Short-Term Out-of-Pocket and Total Costs of Care After Ablation, Resection, or Transplant for Early-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A National SEER-Medicare Cost Comparison.

BACKGROUND. Differences in survival and morbidity among treatment options (ablation, surgical resection, and transplant) for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been well studied. Additional understanding of the costs of such care would help to identify drivers of high costs and potential barriers to care delivery. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article was to quantify total and patient out-of-pocket costs for ablation, surgical resection, and transplant in the management of early-stage HCC and to identify factors predictive of these costs. METHODS. This retrospective U.S. population-based study used the SEER-Medicare linked dataset to identify a sample of 1067 Medicare beneficiaries (mean age, 73 years; 674 men, 393 women) diagnosed with early-stage HCC (size ≤ 5 cm) treated with ablation (n = 623), resection (n = 201), or transplant (n = 243) between January 2009 and December 2016. Total costs and patient out-of-pocket costs for the index procedure as well as for any care within 30 and 90 days after the procedure were identified and stratified by treatment modality. Additional comparisons were performed among propensity score-matched subgroups of patients treated by ablation or resection (each n = 172). Multivariable linear regression models were used to identify factors predictive of total costs and out-of-pocket costs for index procedures as well as for 30- and 90-day post-procedure periods. RESULTS. For ablation, resection, and transplant, median index-procedure total cost was US$6689, US$25,614, and US$66,034; index-procedure out-of-pocket cost was US$1235, US$1650, and US$1317; 30-day total cost was US$9456, US$29,754, and US$69,856; 30-day out-of-pocket cost was US$1646, US$2208, and US$3198; 90-day total cost was US$14,572, US$34,984, and US$88,103; and 90-day out-of-pocket cost was US$2138, US$2462, and US$3876, respectively (all p < .001). In propensity score-matched subgroups, ablation and resection had median index-procedure, 30-day, and 90-day total costs of US$6690 and US$25,716, US$9995 and US$30,365, and US$15,851 and US$34,455, respectively. In multivariable analysis adjusting for socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, and liver-disease prognostic indicators, surgical treatment (resection or transplant) was predictive of significantly greater costs compared with ablation at all time points. CONCLUSION. Total and out-of-pocket costs for index procedures as well as for 30-day and 90-day postprocedure periods were lowest for ablation, followed by resection and then transplant. CLINICAL IMPACT. This comprehensive cost analysis could help inform future cost-effectiveness analyses.

From morbidity reduction to cost-effectiveness: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) society recommendations in minimal invasive liver surgery.

PURPOSE: Minimal-invasive liver surgery (MILS) reduces surgical trauma and is associated with fewer postoperative complications. To amplify these benefits, perioperative multimodal concepts like Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS), can play a crucial role. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness for MILS in an ERAS program, considering the necessary additional workforce and associated expenses. METHODS: A prospective observational study comparing surgical approach in patients within an ERAS program compared to standard care from 2018-2022 at the Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin. Cost data were provided by the medical controlling office. ERAS items were applied according to the ERAS society recommendations. RESULTS: 537 patients underwent liver surgery (46% laparoscopic, 26% robotic assisted, 28% open surgery) and 487 were managed by the ERAS protocol. Implementation of ERAS reduced overall postoperative complications in the MILS group (18% vs. 32%, p = 0.048). Complications greater than Clavien-Dindo grade II incurred the highest costs (€ 31,093) compared to minor (€ 17,510) and no complications (€13,893; p < 0.001). In the event of major complications, profit margins were reduced by a median of € 6,640. CONCLUSIONS: Embracing the ERAS society recommendations in liver surgery leads to a significant reduction of complications. This outcome justifies the higher cost associated with a well-structured ERAS protocol, as it effectively offsets the expenses of complications.

Healthcare cost expenditure for robotic versus laparoscopic liver resection: a bottom-up economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) is increasingly performed via the robot-assisted approach but may be associated with increased costs. This study is a post-hoc comparison of healthcare cost expenditure for robotic liver resection (RLR) and laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) in a high-volume center. METHODS: In-hospital and 30-day postoperative healthcare costs were calculated per patient in a retrospective series (October 2015-December 2022). RESULTS: Overall, 298 patients were included (143 RLR and 155 LLR). Benefits of RLR were lower conversion rate (2.8% vs 12.3%, p = 0.002), shorter operating time (167 min vs 198 min, p = 0.044), and less blood loss (50 mL vs 200 mL, p < 0.001). Total per-procedure costs of RLR (€10260) and LLR (€9931) were not significantly different (mean difference €329 [95% bootstrapped confidence interval (BCI) €-1179-€2120]). Lower costs with RLR due to shorter surgical and operating room time were offset by higher disposable instrumentation costs resulting in comparable intraoperative costs (€5559 vs €5247, mean difference €312 [95% BCI €-25-€648]). Postoperative costs were similar for RLR (€4701) and LLR (€4684), mean difference €17 [95% BCI €-1357-€1727]. When also considering purchase and maintenance costs, RLR resulted in higher total per-procedure costs. DISCUSSION: In a high-volume center, RLR can have similar per-procedure cost expenditure as LLR when disregarding capital investment.

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.

Analysis of economic impact of laparoscopic liver resection according to surgical difficulty.

INTRODUCTION: The advantages of laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) are well known, but their financial costs are poorly evaluated. The aim of this study was to analyze the economic impact of surgical difficulty on LLR costs, and to identify clinical factors that most affect global charges. METHODS: All patients who underwent LLR from 2014 to 2018 in a single French center were included. The IMM classification was used to stratify surgical difficulty, from group I through group III. The costing method was done combining top-down and bottom-up approaches. A multivariate analysis was performed in order to identify clinical factors that most affect global charges. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy patients were included (Group I: n = 136 (50%), Group II: n = 60 (22%), Group III: n = 74 (28%)). Total expenses significantly increased (p < 0.001) from Group I to Group III, but there was no difference regarding financial income (p = 0.133). Technical platform expenses significantly increased (p < 0.001) from Group I to Group III and represented the main expense among all costs with a total of 4 930 ± 2 601€. Among technical platform expenses, the anesthesia platform represented the main expense. In multivariate analysis, the four clinical factors that affected global charges in the whole study population were operating time (p < 0.001), length of stay (p < 0.001), admission in ICU (p < 0.001) and the occurrence of major complication (p < 0.05). An admission in ICU was the clinical factor that affected most global charges, as an ICU stay had a 39.1% increase effect on global charges in the whole study population. CONCLUSION: LLR is a cost-effective procedure. The more complex is the LLR, the higher is the hospital cost. An admission in ICU was the clinical factor that most affected global charges.

Textbook Outcomes Among Medicare Patients Undergoing Hepatopancreatic Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To define and test "Textbook Outcome" (TO)-a composite measure for healthcare quality-among Medicare patients undergoing hepatopancreatic resections. Hospital variation in TO and Medicare payments were analyzed. BACKGROUND: Composite measures of quality may be superior to individual measures for the analysis of hospital performance. METHODS: The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) Inpatient Files were reviewed to identify Medicare patients who underwent pancreatic and liver procedures between 2013 and 2015. TO was defined as: no postoperative surgical complications, no prolonged length of hospital stay, no readmission ≤ 90 days after discharge, and no postoperative mortality ≤ 90 days after surgery. Medicare payments were compared among patients who achieved TO versus patients who did not. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate patient factors associated with TO. A nomogram to predict probability of TO was developed and validated. RESULTS: TO was achieved in 44% (n = 5919) of 13,467 patients undergoing hepatopancreatic surgery. Adjusted TO rates at the hospital level varied from 11.1% to 69.6% for pancreatic procedures and from 16.6% to 78.7% for liver procedures. Prolonged length of hospital stay represented the major obstacle to achieve TO. Average Medicare payments were substantially higher among patients who did not have a TO. Factors associated with TO on multivariable analysis were age, sex, Charlson comorbidity score, previous hospital admissions, procedure type, and surgical approach (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Less than one-half of Medicare patients achieved a TO following hepatopancreatic procedures with a wide variation in the rates of TO among hospitals. There was a discrepancy in Medicare payments for patients who achieved a TO versus patients who did not. TO could be useful for the public reporting of patient level hospital performance and hospital variation.

Sociodemographic Characteristics as Predictors of Outcomes in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Race, gender, insurance status, and income play important roles in predicting health care outcomes. However, the impact of these factors has yet to be fully elucidated in the setting of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: We designed a retrospective cohort study utilizing data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program to identify patients diagnosed with resectable HCC (N = 28,518). Demographic factors of interest included race (Asian/Pacific Islander [API], African American [AA], Native American/Alaska Native [NA], or White [WH]) and gender (male [M] or female [F]). Insurance classifications included those having Medicare/Private Insurance [ME/PI], Medicaid [MAID], or No Insurance [NI]. Median household income was estimated for all diagnosed with HCC. Endpoints included: (1) overall survival; (2) likelihood of receiving a recommendation for surgery; and (3) specific surgical intervention performed. Multivariate multinomial logistic regression for relative risk ratio (RRR) and Cox regression models were used to identify pertinent associations. RESULTS: Race, gender, insurance status, and income had statistically significant effects on the likelihood of surgical recommendation and overall survival. API were more likely to receive a recommendation for hepatic resection (RRR = 1.45; 95% CI: 1.31-1.61; Reference Race: AA) and exhibited prolonged overall survival (HR = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.73-0.82; Reference Race: AA) as compared to members of any other ethnic group; there was no difference in these endpoints between AA, NA, or WH individuals. Gender also had a significant effect on survival: Females exhibited superior overall survival (HR = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.85-0.93; Reference Gender: M) as compared to males. Patients who had ME/PI were more likely than those with MAID or NI to receive a surgical recommendation. ME/PI was also associated with superior overall survival. Conclusions: Race, gender, insurance status, and income have measurable effects on HCC management and outcomes. The underlying causes of these disparities warrant further investigation.

Minimally invasive liver resection in the era of robotics: analysis of 214 cases.

BACKGROUND: Minimally Invasive Liver Resection (MILR) techniques range from a hybrid-technique to full robotic approaches. When compared with open techniques, MILR has been shown to be advantageous by reducing pain, complications, length of stay and blood loss. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and hospital resource utilization between full laparoscopic, hand-assisted, and robotic liver resections among major (≥ 3 segments) and minor (≤ 2 segments) resections. METHODS: A single-center comparative retrospective review was completed on 214 patients undergoing full laparoscopic, hand-assisted, or robotic liver resection procedures between 2005 and 2018. RESULTS: Among minor resections: 85 full laparoscopic, 40 hand-assisted, and 35 robotic liver resection cases were analyzed; and among major resections: 13, 33, and 8 cases were analyzed, respectively. In the adjusted subgroup analysis of minor resections, OR time was significantly longer for the minor hand-assisted group ([Formula: see text] = 181 min; p < 0.05), and the average lesion size was smaller for the minor full laparoscopic group ([Formula: see text] = 4.2 cm; p < 0.05). Overall, direct hospital charges were lowest in the group of patients who underwent a minor resection using the full laparoscopic technique ([Formula: see text] = $39,054.90; p < 0.05), compared to the robotic technique. Due to the smaller sample size (n = 54) in the major resection subgroup, only two significant observations were made - the full laparoscopic group had the least amount of blood loss ([Formula: see text] = 227 cc; p < 0.05) and incurred the least amount of room and board charges compared to the other two techniques. CONCLUSIONS: The robotic approach appears favorable for minor resections as evidenced by shorter length of stay but more costly than full laparoscopy. Clinical outcomes appear to be more dependent upon the magnitude of the resection (i.e. major vs. minor) than the MILR technique chosen. Randomized trials may be indicated to discern the best indications and advantages of each technique.

Cost of Major Complications After Liver Resection in the United States: Are High-volume Centers Cost-effective?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to estimate the cost of major complications after liver resection and determine whether high-volume (HV) centers are cost-effective. METHODS: From 2002 to 2011, 96,107 cases of liver resection performed in the United States were identified using Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Hospitals were categorized as HV (150+ cases/yr), medium-volume (51-149 cases/yr), and low-volume (LV) (1-50 cases/yr) centers. Multivariable regression analysis identified predictors of cost. Propensity score matching comparing cases with versus without complications and costs of specific complications were estimated. Cost-effectiveness of HV centers was determined by calculating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, the occurrence of a major complication added $33,855 extra cost, increased mean length of stay by 8.7 [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.4-9] days and increased risk of death by 9.3% (all P < 0.001). The cost of most common complications was wound infection (3.8%, $21,995), renal failure (2.8%, $19,201), respiratory failure (2.7%, $25,169), and hemorrhage (3.3%, $9,180), whereas sepsis (0.8%, $33,009), gastrointestinal bleeding (0.5%, $32,835), fistula (0.2%, $27,079), and foreign body removal (0.1%, $29,404) were most costly, but less frequent. Compared with LV centers, liver resection at HV centers was associated with $5109 (95% CI, 4409-5809, P < 0.001) more cost per case, yet on average 0.54 years (95% CI, 0.23-0.86) longer survival for an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $9392. CONCLUSIONS: HV centers were cost-effective at performing liver resection compared with LV centers. After liver resection, complications such as surgical site infection, respiratory failure, and renal failure contributed the most to annual cost burden.

The Impact of Dedicated Cancer Centers on Outcomes Among Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Liver and Pancreatic Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Alliance of Dedicated Cancer Centers (DCCs) is comprised of 11 institutions that are exempt from the prospective payment system utilized by Medicare for hospital reimbursement. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing liver and pancreatic surgery for cancer at DCCs versus non-DCCs. METHODS: Patients who underwent a liver or pancreatic operation for a malignant indication between 2013 and 2015 were identified using the Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic Files. Regression analyses and the Kaplan-Meier method were used to assess short- and long-term outcomes of patients at DCCs versus non-DCCs. RESULTS: Among 13,256 patients, 7.0% of patients were treated at a DCC. Median patient age and complexity of surgical procedures were comparable among DCCs and non-DCCs (all p > 0.05). Overall complications (16.5% vs. 23.6%), 90-day readmission (26.2% vs. 30.2%), and 90-day mortality (3.0% vs. 8.7%) were lower at DCCs compared with non-DCCs (all p < 0.001). In addition, long-term hazards of death among patients undergoing hepatectomy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.75] and pancreatectomy (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.56-0.78) were lower among patients treated at DCCs (both p < 0.05). While Medicare payments for patients undergoing pancreatic surgery (DCC: $22,200 vs. non-DCC: $22,100; p = 0.772) were comparable among DCC and non-DCC hospitals, Medicare payments for liver resection at DCCs were 13.9% lower than non-DCCs (DCC: $16,700 vs. non-DCC: $19,400; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing hepatopancreatic surgery at DCCs had better short- and long-term outcomes for the same/lower level of Medicare expenditure as non-DCC hospitals. DCCs provide higher-value surgical care for patients undergoing liver and pancreatic cancer operations.

Laparoscopic versus open hemihepatectomy-a cost analysis after propensity score matching.

INTRODUCTION: Cost efficiency is important for hospitals in order to provide high-quality health care for all patients. As hemihepatectomies are increasingly being performed laparoscopically, the aims of this study were to evaluate the costs of laparoscopic hemihepatectomy and to compare them to conventional open techniques. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes and financial calculations of all patients who underwent hemihepatectomy between January 2015 and December 2016 at the Department of Surgery, Campus Charité Mitte and Campus Charité Virchow-Klinikum, Berlin, Germany, being allocated to the DRG (diagnosis-related group) H01A (complex operations of the liver and pancreas with complex intensive care treatment) or H01B (operations of the liver and pancreas without complex intensive care treatment). To overcome selection bias, a 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed. RESULTS: After PSM, a total of 64 patients were identified; 32 patients underwent laparoscopic hemihepatectomy (LH); and 32 patients received open hemihepatectomy (OH). After PSM, no significant differences were observed in clinical baseline characteristics. The duration of surgery was significantly longer for patients undergoing LH compared to OH (LH, 334 min, 186-655 min; OH, 274 min, 176-454 min; p = 0.005). Patients in the LH group had a significantly shortened median hospital stay of 5 d, when compared to OH (LH, 9.5 d, 3-35 d; OH, 14.5 d, 7-37d; p = 0.005). We observed a significant higher rate of postoperative complication in the OH group (p = 0.022). Cost analysis showed median overall costs of 17,369.85€ in the LH group and 16,103.64€ in the OH group (p = 0.390). CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that higher intraoperative costs of laparoscopic liver surgery, e.g., for surgical devices and due to longer operation times, are compensated by fewer postoperative complications and consecutive shorter length of stay when compared with OH.

Local referrals as a strategy for increasing value of surgical care among medicare patients undergoing liver and pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: The focus of the current Medicare payment reform is to increase value - i.e. improve health care quality while lowering costs. This study sought to define cost variation and surgical quality among hospitals within small geographic areas typical of work commute patterns. METHODS: Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) Inpatient Files was used to identify patients undergoing elective liver and pancreatic surgery between 2013 and 2015. Hospitals were assigned to combined statistical areas (CSAs) based on zip codes. Average price-standardized Medicare payments were used to identify highest- and lowest-cost hospitals within CSAs, and clinical outcomes were compared. RESULTS: The study included 12,016 patients. Medicare payments for index hospitalization were 45% ($12,580), 42% ($16,831), 44% ($12,901) and 50% ($18,605) higher for the highest-vs. lowest-cost hospitals for non-complex pancreatic procedures, complex pancreatic procedures, non-complex liver procedures, and complex liver procedures, respectively. Surgical quality was worse at highest-vs. lowest-cost hospitals, demonstrated by higher rates of complications, prolonged LOS and 90-day mortality. CONCLUSION: There was a significant variation in surgical cost for each procedure between CSAs, and within CSAs. Highest-cost hospitals demonstrated worse quality metrics than the lowest-cost hospitals. Local referrals to low-cost hospitals represent an opportunity for increasing value of surgical care.

Standardization of operative technique in minimally invasive right hepatectomy: improving cost-value relationship through value stream mapping in hepatobiliary surgery.

BACKGROUND: With current emphasis on improving cost-quality relationship in medicine, it is imperative to evaluate cost-value relationships for surgical procedures. Previously the authors demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes for minimally invasive right hepatectomy (MIRH) and open right hepatectomy (ORH). MIRH had significantly higher intraoperative cost, though overall costs were similar. METHODS: MIRH was decoded into its component critical steps using value stream mapping, analyzing each associated cost. MIRH technique was prospectively modified, targeting high cost steps and outcomes were re-examined. Records were reviewed for elective MIRH before (pre-MIRH n = 50), after (post MIRH n = 25) intervention and ORH (n = 98), between January 1, 2008 and November 30, 2016. RESULTS: Average overall cost was significantly lower for post-standardization MIRH (post-MIRH $21 768, pre-MIRH $28 066, ORH $33 020; p < 0.001). Average intraoperative blood loss was reduced with MIRH (167, 292 and 509 mL p < 0.001). Operative times were shorter (147, 190 and 229 min p < 0.001) and LOS was reduced for MIRH (3, 4, 7 days p < 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Using a common quality improvement tool, the authors established a model for cost effective clinical care. These tools allow surgeons to overcome personal or traditional biases such as stapler choices, but most importantly eliminate non-value added interventions for patients.

A national assessment of the utilization, quality and cost of laparoscopic liver resection.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent enthusiasm for the use of laparoscopic liver resection, data evaluating costs associated with laparoscopic liver resections are lacking. We sought to examine the use of laparoscopic liver surgery, and investigate variations in cost among hospitals performing these procedures. METHODS: A nationally representative sample of 12,560 patients who underwent a liver resection in 2012 was identified. Multivariable analyses were performed to compare outcomes associated with liver resection. RESULTS: Among the 12,560 patients who underwent liver resection, 685 (5.4%) underwent a laparoscopic liver resection. The proportion of liver resections performed laparoscopically varied among hospitals ranging from 4.6% to 20.0%; the median volume of laparoscopic liver resections was 10 operations/year. Although laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower postoperative morbidity (aOR = 0.60, 95%CI: 0.36-0.99) and shorter lengths of stay [(LOS) aIRR = 0.83, 95%CI: 0.70-0.97], it was not associated with inpatient mortality (p = 0.971) or hospital costs (p = 0.863). Costs associated with laparoscopic liver resection varied ranging from $5,907 (95%CI: $5,140-$6,674) to $67,178 (95%CI: $66,271-$68,083). The observed variations between hospitals were due to differences in morbidity (coefficient: $20,415, 95%CI: $16,000-$24,830) and LOS (coefficient: $24,690, 95%CI: $21,688-$27,692). CONCLUSIONS: Although laparoscopic liver resection was associated with improved short-term perioperative clinical outcomes, utilization of laparoscopic liver resection remains low.

Hot spotting surgical patients undergoing hepatopancreatic procedures.

BACKGROUND: The burden of health care spending in the United States is a major concern, as health care costs have exponentially increased during the last three decades. The objective of the current study was to investigate the degree of cost-concentration among Medicare patients undergoing liver and pancreatic surgery. METHODS: Medicare claims data from 2013 to 2015 were used to identify patients undergoing elective liver and pancreatic resections. Patients were divided into four groups: 1) non-complex pancreatic procedures; 2) complex pancreatic procedures; 3) non-complex liver procedures; and 4) complex liver procedures. Unadjusted price-standardized Medicare payments were calculated and payments were divided into quintiles. Patient-level factors associated with payments were analyzed by multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: A total of 17,125 patients were included in the study. Patients in the top quintile of spending accounted for over 40% of payments for all liver and pancreatic procedures. Patients with comorbidity scores ≥5, male sex, open surgical approach and a diagnosis of congestive heart failure were associated with higher costs. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing liver and pancreatic resections on the top 20% of payments were responsible for a disproportionate share of Medicare payments - over 40% of total expenditures. Overall hospital surgical volume was lower among the highest quintile of payments.

Early detection and curative treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis in France and in the United States.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis. Patients outside clinical trials seldom benefit from evidence-based monitoring. The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of complying with HCC screening guidelines. The economic evaluation compared surveillance of patients with cirrhosis as recommended by the guidelines ("gold-standard monitoring") to "real-life monitoring" from the health care system perspective. A Markov model described the history of the disease and treatment course including current first-line curative treatment: liver resection, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and liver transplantation. Transition probabilities were derived mainly from two French cohorts, CIRVIR and CHANGH. Costs were computed using French and U.S. tariffs. Effectiveness was measured in life years gained (LYG). An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated for a 10-year horizon and tested with one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. The cost difference between the two groups was $648 ($87,476 in the gold-standard monitoring group vs. $86,829 in the real-life monitoring group) in France and $11,965 ($93,795 vs. $81,829) in the United States. Survival increased by 0.37 years (7.18 vs. 6.81 years). The ICER was $1,754 per LYG in France and $32,415 per LYG in the United States. The health gain resulted from earlier diagnosis and access to first-line curative treatments, among which RFA provided the best value for money. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that gold-standard monitoring for patients with cirrhosis is cost-effective, attributed to a higher probability of benefiting from a curative treatment and so a higher survival probability. (Hepatology 2017;65:1237-1248).

Considering the cost of a simultaneous versus staged approach to resection of colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases in a publicly funded healthcare model.

BACKGROUND: Simultaneous resection for colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases is an established alternative to a staged approach. This study aimed to compare these approaches with regards to economic parameters and short-term outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted between 2005 and 2016. The primary outcome was cost per episode of care. Secondary measures included 30-day clinical outcomes. A multivariate analysis was performed to determine the adjusted effect of a simultaneous surgical approach on total cost of care. RESULTS: Fifty-three cases were identified; 27 in the staged approach, and 26 in the simultaneous group. Age (P = 0.49), sex (P = 0.20), BMI (P = 0.74), and ASA class (P = 0.44) were comparable between groups. Total cost ($20297 vs $27522), OR ($6830 vs $10376), PACU ($675 vs $1182), ward ($7586 vs $11603) and pharmacy costs ($728 vs $1075) were significantly less for the simultaneous group (P < 0.05). The adjusted rate ratio for total cost of care in the staged group compared to simultaneous group was 1.51 (95%CI: 1.16-1.97, P < 0.05). The groups had comparable Clavien-Dindo scores (P = 0.89), 30-day readmissions (P = 0.44), morbidity (P = 0.50) and mortality (P = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that a simultaneous approach is associated with a significantly lower total cost while maintaining comparable short-term outcomes.

LigaSure versus CUSA for parenchymal transection during laparoscopic hepatectomy in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with cirrhosis: a propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: LigaSure has been reported as a safe and effective approach for parenchymal transection in open hepatectomy; however, its roles in laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) with liver cirrhosis have not been evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of LigaSure vs. Cavitron Ultrasonic Surgical Aspirator (CUSA) for LH in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 135 HCC patients with background cirrhosis who underwent pure LH using CUSA (n = 55) or LigaSure (n = 80) for parenchymal transection between January 2015 and May 2017 at West China Hospital of Sichuan University. We performed 1:1 propensity score matching between the LigaSure and CUSA groups. Subsequently, 48 patients were included in each group. RESULTS: The mean parenchymal transection time (74.3 ± 23.6 vs. 86.3 ± 25.8 min, P = 0.019) in the LigaSure group was obviously shorter than that in the CUSA group. The LigaSure did not increase the intraoperative blood loss or blood transfusion requirement when compared with CUSA. Moreover, the degree of postoperative reperfusion injury and complications were not significantly different between the two groups. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the two groups regarding 2-year overall survival rate or disease-free survival rate. In addition, the total hospitalization costs (P = 0.032) and intraoperative costs (P = 0.006) per case were significantly lower in the LigaSure group than those in the CUSA group. CONCLUSION: The two devices were safe and effective for LH in patients with cirrhosis. The LigaSure method may be a simple, feasible, and cost-effective surgical technique for LH in selected HCC patients with cirrhosis.

Perioperative Management in Hepatic Resections: Comparative Effectiveness of Neuraxial Anesthesia and Disparity of Care Patterns.

BACKGROUND: Complication rates after hepatic resection can be affected by management decisions of the hospital care team and/or disparities in care. This is true in many other surgical populations, but little study has been done regarding patients undergoing hepatectomy. METHODS: Data from the claims-based national Premier Perspective database were used for 2006 to 2014. The analytical sample consisted of adults undergoing partial hepatectomy and total hepatic lobectomy with anesthesia care consisting of general anesthesia (GA) only or neuraxial and GA (n = 9442). The key independent variable was type of anesthesia that was categorized as GA versus GA + neuraxial. The outcomes examined were clinical complications and health care resource utilization. Unadjusted bivariate and adjusted multivariate analyses were conducted to examine the effects of the different types of anesthesia on clinical complications and health care resource utilization after controlling for patient- and hospital-level characteristics. RESULTS: Approximately 9% of patients were provided with GA + neuraxial anesthesia during hepatic resection. In multivariate analyses, no association was observed between types of anesthesia and clinical complications and/or health care utilization (eg, admission to intensive care unit). However, patients who received blood transfusions were significantly more likely to have complications and intensive care unit stays. In addition, certain disparities of care, including having surgery in a rural hospital, were associated with poorer outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Neuraxial anesthesia utilization was not associated with improvement in clinical outcome or cost among patients undergoing hepatic resections when compared to patients receiving GA alone. Future research may focus on prospective data sources with more clinical information on such patients and examine the effects of GA + neuraxial anesthesia on various complications and health care resource utilization.