remains challenging. Here, we assessed the implementation status of recent VHA access-related research projects and explored factors associated with successful implementation. DESIGN: We conducted a portfolio review of recent VHA-funded or supported projects (1/2015-7/2020) focused on healthcare access ("Access Portfolio"). We then identified projects with implementable research deliverables by excluding those that (1) were non-research/operational projects; (2) were only recently completed (i.e., completed on or after 1/1/2020, meaning that they were unlikely to have had time to be implemented); and (3) did not propose an implementable deliverable. An electronic survey assessed each project's implementation status and elicited barriers/facilitators to implementing deliverables. Results were analyzed using novel Coincidence Analysis (CNA) methods. PARTICIPANTS/KEY RESULTS: Among 286 Access Portfolio projects, 36 projects led by 32 investigators across 20 VHA facilities were included. Twenty-nine respondents completed the survey for 32 projects (response rate = 88.9%). Twenty-eight percent of projects reported fully implementing project deliverables, 34% reported partially implementing deliverables, and 37% reported not implementing any deliverables (i.e., resulting tool/intervention not implemented into practice). Of 14 possible barriers/facilitators assessed in the survey, two were identified through CNA as "difference-makers" to partial or full implementation of project deliverables: (1) engagement with national VHA operational leadership; (2) support and commitment from local site operational leadership. CONCLUSIONS: These findings empirically highlight the importance of operational leadership engagement for successful implementation of research deliverables. Efforts to strengthen communication and engagement between the research community and VHA local/national operational leaders should be expanded to ensure VHA's investment in research leads to meaningful improvements in veterans' care. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has prioritized timely access to care and has invested substantially in research aimed at optimizing veteran access. However, implementing research findings into clinical practice remains challenging, both within and outside VHA. Here, we assessed the implementation status of recent VHA access-related research projects and explored factors associated with successful implementation. Only two factors were identified as "difference-makers" to adoption of project findings into practice: (1) engagement with national VHA leadership or (2) support and commitment from local site leadership. These findings highlight the importance of leadership engagement for successful implementation of research findings. Efforts to strengthen communication and engagement between the research community and VHA local/national leaders should be expanded to ensure VHA's investment in research leads to meaningful improvements in veterans' care.

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome as a Test Case for Value Assessment During the Presurgical Period: The Impact of Structure and Processes of Care.

BACKGROUND: Few performance measures assess presurgical value (quality and utilization). OBJECTIVES: Using carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) as a case study: (1) develop a model to evaluate presurgical quality and utilization and (2) identify opportunities for value improvement. RESEARCH DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study utilizing Veterans Affairs (VA) national administrative data. SUBJECTS: Patients who were evaluated in a VA primary care clinic on at least 1 occasion for CTS and received carpal tunnel release over a 7-year period. MEASURES: We modeled facility-level performance on 2 outcomes: surgical delay (marker of quality) and number of presurgical encounters (utilization) for CTS, and examined association between patient, facility, and care process variables and performance. RESULTS: Among 41,912 Veterans undergoing carpal tunnel release at 127 VA medical centers, the median facility-level predicted probability of surgical delay was 48%, with 16 (13%) facilities having significantly less delay than the median and 13 (10%) facilities having greater delay. The median facility-level predicted number of presurgical encounters was 8.8 visits, with 22 (17%) facilities having significantly fewer encounters and 22 (17%) facilities having more. Care processes had a stronger association with both outcomes than structural variables included in the models. Processes associated with the greatest deviations in predicted delay and utilization included receipt of repeat electrodiagnostic testing, use of 2 or more nonoperative treatments, and community referral outside of VA. CONCLUSIONS: Using CTS as a test case, this study demonstrates the potential to assess presurgical value and identify modifiable care processes associated with presurgical delay and utilization performance.

Frequency and costs of low-value preoperative tests for patients undergoing low-risk procedures in the veterans health administration.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines discourage routine preoperative screening tests for patients undergoing low-risk procedures. This study sought to determine the frequency and costs of potentially low-value preoperative screening tests in Veterans Health Administration (VA) patients undergoing low-risk procedures. METHODS: Using the VA Corporate Data Warehouse, we identified Operative Stress Score class 1 procedures ("very minor") performed without general anesthesia in VA during fiscal year 2019 and calculated the overall national and facility-level rates and costs of nine common tests received in the 30 preoperative days. Patient factors associated with receiving at least one screening test, and the number of tests received, were examined. RESULTS: Eighty-six thousand three hundred twenty-seven of 178,775 low-risk procedures (49.3%) were preceded by 321,917 potentially low-value screening tests representing $11,505,170 using Medicare average costs. Complete blood count was the most common (33.2% of procedures), followed by basic metabolic profile (32.0%), urinalysis (26.3%), electrocardiography (18.9%), and pulmonary function test (12.4%). Older age, female sex, Black race, and having more comorbidities were associated with higher odds of low-value testing. Transthoracic echocardiogram occurred prior to only 4.5% of the procedures but accounted for 47.8% of the total costs ($5,499,860). In 129 VA facilities, the facility-level proportion of procedures preceded by at least one test ranged from 0 to 81.2% and facility-level costs ranged from $0 to $388,476. CONCLUSIONS: Routine preoperative screening tests for very low-risk procedures are common and costly in some VA facilities. These results highlight a potential target to improve quality and value by reducing unnecessary care. Measures of low-value perioperative care could be integrated into VA's extensive quality monitoring and improvement infrastructure.

Do Proposed Quality Measures for Carpal Tunnel Release Reveal Important Quality Gaps and Are They Reliable?

BACKGROUND: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons recently proposed quality measures for the initial surgical treatment of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). One measure addressed avoidance of adjunctive surgical procedures during carpal tunnel release; and a second measure addressed avoidance of routine use of clinic-based occupational and/or physical therapy (OT/PT) after carpal tunnel release. However, for quality measures to serve their intended purposes, they must be tested in real-world data to establish that gaps in quality exist and that the measures yield reliable performance information. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is there an important quality gap in clinical practice for avoidance of adjunctive surgical procedures during carpal tunnel release? (2) Is there an important quality gap in avoiding routine use of clinic-based occupational and/or physical therapy after carpal tunnel release? (3) Do these two quality measures have adequate beta-binomial signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and split-sample reliability (SSR)? METHODS: This retrospective comparative study used a large national private insurance claims database, the 2018 Optum Clinformatics® Data Mart. Ideally, healthcare quality measures are tested within data reflective of the providers and payors to which the measures will be applied. We previously tested these measures in a large public healthcare system and a single academic medical center. In this study, we sought to test the measures in the broader context of patients and providers using private insurance. For both measures, we included the first carpal tunnel release from 28,083 patients performed by one of 7236 surgeons, irrespective of surgical specialty (including, orthopaedic, plastic, neuro-, and general surgery). To calculate surgeon-level descriptive and reliability statistics, analyses were focused on the 66% (18,622 of 28,083) of patients who received their procedure from one of the 24% (1740 of 7236) of surgeons with at least five carpal tunnel releases in the database. No other inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied. To determine whether the measures reveal important gaps in treatment quality (avoidance of adjunctive procedures and routine therapy), we calculated descriptive statistics (median and interquartile range) of the performance distribution stratified by surgeon-level annual volume of carpal tunnel releases in the database (5+, 10+, 15+, 20+, 25+, and 30+). Like the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), we considered a measure "topped out" if median performance was greater than 95%, meaning the opportunity for further quality improvement is low. We calculated the surgeon-level beta-binomial SNR and SSR for each measure, each stratified by the number of carpal tunnel releases performed by each surgeon in the database. These are standard measures of reliability in health care quality measurement science. The SNR quantifies the proportion of variance that is between rather than within surgeons, and the SSR is the correlation of performance scores when each surgeons' patients are split into two random samples and then corrected for sample size. RESULTS: We found that 2% (308 of 18,622) of carpal tunnel releases involved an adjunctive procedure. The results showed that avoidance of adjunctive surgical procedures during carpal tunnel release had a median (IQR) performance of 100% (100% to 100%) at all case volumes. Only 8% (144 of 1740) of surgeons with at least five cases in the database had less than 100% performance, and only 5% (84 of 1740) had less than 90% performance. This means adjunctive procedures were rarely performed and an important quality gap does not exist based on the CMS criterion. Regarding the avoidance of routine therapy, there was a larger quality gap: For surgeons with at least five cases in the database, median performance was 89% (75% to 100%), and 25% (435 of 1740) of these surgeons had less than 75% performance. This signifies that the measure is not topped out and may reveal an important quality gap. Most patients receiving clinic-based OT/PT had only one visit in the 6 weeks after surgery. Median (IQR) SNRs of the first measure, which addressed avoidance of adjunctive surgical procedures, and the second measure, which addresses avoidance of routine use clinic-based OT/PT, were 1.00 (1.00 to 1.00) and 0.86 (0.67 to 1.00), respectively. The SSR for these measures were 0.87 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.88) and 0.75 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.77), respectively. All of these reliability statistics exceed National Quality Forum's emerging minimum standard of 0.60. CONCLUSION: The first measure, the avoidance of adjunctive surgical procedures during carpal tunnel release, lacked an important quality gap suggesting it is unlikely to be useful in driving improvements. The second measure, avoidance of routine use of clinic-based OT/PT, revealed a larger quality gap and had very good reliability, suggesting it may be useful for quality monitoring and improvement purposes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As healthcare systems and payors use the second measure, avoidance of routine use of clinic-based OT/PT, to encourage adherence to clinical practice guidelines (such as provider profiling, public reporting, and payment policies), it will be critically important to consider what proportion of patients receiving OT/PT should be considered routine practice and therefore inconsistent with guidelines. The value or potential harm of this measure depends on this judgement.

Variability and Costs of Low-Value Preoperative Testing for Cataract Surgery Within the Veterans Health Administration.

Importance: The Choosing Wisely guidelines indicate that preoperative testing is often unnecessary and wasteful for patients undergoing cataract operations. However, little is known about the impact of these widely disseminated guidelines within the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) system. Objective: To examine the extent, variability, associated factors, and costs of low-value tests (LVTs) prior to cataract operations in the VHA. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study examined records of all patients receiving cataract operations within the VHA in fiscal year 2017 (October 1, 2016, to September 31, 2017). Records from 135 facilities nationwide supporting both ambulatory and inpatient surgery were included. Exposures: A laboratory test occurring within 30 days prior to cataract surgery and within 30 days after clinic evaluation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall national and facility-level rates and associated costs of receiving any of 8 common LVTs in the 30 days prior to cataract surgery. The patient characteristics, procedure type, and facility-level factors associated with receiving at least 1 test, the number of tests received, and receipt of a bundle of 4 tests (complete blood count, basic metabolic profile, chest radiograph, and electrocardiogram). Results: A total of 69 070 cataract procedures were identified among 50 106 patients (66 282 [96.0%] men; mean [SD] age, 71.7 [8.1] years; 53 837 [77.9%] White, 10 292 [14.9%] Black). Most of the patient population had either overweight (23 292 [33.7%] patients) or obesity (27 799 [40.2%] patients). Approximately 49% of surgical procedures (33 424 procedures) were preceded by 1 or more LVT with an overall LVT cost of $2 597 623. Among patients receiving LVTs, electrocardiography (7434 patients [29.9%]) was the most common, with some patients also receiving more costly tests, including chest radiographs (489 patients [8.2%]) and pulmonary function tests (127 patients [3.4%]). For receipt of any LVT, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.61 (P < .001) at the facility level and 0.06 (P < .001) at the surgeon level, indicating the substantial contribution of the facility to amount of tests given. Conclusions and Relevance: Despite existing guidelines, use of LVTs prior to cataract surgery is both common and costly within a large, national integrated health care system. Our results suggest that publishing evidence-based guidelines alone-such as the Choosing Wisely campaign-may not sufficiently influence individual physician behavior, and that system-level efforts to directly deimplement LVTs may therefore necessary to effect sustained change.

The Impact of Community Care Referral on Time to Surgery for Veterans With Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) enacted policies offering Veterans care in the community, aiming to improve access challenges. However, the impact of receipt of community care on wait times for Veterans receiving surgical care is poorly understood. OBJECTIVES: To compare wait times for surgery for Veterans with carpal tunnel syndrome who receive VA care plus community care (mixed care) and those who receive care solely within the VA (VA-only). RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Veterans undergoing carpal tunnel release (CTR) between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2016. MEASURES: Our primary outcome was time from primary care physician (PCP) referral to CTR. RESULTS: Of the 29,242 Veterans undergoing CTR, 23,330 (79.8%) received VA-only care and 5912 (20.1%) received mixed care. Veterans receiving mixed care had significantly longer time from PCP referral to CTR (median mixed care: 378 days; median VA-only care: 176 days, P<0.001). After controlling for patient and facility covariates, mixed care was associated with a 37% increased time from PCP referral to CTR (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.65). Each additional service provided in the community was associated with a 23% increase in time to surgery (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-0.78). CONCLUSIONS: VA-only care was associated with a shorter time to surgery compared with mixed care. Moreover, there were additional delays for each service received in the community. With likely increases in Veterans seeking community care, strategies must be used to identify and mitigate sources of delay through the spectrum of care between referral and definitive treatment.

Out-of-Pocket Spending for Thumb Carpometacarpal Arthritis: Capitation Matters.

Background: Patients are increasingly responsible for direct medical expenditures with a growth in out-of-pocket (OOP) expenses, which can impede access to care and affect treatment. This study aims to investigate the impact of capitation on OOP expenses for surgical and presurgical treatment for thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) joint arthritis. Methods: Patients with a diagnosis of thumb CMC arthritis who underwent surgery (2009-2016) comprised our study cohort. Sociodemographic data, total cost, and OOP expenses were collected at the time of surgery and 2 years prior. Patients were stratified by insurance type: fee-for-service (FFS), managed care (MC), Medicare-MC, and Medicare-FFS. Capitated plans were included in the MC and Medicare-MC groups. A generalized linear regression was performed to investigate the association between OOP expenses and insurance type. Results: Our cohort consisted of 7780 patients with FFS insurance, 953 with MC insurance, 2136 with Medicare-FFS, and 265 with Medicare-MC. There was no difference in total costs for FFS and MC (FFS $7281 vs. MC $7306, P = .73; Medicare-FFS $6663 vs. Medicare-MC $6183, P = .19). However, patients with FFS incurred significantly greater OOP costs (FFS $952 vs. MC $434, P < .01; Medicare-FFS $343 vs. Medicare-MC $232, P < .01). In the adjusted regression, MC, Medicare-FFS, and Medicare-MC had approximately 21% to 46% of the predicted OOP expenses of patients with FFS plans (P < .01). Conclusion: Despite similar total costs, OOP expenses were significantly greater for patients with FFS or Medicare-FFS insurance. With healthcare costs transitioning to patients, providers should consider cost sharing when conferring care to help alleviate the financial burden placed on patients.

Comparison of Safety and Insurance Payments for Minor Hand Procedures Across Operative Settings.

Importance: Surgical procedures can be performed in different settings, but the association between the operative setting and patient safety and cost to the patient and payer is unknown. Objective: To examine differences in complications, total payments, and out-of-pocket (OOP) spending for minor hand surgical procedures performed in office, ambulatory surgery center (ASC), and hospital outpatient department (HOPD) operative settings. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective, population-based cohort study was conducted using deidentified claims data from private employer-sponsored health insurance from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2017. Patients aged 18 years or older undergoing carpal tunnel release, trigger finger release, excision of wrist ganglion, and excision of small hand masses (N = 468 365) were included. Exposures: Operative setting, defined as procedures performed in the clinic setting, ASC, and HOPD. Main Outcomes and Measures: Complications during the 90-day postoperative period, total payments (total facility and payer reimbursement), and OOP spending. Results: Of the 468 365 patients, 296 378 women (63.3%) and 171 987 men (36.7%) underwent minor hand surgical procedures from 2009 to 2017, with 284 889 procedures (60.8%) performed in HOPDs, 158 659 procedures (33.9%) performed in ASCs, and 24 817 procedures (5.3%) performed in the office setting. Ninety-day complications occurred in 3.4% of procedures performed in HOPDs, 3.3% in ASCs, and 2.9% in office settings (P < .001). After controlling for patient characteristics, procedures performed outside of the office had higher odds of complications (HOPDs: odds ratio [OR], 1.32; 95% CI, 1.22-1.43; ASCs: OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.14-1.34). Compared with the office setting, procedures performed in HOPDs incurred an extra $1216 in total payments (95% CI, $1184-$1248) and $115 in OOP expenses (95% CI, $109-$121). Procedures performed in ASCs cost an additional $709 (95% CI, $676-$741) and $140 in OOP expenses (95% CI, $134-$146). Transitioning ASC and HOPD procedures to the office setting could have saved an estimated $6 million annually in OOP expenses during the study period. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that minor hand surgery performed in the office setting is safe and less costly compared with ambulatory and hospital-based operations. Shifting minor surgical procedures to the office setting may lead to substantial cost savings for payers and patients without compromising care quality.

The Increasing Financial Burden of Outpatient Elective Surgery for the Privately Insured.

OBJECTIVE: To examine temporal trends of OOP expenses, total payments, facility fees, and professional fees for outpatient surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Approximately 48 million outpatient surgeries are performed annually with a limited financial understanding of these procedures. High OOP expenses may influence treatment decisions, delay care, and cause financial burden for patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with employer-sponsored insurance undergoing common outpatient surgical procedures (cholecystectomy, cataract surgery, meniscectomy, muscle/tendon procedures, and joint procedures) from 2011 to 2017. Total payments for surgical encounters paid by the insurer/employer and patient OOP expenses were calculated. We used multivariable linear regression to predict total payments and OOP expenses, with costs adjusted to the 2017 US dollar. RESULTS: We evaluated 5,261,295 outpatient surgeries (2011-2017). Total payments increased by 29%, with a 53% increase in facility fees and no change in professional fees. OOP expenses grew by 50%. After controlling for procedure type, procedures performed in ambulatory surgery centers conferred an additional $2019 in predicted total payments (95%CI:$2002-$2036) and $324 in OOP expenses (95%CI:$319-$328) compared to predicted cost for office-based procedures. Hospital-based procedures cost an additional $2649 in predicted total payments (95%CI:$2632-$2667) and $302 in predicted OOP expenses (95%CI:$297-$306) compared to office procedures. CONCLUSION: Increases in outpatient surgery total payments were driven primarily by facility fees and OOP expenses. OOP expenses are rising faster than total payments, highlighting the transition of costs to patients. Healthcare cost reduction policies should consider the largest areas of spending growth such as facility fees and OOP expenses to minimize the financial burden placed on patients.

The Economic Burden of Out-of-Pocket Expenses for Plastic Surgery Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Health insurance reimbursement structure has evolved, with patients becoming increasingly responsible for their health care costs through rising out-of-pocket expenses. High levels of cost sharing can lead to delays in access to care, influence treatment decisions, and cause financial distress for patients. METHODS: Patients undergoing the most common outpatient reconstructive plastic surgery operations were identified using Truven MarketScan databases from 2009 to 2017. Total cost of the surgery paid to the insurer and out-of-pocket expenses, including deductible, copayment, and coinsurance, were calculated. Multivariable generalized linear modeling with log link and gamma distribution was used to predict adjusted total and out-of-pocket expenses. All costs were inflation-adjusted to 2017 dollars. RESULTS: The authors evaluated 3,165,913 outpatient plastic and reconstructive surgical procedures between 2009 and 2017. From 2009 to 2017, total costs had a significant increase of 25 percent, and out-of-pocket expenses had a significant increase of 54 percent. Using generalized linear modeling, procedures performed in outpatient hospitals conferred an additional $1999 in total costs (95 percent CI, $1978 to $2020) and $259 in out-of-pocket expenses (95 percent CI, $254 to $264) compared with office procedures. Ambulatory surgical center procedures conferred an additional $1698 in total costs (95 percent CI, $1677 to $1718) and $279 in out-of-pocket expenses (95 percent CI, $273 to $285) compared with office procedures. CONCLUSIONS: For outpatient plastic surgery procedures, out-of-pocket expenses are increasing at a faster rate than total costs, which may have implications for access to care and timing of surgery. Providers should realize the increasing burden of out-of-pocket expenses and the effect of surgical location on patients' costs when possible.

Inpatient Versus Outpatient Management of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy in Pediatric Patients.

BACKGROUND: Negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is commonly used to manage complex wounds in the pediatric population. With recently developed portable NPWT devices, providers have the opportunity to transition NPWT to the outpatient setting. However, there are no studies describing outpatient NPWT in pediatric patients. Therefore, the purpose of our study was to leverage a population-level analysis to advance our current knowledge about outpatient NPWT use in pediatric patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Commercial Claims Database from 2006 to 2014 to identify children treated with NPWT. We compared patient characteristics, indications, complications before and after NPWT, health care utilization within 30 d of NPWT initiation, and health care cost profile of patients treated with NPWT primarily as outpatients versus inpatients. Outpatient NPWT was defined as patients with ≤50% of NPWT coded during an inpatient hospitalization, whereas inpatient NPWT was defined as patients with >50% of NPWT. RESULTS: We identified 3184 patients (1621 inpatients and 1563 outpatients) aged 0-17 y, who were treated with NPWT from 2006 to 2014. Outpatient NPWT was implemented across multiple ages, comorbidities, and indications, with a low complication rate (2.4%). After controlling for hematologic comorbidity and indications, outpatient NPWT was associated with lower risk of complications (odds ratio: 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.38-0.86) and lower median total costs ($5602.03) compared with inpatient ($15,233.21) therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Outpatient NPWT management in pediatric patients was associated with low complication rates. Additional studies are necessary to determine the most overall cost-effective treatment setting for NPWT in the pediatric population.

Development and validation of a predictive model for American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) classification system was developed to categorize the fitness of patients before surgery. Increasingly, the ASA-PS has been applied to other uses including justification of inpatient admission. Our objectives were to develop and cross-validate a statistical model for predicting ASA-PS; and 2) assess the concurrent and predictive validity of the model by assessing associations between model-derived ASA-PS, observed ASA-PS, and a diverse set of 30-day outcomes. METHODS: Using the 2014 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) Participant Use Data File, we developed and internally cross-validated multinomial regression models to predict ASA-PS using preoperative NSQIP data. Accuracy was assessed with C-Statistics and calibration plots. We assessed both concurrent and predictive validity of model-derived ASA-PS relative to observed ASA-PS and 30-day outcomes. To aid further research and use of the ASA-PS model, we implemented it into an online calculator. RESULTS: Of the 566,797 elective procedures in the final analytic dataset, 8.9% were ASA-PS 1, 48.9% were ASA-PS 2, 39.1% were ASA-PS 3, and 3.2% were ASA-PS 4. The accuracy of the 21-variable model to predict ASA-PS was C = 0.77 +/- 0.0025. The model-derived ASA-PS had stronger association with key indicators of preoperative status including comorbidities and higher BMI (concurrent validity) compared to observed ASA-PS, but less strong associations with postoperative complications (predictive validity). The online ASA-PS calculator may be accessed at https://s-spire-clintools.shinyapps.io/ASA_PS_Estimator/ CONCLUSIONS: Model-derived ASA-PS better tracked key indicators of preoperative status compared to observed ASA-PS. The ability to have an electronically derived measure of ASA-PS can potentially be useful in research, quality measurement, and clinical applications.

Variability and Costs of Low-Value Preoperative Testing for Carpal Tunnel Release Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Choosing Wisely Top-5 list of activities to avoid includes "Don't obtain baseline laboratory studies in patients without significant systemic disease (ASA I or II) undergoing low-risk surgery - specifically complete blood count, basic or comprehensive metabolic panel, coagulation studies when blood loss (or fluid shifts) is/are expected to be minimal." Accordingly, we define low-value preoperative tests (LVTs) as those performed before minor surgery in patients without significant systemic disease. The objective of the current study was to examine the extent, variability, drivers, and costs of LVTs before carpal tunnel release (CTR) surgeries in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA). METHODS: Using fiscal year (FY) 2015-2017 data derived from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW), we determined the overall national and facility-level rates and associated costs of receiving any of 8 common LVTs in the 30 days before CTR in ASA physical status (PS) I-II patients. We also examined the patient, procedure, and facility factors associated with receiving ≥1 LVT with mixed-effects logistic regression and the number of tests received with mixed-effects negative binomial regression. RESULTS: From FY15-17, 10,000 ASA class I-II patients received a CTR by 699 surgeons in 125 VHA facilities. Overall, 47.0% of patients had a CTR that was preceded by ≥1 LVT, with substantial variability between facilities (range = 0%-100%; interquartile range = 36.3%), representing $339,717 in costs. Older age and female sex were associated with higher odds of receiving ≥1 LVT. Local versus other modes of anesthesia were associated with lower odds of receiving ≥1 LVT. Several facilities experienced large (>25%) increases or decreases from FY15 to FY17 in the proportion of patients receiving ≥1 LVT. CONCLUSIONS: Counter to guidance from the ASA, we found that almost half of CTRs performed on ASA class I-II VHA patients were preceded by ≥1 LVT. Although the total cost of these tests is relatively modest, CTR is just one of many low-risk procedures (eg, trigger finger release, cataract surgery) that may involve similar preoperative testing practices. These results will inform site selection for qualitative investigation of the drivers of low-value testing and the development of interventions to improve preoperative testing practice, especially in locations where rates of LVT are high.

Pathology Evaluation of Reduction Mammaplasty Specimens and Subsequent Diagnosis of Malignant Breast Disease: A Claims-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to measure the use of pathology evaluation of breast specimens among patients undergoing reduction mammaplasty and assess rates of new diagnoses of breast disease and associated cost. METHODS: We analyzed the Truven MarketScan Databases from 2009 to 2015 to identify adult female patients undergoing reduction mammaplasty for macromastia. We recorded patient age, rates of obtaining pathology evaluation, new diagnoses of benign or malignant breast disease after pathology evaluation, and total cost for the surgery encounter. RESULTS: Among 17,738 macromastia patients undergoing reduction mammaplasty, 91.3% (n = 16,193) received pathology evaluation. Pathology evaluation rates were clinically similar across age groups <70 years (90.8-92.1%) and slightly lower for patients ≥70 (85.0%). Among 6987 patients less than 40 years who received pathology evaluation, 0.06% (n = 4) were subsequently diagnosed with malignant breast disease within 3 months, compared to 0.23% in the entire cohort (n = 37/16,193). Pathology claims resulted in an added $307 (SD 251) on average for the breast reduction surgery encounters. CONCLUSIONS: Breast tissue after reduction mammaplasty is routinely submitted for pathology evaluation, without consideration of age-based risk for breast cancer. Routine pathology evaluation of breast tissue in patients in lower risk age groups (less than 40 years) required an additional $536,000 on average to detect a single occult breast cancer compared to an added $85,600 to detect a new malignancy in patients 40 years and older. Clinicians and policy makers should consider whether routine pathology evaluation of breast tissue should be individualized based on risk factors for breast cancer.

The Cost of Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy in Women with Unilateral Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy may be unnecessary from an oncologic perspective; therefore, the debate persists about the value of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with early-stage unilateral breast cancer. Given finite health care resources, this study aims to evaluate the cost of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and breast reconstruction. METHODS: Women with unilateral breast cancer undergoing either unilateral mastectomy or unilateral mastectomy with contralateral prophylactic mastectomy and immediate breast reconstruction were selected from the Truven MarketScan databases between 2009 and 2013. Demographic and treatment data were recorded, and over an 18-month follow-up period, the treatment cost was tallied. A log-transformed linear model was used to compare cost between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 2343 women were identified who met our inclusion criteria, with 1295 undergoing unilateral mastectomy and 1048 undergoing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. Complication rates within 18 months were similar for women undergoing unilateral mastectomy and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (39 percent versus 42 percent; p = 0.17). Management with unilateral mastectomy with reconstruction required an adjusted cumulative mean cost of $33,557. Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy with reconstruction was an additional $11,872 in expenditure (p < 0.001). The cost of initial procedures (mean difference, $6467) and secondary procedures (mean difference, $2455) were the greatest contributors to cost. CONCLUSIONS: In women with unilateral breast cancer, contralateral prophylactic mastectomy with reconstruction is more costly. The increased monetary cost of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy may be offset by improved quality of life. However, this financial reality is an important consideration when ongoing efforts toward reimbursement reform may not pay for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy if outcomes data are not presented to justify this procedure.

Comparing Health Care Resource Use between Implant and Autologous Reconstruction of the Irradiated Breast: A National Claims-Based Assessment.

BACKGROUND: In the debate on reconstruction of the irradiated breast, there is little information on associated health care resource use. Nationwide data were used to examine health care resource use associated with implant and autologous reconstruction. It was hypothesized that failure rates would contribute the most to higher average cumulative cost with either reconstruction method. METHODS: From the 2009 to 2013 MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database, irradiated breast cancer patients who underwent implant or autologous reconstruction were selected. In a 24-month follow-up period, the cumulative costs of health care services used were tallied and described. Regression models stratified by reconstruction method were then used to estimate the influence of failure on cumulative cost of reconstruction. RESULTS: There were 2964 study patients. Most (78 percent) underwent implant reconstruction. The unadjusted mean costs for implant and autologous reconstructions were $22,868 and $30,527, respectively. Thirty-two percent of implant reconstructions failed, compared with 5 percent of autologous cases. Twelve percent of the implant reconstructions had two or more failures and required subsequent autologous reconstruction. The cost of implant reconstruction failure requiring a flap was $47,214, and the cost for autologous failures was $48,344. In aggregate, failures constituted more than 20 percent of the cumulative costs of implant reconstruction compared with less than 5 percent for autologous reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: More than one in 10 patients who had implant reconstruction in the setting of radiation therapy to the breast eventually required a flap for failure. These findings make a case for autologous reconstruction being primarily considered in irradiated patients who have this option available.

Reconstruction of the Irradiated Breast: A National Claims-Based Assessment of Postoperative Morbidity.

BACKGROUND: Implant-based reconstruction rates have risen among irradiation-treated breast cancer patients in the United States. This study aims to assess the morbidity associated with various breast reconstruction techniques in irradiated patients. METHODS: From the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database, the authors selected breast cancer patients who had undergone mastectomy, irradiation, and breast reconstruction from 2009 to 2012. Demographic and clinical treatment data, including data on the timing of irradiation relative to breast reconstruction were recorded. Complications and failures after implant and autologous reconstruction were also recorded. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed with postoperative complications as the dependent variable and patient demographic and clinical variables as independent variables. RESULTS: Four thousand seven hundred eighty-one irradiated patients who met the inclusion criteria were selected. A majority of the patients [n = 3846 (80 percent)] underwent reconstruction with implants. Overall complication rates were 45.3 percent and 30.8 percent for patients with implant and autologous reconstruction, respectively. Failure of reconstruction occurred in 29.4 percent of patients with implant reconstruction compared with 4.3 percent of patients with autologous reconstruction. In multivariable logistic regression, irradiated patients with implant reconstruction had two times the odds of having any complication and 11 times the odds of failure relative to patients with autologous reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Implant-based breast reconstruction in the irradiated patient, although popular, is associated with significant morbidity. Failures of reconstruction with implants in these patients approach 30 percent in the short term, suggesting a need for careful shared decision-making, with full disclosure of the potential morbidity. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.