The continued financial effect of COVID: Increasing costs for non-elective major lower extremity amputations.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated changes in processes of care, which significantly impacted surgical care. This study evaluated the impact of these changes on patient outcomes and costs for non-elective major lower extremity amputations (LEA). Methods: The 2019-2021 Florida Agency for Health Care Administration database was queried for adult patients who underwent non-elective major LEA. Per-patient inflation-adjusted costs were collected. Patient cohorts were established based on Florida COVID-19 mortality rates: COVID-heavy (CH) included nine months with the highest mortality, COVID-light (CL) included nine months with the lowest mortality, and pre-COVID (PC) included nine months before COVID (2019). Outcomes included in-hospital patient outcomes and hospitalization cost. Results: 6132 patients were included (1957 PC, 2104 CH, and 2071 CL). Compared to PC, there was increased patient acuity at presentation, but morbidity (31%), mortality (4%), and length of stay (median 12 [8-17] days) were unchanged during CH and CL. Additionally, costs significantly increased during the pandemic; median total cost rose 9%, room costs increased by 16%, ICU costs rose by 15%, and operating room costs rose by 15%. When COVID-positive patients were excluded, cost of care was still significantly higher during CH and CL. Conclusions: Despite maintaining pre-pandemic standards, as evidenced by unchanged outcomes, the pandemic led to increased costs for patients undergoing non-elective major LEA. This was likely due to increased patient acuity, resource strain, and supply chain shortages during the pandemic. Key message: While patient outcomes for non-elective major lower extremity amputations remained consistent during the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare costs significantly increased, likely due to increased patient acuity and heightened pressures on resources and supply chains. These findings underscore the need for informed policy changes to mitigate the financial impact on patients and healthcare systems for future public health emergencies.

The downtrending cost of robotic bariatric surgery: a cost analysis of 47,788 bariatric patients.

The surgical robot is assumed to be a fixed, indirect cost. We hypothesized rising volume of robotic bariatric procedures would decrease cost per patient over time. Patients who underwent elective, initial gastric bypass (GB) or sleeve gastrectomy (SG) for morbid obesity were selected from Florida Agency for Health Care Administration database from 2017 to 2021. Inflation-adjusted cost per patient was collected. Cost-over-time ($/patient year) and change in cost-over-time were calculated for open, laparoscopic, and robotic cases. Linear regression on cost generated predictive parameters. Density plots utilizing area under the curve demonstrated cost overlap. Among 76 hospitals, 11,472 bypasses (223 open, 6885 laparoscopic, 4364 robotic) and 36,316 sleeves (26,596 laparoscopic, 9724 robotic) were included. Total cost for robotic was approximately 1.5-fold higher (p < 0.001) than laparoscopic for both procedures. For GB, laparoscopic had lower total ($15,520) and operative ($6497) average cost compared to open (total $17,779; operative $9273) and robotic (total $21,756; operative $10,896). For SG, laparoscopic total cost was significantly less than robotic ($10,691 vs. $16,393). Robotic GB cost-over-time increased until 2021, when there was a large decrease in cost (-$944, compared with 2020). Robotic SG total cost-over time fluctuated, but decreased significantly in 2021 (-$490 compared with 2020). While surgical costs rose significantly in 2020 for bariatric procedures, our study suggests a possible downward trend in robotic bariatric surgery as total and operative costs are decreasing at a higher rate than laparoscopic costs.

Association of state-level factors with rate of firearm-related deaths.

Background: Over 48,000 people died by firearm in the United States in 2021. Firearm violence has many inciting factors, but the full breadth of associations has not been characterized. We explored several state-level factors including factors not previously studied or insufficiently studied, to determine their association with state firearm-related death rates. Methods: Several state-level factors, including firearm open carry (OC) and concealed carry (CC) laws, state rank, partisan lean, urbanization, poverty rate, anger index, and proportion of college-educated adults, were assessed for association with total firearm-related death rates (TFDR). Secondary outcomes were firearm homicide (FHR) and firearm suicide rates (FSR). Exploratory data analysis with correlation plots and ANOVA was performed. Univariable and multivariable linear regression on the rate of firearm-related deaths was also performed. Results: All 50 states were included. TFDR and FSR were higher in permitless OC and permitless CC states. FHR did not differ based on OC or CC category. Open carry and CC were eliminated in all three regression models due to a lack of significance. Significant factors for each model were: 1) TFDR - partisan lean, urbanization, poverty rate, and state ranking; 2) FHR - poverty rate; 3) FSR - partisan lean and urbanization. Conclusions: Neither open nor concealed carry is associated with firearm-related death rates when socioeconomic factors are concurrently considered. Factors associated with firearm homicide and suicide differ and will likely require separate interventions to reduce firearm-related deaths. Key message: Neither open carry nor concealed carry law are associated with total firearm-related death rate, but poverty rate, urbanization, partisan lean, and state ranking are associated. When analyzing firearm homicide and suicide rates separately, poverty rate is strongly associated with firearm homicide rate, while urbanization and partisan lean are associated with firearm suicide rate.