Identifying drivers of cost in pediatric liver transplantation.

Understanding the economics of pediatric liver transplantation (LT) is central to high-value care initiatives. We examined cost and resource utilization in pediatric LT nationally to identify drivers of cost and hospital factors associated with greater total cost of care. We reviewed 3295 children (<21 y) receiving an LT from 2010 to 2020 in the Pediatric Health Information System to study cost, both per LT and service line, and associated mortality, complications, and resource utilization. To facilitate comparisons, patients were stratified into high-cost, intermediate-cost, or low-cost tertiles based on LT cost. The median cost per LT was $150,836 [IQR $104,481-$250,129], with marked variance in cost within and between hospital tertiles. High-cost hospitals (HCHs) cared for more patients with the highest severity of illness and mortality risk levels (67% and 29%, respectively), compared to intermediate-cost (60%, 21%; p <0.001) and low-cost (51%, 16%; p <0.001) hospitals. Patients at HCHs experienced a higher prevalence of mechanical ventilation, total parental nutrition use, renal comorbidities, and surgical complications than other tertiles. Clinical (27.5%), laboratory (15.1%), and pharmacy (11.9%) service lines contributed most to the total cost. Renal comorbidities ($69,563) and total parental nutrition use ($33,192) were large, independent contributors to total cost, irrespective of the cost tertile ( p <0.001). There exists a significant variation in pediatric LT cost, with HCHs caring for more patients with higher illness acuity and resource needs. Studies are needed to examine drivers of cost and associated outcomes more granularly, with the goal of defining value and standardizing care. Such efforts may uniquely benefit the sicker patients requiring the strategic resources located within HCHs to achieve the best outcomes.

Medical Costs of Respiratory Syncytial Virus-Associated Hospitalizations and Emergency Department Visits in Children Aged Younger Than 5 Years: Observational Findings from the New Vaccine Surveillance Network, 2016-2019.

OBJECTIVE: To assess medical costs of hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) care associated with respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) disease in children enrolled in the New Vaccine Surveillance Network. STUDY DESIGN: We used accounting and prospective surveillance data from 6 pediatric health systems to assess direct medical costs from laboratory-confirmed RSV-associated hospitalizations (n = 2007) and ED visits (n = 1267) from 2016 through 2019 among children aged <5 years. We grouped costs into categories relevant to clinical care and administrative billing practices. We examined RSV-associated medical costs by care setting using descriptive and bivariate analyses. We assessed associations between known RSV risk factors and hospitalization costs and length of stay using χ2 tests of association. RESULTS: The median cost was $7100 (IQR $4006-$13 355) per hospitalized child and $503 (IQR $387-$930) per ED visit. Eighty percent (n = 2628) of our final sample were children aged younger than 2 years. Fewer weeks' gestational age was associated with greater median costs in hospitalized children (P < .001, ≥37 weeks of gestational age: $6840 [$3905-$12 450]; 29-36 weeks of gestational age: $7721 [$4362-$15 274]; <29 weeks of gestational age: $9131 [$4518-$19 924]). Infants born full term accounted for 70% of the total expenditures in our sample. Almost three quarters of the health care dollars spent originated in children younger than 12 months of age, the primary age group targeted by recommended RSV prophylactics. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing the cost burden for RSV-associated medical care in young children will require prevention of RSV in all young children, not just high-risk infants. Newly available maternal vaccine and immunoprophylaxis products could substantially reduce RSV-associated medical costs.

Contemporary trends of leadless pacemaker implantation in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Leadless pacemakers (LPM) have established themselves as the important therapeutic modality in management of selected patients with symptomatic bradycardia. To determine real-world utilization and in-hospital outcomes of LPM implantation since its approval by the Food and Drug Administration in 2016. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study, data were extracted from the National Inpatient Sample database from the years 2016-2020. The outcomes analyzed in our study included implantation trends of LPM over study years, mortality, major complications (defined as pericardial effusion requiring intervention, any vascular complication, or acute kidney injury), length of stay, and cost of hospitalization. Implantation trends of LPM were assessed using linear regression. Using years 2016-2017 as a reference, adjusted outcomes of mortality, major complications, prolonged length of stay (defined as >6 days), and increased hospitalization cost (defined as median cost >34 098$) were analyzed for subsequent years using a multivariable logistic regression model. RESULTS: There was a gradual increased trend of LPM implantation over our study years (3230 devices in years 2016-2017 to 11 815 devices in year 2020, p for trend <.01). The adjusted mortality improved significantly after LPM implantation in subsequent years compared to the reference years 2016-2017 (aOR for the year 2018: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.51-0.73; aOR for the year 2019: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.41-0.59; and aOR for the year 2020: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.44-0.62). No differences in adjusted rates of major complications were demonstrated over the subsequent years. The adjusted cost of hospitalization was higher for the years 2019 (aOR: 1.33, 95% CI: 1.22-1.46) and 2020 (aOR: 1.69, 95% CI: 1.55-1.84). CONCLUSION: The contemporary US practice has shown significantly increased implantation rates of LPM since its approval with reduced rates of inpatient mortality.

Comprehensive analysis of same day discharge after atrial fibrillation ablation: Clinical, cost, and patient reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Same day discharge (SDD) following atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation procedure has emerged as routine practice, and primarily driven by operator discretion. However, the impacts of SDD on clinical outcomes, healthcare system costs, and patient reported outcomes (PROs) have not been systematically studied. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients undergoing routine AF ablation procedures with SDD versus overnight observation (NSDD). After propensity adjustment we compared postprocedure adverse events (AEs), healthcare system costs, and changes in PROs. RESULTS: We identified 310 cases, with 159 undergoing SDD and 151 staying at least one midnight in the hospital (NSDD). Compared with NSDD, SDD patients were similar age (mean 64 vs. 66, p = 0.3), sex (26% female vs. 27%, p = 0.8), and with lower mean CHADS2-VA2Sc scores (2.0 vs. 2.7; p < 0.011). The primary outcome of AEs was noninferior in SDD versus NSDD patients (odds ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.21-0.99; noninferiority margin of 10%). There were also no differences in overall cost to the healthcare system between SDD and NSDD (p = 0.11). PROs numerically favored SDD (p = NS for all scores). CONCLUSIONS: Physician selection for SDD appears at least as safe as NSDD with respect to clinical outcomes and SDD is not significantly less costly to the health system. There is a trend towards more favorable, general PROs among SDD patients. Routine SDD should be strongly considered for patients undergoing routine AF ablation procedures.

Current Medicare reimbursement for complex endovascular aortic repair is inadequate based on results from a multi-institutional cost analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Complex endovascular juxta-, para- and suprarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (comEVAR) is frequently accomplished with commercially available fenestrated (FEVAR) devices or off-label use of aortoiliac devices with parallel branch stents (chEVAR). We sought to evaluate the implantable vascular device costs incurred with these procedures as compared with standard Medicare reimbursement to determine the financial viability of comEVAR in the modern era. METHODS: Five geographically distinct institutions with high-volume, complex aortic centers were included. Implantable aortoiliac and branch stent device cost data from 25 consecutive, recent, comEVAR in the treatment of juxta-, para-, and suprarenal aortic aneurysms at each center were analyzed. Cases of rupture, thoracic aneurysms, reinterventions, and physician-modified EVAR were excluded, as were ancillary costs from nonimplantable equipment. Data from all institutions were combined and stratified into an overall cost group and two, individual cost groups: FEVAR or chEVAR. These groups were compared, and each respective group was then compared with weighted Medicare reimbursement for Diagnosis-Related Group codes 268/269. Median device costs were obtained from an independent purchasing consortium of >3000 medical centers, yielding true median cost-to-institution data rather than speculative, administrative projections or estimates. RESULTS: A total of 125 cases were analyzed: 70 FEVAR and 53 chEVAR. Two cases of combined FEVAR/chEVAR were included in total cost analysis, but excluded from direct FEVAR vs chEVAR comparison. Median Medicare reimbursement was calculated as $35,755 per case. Combined average implantable device cost for all analyzed cases was $28,470 per case, or 80% of the median reimbursement ($28,470/$35,755). Average FEVAR device cost per case ($26,499) was significantly lower than average chEVAR cost per case ($32,122; P < .002). Device cost was 74% ($26,499/$35,755) of total reimbursement for FEVAR and 90% ($32,122/$35,755) for chEVAR. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this multi-institutional analysis show that implantable device cost alone represents the vast majority of weighted total Medicare reimbursement per case with comEVAR, and that chEVAR is significantly more costly than FEVAR. Inadequate Medicare reimbursement for these cases puts high-volume, high-complexity aortic centers at a distinct financial disadvantage. In the interest of optimizing patient care, these data suggest a reconsideration of previously established, outdated, Diagnosis-Related Group coding and Medicare reimbursement for comEVAR.

The Revival of US Hospital Care, 2004-2019.

BACKGROUND: Between 2004 and 2019, the US hospital industry reversed the 21-year decline in its share of national health spending. OBJECTIVE: To measure and explain changes in hospital utilization, cost, charges, and inpatient case mix. DATA SOURCES: Principal sources were the American Hospital Association annual survey, the National Inpatient Sample, and the Healthcare Cost Reporting Information System. The study included all US community hospitals (n=5141 in 2019). ANALYTIC APPROACH: We used factor decomposition to separate the impacts of population, utilization, unit cost, and charge markups on the growth in cost and charges for inpatient and outpatient care nationwide and for each state. For unit cost, we separated the impacts of input price inflation and treatment intensity. To measure the inpatient case mix, we applied an all-patient diagnosis-related groups algorithm. RESULTS: Between 2004 and 2019, charges more than tripled to $4.11 trillion. The cost more than doubled to $911 billion. For inpatient care, discharges fell 5%, discharges per person fell 15%, cost per discharge increased 88%, and charge markups rose 43%. For outpatient care, visits rose 36%, visits per person rose 21%, cost per visit rose 119%, and charge markups rose 52%. Treatment intensity increased by 33% per discharge and 55% per visit. Nationwide, the inpatient case mix increased by 34%, reflecting sicker patients and better clinical documentation. CONCLUSIONS: We quantified 3 important trends: rapid growth in outpatient visits, increased treatment intensity, and sustained increases in markups. Increased treatment intensity was the largest factor behind $491 billion in hospital cost growth between 2004 and 2019.

Hospital Capital Assets, Community Health, and the Utilization and Cost of Inpatient Care: A Population-Based Study of US Counties.

BACKGROUND: The provision of high-quality hospital care requires adequate space, buildings, and equipment, although redundant infrastructure could also drive service overprovision. OBJECTIVE: To explore the distribution of physical hospital resources-that is, capital assets-in the United States; its correlation with indicators of community health and nonhealth factors; and the association between hospital capital density and regional hospital utilization and costs. RESEARCH DESIGN: We created a dataset of n=1733 US counties by analyzing the 2019 Medicare Cost Reports; 2019 State Inpatient Database Community Inpatient Statistics; 2020-2021 Area Health Resource File; 2016-2020 American Community Survey; 2022 PLACES; and 2019 CDC WONDER. We first calculated aggregate hospital capital assets and investment at the county level. Next, we examined the correlation between community's medical need (eg, chronic disease prevalence), ability to pay (eg, insurance), and supply factors with 4 metrics of capital availability. Finally, we examined the association between capital assets and hospital utilization/costs, adjusted for confounders. RESULTS: Counties with older and sicker populations generally had less aggregate hospital capital per capita, per hospital day, and per hospital discharge, while counties with higher income or insurance coverage had more hospital capital. In linear regressions controlling for medical need and ability to pay, capital assets were associated with greater hospital utilization and costs, for example, an additional $1000 in capital assets per capita was associated with 73 additional discharges per 100,000 population (95% CI: 45-102) and $19 in spending per bed day (95% CI: 12-26). CONCLUSIONS: The level of investment in hospitals is linked to community wealth but not population health needs, and may drive use and costs.

Identifying Sources of Inter-Hospital Variation in Episode Spending for Sepsis Care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate inter-hospital variation in 90-day total episode spending for sepsis, estimate the relative contributions of each component of spending, and identify drivers of spending across the distribution of episode spending on sepsis care. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Medicare fee-for-service claims for beneficiaries (n=324,694) discharged from acute care hospitals for sepsis, defined by MS-DRG, between October 2014 and September 2018. RESEARCH DESIGN: Multiple linear regression with hospital-level fixed effects was used to identify average hospital differences in 90-day episode spending. Separate multiple linear regression and quantile regression models were used to evaluate drivers of spending across the episode spending distribution. RESULTS: The mean total episode spending among hospitals in the most expensive quartile was $30,500 compared with $23,150 for the least expensive hospitals ( P <0.001). Postacute care spending among the most expensive hospitals was almost double that of least expensive hospitals ($7,045 vs. $3,742), accounting for 51% of the total difference in episode spending between the most expensive and least expensive hospitals. Female patients, patients with more comorbidities, urban hospitals, and BPCI-A-participating hospitals were associated with significantly increased episode spending, with the effect increasing at the right tail of the spending distribution. CONCLUSION: Inter-hospital variation in 90-day episode spending on sepsis care is driven primarily by differences in post-acute care spending.

Costs of endovascular and open repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms.

BACKGROUND: Repair of thoracic aortic aneurysms with either endovascular repair (TEVAR) or open surgical repair (OSR) represents major surgery, is costly and associated with significant complications. The aim of this study was to establish accurate costs of delivering TEVAR and OSR in a cohort of UK NHS patients suitable for open and endovascular treatment for the whole treatment pathway from admission and to discharge and 12-month follow-up. METHODS: A prospective study of UK NHS patients from 30 NHS vascular/cardiothoracic units in England aged ≥18, with distal arch/descending thoracic aortic aneurysms (CTAA) was undertaken. A multicentre prospective cost analysis of patients (recruited March 2014-July 2018, follow-up until July 2019) undergoing TEVAR or OSR was performed. Patients deemed suitable for open or endovascular repair were included in this study. A micro-costing approach was adopted. RESULTS: Some 115 patients having undergone TEVAR and 35 patients with OSR were identified. The mean (s.d.) cost of a TEVAR procedure was higher £26 536 (£9877) versus OSR £17 239 (£8043). Postoperative costs until discharge were lower for TEVAR £7484 (£7848) versus OSR £28 636 (£23 083). Therefore, total NHS costs from admission to discharge were lower for TEVAR £34 020 (£14 301), versus OSR £45 875 (£43 023). However, mean NHS costs for 12 months following the procedure were slightly higher for the TEVAR £5206 (£11 585) versus OSR £5039 (£11 994). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical procedure costs were higher for TEVAR due to device costs. Total in-hospital costs were higher for OSR due to longer hospital and critical care stay. Follow-up costs over 12 months were slightly higher for TEVAR due to hospital readmissions.

Analysis of hospitalization expenses and influencing factors for elderly cancer patients in a tertiary hospital in Dalian, China: a five­year retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Because the proportion of elderly individuals and the incidence of cancer worldwide are continually increasing, medical costs for elderly inpatients with cancer are being significantly increasing, which puts tremendous financial pressure on their families and society. The current study described the actual direct medical costs of elderly inpatients with cancer and analyzed the influencing factors for the costs to provide advice on the prevention and control of the high medical costs of elderly patients with cancer. METHOD: A retrospective descriptive analysis was performed on the hospitalization expense data of 11,399 elderly inpatients with cancer at a tier-3 hospital in Dalian between June 2016 and June 2020. The differences between different groups were analyzed using univariate analysis, and the influencing factors of hospitalization expenses were explored by multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS: The hospitalization cost of elderly cancer patients showed a decreasing trend from 2016 to 2020. Specifically, the top 3 hospitalization costs were material costs, drug costs and surgery costs, which accounted for greater than 10% of all cancers according to the classification: colorectal (23.96%), lung (21.74%), breast (12.34%) and stomach cancer (12.07%). Multiple linear regression analysis indicated that cancer type, surgery, year and length of stay (LOS) had a common impact on the four types of hospitalization costs (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: There were significant differences in the four types of hospitalization costs for elderly cancer patients according to the LOS, surgery, year and type of cancer. The study results suggest that the health administration department should enhance the supervision of hospital costs and elderly cancer patient treatment. Measures should be taken by relying on the hospital information system to strengthen the cost management of cancer diseases and departments, optimize the internal management system, shorten elderly cancer patients LOS, and reasonably control the costs of disease diagnosis, treatment and department operation to effectively reduce the economic burden of elderly cancer patients.

The impact of cannabis use disorder on urologic oncologic surgery morbidity, length of stay, and inpatient cost: analysis of the National Inpatient Sample from 2003 to 2014.

PURPOSE: This study examined the impact of cannabis use disorder (CUD) on inpatient morbidity, length of stay (LOS), and inpatient cost (IC) of patients undergoing urologic oncologic surgery. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2003 to 2014 was analyzed for patients undergoing prostatectomy, nephrectomy, or cystectomy (n = 1,612,743). CUD was identified using ICD-9 codes. Complex-survey procedures were used to compare patients with and without CUD. Inpatient major complications, high LOS (4th quartile), and high IC (4th quartile) were examined as endpoints. Univariable and multivariable analysis (MVA) were performed to compare groups. RESULTS: The incidence of CUD increased from 51 per 100,000 admissions in 2003 to 383 per 100,000 in 2014 (p < 0.001). Overall, 3,503 admissions had CUD. Patients with CUD were more frequently younger (50 vs. 61), male (86% vs. 78.4%), Black (21.7% vs. 9.2%), and had 1st quartile income (36.1% vs. 20.6%); all p < 0.001. CUD had no impact on any complication rates (all p > 0.05). However, CUD patients had higher LOS (3 vs. 2 days; p < 0.001) and IC ($15,609 vs. $12,415; p < 0.001). On MVA, CUD was not an independent predictor of major complications (p = 0.6). Conversely, CUD was associated with high LOS (odds ratio (OR) 1.31; 95% CI 1.08-1.59) and high IC (OR 1.33; 95% CI 1.12-1.59), both p < 0.01. CONCLUSION: The incidence of CUD at the time of urologic oncologic surgery is increasing. Future research should look into the cause of our observed phenomena and how to decrease LOS and IC in CUD patients.

Outcomes of Robot-Assisted Versus Laparoscopic Surgery for Colorectal Cancer in Adults Aged 75 Years and Older: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis of the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample.

BACKGROUND: Robot-assisted surgery has been increasingly adopted in colorectal cancer resection. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to compare the inpatient outcomes of robot-assisted versus conventional laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection in patients aged 75 years and older. DESIGN: A retrospective, population-based study. SETTINGS: This study analyzed data from the United States Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2005 to 2018. PATIENTS: Patients with colorectal cancer aged 75 years and older and who underwent robot-assisted or conventional laparoscopic resection. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Postoperative complications, prolonged length of stay, and total hospital costs were assessed. RESULTS: Data from 14,108 patients were analyzed. After adjustment, any postoperative complications (adjusted OR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.77-0.99; p = 0.030) and prolonged length of stay (adjusted OR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.67-0.91; p = 0.001) were significantly less in the robotic than the laparoscopic group. In addition, robotic surgery was associated with significantly higher total hospital costs (26.06 USD greater cost; 95% CI, 21.35-30.77 USD; p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: The analysis was limited by its retrospective and observational nature, potential coding errors, and the lack of intraoperative factors, such as operative time, laboratory measures, and information on surgeons' experience. CONCLUSIONS: In the United States, in patients with colorectal cancer aged 75 years and older who were undergoing tumor resections, compared to conventional laparoscopic surgery, robotic surgery is associated with better inpatient outcomes in terms of complication rate and risk of prolonged length of stay. This finding is especially true among patients with colon cancer. However, robotic surgery is associated with higher total hospital costs. See Video Abstract . RESULTADOS DE LA CIRUGA ASISTIDA POR ROBOT FRENTE A LA CIRUGA LAPAROSCPICA PARA EL CNCER COLORRECTAL EN ADULTOS AOS DE EDAD UN ANLISIS EMPAREJADO POR PUNTUACIN DE PROPENSIN DE LA MUESTRA NACIONAL DE PACIENTES HOSPITALIZADOS DE ESTADOS UNIDOS: ANTECEDENTES:La cirugía asistida por robot se ha adoptado cada vez más en la resección del cáncer colorrectal.OBJETIVO:El estudio tuvo como objetivo comparar los resultados hospitalarios de la resección del cáncer colorrectal asistida por robot versus la laparoscópica convencional en pacientes ≥ 75 años.DISEÑO:Estudio retrospectivo de base poblacional.AJUSTES:Este estudio analizó datos de la Muestra Nacional de Pacientes Hospitalizados de Estados Unidos de 2005 a 2018.PACIENTES:Pacientes con cáncer colorrectal ≥ 75 años y sometidos a resección laparoscópica convencional o asistida por robot.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Se evaluaron las complicaciones posoperatorias, la duración prolongada de la estancia hospitalaria y los costos hospitalarios totales.RESULTADOS:Se analizaron datos de 14.108 pacientes. Después del ajuste, cualquier complicación posoperatoria (aOR = 0,87; IC del 95 %: 0,77-0,99, p = 0,030) y duración prolongada de la estancia hospitalaria (aOR = 0,78; IC del 95 %: 0,67-0,91, p = 0,001) fueron significativamente menores en el grupo robótico que el grupo laparoscópico. Además, la cirugía robótica se asoció con costos hospitalarios totales significativamente mayores ($26,06 USD mayor costo; IC 95%: 21,35-30,77 USD, p < 0,001).LIMITACIONES:El análisis estuvo limitado por su naturaleza retrospectiva y observacional, posibles errores de codificación y la falta de factores intraoperatorios como el tiempo operatorio, medidas de laboratorio e información sobre la experiencia de los cirujanos.CONCLUSIONES:En Estados Unidos, los pacientes con cáncer colorrectal ≥ 75 años que se sometieron a resecciones tumorales, en comparación con la cirugía laparoscópica convencional, la cirugía robótica se asocia con mejores resultados hospitalarios en términos de tasa de complicaciones y riesgo de estadía prolongada, especialmente entre pacientes con cáncer de colon. Sin embargo, la cirugía robótica se asocia a costes hospitalarios totales más elevados. (Traducción-Yesenia Rojas-Khalil ).

Management of Uncomplicated Appendicitis in Adults: A Nationwide Analysis From 2018 to 2019.

INTRODUCTION: Nonoperative management (NOM) of uncomplicated appendicitis (UA) has been increasingly utilized in recent years. The aim of this study was to describe nationwide trends of sociodemographic characteristics, outcomes, and costs of patients undergoing medical versus surgical management for UA. METHODS: The 2018-2019 National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample was queried for adults (age ≥18 y) with UA; diagnosis, as well as laparoscopic and open appendectomy, were defined by the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification codes. We examined several characteristics, including cost of care and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Among the 167,125 patients with UA, 137,644 (82.4%) underwent operative management and 29,481 (17.6%) underwent NOM. In bivariate analysis, we found that patients who had NOM were older (53 versus 43 y, P < 0.001) and more likely to have Medicare (33.6% versus 16.1%, P < 0.001), with higher prevalence of comorbidities such as diabetes (7.8% versus 5.5%, P < 0.001). The majority of NOM patients were treated at urban teaching hospitals (74.5% versus 66.3%, P < 0.001). They had longer LOS's (5.4 versus 2.3 d, P < 0.001) with higher inpatient costs ($15,584 versus $11,559, P < 0.001) than those who had an appendectomy. Through logistic regression we found that older patients had up to 4.03-times greater odds of undergoing NOM (95% CI: 3.22-5.05, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: NOM of UA is more commonly utilized in patients with comorbidities, older age, and those treated in teaching hospitals. This may, however, come at the price of longer length of stay and higher costs. Further guidelines need to be developed to clearly delineate which patients could benefit from NOM.

Trends in inpatient burden from pressure injuries in the United States: Cross-sectional study National Inpatient Sample 2009-2019.

Pressure injuries are a significant comorbidity and lead to increased overall healthcare costs. Several European and global studies have assessed the burden of pressure injuries; however, no comprehensive analysis has been completed in the United States. In this study, we investigated the trends in the burden of pressure injuries among hospitalised adults in the United States from 2009 to 2019, stratified by sociodemographic subgroups. The length of admission, total cost of hospitalisation, and sociodemographic data was extracted from the National Inpatient Sample provided by the Healthcare Cost and Utilisation Project, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Overall, the annual prevalence of pressure injuries and annual mean hospitalisation cost increased ($69,499.29 to $102,939.14), while annual mean length of stay decreased (11.14-9.90 days). Among all races, minority groups had higher average cost and length of hospitalisation. Our findings suggest that while the length of hospitalisation is decreasing, hospital costs and prevalence are rising. In addition, differing trends among racial groups exist with decreasing prevalence in White patients. Further studies and targeted interventions are needed to address these differences, as well as discrepancies in racial groups.

Cost Analysis of Target Lesion Revascularisation in Patients With Femoropopliteal In Stent Re-Stenosis or Occlusion: The COSTLY-TLR Study.

OBJECTIVE: To report the cost of target lesion revascularisation procedures (TLR) for femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease (PAD) following stenting, from a healthcare payer's perspective. METHODS: European multicentre study involving consecutive patients requiring femoropopliteal TLR (January 2017 - December 2021). The primary outcome was overall cost (euros) associated with a TLR procedure from presentation to discharge. Exact costs per constituent, clinical characteristics, and early outcomes were reported. RESULTS: This study included 482 TLR procedures (retrospectively, 13 hospitals, six countries): 56% were female, mean age was 75 ± 2 years, 61% were Rutherford class 5 or 6, 67% had Tosaka class 3 disease, and 16% had common femoral or iliac involvement. A total of 52% were hybrid procedures and 6% involved open surgery only. Technical success was 70%, 30 day mortality rate was 1%, and the 30 day major amputation rate was 4%. Most costs were for operating time during the TLR (healthcare professionals' salaries, indirect and estate costs), with a mean of: €21 917 ± €2 110 for all procedures; €23 337 ± €8 920 for open procedures; €12 903 ± €3 108 for endovascular procedures; and €22 806 ± €3 977 for hybrid procedures. In a regression analysis, procedure duration was the main parameter associated with higher overall TLR costs (coefficient, 2.77; standard error, 0.88; p < .001). The mean cost per operating minute of TLR (indirect, estate costs, all salaried staff present included) was €177 and the mean cost per night stay in hospital (outside intensive care unit) was €356. The mean cost per overnight intensive care unit stay (minimum of 8 hours per night) was €1 193. CONCLUSION: The main driver of the considerable peri-procedure costs associated with femoropopliteal TLR was procedure time.

The burden and predictors of 30-day unplanned readmission in patients with acute liver failure: a national representative database study.

BACKGROUND: Liver diseases were significant source of early readmission burden. This study aimed to evaluate the 30-day unplanned readmission rates, causes of readmissions, readmission costs, and predictors of readmission in patients with acute liver failure (ALF). METHODS: Patients admitted for ALF from 2019 National Readmission Database were enrolled. Weighted multivariable logistic regression models were applied and based on Directed Acyclic Graphs. Incidence, causes, cost, and predictors of 30-day unplanned readmissions were identified. RESULTS: A total of 3,281 patients with ALF were enrolled, of whom 600 (18.3%) were readmitted within 30 days. The mean time from discharge to early readmission was 12.6 days. The average hospital cost and charge of readmission were $19,629 and $86,228, respectively. The readmissions were mainly due to liver-related events (26.6%), followed by infection (20.9%). The predictive factors independently associated with readmissions were age, male sex (OR 1.227, 95% CI 1.023-1.472; P = 0.028), renal failure (OR 1.401, 95% CI 1.139-1.723; P = 0.001), diabetes with chronic complications (OR 1.327, 95% CI 1.053-1.672; P = 0.017), complicated hypertension (OR 1.436, 95% CI 1.111-1.857; P = 0.006), peritoneal drainage (OR 1.600, 95% CI 1.092-2.345; P = 0.016), etc. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ALF are at relatively high risk of early readmission, which imposes a heavy medical and economic burden on society. We need to increase the emphasis placed on early readmission of patients with ALF and establish clinical strategies for their management.

Same day discharge colon surgery: is it financially worth it?

AIM: Same day discharge (SDD) for colorectal surgery shows increasing promise in the era of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols and minimally invasive surgery. It has become increasingly relevant due to the constraints posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this study was to compare SDD and postoperative day 1 (POD1) discharge to understand the clinical outcomes and financial impact on factors such as cost, charge, revenue, contribution margin and readmission. METHOD: A retrospective review of colectomies was performed at a single institution over a 2-year period (n = 143). Two populations were identified: SDD (n = 51) and POD1 (n = 92). Patients were selected by International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-10 (ICD-10) and Diagnosis Related Grouper (DRG) codes. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference favouring SDD in total hospital cost (p < 0.0001), average direct costs (p < 0.0001) and average charges (p < 0.0016). SDD average hospital costs were $8699 (values in USD throughout) compared with $11 652 for POD 1 (p < 0.0001), and average SDD hospital charges were $85 506 compared with $97 008 for POD1 (p < 0.0016). The net revenue for SDD was $22 319 while for POD1 it was $26 173 (p = 0.14). Upon comparison of contribution margins (SDD $13 620 vs. POD1 $14 522), the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.73). There were no identified statistically significant differences in operating room time, robotic console time, readmission rates or surgical complications. CONCLUSIONS: Amidst the pandemic-related constraints, we found that SDD was associated with lower hospital costs and comparable contribution margins compared with POD1. Additionally, the study was unable to identify any significant difference between operating time, readmissions, and surgical complications when performing SDD.

Financial toxicity among patients undergoing resectional surgery for inflammatory bowel disease in the United States.

AIM: Financial toxicity describes the financial burden and distress that patients experience due to medical treatment. Financial toxicity has yet to be characterized among patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) undergoing surgical management of their disease. This study investigated the risk of financial toxicity associated with undergoing surgery for IBD. METHODS: This study used a retrospective analysis using the National Inpatient Sample from 2015 to 2019. Adult patients who underwent IBD-related surgery were identified using the International Classification of Diseases (10th Revision) diagnostic and procedure codes and stratified into privately insured and uninsured groups. The primary outcome was risk of financial toxicity, defined as hospital admission charges that constituted 40% or more of patient's post-subsistence income. Secondary outcomes included total hospital admission cost and predictors of financial toxicity. RESULTS: The analytical cohort consisted of 6412 privately insured and 3694 uninsured patients. Overall median hospital charges were $21 628 (interquartile range $14 758-$35 386). Risk of financial toxicity was 86.5% among uninsured patients and 0% among insured patients. Predictors of financial toxicity included emergency admission, being in the lowest residential income quartile and having ulcerative colitis (compared to Crohn's disease). Additional predictors were being of Black race or male sex. CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity is a serious consequence of IBD-related surgery among uninsured patients. Given the pervasive nature of this consequence, future steps to support uninsured patients receiving surgery, in particular emergency surgery, related to their IBD are needed to protect this group from financial risk.

Inpatient Cost Burdens of Treating Chronic Hepatitis B in US Hospitals: A Weighted Analysis of a National Database.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This study evaluates the cost burdens of inpatient care for chronic hepatitis B (CHB). We aimed to stratify the patients based on the presence of cirrhosis and conduct subgroup analyses on patient demographics and medical characteristics. METHODS: The 2016-2019 National Inpatient Sample was used to select individuals diagnosed with CHB. The weighted charge estimates were derived and converted to admission costs, adjusting for inflation to the year 2016, and presented in United States Dollars. These adjusted values were stratified using select patient variables. To assess the goodness-of-fit for each trend, we graphed the data across the respective years, expressed in a chronological sequence with format (R2, p-value). Analysis of CHB patients was carried out in three groups: the composite CHB population, the subset of patients with cirrhosis, and the subset of patients without cirrhosis. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2019, the total costs of hospitalizations in CHB patients were $603.82, $737.92, $758.29, and $809.01 million dollars from 2016 to 2019, respectively. We did not observe significant cost trends in the composite CHB population or in the cirrhosis and non-cirrhosis cohorts. However, we did find rising costs associated with age older than 65 (0.97, 0.02), white race (0.98, 0.01), Hispanic ethnicity (1.00, 0.001), and Medicare coverage (0.95, 0.02), the significance of which persisted regardless of the presence of cirrhosis. Additionally, inpatients without cirrhosis who had comorbid metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) were also observed to have rising costs (0.96, 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: We did not find a significant increase in overall costs with CHB inpatients, regardless of the presence of cirrhosis. However, certain groups are more susceptible to escalating costs. Therefore, increased screening and nuanced vaccination planning must be optimized in order to prevent and mitigate these growing cost burdens on vulnerable populations.

Clinical outcomes and costs of retromuscular and intraperitoneal onlay mesh techniques in robotic incisional hernia repair.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare clinical outcomes and financial cost of intraperitoneal onlay mesh (IPOM) versus retromuscular (RM) repairs in robotic incisional hernia repairs (rIHR). METHODS: Patients who underwent either IPOM or RM elective rIHR from 2012 to 2022 were included. Demographics, operative details, postoperative outcomes, and hospital costs were directly compared. RESULTS: Sixty-nine IPOM and 55 RM were included. Age and body mass index (BMI) did not differ between both groups (IPOM vs RM: 59.3 ± 11.2 years vs. 57.5 ± 14 years, p = 0.423; BMI 34.1 ± 6.3 vs. BMI 33.2 ± 6.9, p = 0.435, respectively). Comorbidities and hernia characteristics were comparable. Extensive lysis of adhesions (> 30 min) was required more often in IPOM (18 vs. 6 in RM, p = 0.034). Defect closure was achieved in 100% of RM vs. 81.2% in IPOM (p < 0.001). Median (interquartile range) postoperative pain score was higher in RM than in IPOM [5(3-7) vs. 4(3-5), respectively, p = 0.006]. Median length of stay (0 day) and same-day discharge rate did not differ between groups (p = 0.598, p = 0.669, respectively). Six (8.7%) patients in the IPOM group versus one (1.8%) patient in the RM group were readmitted to hospital within 30 days postoperatively (p = 0.099). Perioperative complications were higher in IPOM (p = 0.011; 34.8% vs. 14.5% in RM) with higher Comprehensive Complication Index® morbidity scores [0(0-12.2) vs 0(0-0) in RM, p = 0.008)], Clavien-Dindo grade-II complications (8 vs 0 in RM, p = 0.009), and surgical site events (17 vs. 5 in RM, p = 0.024). Within a follow-up period of 57(± 28) months, recurrence rates were similar between both groups. Hospital costs did not differ between groups [IPOM: $9978 (7031-12,926) vs. RM: $8961(6701-11,222), p = 0.300]. Although postoperative complication costs were higher in IPOM ($2436 vs RM: $161, p = 0.020), total costs were comparable [IPOM: $12,415(8700-16,130) vs. RM: $9123(6789-11,457), p = 0.080]. CONCLUSION: Despite retromuscular repairs having lower postoperative complications than intraperitoneal onlay mesh repairs, both techniques offered encouraging results in robotic incisional hernia repair at a comparable total cost.