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.

Trends in Craniofacial Fellowship Career Outcomes: A Call for Expanding Professional Opportunities in Craniofacial Surgery.

PURPOSE: Limited available pediatric plastic surgery positions fail to accommodate the increasing number of craniofacial fellows trained annually. However, many adult indications have increased the demand for craniofacial expertise. Given new opportunities available to craniofacial surgeons, the authors aim to evaluate career prospects for recent craniofacial graduates and explore additional career opportunities. METHODS: Upon approval from the American Society of Craniofacial Surgeons (ASCFS), an anonymous online survey invitation was sent to craniofacial fellows who graduated from 2016 to 2021. Respondents were queried regarding their craniofacial fellowship and subsequent career prospects. RESULTS: A total of 124 eligible participants were identified, of which 30 (24.2%) responded. Craniomaxillofacial case distribution at respondents' current practices varied, with 42.3% reporting a 50% to 75% craniofacial caseload and 38.5% reporting less than 25%. Craniofacial trauma reconstruction was performed most at current positions (92.3%), followed by general reconstruction (92.3%) and breast surgery (69.2%); the least commonly performed was facial feminization (23.1%). Most respondents desired an increased craniomaxillofacial caseload (65.4%). However, 26.9% were unable to secure their current position before fellowship completion, and 80.0% cited limited craniofacial job availability. Recommendations to improve fellowship comprehensiveness and increase candidate competitiveness included increased facial feminization, facial esthetic, and microsurgical experience. CONCLUSION: To adapt to trends in craniomaxillofacial surgery, ASCFS should encourage developing fellowships that increase exposure to gender-affirming, adult craniofacial reconstruction, orthognathic, and skeletal facial esthetic surgery. Expanding training beyond congenital deformities can provide additional employment opportunities while maintaining excellence and innovation in facial plastic surgery.

Mitigating Financial Toxicity in Breast Cancer From Diagnosis to Treatment and Reconstruction.

Breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women in United States with a significant patient and familial financial burden. Limited resources offer financial support to patients in the form of cost support for bills, health insurance payments, childcare, and post-treatment recovery. Financial resources are often limited to patients of certain geographic regions or low socioeconomic status as determined by the federal poverty level, which may systematically exclude patients in need.

Considerations for Payment Bundling in Cleft Care.

SUMMARY: Since the introduction of the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative, progress has been made in piloting bundled payment models to improve care coordination and curtail health care expenditures. In light of improvements in patient outcomes and the concomitant reduction in health care spending for certain high-volume and high-cost procedures, such as total joint arthroplasty and breast reconstruction, the authors discuss theoretical considerations for bundling payments for the care of patients with orofacial clefts. The reasons for and against adopting such a payment model to consolidate cleft care, as well as the challenges to implementation, are discussed. The authors purport that bundled payments can centralize components of cleft care and offer financial incentives to reduce costs and improve the value of care provided, but that risk adjustment based on the longitudinal nature of care, disease severity, etiologic heterogeneity, variations in outcomes reporting, and varying definitions of the episode of care remain significant barriers to implementation.

Plastic Surgery Resident-Run Cosmetic Clinics: A Survey of Current Practices.

BACKGROUND: The recently increased minimum aesthetic surgery requirements set by the Plastic Surgery Residency Review Committee of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education highlight the importance of aesthetic surgery training for plastic surgery residents. Participation in resident aesthetic surgery clinics has become an important tool to achieve this goal. Yet, there is little literature on the current structure of these clinics. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate current practices of aesthetic resident-run clinics in the United States. METHODS: A survey examining specific aspects of chief resident clinics was distributed to 70 plastic surgery resident program directors in the United States. Thirty-five questions sought to delineate clinic structure, procedures and services offered, financial cost to the patient, and satisfaction and educational benefit derived from the experience. RESULTS: Fifty-two questionnaires were returned, representing 74.2% of programs surveyed. Thirty-two (63%) reported having a dedicated resident aesthetic surgery clinic at their institution. The most common procedures performed were abdominoplasty (n = 20), breast augmentation (n = 19), and liposuction (n = 16). Most clinics offered neuromodulators (n = 29) and injectable fillers (n = 29). The most common billing method used was a 50% discount on surgeon fee, with the patient being responsible for the entirety of hospital and anesthesia fees. Twenty-six respondents reported feeling satisfied or very satisfied with their resident aesthetic clinic. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found aesthetic chief resident clinics to differ greatly in their structure. Yet the variety of procedures and services offered makes participation in these clinics an effective training method for the development of both aesthetic surgical technique and resident autonomy.