Out-of-Pocket Costs and Payments in Autologous and Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Nationwide Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Many factors influence a patient's decision to undergo autologous versus implant-based breast reconstruction, including medical, social, and financial considerations. This study aims to investigate differences in out-of-pocket and total spending for patients undergoing autologous and implant-based breast reconstruction. METHODS: The IBM MarketScan Commercial Databases were queried to extract all patients who underwent inpatient autologous or implant-based breast reconstruction from 2017 to 2021. Financial variables included gross payments to the provider (facility and/or physician) and out-of-pocket costs (total of coinsurance, deductible, and copayments). Univariate regressions assessed differences between autologous and implant-based reconstruction procedures. Mixed-effects linear regression was used to analyze parametric contributions to total gross and out-of-pocket costs. RESULTS: The sample identified 2079 autologous breast reconstruction and 1475 implant-based breast reconstruction episodes. Median out-of-pocket costs were significantly higher for autologous reconstruction than implant-based reconstruction ($597 vs $250, P < 0.001) as were total payments ($63,667 vs $31,472, P < 0.001). Type of insurance plan and region contributed to variable out-of-pocket costs (P < 0.001). Regression analysis revealed that autologous reconstruction contributes significantly to increasing out-of-pocket costs (B = $597, P = 0.025) and increasing total costs (B = $74,507, P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: The US national data demonstrate that autologous breast reconstruction has higher out-of-pocket costs and higher gross payments than implant-based reconstruction. More study is needed to determine the extent to which these financial differences affect patient decision-making.

Application of Field Sterility to Safely Reduce Cost and Waste in Cleft Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare spending in the United States remains a major concern, requiring reforms to control spending and curtail costs. Medical supply is one of the largest expenses for hospitals and strategies should be utilized to reduce nonbeneficial service delivery, which increases cost without concomitant increase in value. Introduction of field sterility is one of the potential strategies that has been applied in several surgical disciplines to improve cost-efficiency by reducing overuse of resources and decreasing enormous medical waste. Of course, this must be applied without a diminution in safety. METHODS: The PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane databases from 1980 to 2022 were used to review literature. Key words included "cleft surgery and field sterility," "sterile gloves and oral surgery," "oral surgery and field sterility," "sterile techniques and cleft palate surgery," "sterile versus nonsterile gloves," "sterile and non-sterile gloves and minor surgery," "skin laceration repair and sterile techniques," "sterile gloves and wound suture," "surgical site infection and field sterility," "operating room versus clinical setting," "operating rooms economics and hand surgery," and "main operating room versus ambulatory." RESULTS: The literature search yielded 827 articles. Following evaluation of titles, abstracts, and manuscript contents, 23 articles were ultimately included, of which 10 discussed field sterility and cost-efficiency for cutaneous procedures, 9 hand surgery, and 4 oral surgery. There was no study evaluating field sterility application in cleft surgery. In the reviewed studies, no statistical significance was observed in surgical site infection (SSI) with substantial cost savings and medical waste reduction when hand procedures were performed in ambulatory settings with field sterility compared to the main operating room (OR). Furthermore, no difference was observed for SSI in wound closure, excision of skin lesions, or Mohs micrographic surgery when nonsterile gloves were used. CONCLUSION: The incidence of infection following most cleft-related procedures remains low. As such, the application of field sterility may be ideal for this setting. The cost and waste associated with standard operating protocols are not warranted for many cleft procedures.

A nationally validated novel risk assessment calculator for prediction of unplanned reoperations and readmissions in hand surgery.

BACKGROUND: Risk predictors are an emerging tool as the need for individualized risk estimation in clinical decision-making persists. Existing risk indices have had limited success in accurately predicting hand surgery risks. This study provides a novel risk calculator for reliably predicting reoperations and readmissions in hand surgery. METHODS: Hand surgeries from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) 2012-2019 database were identified. Independent predictors of 30-day unplanned reoperation and readmission were identified in the modeling sample (2012-2019) and subsequently weighted to generate a Novel Risk Score (NRS). The NRS was validated on a 2020 NSQIP hand surgery cohort and compared to the modified frailty index (mFI-5) and the modified Charlson Comorbidity Index (mCCI) with receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-three thousand four hundred nine hand surgeries were identified for modeling. Reoperations and readmissions rates were 1.1% and 1.3%, respectively. Independent risk factors included male gender, inpatient status, smoking, dialysis dependence, transfusion within 72 h of surgery, wound classification, ASA class, diabetes mellitus, CHF, sepsis or septic shock, emergent case, and operative time longer than 75 min (all P < 0.05). ROC analysis of the 2020 cohort rendered an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.730, which demonstrates the accuracy of this prediction model. The mFI-5 and mCCI rendered AUCs of 0.580 and 0.585, respectively. CONCLUSION: We present a validated risk prediction tool for unplanned reoperations and readmissions following hand surgery that outperforms the mFI-5 and mCCI that are available online. Future studies should evaluate clinical efficacy.

Advanced Practice Providers in Plastic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The aims of this article are to examine the scope of practice differences between physician assistant and nurse practitioner providers, to identify financial cost and benefits, and to posit the impact of physician extenders on plastic surgery practices. METHODS: A review of the literature was performed using the PubMed database. Key words included "plastic surgery AND physician extender AND cost," "plastic surgery AND physician assistant AND cost," and "plastic surgery AND nurse practitioner AND cost." Secondarily, a search was performed for plastic surgery-related specialties of maxillofacial surgery, orthopedic surgery, and otolaryngology. Inclusion criteria consisted of any study design measuring the financial benefits associated with integrating physician extenders. RESULTS: The PubMed search yielded 91 articles. Eight articles were ultimately included, of which four (plastic, maxillofacial, and orthopedic) discussed the impact of physician assistants and four (orthopedic and otolaryngology) discussed the impact of nurse practitioners. All eight studies demonstrated that integration of physician assistants and nurse practitioners into practices was associated with a net financial gain even after taking into account their overall costs, along with other outcomes such as productivity or time involvement. CONCLUSIONS: As the number of physician extenders continues to grow, especially in subspecialties, plastic surgeons should be aware of their roles and the potentially positive impact of these providers, their respective training, and their quantifiable financial impact toward a plastic surgery practice. Both physician assistants and nurse practitioners appear to have a positive effect on costs in plastic surgery and plastic surgery-related practices.

Hospital volume is associated with cost and outcomes variation in 2,942 pelvic reconstructions.

BACKGROUND: Complex pelvic reconstruction is challenging for plastic and reconstructive surgeons following surgical resection of the lower gastrointestinal or genitourinary tract. Complication rates and hospital costs are variable and may be linked to the hospital case volume of pelvic reconstructions performed. A comprehensive examination of these factors has yet to be performed. METHODS: Data were retrieved for patients undergoing pedicled flap reconstruction after pelvic resections in the American National Inpatient Sample database between 2010 and 2014. Patients were then separated into three groups based on hospital case volume for pelvic reconstruction. Multivariate logistic regression and gamma regression with log-link function were used to analyze associations between hospital case volume, surgical outcomes, and cost. RESULTS: In total, 2,942 patients underwent pelvic flap reconstruction with surgical complications occurring in 1,466 patients (49.8%). Total median cost was $38,469.40. Pelvic reconstructions performed at high-volume hospitals were significantly associated with fewer surgical complications (low: 51.4%, medium: 52.8%, high: 34.8%; p < 0.001) and increased costs (low: $35,645.14, medium: $38,714.92, high: $44,967.29; p < 0.001). After regression adjustment, high hospital volume was the strongest independently associated factor for decreased surgical complications (Exp[ß], 0.454; 95% Confidence Interval, 0.346-0.596; p < 0.001) and increased hospital cost (Exp[ß], 1.351; 95% Confidence Interval, 1.285-1.421; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing pelvic flap reconstruction after oncologic resections experience high complication rates. High case volume hospitals were independently associated with significantly fewer surgical complications but increased hospital costs. Reconstructive surgeons may approach these challenging patients with greater awareness of these associations to improve outcomes and address cost drivers.