DRG payment for major pancreatic surgery: analysis of resource consumption and suggestions from a tertiary hospital in China.

Aim: To investigate the cost homogeneity within the Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) "major operation of pancreas and liver, with general complications or comorbidities" (HB13), its cost-influencing factors, and to propose suggestions for better grouping efficacy. Methods: Medical and insurance settlement data of inpatients covered by the DRG payment system at the author's institution were collected from March 15, 2022 to December 31, 2023. The cost homogeneity of group HB13 was assessed using the coefficient of variation (CV). Clinical factors that may have an impact on hospitalization cost for patients undergoing pancreatic surgery were identified through a semi-structured interview administered to the pancreatic surgeons in author's department, their significance was analyzed using multiple linear regression, along with their impact on the cost of different service categories. A proposal to subdivide HB13 was made and evaluated by CV and t-test. Results: The CV of the HB13 group was 0.4. Robotic-assisted surgery and pancreaticoduodenectomy were two independent factors that significantly affected the total cost. Patients undergoing robotic-assisted surgery have an average increase of 41,873 CNY in total cost, primarily derived from operation fee. Patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy have an average increase of 37,487 CNY in total cost, with significant increases across all service categories. HB13 was subdivided based on whether pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed. The newly formed groups exhibited lower CVs than the original HB13. Conclusion: The cost homogeneity of HB13 was lower than that of other DRG groups in author's department. It is recommended to introduce a supplementary payment for patients requiring robotic-assisted surgery, to guarantee their access to this advanced technology. It is recommended to establish a new group with higher payment standard for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. A tiered CV criterion for the evaluation of grouping efficacy is recommended to increase intra-group homogeneity, facilitating a better allocation of health insurance funds, and the prevention of unintended negative outcomes such as service cuts and cherry-picking.

Robotic surgery reduces the consumption of medical consumables: cost analysis of robotic pancreatic surgery from a tertiary hospital in China.

Robotic surgery has been increasingly adopted in various surgical fields, but the cost-effectiveness of this technology remains controversial due to its high cost and limited improvements in clinical outcomes. This study aims to explore the health economic implications of robotic pancreatic surgery, to investigate its impact on hospitalization costs and consumption of various medical resources. Data of patients who underwent pancreatic surgery at our institution were collected and divided into robotic and traditional groups. Statistical analyses of hospitalization costs, length of stay, costs across different service categories, and subgroup cost analyses based on age, BMI class, and procedure received were performed using t tests and linear regression. Although the total hospitalization cost for the robotic group was significantly higher than that for the traditional group, there was a notable reduction in the cost of medical consumables. The reduction was more prominent among elderly patients, obese patients, and those undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, which could be attributed to the technological advantages of the robotic surgery platform that largely facilitate blood control, tissue protection, and suturing. The study concluded that despite higher overall costs, robotic pancreatic surgery offers significant savings in medical consumables, particularly benefiting certain patient subgroups. The findings provide valuable insights into the economic viability of robotic surgery, supporting its adoption from a health economics perspective.

Nationwide cost-effectiveness and quality of life analysis of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: This study analyzed the Quality of Life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic (LDP) versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). METHODS: Consecutive patients submitted to LDP or RDP from 2010 to 2020 in four high-volume Italian centers were included, with a minimum of 12 months of postoperative follow-up were included. QoL was evaluated using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D questionnaires, self-reported by patients. After a propensity score matching, which included BMI, gender, operation time, multiorgan and vascular resections, splenic preservation, and pancreatic stump management, the mean differential cost and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALY) were calculated and plotted on a cost-utility plane. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 564 patients. Among these, 271 (49%) patients were submitted to LDP, while 293 (51%) patients to RDP. After propensity score matching, the study population was composed of 159 patients in each group, with a median follow-up of 59 months. As regards the QoL analysis, global health and emotional functioning domains showed better results in the RDP group (p = 0.037 and p = 0.026, respectively), whereas the other did not differ. As expected, the median crude costs analysis confirmed that RDP was more expensive than LDP (16,041 Euros vs. 10,335 Euros, p < 0.001). However, the robotic approach had a higher probability of being more cost-effective than the laparoscopic procedure when a willingness to pay more than 5697 Euros/QALY was accepted. CONCLUSION: RDP was associated with better QoL as explored by specific domains. Crude costs were higher for RDP, and the cost-effectiveness threshold was set at 5697 euros/QALY.

An Analysis on the Effect of Income Changes in the Resection of Early-Stage Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of socioeconomic inequalities on cancer care and outcomes has been well recognized and the underlying causes are likely multifactorial. Income is regarded as a cornerstone of socioeconomic status and has been assumed to correlate with access to care. We therefore sought to investigate whether income and changes in income would affect the rate of patients undergoing surgical resection for early-stage pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Inflation-adjusted income data were obtained from the United States Census Bureau from 2010 to 2019. The cancer data were obtained from the SEER database. Counties present in both data sets were included in the analysis. Patients with stage I or II pancreatic cancer who underwent formal resection were deemed to have undergone appropriate surgical management. Patients were grouped into an early (2010-2014) and late (2015-2019) time period. RESULTS: The final analysis included 23968 patients from 173 counties across 11 states. The resection rate was 45.1% for the entire study and rose from 42.8% to 47.4% from the early to late time periods (P < .001). The median change in income between the two time periods was an increase by $2387. The rate of resection was not dependent on income class or income change in our study population. CONCLUSION: Our surgical care of pancreatic cancer is improving with more patients undergoing resection. In addition, there are now fewer disparities between patients of lower-income and higher-income groups with respect to receiving surgical intervention. This implies that our access to care has improved over the past decade. This is an encouraging finding with regards to reducing health care disparities.

Cost-effectiveness of open versus laparoscopic pancreatectomy: A nationwide, population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic pancreatic resection is comparable to open pancreatic resection; however, cost-effectiveness analyses of laparoscopic pancreatic resection are scarce. The authors performed a population-based study investigating the cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreatic resection versus open pancreatic resection. METHODS: Data from 9,256 patients who received pancreaticoduodenectomy (66.8%) and distal pancreatectomy (33.2%) from 2016 to 2018 were retrieved from the Korean National Health Insurance Service. Events after pancreatectomy were categorized as no complication, complication, and death. Probabilities of each event and average cost during index admission and 1 year were utilized to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, the cost difference between two interventions divided by quality-adjusted life year. Quality-adjusted life year, a function of length and quality of life, was measured with utility values determined by researching literature. RESULTS: Laparoscopic pancreatic resection was performed in 12.4% of pancreaticoduodenectomies and 53.4% of distal pancreatectomies. For pancreaticoduodenectomy, laparoscopic pancreatic resection was associated with an increase of 0.0022 quality-adjusted life years for index admission and 0.0023 quality-adjusted life years for 1 year compared with open pancreatic resection. The incremental cost was $321 for index admission and -$1,414 for 1 year, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $147,429 per quality-adjusted life year gained for index admission and -$614,965 per quality-adjusted life year gained for 1 year. For distal pancreatectomy, laparoscopic pancreatic resection improved 0.0131 quality-adjusted life years for index admission and 0.0285 quality-adjusted life years for index admission. The incremental cost was -$1,240 for index admission and -$5,875 for 1 year, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of -$94,519 per quality-adjusted life year gained for index admission and -$206,351 for 1 year. CONCLUSION: laparoscopic pancreatic resection was a cost-effective alternative to open pancreatic resection for pancreaticoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy, except for the higher cost of index admission for pancreaticoduodenectomy.

Evaluating the economic efficiency of open, laparoscopic, and robotic distal pancreatectomy: an updated systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP), and robotic (RDP) distal pancreatectomy (DP). METHODS: Studies reporting the costs of DP were included in a literature search until August 2023. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) values, mean difference (MD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for outcomes of interest. Cluster analysis was performed to examine the similarity and classification of DP approaches into homogeneous clusters. A decision model-based cost-utility analysis was conducted for the cost-effectiveness analysis of DP strategies. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies with 29,164 patients were included in the analysis. Among the three groups, LDP had the lowest overall costs, while ODP had the highest overall costs (LDP vs. ODP: MD - 3521.36, 95% CrI - 6172.91 to - 1228.59). RDP had the highest procedural costs (ODP vs. RDP: MD - 4311.15, 95% CrI - 6005.40 to - 2599.16; LDP vs. RDP: MD - 3772.25, 95% CrI - 4989.50 to - 2535.16), but incurred the lowest hospitalization costs. Both LDP (MD - 3663.82, 95% CrI - 6906.52 to - 747.69) and RDP (MD - 6678.42, 95% CrI - 11,434.30 to - 2972.89) had significantly reduced hospitalization costs compared to ODP. LDP and RDP demonstrated a superior profile regarding costs-morbidity, costs-mortality, costs-efficacy, and costs-utility compared to ODP. Compared to ODP, LDP and RDP cost $3110 and $817 less per patient, resulting in 0.03 and 0.05 additional quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), respectively, with positive incremental net monetary benefit (NMB). RDP costs $2293 more than LDP with a negative incremental NMB but generates 0.02 additional QALYs with improved postoperative morbidity and spleen preservation. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that LDP and RDP are more cost-effective options compared to ODP at various willingness-to-pay thresholds. CONCLUSION: LDP and RDP are more cost-effective than ODP, with LDP exhibiting better cost savings and RDP demonstrating superior surgical outcomes and improved QALYs.

Prevalence of and Factors Associated with Financial Toxicity After Pancreatectomy and Gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity (FT) refers to the adverse impact of cancer treatment costs on patients' experiences, potentially leading to poor adherence to treatment and outcomes. However, the prevalence of FT among patients undergoing major upper gastrointestinal cancer operations, as well as factors associated with FT, remain unclear. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study by sending the Comprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) survey and Surgery-Q (a survey specifically developed for this study) to patients who underwent gastrectomy or pancreatectomy for malignant disease at our institution in 2019-2021. RESULTS: We sent the surveys to 627 patients and received responses from 101 (16%) patients. The FT prevalence (COST score <26) was 48 (48%). Patients likely to experience FT were younger than 50 years of age, of non-White race, earned an annual income <$75,000, and had credit scores <740 (all p < 0.05). Additionally, longer hospital stay (p = 0.041), extended time off work for surgery (p = 0.011), and extended time off work for caregivers (p = 0.005) were associated with FT. Procedure type was not associated with FT; however, patients who underwent minimally invasive surgery (MIS) had a lower FT probability (p = 0.042). In a multivariable analysis, age <50 years (p = 0.031) and credit score <740 (p < 0.001) were associated with high FT risk, while MIS was associated with low FT risk (p = 0.024). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with upper gastrointestinal cancer have a major risk of FT. In addition to predicting the FT risk before surgery, facilitating quicker functional recovery with the appropriate use of MIS is considered important to reducing the FT risk.

Comparative Efficacy of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Center Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has become a routine procedure in pancreatic surgery. Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has not been popularized yet, it has shown new advantages in some aspects, and exploring its learning curve is of great significance for guiding clinical practice. METHODS: 149 patients who received RDP and LDP in our surgical team were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups including LDP group and RDP group. The perioperative outcomes, histopathologic results, long-term postoperative complications, and economic cost were collected and compared between the two groups. The cumulative summation (CUSUM) analysis was used to explore the learning curve of RDP. RESULTS: The hospital stay, postoperative first exhaust time, and first feeding time in the RDP group were better than those in the LDP group (P < 0.05). The rate of spleen preservation in patients with benign and low-grade tumors in the RDP group was significantly higher than that of the LDP group (P=0.002), though the cost of operation and hospitalization was significantly higher (P < 0.001). The learning curve of RDP in our center declined significantly with completing 32 cases. The average operation time, the hospital stay, and the time of gastrointestinal recovery were shorter after the learning curve node than before. CONCLUSION: RDP provides better postoperative recovery and is not difficult to replicate, but the high cost was still a major disadvantage of RDP.

ACA Medicaid expansion reduced disparities in use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Early evaluation of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion demonstrated persistent disparities among Medicaid beneficiaries in use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery. Longer-term effects of expansion remain unknown. This study evaluated the impact of expansion on the use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery among Medicaid and uninsured patients. METHODS: State inpatient databases (2012-2017), the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database, and the Area Resource File from the Health Resources and Services Administration, were used to examine 8,264 non-elderly adults who underwent pancreatic surgery in nine expansion and two non-expansion states. High-volume hospitals were defined as performing 20 or more resections/year. Linear probability triple differences models measured pre- and post-Affordable Care Act utilization rates of pancreatic surgery at high-volume hospitals among Medicaid and uninsured patients versus privately insured patients in expansion versus non-expansion states. RESULTS: The Affordable Care Act's expansion was associated with increased rates of utilization of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery by Medicaid and uninsured patients (48% vs 55.4%, P = .047) relative to privately insured patients in expansion states (triple difference estimate +11.7%, P = .022). A pre-Affordable Care Act gap in use of high-volume hospitals among Medicaid and uninsured patients in expansion states versus non-expansion states (48% vs 77%, P < .0001) was reduced by 15.1% (P = .001) post Affordable Care Act. A pre Affordable Care Act gap between expansion versus non-expansion states was larger for Medicaid and uninsured patients relative to privately insured patients by 24.9% (P < .0001) and was reduced by 11.7% (P = .022) post Affordable Care Act. Rates among privately insured patients remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: Medicaid expansion was associated with greater utilization of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery among Medicaid and uninsured patients. These findings are informative to non-expansion states considering expansion. Future studies should target understanding referral mechanism post-expansion.

Evaluation of cost-effectiveness among open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is still a matter of debate. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). METHODS: Pubmed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies comparing cost-effectiveness of ODP and MIDP were included. RESULTS: A total of 1052 titles were screened and 16 articles were included in the study, 2431 patients in total. LDP resulted the most cost-efficient procedure, with a mean total cost of 14,682 ± 5665 € and the lowest readmission rates. ODP had lower surgical procedure costs, 3867 ± 768 €. RDP was the safest approach regarding hospital stay costs (5239 ± 1741 €), length of hospital stay, morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and reoperations. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis MIDP resulted as the most cost-effective approach. LDP seems to be protective against high costs, but RDP seems to be safer.

Outcomes of Complex Gastrointestinal Cancer Resection at US News & World Report Top-Ranked vs Non-Ranked Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The US News & World Report (USNWR) annual ranking of the best hospitals for gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery offers direction to patients and healthcare providers, especially for recommendations on complex medical and surgical gastrointestinal (GI) conditions. The objective of this study was to examine the outcomes of complex GI cancer resections performed at USNWR top-ranked, compared to non-ranked, hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: Using the Vizient database, data for patients who underwent esophagectomy, gastrectomy, and pancreatectomy for malignancy between January and December 2018 were reviewed. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed according to USNWR rank status. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, mortality index (observed-to-expected mortality ratio), rate of serious complication, and cost. Secondary analysis was performed for outcomes of patients who developed serious complications. RESULTS: There were 3,054 complex GI cancer resections performed at 42 top-ranked hospitals vs 3,608 resections performed at 198 non-ranked hospitals. The mean annual case volume was 73 cases at top-ranked hospitals compared to 18 cases at non-ranked hospitals. Compared with non-ranked hospitals, top-ranked hospitals had lower in-hospital mortality (0.96% vs 2.26%, respectively, p < 0.001) and lower mortality index (0.71 vs 1.53, respectively). There were no significant differences in length of stay, rate of serious complications, or direct cost between groups. In patients who developed serious morbidity, top-ranked hospitals had a lower mortality compared with non-ranked hospitals (8.2% vs 16.8%, respectively, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of complex GI cancer resection, USNWR top-ranked hospitals performed a 4-fold higher case volume and were associated with improved outcomes. Patients with complex GI-related malignancies may benefit from seeking surgical care at high-volume regional USNWR top-ranked hospitals.

Is Improved Survival in Early-Stage Pancreatic Cancer Worth the Extra Cost at High-Volume Centers?

BACKGROUND: Volume of operative cases may be an important factor associated with improved survival for early-stage pancreatic cancer. Most high-volume pancreatic centers are also academic institutions, which have been associated with additional healthcare costs. We hypothesized that at high-volume centers, the value of the extra survival outweighs the extra cost. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study used data from the California Cancer Registry linked to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2012. Stage I-II pancreatic cancer patients who underwent resection were included. Multivariable analyses estimated overall survival and 30-day costs at low- vs high-volume pancreatic surgery centers. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net benefit (INB) were estimated, and statistical uncertainty was characterized using net benefit regression. RESULTS: Of 2,786 patients, 46.5% were treated at high-volume centers and 53.5% at low-volume centers. There was a 0.45-year (5.4 months) survival benefit (95% CI 0.21-0.69) and a $7,884 extra cost associated with receiving surgery at high-volume centers (95% CI $4,074-$11,694). The ICER was $17,529 for an additional year of survival (95% CI $7,997-$40,616). For decision-makers willing to pay more than $20,000 for an additional year of life, high-volume centers appear cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Although healthcare costs were greater at high-volume centers, patients undergoing pancreatic surgery at high-volume centers experienced a survival benefit (5.4 months). The extra cost of $17,529 per additional year is quite modest for improved survival and is economically attractive by many oncology standards.

Total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation reduces resource utilization in pediatric patients.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is associated with poor quality of life. Total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation (TPIAT) has traditionally been reserved for patients with refractory disease. We hypothesized TPIAT would lead to decreased costs and resource utilization after operation in children. METHODS: Retrospective review of 39 patients who underwent TPIAT at a single children's hospital was performed. All inpatient admissions, imaging, endoscopic procedures, and operations were recorded for the year prior to and following operation. Costs were determined from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. RESULTS: Median hospital admissions before operation was 5 (IQR:2-7) and decreased to 2 (IQR:1-3) after (p < 0.01). Median total cost for the year before operation was $36,006 (IQR:$19,914-$47,680), decreasing to $24,900 postoperatively (IQR:$17,432-$44,005, p = 0.03). Removing cost of TPIAT itself, total cost was further reduced to $10,564 (IQR:$3096-$29,669, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In children with debilitating CP, TPIAT has favorable impact on cost reduction, hospitalizations, and invasive procedures. Early intervention at a specialized pancreas center of excellence should be considered to decrease future resource utilization and costs among children.

Hepatopancreatic Surgery in the Rural United States: Variation in Outcomes at Critical Access Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Sixty million Americans live in rural America, with roughly 17.5% of the rural population being 65 y or older. Outcomes and costs of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing hepatopancreatic surgery at critical access hospitals (CAHs) are not known. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medicare files were used to identify patients who underwent hepatopancreatic resection. Outcomes were compared (CAHs versus non-CAHs). RESULTS: Patients undergoing hepatopancreatic surgery at non-CAHs versus CAHs had a similar comorbidity score (4 versus 5, P = 0.53). After adjusting for patient-level factors and procedure-specific volume, there was no difference in complication rate (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.24). The median cost of hospitalization was roughly $4000 less at CAHs than that at non-CAHs (P < 0.001). However, compared with patients undergoing surgery at non-CAHs, beneficiaries operated at CAHs had more than two times the odds of dying within 30 (aOR 2.45, 95% CI 1.42-4.2) and 90 d (aOR 2.28, 95% CI 1.4-3.71). CONCLUSIONS: Only a small subset of Medicare beneficiaries underwent hepatic or pancreatic resection at a CAH. Despite similar complication rate, Medicare beneficiaries undergoing surgery at a CAH had more than two times the odds of dying within 30 and 90 d after surgery.

Cost-effectiveness and quality of life analysis of laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: This study analyzed the Quality of Life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic (LDP) versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). METHOD: All patients who underwent LDP or RDP from 2011 to 2017 and with a minimum postoperative follow-up of 12 months were included in the study. To minimize bias, a propensity score-matched analysis (1:2) was performed. Two different questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D) were completed by the patients. The mean differential cost and mean differential Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) were calculated and plotted on a cost-utility plane. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 152 patients. After having applied the propensity score matching, the final population included 103 patients divided into RDP group (n = 37, 36%) and LDP (n = 66, 64%). No differences were found between groups regarding the baseline, intraoperative, postoperative, and pathological variables (p > 0.05). The QoL analysis showed a significant improvement in the RDP group on the postoperative social function, nausea, vomiting, and financial status (p = 0.010, p = 0.050, and p = 0.030, respectively). As expected, the crude costs analysis confirmed that RDP was more expensive than LDP (12,053 Euros vs. 5519 Euros, p < 0.001). However, the robotic approach had a higher probability of being more cost-effective than the laparoscopic procedure when a willingness to pay of more than 4800 Euros/QALY was accepted. CONCLUSION: RDP was associated with QoL improvement in specific domains. Crude costs were higher relative to LDP. Cost-effectiveness threshold resulted to be 4800 euros/QALY. The increasing worldwide diffusion of the robotic technology, with easier access and possible cost reduction, could increase the sustainability of this procedure.

Non-Hispanic Blacks undergoing distal pancreatectomy have higher risk-adjusted rates of morbidity and are more likely to be high-cost outliers.

BACKGROUND: Few studies evaluate racial disparities in costs and clinical outcomes for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy (DP). METHODS: We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases to identify patients undergoing DP. Multivariable regression (MVR) was used to evaluate the association between race and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: 2,493 patients underwent DP; 265 (10%) were black, and 221 (8%) were of Hispanic ethnicity. On MVR, black and Hispanic patients were less likely than whites to undergo surgery in high volume centers (OR 0.53, 95% CI [0.40, 0.71]; OR 0.45, 95% CI [0.32, 0.62]). Black patients had a greater risk of postoperative complication (OR 1.40, 95% CI [1.07, 1.83]), 90-day readmission (OR 1.53, 95% CI [1.15, 2.02]), prolonged length of stay (OR 1.74, 95% CI [1.25-2.44]), and of being a high cost outliers (OR 1.40, 95% CI [1.02, 1.91]) compared to white patients. CONCLUSION: Black patients have increased risk of having a postoperative complication, prolonged hospitalization, and of being a high-cost outlier than non-Hispanic whites.

Does health insurance protect against risk of financial catastrophe for pancreatic tumor care? A cost-based review of patients undergoing pancreatic resection at an academic institution.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is a leading cause of financial insolvency and cancer related deaths in the United States. The risk of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) was calculated for patients undergoing pancreatic resection at an academic institution. METHODS: Patients who underwent pancreatic resection between 2013 and 2017 were identified through an institutional cancer registry. A CHE was an out-of-pocket payment (OOP) > 10% of the estimated median household income. RESULTS: 319 patients met inclusion criteria. Hospital median charge was $76,700. 99% of patients had insurance and hospital bill adjustments. As a result, 61% (n = 193) made no OOP. Only 3 patients risked CHE. For all tumors combined there were no differences in survival outcomes by OOP. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to use institutional financial data to calculate CHE risk for pancreatic resection patients. Insurance adjustments to hospital charges that accompany health insurance and voluntary hospital adjustments for the uninsured protect patients against CHE.

Variations in surgical spending within hospital systems for complex cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 70% of hospitals today are part of larger health systems. Proponents of hospital consolidation tout its potential to reduce health spending and improve outcomes, but to the authors' knowledge the available evidence has suggested that this promise is unrealized. Variations in costs and outcomes within systems may highlight opportunities for collaborative quality improvement and practice standardization. To assess this potential, the authors sought to measure variations in episode spending within and across hospital systems among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing complex cancer surgery. METHODS: Using 100% Medicare claims data, the authors identified fee-for-service Medicare patients who were undergoing elective pancreatectomy, lung resection, or colectomy for cancer from 2014 through 2016. Risk-adjusted, price-standardized payments for the surgical episode from admission through 30 days after discharge were calculated. The authors then assessed the reliability-adjusted variations at the hospital and system levels. RESULTS: Average episode payments varied nearly as much within hospital systems for pancreatectomy ($1946 between the lowest and highest spending systems; 95% CI, $1910-$1972), lung resection ($625 between the lowest and highest spending systems; 95% CI, $621-$630), and colectomy ($813 between the lowest and highest spending systems; 95% CI, $809-$817) as they did between the lowest and highest spending hospitals (pancreatectomy: $2034; lung resection: $1789; and colectomy: $770). For pancreatectomy, this variation was driven by index hospitalization spending whereas both index hospitalization and postacute care use drove variations for lung resection and colectomy. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of Medicare patients undergoing complex cancer surgery, wide variations in surgical episode spending were noted both within and across hospital systems. System leaders may seek to better understand variations in practices among their hospitals to standardize care and reduce variations in outcomes, use, and costs.

Preoperative continuity of care and its relationship with cost of hepatopancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Continuity of care may be associated with health care outcomes and costs. The objective of the current study was to characterize the impact of continuity of care on perioperative outcomes, as well as on cost of care, among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing hepatopancreatic resection. METHODS: Patients with a minimum of 4 outpatient visits in the year before hepatopancreatic surgery were identified in the Medicare claims data. The Bice-Boxerman index was used to calculate continuity of care. The association of continuity of care and expenditures was assessed using a multivariable gamma regression with a log link. RESULTS: Among 25,698 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a hepatopancreatic surgical procedure (hepatectomy: n = 10,679, 41.6%, pancreatectomy: n = 15,019, 58.4%), median patient age was 72 years (interquartile range: 68-77). Overall continuity of care was poor as the median continuity of care was 0.17 (0.10-0.29). Median total surgical costs were higher among patients in the lowest continuity-of-care quartile (continuity of care1st quartile: $25,500 [interquartile range, $18,100-$41,800]) compared with patients in the highest continuity-of-care quartile (continuity of care4th quartile: $22,700 [interquartile range, $17,100-$38,400]). Among patients undergoing hepatic resection, an increase in continuity of care of 0.2 was associated with decreased costs of 5.1% (95% confidence interval: -6.3% to -3.8%) compared with a decrease of 2.5% (95% confidence interval: -3.7% to -1.2%) among pancreatic resection patients. CONCLUSION: Continuity of care in the year before surgery was associated with total cost of surgery-including the cost of the index hospitalization and the total 90-day postdischarge costs. Relative to patients with a continuity of care = 0, indicating complete fragmentation of a patient's outpatient health care, patients with a continuity of care = 0.60 had 12.1% lower total surgical costs.

Variation in value among hospitals performing complex cancer operations.

BACKGROUND: While variation in outcomes has driven centralization of complex cancer surgery, variation in cost and value remains unexplored. We evaluated outcomes relative to cost among hospitals performing esophageal and pancreatic resection for cancer. METHODS: Using 100% Medicare claims data, we identified fee-for-service Medicare patients undergoing elective esophagectomy and pancreatectomy for cancer from 2014 to 2016. Risk- and reliability-adjusted, price-standardized payments for the surgical episode from admission through 30 days post discharge, as well as risk- and reliability-adjusted complication rates for each hospital, were calculated. Hospitals were separated into quintiles relative to payments and outcomes. Highest-value hospitals were defined as hospitals in the top 2 quartiles for both cost and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 11,586 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a complex oncologic operation between 2014 and 2016, 66% had a pancreatic neoplasm, while 33% had an esophageal neoplasm. Overall, 31.1% patients underwent an operation at a high-value hospital. Among patients who underwent pancreatectomy, the risk-adjusted postoperative complication rate was 31.4% at the lowest-value hospitals vs 22.7% at highest-value hospitals (odds ratio: 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.70). The esophagectomy, risk-adjusted postoperative complication rate was 48.3% at lowest-value hospitals versus 29.8% at highest-value hospitals (odds ratio: 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.47). The average difference in episode cost of care for an esophagectomy at lowest- versus highest-value hospitals was $5,617; the difference for pancreatectomy was $2,748. CONCLUSION: There was wide variation in complication rates and average costs among lowest- versus highest-value hospitals performing esophagectomy and pancreatectomy for cancer. Even among highest quality hospitals, wide variation in average episode costs was noted. Surgeons should seek to better understand practice variation to standardize care and decrease variation in outcomes, utilization, and costs.