The use and costs of same-day surgery versus overnight admission for total thyroidectomy: A multi-state, all-payer analysis.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient thyroidectomy is increasingly favored, given evidence of safety and convenience for selected patients. However, the prevalence of same-day discharge is unclear. We aimed to evaluate temporal trends, hospital characteristics, and costs associated with same-day discharge after total thyroidectomy in an all-payer, multi-state cohort. METHODS: We included patients aged ≥18 years who underwent a total thyroidectomy (2013-2019) using Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project data. Admission type was defined as same-day, overnight, or inpatient based on length of stay. Same-day patients were propensity-score matched 1:1 with overnight patients. Hospital characteristics and costs were compared in the matched cohort. RESULTS: Among 86,187 patients who underwent total thyroidectomy, 16,743 (19.4%) cases were same-day, 59,778 (69.4%) were overnight, and 9,666 (11.2%) were inpatient. The proportion of patients who underwent same-day thyroidectomy increased from 14.8% to 20.8% over the study period (P < .001), whereas overnight admissions decreased from 72.9% to 68.8% (P < .001). In total, 9,571 same-day patients were matched to 9,571 overnight patients. Same-day patients had higher odds of treatment at a certified cancer center (odds ratio 1.77; 95% confidence interval 1.65-1.90), Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited teaching hospital (odds ratio 1.72; 95% confidence interval 1.61-1.85), and high-volume hospital (odds ratio 1.53; 95% confidence interval 1.42-1.65). Pairwise cost differences showed median savings of $974 (interquartile range -1,610 to 3,491) for same-day relative to overnight admission (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Although over two-thirds of patients are admitted overnight, same-day total thyroidectomy is increasingly performed. Same-day thyroidectomy may be a lower-cost option for selected patients, particularly in specialty centers with experience in thyroidectomy.

Development of a Machine Learning Model to Identify Colorectal Cancer Stage in Medicare Claims.

PURPOSE: Staging information is essential for colorectal cancer research. Medicare claims are an important source of population-level data but currently lack oncologic stage. We aimed to develop a claims-based model to identify stage at diagnosis in patients with colorectal cancer. METHODS: We included patients age 66 years or older with colorectal cancer in the SEER-Medicare registry. Using patients diagnosed from 2014 to 2016, we developed models (multinomial logistic regression, elastic net regression, and random forest) to classify patients into stage I-II, III, or IV on the basis of demographics, diagnoses, and treatment utilization identified in Medicare claims. Models developed in a training cohort (2014-2016) were applied to a testing cohort (2017), and performance was evaluated using cancer stage listed in the SEER registry as the reference standard. RESULTS: The cohort of patients with 30,543 colorectal cancer included 14,935 (48.9%) patients with stage I-II, 9,203 (30.1%) with stage III, and 6,405 (21%) with stage IV disease. A claims-based model using elastic net regression had a scaled Brier score (SBS) of 0.45 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.46). Performance was strongest for classifying stage IV (SBS, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.64; sensitivity, 93%; 95% CI, 91 to 94) followed by stage I-II (SBS, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.47; sensitivity, 86%; 95% CI, 85 to 76) and stage III (SBS, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.33; sensitivity, 62%; 95% CI, 61 to 64). CONCLUSION: Machine learning models effectively classified colorectal cancer stage using Medicare claims. These models extend the ability of claims-based research to risk-adjust and stratify by stage.

Exploring ethnic differences in post-discharge patterns of surgical care for older adults admitted with diverticulitis.

AIM: We aimed to evaluate ethnic differences in patterns of care following an index nonoperative admission for acute diverticulitis amongst a universally insured patient cohort. METHODS: We identified nationwide Medicare beneficiaries aged 65.5 years or older hospitalized between 1 July 2015 and 1 November 2017 for nonoperative management of an index admission for diverticulitis. Patients were followed for 1 year to examine patterns of care. Primary categorical outcomes included receipt of an elective operation, emergency operation, nonoperative readmission or no further hospitalizations for diverticulitis. Multinomial regression was performed to determine the association between ethnicity and receipt of each primary outcome category whilst adjusting for potential confounders. We examined the use of percutaneous drainage during the index admission to better understand its association with subsequent care patterns. RESULTS: Amongst 22 630 study patients, subsequent operative treatment was less common for Black, Hispanic, Asian and American Indian patients relative to White patients. Multinomial logistic regression noted that Black (relative risk 0.40; 95% CI 0.32-0.50) and Asian (relative risk 0.37; 95% CI 0.15-0.91) patients were associated with the lowest relative risk of undergoing an elective interval operation compared to White patients. Black patients were also associated with a 1.43 (95% CI 1.19-1.73) increased risk of requiring subsequent nonoperative readmissions for disease recurrence compared to White patients. The use of percutaneous drainage was higher amongst White patients relative to Black patients (6.9% vs. 4.0%, P value < 0.001). CONCLUSION: We have identified ongoing inequities in the consumption of medical resources, with White patients being more likely to undergo elective colectomy and percutaneous drainage. Differences in care are not fully alleviated by equal access to insurance.

Health System Structure: An Opportunity to Address Structural Racism and Discrimination.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the role of hub-and-spoke systems as a factor in structural racism and discrimination. BACKGROUND: Health systems are often organized in a "hub-and-spoke" manner to centralize complex surgical care to 1 high-volume hospital. Although the surgical health care disparities are well described across health care systems, it is not known how they seem across a single system's hospitals. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent 1 of 10 general surgery operations in 12 geographically diverse states (2016-2018) were identified using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's State Inpatient Databases. System status was assigned using the American Hospital Association dataset. Hub designation was assigned in 2 ways: (1) the hospital performing the most complex operations (general hub) or (2) the hospital performing the most of each specific operation (procedure-specific hub). Independent multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the risk-adjusted odds of treatment at hubs by race and ethnicity. RESULTS: We identified 122,236 patients across 133 hospitals in 43 systems. Most patients were White (73.4%), 14.2% were Black, and 12.4% Hispanic. A smaller proportion of Black and Hispanic patient underwent operations at general hubs compared with White patients (B: 59.6% H: 52.0% W: 62.0%, P <0.001). After adjustment, Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to receive care at hub hospitals relative to White patients for common and complex operations (general hub B: odds ratio: 0.88 CI, 0.85, 0.91 H: OR: 0.82 CI, 0.79, 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: When White, Black, and Hispanic patients seek care at hospital systems, Black and Hispanic patients are less likely to receive treatment at hub hospitals. Given the published advantages of high-volume care, this new finding may highlight an opportunity in the pursuit of health equity.

Evaluating Changes in Surgical Outcomes for Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Following Medicaid Expansion.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of Medicaid expansion on the surgical care of inflammatory bowel disease. We sought to determine whether Medicaid expansion is associated with improved postsurgical outcomes for patients with inflammatory bowel disease undergoing a colorectal resection. METHODS: We performed a risk-adjusted difference-in-difference study examining postsurgical outcomes for patients ages 26 to 64 with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis undergoing a colorectal resection across 15 states that did and did not expand Medicaid before (2012-2013) and after (2016-2018) policy reform. Primary study outcomes included 30-day readmission and postoperative complication. RESULTS: Study population included 11 394 patients with inflammatory bowel disease that underwent a colorectal resection. States that underwent Medicaid expansion were associated with a rise in Medicaid enrollment following policy reform (11.8% pre-Medicaid expansion vs 19.7% post-Medicaid expansion). Difference-in-difference analysis revealed a statistically significant lower odds of 30-day readmission in patients undergoing a colorectal resection in expansion states following policy reform relative to patients in nonexpansion states prior to reform (odds ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.86). No changes in odds of postoperative complication were noted across expansion and nonexpansion states. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion is associated with a rise in Medicaid enrollment in expansion states following policy reform. There were greater improvements in postoperative outcomes associated with patients in expansion states following policy reform relative to patients in nonexpansion states prior to reform, which may have been related to improved perioperative care and medical management.

Reporting of Discrimination by Health Care Consumers Through Online Consumer Reviews.

IMPORTANCE: Little is known about how discrimination in health care relates to inequities in hospital-based care because of limitations in the ability to measure discrimination. Consumer reviews offer a novel source of data to capture experiences of discrimination in health care settings. OBJECTIVE: To examine how health care consumers perceive and report discrimination through public consumer reviews. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This qualitative study assessed Yelp online reviews from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2020, of 100 randomly selected acute care hospitals in the US. Word filtering was used to identify reviews potentially related to discrimination by using keywords abstracted from the Everyday Discrimination Scale, a commonly used questionnaire to measure discrimination. A codebook was developed through a modified grounded theory and qualitative content analysis approach to categorize recurrent themes of discrimination, which was then applied to the hospital reviews. EXPOSURES: Reported experiences of discrimination within a health care setting. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Perceptions of how discrimination in health care is experienced and reported by consumers. RESULTS: A total of 10 535 reviews were collected. Reviews were filtered by words commonly associated with discriminatory experiences, which identified 2986 reviews potentially related to discrimination. Using the codebook, the team manually identified 182 reviews that described at least 1 instance of discrimination. Acts of discrimination were categorized by actors of discrimination (individual vs institution), setting (clinical vs nonclinical), and directionality (whether consumers expressed discriminatory beliefs toward health care staff). A total of 53 reviews (29.1%) were coded as examples of institutional racism; 89 reviews (48.9%) mentioned acts of discrimination that occurred in clinical spaces as consumers were waiting for or actively receiving care; 25 reviews (13.7%) mentioned acts of discrimination that occurred in nonclinical spaces, such as lobbies; and 66 reviews (36.3%) documented discrimination by the consumer directed at the health care workforce. Acts of discrimination are described through 6 recurrent themes, including acts of commission, omission, unprofessionalism, disrespect, stereotyping, and dehumanizing. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this qualitative study, consumer reviews were found to highlight recurrent patterns of discrimination within health care settings. Applying quality improvement tools, such as the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle, to this source of data and this study's findings may help inform assessments and initiatives directed at reducing discrimination within the health care setting.

Does prescription drug monitoring program usage affect opioid analgesic prescriptions by oral and maxillofacial surgeons after third molar surgery?

OBJECTIVE: To curb opioid overprescription and diversion, 49 states have implemented mandatory prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs). This study aims to examine the changes in analgesic prescription patterns associated with mandatory PDMP usage by oral and maxillofacial surgeons. DESIGN: This retrospective observational cohort study analyzed analgesic prescriptions after third molar surgeries from the University of Pennsylvania from July 2016 to December 2019. Because Pennsylvania mandated PDMP usage on January 1, 2017, we analyzed prescriptions 6 months prior to and for each 6-month interval after implementation. RESULTS: Prescriptions after 13,430 procedures on 6437 patients across 7 6-month periods were analyzed. Patients in all study periods had an average age of 40 years and there was a slight majority of females. After PDMP implementation, patients who received analgesics had an 80% lower odds of receiving an opioid option after adjusting for age, sex, and procedural severity. When an opioid was prescribed, the mean pills per script decreased from 20.18 to 10.96 1 year after PDMP implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Mandatory PDMP usage was associated with decreased odds of a patient receiving an opioid analgesic and with a decrease in mean opioid pills per script. PDMPs may be helpful in reducing opioid prescriptions by oral and maxillofacial surgeons after third molar surgery.

The impact of the affordable care act on surgeon selection amongst colorectal surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear how the Affordable Care Act's state-based Medicaid Expansion (ME) has impacted surgeon selection for colorectal resections (CRS). METHODS: We performed a risk-adjusted DID analysis on state discharge data of CRS patients aged 26-64 from NY (Expansion) and FL (non-Expansion) before (2012-2013) and after (2016-2017) ME. Primary outcome was use of a high-volume or colorectal-boarded surgeon. Subset analysis performed on insurance status. RESULTS: Among 78,866 CRS patients, ME was associated with a 5.9% increase in Medicaid enrollment. ME was associated with a 0.73 (95%CI: 0.67-0.69; p < 0.001) reduced odds of high-volume surgeon usage by commercially insured patients when compared to usage by commercially insured patients in the non-expansion state. No statistically significant difference was noted in the use of a colorectal-boarded surgeon following reform. CONCLUSIONS: ME was associated with an increase in Medicaid enrollment and a decrease in the use of high-volume surgeons by the commercially insured.

The effects of the Affordable Care Act on access and outcomes of colon surgery.

BACKGROUND: Insurance status has been strongly associated with both access to and outcomes of colon resection (CRS). Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), individual states opted to participate in Medicaid expansion (ME) and adopt essential health benefits (EHB). METHODS: We performed a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences (DID) analysis of 2012-2017 state-level inpatient claims with risk adjustment. We examined frequency of emergent presentation and in-hospital death. Subset analyses were performed by insurance type. RESULTS: Among the 73,961 CRS patients, 49.6% were in a state with both ME and EHB, 34.7% presented emergently, and 2.0% died. Adoption of ME and EHB was associated with a significant, 24%, reduction in the likelihood of in-hospital mortality, and no significant change in emergent presentation for CRS. CONCLUSIONS: The ACA's ME was strongly associated with a decrease in mortality following colon resection among Medicaid beneficiaries. These findings support the adoption of healthcare policies that improve access to insurance.