Influence of the introduction of caseload requirements on indication for visceral cancer surgery in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: In 2013 Swiss health authorities implemented annual hospital caseload requirements (CR) for five areas of visceral surgery. We assess the impact of the implementation of CR on indication for surgery in esophageal, pancreatic and rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of national registry data of all inpatient admissions between January 1st, 2005 and December 31st, 2015. Primary end-point was the age-adjusted resection rate for esophageal, pancreatic and rectal cancer among patients with at least one cancer-specific hospitalization per year. We calculated age-adjusted rate ratios for period effects before and after implementation of CR and odds ratios (OR) based on a generalized estimation equation. A relative increase of 5% in age-adjusted relative risk was set a priori as relevant from a health policy perspective. RESULTS: Age-adjusted resection rates before and after the implementation of CR were 0.12 and 0.13 (Relative Risk [RR] 1.08; 95%-Confidence Interval [CI] 0.85-1.36) in esophageal cancer, 0.22 and 0.26 (RR 1.17; 95%-CI 0.85-1.58) in pancreatic cancer and 0.38 and 0.43 (RR 1.14; 95%-CI 0.99-1.30) in rectal cancer. In adjusted models OR for resection after the implementation of CR were 1.40 (95%-CI 1.24-1.58) in esophageal cancer, 1.05 (95%-CI 0.96-1.15) in pancreatic cancer and 0.92 (95%-CI 0.87-0.97) in rectal cancer. CONCLUSION: Implementation of CR was associated with an increase of resection rates above the a priori set margins in all resections groups. In adjusted models, odds for resection were significantly higher for esophageal cancer, while they remained unchanged for pancreatic and decreased for rectal cancer.

Is the current referral trend a threat to the Military Health System? Perioperative outcomes and costs after colorectal surgery in the Military Health System versus civilian facilities.

BACKGROUND: TRICARE military beneficiaries are increasingly referred for major surgeries to civilian hospitals under "purchased care." This loss of volume may have a negative impact on the readiness of surgeons working in the "direct-care" setting at military treatment facilities and has important implications under the volume-quality paradigm. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of care source (direct versus purchased) and surgical volume on perioperative outcomes and costs of colorectal surgeries. METHODS: We examined TRICARE claims and medical records for 18- to 64-year-old patients undergoing major colorectal surgery from 2006 to 2015. We used a retrospective, weighted estimating equations analysis to assess differences in 30-day outcomes (mortality, readmissions, and major or minor complications) and costs (index and total including 30-day postsurgery) for colorectal surgery patients between purchased and direct care. RESULTS: We included 20,317 patients, with 24.8% undergoing direct-care surgery. Mean length of stay was 7.6 vs 7.7 days for direct and purchased care, respectively (P = .24). Adjusted 30-day odds between care settings revealed that although hospital readmissions (odds ratio 1.40) were significantly higher in direct care, overall complications (odds ratio 1.05) were similar between the 2 settings. However, mean total costs between direct and purchased care differed ($55,833 vs $30,513, respectively). Within direct care, mean total costs ($50,341; 95% confidence interval $41,509-$59,173) were lower at very high-volume facilities compared to other facilities ($54,869; 95% confidence interval $47,822-$61,916). CONCLUSION: Direct care was associated with higher odds of readmissions, similar overall complications, and higher costs. Contrary to common assumptions regarding volume and quality, higher volume in the direct-care setting was not associated with fewer complications.

The impact of an enhanced recovery program (ERP) on the costs of colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery Programs (ERPs) benefit patients but their effects on healthcare costs remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate the costs associated with a colorectal ERP in a large academic health system. METHODS: Patients who underwent colorectal surgery from 2012 to 2014 (pre-ERP) and 2015-2017 (ERP) were propensity score matched based on patient and operative-level characteristics. Primary outcomes were median variable, fixed, and total costs. Secondary outcomes included length-of-stay (LOS), readmissions, and postoperative complications (POCs). RESULTS: 616 surgical cases were included. Patient and operative-level characteristics were similar between the cohorts. Variable costs were $1028 less with ERP. ERP showed savings in nursing, surgery, anesthesiology, pharmacy, and laboratory costs, but had higher fixed costs. Total costs between the two groups were similar. ERP patients had significantly shorter LOS (-1 day, p < 0.01), but similar 30-day readmission rates and overall POCs. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an ERP for colorectal surgery was associated with lower variable costs compared to pre-ERP.

A Population-Based Study of 90-Day Hospital Cost and Utilization Associated With Robotic Surgery in Colon and Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of robotic surgery in colorectal cancer remains contentious with most data arising from small, single-institution studies. METHODS: Stage I-III colorectal cancer resections from 2008 to 2014 were identified in New York State. Propensity score-adjusted negative binomial models were used to compare cost and utilization between robotic, laparoscopic, and open resections. RESULTS: A total of 12,218 patients were identified. For colectomy, the robotic-to-open conversion rate was 3%, and the laparoscopic-to-open conversion rate was 13%. For rectal resection, the robotic-to-open conversion rate was 7% and the laparoscopic-to-open conversion rate was 32%. In intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in cost across the surgical approaches, both in overall and stratified analyses. Both laparoscopic and robotic approaches were associated with decreased 90-d hospital utilization compared with open surgery in intention-to-treat analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Robotic and laparoscopic colorectal cancer resections were not associated with a hospital cost benefit after 90 d compared with open but were associated with decreased hospital utilization. Conversion to open resection was common, and efforts should be made to prevent them. Future research should continue to measure how robotic and laparoscopic approaches can add value to the health care system.

Surveillance Intensity Comparison by Risk for T1NX Locally Excised Rectal Adenocarcinoma: a Cost-Effective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the optimal surveillance strategy following local excision of T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma. This study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of surveillance strategies for locally excised T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma based on histopathologic and local staging risk factors. METHODS: A Markov model with 10-year follow-up was developed for cost-effectiveness analysis of high-, medium-, and low-intensity surveillance strategies after local excision of T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma. Literature review and expert consensus were utilized to populate state/transition probabilities and rewards. Based on this data, 87% of T1NX patients undergoing local excision were low risk. Healthcare utilization costs were based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data. The primary outcomes were costs in 2018 US dollars and effectiveness in life-years presented as net monetary benefit and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Net monetary benefit for low-, medium-, and high-intensity surveillance strategies ($393,117.00, $397,978.80, and $397,290.00) shows medium-intensity surveillance to be optimal. One-way sensitivity analysis shows medium-intensity surveillance to be optimal when the cohort is 73-94% low risk. High-intensity surveillance is preferred when less than 73% of the cohort is low risk. Low-intensity surveillance is preferred when greater than 94% is low risk. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of the base-case shows medium-intensity surveillance is the optimal strategy for 51.5% of the iterations performed. CONCLUSIONS: Medium-intensity surveillance is the most cost-effective surveillance strategy for locally excised T1NX rectal adenocarcinoma in a clinically representative population model.

Association of Discretionary Hospital Volume Standards for High-risk Cancer Surgery With Patient Outcomes and Access, 2005-2016.

Importance: Various clinical societies and patient advocacy organizations continue to encourage minimum volume standards at hospitals that perform certain high-risk operations. Although many clinicians and quality and safety experts believe this can improve outcomes, the extent to which hospitals have responded to these discretionary standards remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate the association between short-term clinical outcomes and hospitals' adherence to the Leapfrog Group's minimum volume standards for high-risk cancer surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: Longitudinal cohort study using 100% of the Medicare claims for 516 392 patients undergoing pancreatic, esophageal, rectal, or lung resection for cancer between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2016. Data were accessed between December 1, 2018, and April 30, 2019. Exposures: High-risk cancer surgery in hospitals meeting and not meeting the minimum volume standards. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients having surgery in hospitals meeting the volume standard and 30-day and in-hospital mortality and complication rates. Results: Overall, a total of 516 392 procedures (47 318 pancreatic resections, 29 812 esophageal resections, 116 383 rectal resections, and 322 879 lung resections) were included in the study, and patient mean (SD) age was 73.1 (7.5) years. Outcomes improved over time in both hospitals meeting and not meeting the minimum volume standards. Mortality after pancreatic resection decreased from 5.5% in 2005 to 4.8% in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Mortality after esophageal resection decreased from in 6.7% 2005 to 5.0% in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Mortality after rectal resection decreased from 3.6% in 2005 to 2.7 % in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Mortality after lung resection decreased from 4.2% in 2005 to 2.7 % in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Throughout the study period, there were no statistically significant differences in risk-adjusted mortality between hospitals meeting and not meeting the volume standards for esophageal, lung, and rectal cancer resections. Mortality rates after pancreatic resection were consistently lower at hospitals meeting the volume standard, although mortality at all hospitals decreased over the study period. For example, in 2016, risk-adjusted mortality rates for hospitals meeting the volume standard were 3.8% (95% CI, 3.3%-4.3%) compared with 5.7% (95% CI, 5.1%-6.5%) for hospitals that did not. Although an increasing majority of patients underwent surgery in hospitals meeting the Leapfrog volume standards over time, the overall proportion of hospitals meeting the standards in 2016 ranged from 5.6% for esophageal resection to 23.3% for pancreatic resection. Conclusions and Relevance: Although volume remains an important factor for patient safety, the Leapfrog Group's minimum volume standards did not differentiate hospitals based on mortality for 3 of the 4 high-risk cancer operations assessed, and few hospitals were able to meet these standards. These findings highlight important tradeoffs between setting effective volume thresholds and practical expectations for hospital adherence and patient access to centers that meet those standards.

Factors Associated With Minimally Invasive Surgery for Colorectal Cancer in Emergency Settings.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is associated with improved colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes, but it is used less frequently in emergency settings. We aimed to assess patient-level factors associated with emergency presentation for CRC and the use of MIS in emergency versus elective settings. METHODS: This retrospective study examined the clinical data of patients who underwent emergency and elective resections for CRC from 2013 to 2015 using the Florida Inpatient Discharge Dataset. Multivariable analyses were performed to assess differences in gender, age, race, urbanization, region, insurance, and clinical characteristics associated with mode of presentation and surgical approach. In-hospital mortality and length of stay by mode of presentation were recorded. RESULTS: Of 16,277 patients identified, 10,224 (61%) had elective surgery and 6503 (39%) had emergency surgery. Emergency presentations were more likely to be black (14.2% versus 9.5%), Hispanic (18.9% versus 15.4%), Medicaid-insured (9.7% versus 4.2%), and have metastatic cancer (34.4% versus 20.2%) or multiple comorbidities (12.6% versus 4.0%). MIS was the surgical approach in 31.8% of emergency cases versus 48.1% of elective cases. Factors associated with lower odds of MIS for emergencies include Medicaid (odds ratio (OR) 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-0.99), metastases (OR 0.56, CI 0.5-0.63), and multiple comorbidities (OR 0.53, CI 0.4-0.7). Emergency cases experienced higher in-hospital mortality (3.7% versus 1.0%) and a longer median length of stay (10 d versus 5 d). CONCLUSIONS: Emergency CRC presentations are associated with racial minorities, Medicaid insurance, metastatic disease, and multiple comorbidities. Odds of MIS in emergency settings are lowest for patients with Medicaid insurance and highest clinical disease burden.

The effect of hospital familiarity with complex procedures on overall healthcare burden.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate variations in prolonged outcome after proctectomy based on hospital volume. STUDY DESIGN: From the Premier Perspective database (2012-2014), hospital volumes for proctectomy of benign and malignant conditions were classified as low, intermediate and high. Hospitals were grouped into tertiles. Impact of procedure volume on in-hospital as well as 90-day post-discharge complications, length of stay, discharge destination and costs was evaluated. RESULTS: Of 9306 proctectomy procedures, 6960 occurred at high, 1695 at intermediate and 651 at low volume hospitals. After adjustment, high volume institutions were associated with lower in-hospital surgical complications while low volume centers had higher ninety-day post-discharge medical and surgical complications (p < .05 for all). High volume centers had a shorter hospital stay while the need for extended care facility was higher in low volume centers (p < .05 for all). Healthcare costs were higher for low volume hospitals. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that variations in outcomes and costs after complex procedures such as proctectomy exist and are related to institutional familiarity with a procedure.