Does primary care diabetes management provided to Medicare patients differ between primary care physicians and nurse practitioners?

AIMS: The aim of this study was to answer the overall question: Does primary care diabetes management for Medicare patients differ in scope and outcomes by provider type (physician or nurse practitioner)? BACKGROUND: In the USA as well as globally, there is a pressing need to address high healthcare costs while improving healthcare outcomes. Primary health care is one area where healthcare reform has received considerable attention, in part because of continued projections of primary care physician shortages. Many argue that nurse practitioners are one solution to ease the consequences of the projected shortage of primary care physicians in the USA as well as other developed countries. DESIGN: Cross-sectional quantitative analysis of 2012 Medicare claims data. METHODS: A 5% Standard Analytic File of 2012 Medicare claims data for beneficiaries with Type 2 diabetes were analysed. A medical productivity index was used to stratify patients as healthiest and least healthy who were seen by either nurse practitioners only or primary care physicians exclusively. Included in the analyses were health services utilization, health outcomes and healthcare cost variables. RESULTS: The patients in the nurse practitioner only group, overall and stratified by medical productivity index status, had significantly improved outcomes compared with all primary care physician provider groups regarding healthcare services utilization, patient health outcomes and healthcare costs. CONCLUSIONS: These findings inform current healthcare workforce conversations regarding healthcare quality, outcomes and costs. Our results suggest nurse practitioner engagement in chronic care patient management in primary care settings is associated with lower cost and better quality health care.

Cost-utility comparison of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus primary debulking surgery for treatment of advanced-stage ovarian cancer in patients 65 years old or older.

OBJECTIVE: Treatment for advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (AEOC) includes primary debulking surgery (PDS) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). A randomized controlled trial comparing these treatments resulted in comparable overall survival (OS). Studies report more complications and lower chemotherapy completion rates in patients 65 years old or older receiving PDS. We sought to evaluate the cost implications of NACT relative to PDS in AEOC patients 65 years old or older. STUDY DESIGN: A 5 year Markov model was created. Arm 1 modeled PDS followed by 6 cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel (CT). Arm 2 modeled 3 cycles of CT, followed by interval debulking surgery and then 3 additional cycles of CT. Parameters included OS, surgical complications, probability of treatment initiation, treatment cost, and quality of life (QOL). OS was assumed to be equal based on the findings of the international randomized control trial. Differences in surgical complexity were accounted for in base surgical cost plus add-on procedure costs weighted by occurrence rates. Hospital cost was a weighted average of diagnosis-related group costs weighted by composite estimates of complication rates. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Assuming equal survival, NACT produces a cost savings of $5616. If PDS improved median OS by 1.5 months or longer, PDS would be cost effective (CE) at a $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year threshold. If PDS improved OS by 3.2 months or longer, it would be CE at a $50,000 threshold. The model was robust to variation in costs and complication rates. Moderate decreases in the QOL with NACT would result in PDS being CE. CONCLUSION: A model based on the RCT comparing NACT and PDS showed NACT is a cost-saving treatment compared with PDS for AEOC in patients 65 years old or older. Small increases in OS with PDS or moderate declines in QOL with NACT would result in PDS being CE at the $100,000/quality-adjusted life-year threshold. Our results support further evaluation of the effects of PDS on OS, QOL and complications in AEOC patients 65 years old or older.

Functional and Cost Audit of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty in Public vs Private Hospitals: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Government funded hospitals are believed to be stigmatised with 'substandard care' and constant fear of infection. The aim of this study is to compare the results and direct expenditure incurred for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) done at a government funded public teaching hospital with an economy packaged private hospital in India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A review of electronic and physical records of the patients operated by the senior author for primary TKA at a government funded hospital and a private hospital spanning 2007 to 2019 was done. A retrospective cohort study was designed matching the implant design and the ASA grade of the patients. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Hospital for Special Surgery score (HSS), Knee Society Score (KSS) at 2 years follow-up were the primary outcome parameters. The retrieved data describing the cost of surgery and perioperative complications were analyzed. The confounders were minimized by including only the surgeries performed by the author, using the same instruments and implants in similar operating theatre environments. RESULTS: This study involved two cohorts comprising 280 patients each, with no differences in gender, ASA grade and primary diagnosis. There was no significant difference in the 2-year HSS, KSS and KOOS score between the two groups. The 2-year cumulative incidence of major and minor complications in both the study cohorts showed no significant difference. The mean cost of an uncomplicated primary TKA (2019) in government hospital was INR. 85,927; 39.476% of that required in a private setup (INR. 2,17,667). CONCLUSION: Affordable TKA package in a government funded hospital can produce results comparable to that in a private hospital setup at a reasonably lower cost without increasing the complication rates.

Surgeon and hospital cost variability for septoplasty and inferior turbinate reduction.

BACKGROUND: Septoplasty and turbinate reduction (STR) is a common procedure for which cost reduction efforts may improve value. The purpose of this study was to identify sources of variation in medical facility and surgeon costs associated with STR, and whether these costs correlated with short-term complications. METHODS: An observational cohort study was performed in a multifacility network using a standardized cost-accounting system to determine costs associated with adult STR from January 1, 2008 to July 31, 2015. A total of 4007 cases, performed at 21 facilities, by 72 different surgeons were included in the study. Total costs, variable costs, operating room (OR) time, and 30-day complications (eg, epistaxis) were compared among surgeons, facilities, and specialties. RESULTS: Total procedure cost: (mean ± standard deviation [SD]) $2503 ± $790 (range, $852 to $10,559). Mean total variable cost: $1147 ± $423 (range, $400 to $5,081). Intersurgeon and interfacility variability was significant for total cost (p < 0.0001) and OR time (p < 0.0001). Intersurgeon OR supply cost variability was also significant (p < 0.0001). Otolaryngologists had less total cost (p < 0.0001), OR time/cost (p < 0.0001), and complications (p = 0.0164), but greater supply cost (p < 0.0001), than other specialties. CONCLUSION: There is wide variation in cost associated with STR. Significant variance in OR time and supply cost between surgeons suggests these are potential areas for cost reduction. Although no increased 30-day complications were seen with faster and less costly surgeries, further research is needed to evaluate how time and cost relate to quality of care.