County-level Social Vulnerability is Associated With Worse Surgical Outcomes Especially Among Minority Patients.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize the association between patient county-level vulnerability with postoperative outcomes. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Although the impact of demographic-, clinical- and hospital-level factors on outcomes following surgery have been examined, little is known about the effect of a patient's community of residence on surgical outcomes. METHODS: Individuals who underwent colon resection, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), lung resection, or lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) were identified in the 2016 to 2017 Medicare database, which was merged with Center for Disease Control social vulnerability index (SVI) dataset at the beneficiary level of residence. Logistic regression models were utilized to estimate the probability of postoperative complications, mortality, readmission, and expenditures. RESULTS: Among 299,583 Medicare beneficiary beneficiaries who underwent a colectomy (n = 88,778, 29.6%), CABG (n = 109,564, 36.6%), lung resection (n = 30,401, 10.1%), or LEJR (n = 70,840, 23.6%).Mean SVI score was 50.2 (standard deviation: (25.2); minority patients were more likely to reside in highly vulnerable communities (low SVI: n = 3531, 5.8% vs high SVI: n = 7895, 13.3%; P < 0.001). After controlling for competing risk factors, the risk-adjusted probability of a serious complication among patients from a high versus low SVI county was 10% to 20% higher following colectomy [odds ratio (OR) 1.1 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.1-1.2] or CABG (OR 1.2 95%CI 1.1-1.3), yet there no association of SVI with risk of serious complications following lung resection (OR 1.2 95%CI 1.0-1.3) or LEJR (OR 1.0 95%CI 0.93-1.2). The risk-adjusted probability of 30-day mortality was incrementally higher among patients from high SVI counties following colectomy (OR 1.1 95%CI 1.1-1.3), CABG (OR 1.4, 95%CI 1.2-1.5), and lung resection (OR 1.4 (95%CI 1.1-1.8), yet not LEJR (OR 0.95 95%CI 0.72-1.2). Black/minority patients undergoing a colectomy, CABG, or lung resection who lived in highly socially vulnerable counties had an estimate 28% to 68% increased odds of a serious complication and a 58% to 60% increased odds of 30-day mortality compared with a Black/minority patient from a low socially vulnerable county, as well as a markedly higher risk than White patients (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients residing in vulnerable communities characterized by a high SVI generally had worse postoperative outcomes. The impact of social vulnerability was most pronounced among Black/minority patients, rather than White individuals. Efforts to ensure equitable surgical outcomes need to focus on both patient-level, as well as community-specific factors.

Budgets: How They Are Planned, Prepared, and Managed.

Background: Budget planning and execution is as difficult as it is vital to any practice, whether academic, private, or group. Well-planned and executed budgets are a source of revenue and growth that fuels the practice for the next cycle. Conversely, poorly planned budget is disastrous, and a badly executed one invariably leads to unrecoverable losses. Many clinicians, especially those in academic centers, are not involved in budget-planning preparation and yet are held accountable for their yearly performance in relation to the budget. Methods: Key processes for budget planning and their significance are identified. Integrating these steps with the needs of a clinical practice, a stepwise method is described for both clinicians and administrators to work together to plan, prepare, and manage budgets. Results: Relevant examples of how budgets affect clinical workflow and common pitfalls of budget planning and mitigation methods are identified. A simplified systematic approach allows for a streamlined, smooth budget-planning process that involves faculty and staff, which holds them accountable for the year-long performance of the entire clinical team. Conclusions: A systematic proactive approach to budget-planning, preparation, and management provides a financial direction to the department; tracks performance; allows growth; and provides the flexibility to stay on track, change course, or reassign resources.

The Importance of Financial Statements in Clinical Practice.

Background: Financial statements provide vital information to department chiefs and hospital leadership alike. They reflect departmental performance and guide critical financial decisions for their teams. However, financial statements can be inherently difficult to read and interpret and require time and attention, understandably challenging for busy clinicians. Methods: Here, we aimed to demystify the several types of financial statements, including profit and loss statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements, and explain what they reveal (and ignore). We describe key performance indicators based on these statements that are routinely used by hospital administrations. This work targets clinicians, team leaders, academic faculty, and administrators alike, recognizing that all of them share the same goals. Results: Mastering the basics of financial statements and using the information within them creates a healthier clinical practice. In turn, it enhances provider satisfaction and enables the team to deliver patient care without financial anxiety. Conclusions: Understanding financial statements helps shared decision-making between clinicians and their administrators-strengthening partnerships that synergistically drive revenue, profitability, and growth.

Revenue Cycle Management: The Art and the Science.

Simply working hard is not enough to maintain a profitable clinical practice. Prompt and complete payment for services is just as critical. Revenue cycle management (RCM) tracks the payment process from patient scheduling through treatment, coding, billing, and reimbursement. Even though reimbursement rates for service codes are preset, and the service is documented, this apparently straightforward process is complicated by insurance payors, negotiated contracts, coding requirements, compliance regulators, and an ever-changing reimbursement environment. Not typically trained in RCM, physicians struggle with its demands of timeliness, accuracy, paperwork, and the constant scrutiny for underpayment or unfulfilled reimbursements. Consequently, they often relent to the pressures and simply accept the decreased reimbursements as "cost of doing business" or else relegate RCM to others on the team. In either case, they leave significant amounts of money on the table. Using published work in health care and other allied sectors, we present a systematic method to understand and improve RCM processes. It also creates a strong partnership between clinicians and their administrative counterparts. Optimizing RCM improves patient experience, reduces the time between submission of claims and payment, eliminates fraud at both the coding and patient levels, and increases cash flow, all of which create a financially stable clinical practice.

Association of County-Level Social Vulnerability with Elective Versus Non-elective Colorectal Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: A person's community, or lived environment, may play an important role in achieving optimal health outcomes. The objective of the current study was to assess the association of county-level vulnerability with the probability of having a non-elective colon resection. We hypothesized that individuals from areas with a high social vulnerability would be at greater risk of non-elective colon resection compared with patients from low social vulnerability areas. METHODS: Patients aged 65-99 who underwent a colon resection for a primary diagnosis of either diverticulitis (n = 11,812) or colon cancer (n = 33,312) were identified in Medicare Part A and Part B for years 2016-2017. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate differences in probability of undergoing an elective versus non-elective operation from counties relative to county-level social vulnerability index (SVI). Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, mortality, readmission, and index hospitalization expenditure. RESULTS: Among 45,124 patients, 11,812 (26.2%) underwent a colon resection for diverticulitis, while 33,312 (73.8%) had a resection for colon cancer; 31,012 (68.7%) patients had an elective procedure (diverticulitis n = 7291 (61.7%) vs. cancer n = 23,721 (71.2%)), while 14,112 (31.3%) had an emergent operation (diverticulitis n = 4521 (38.3%) vs. cancer n = 9591 (28.8%)). Patients with a high SVI were more likely to undergo an emergent colon operation compared with low SVI patients (43.7% vs. 40.4%) (p < 0.001). The association of high SVI with increased risk of an emergent colon operation was similar among patients with diverticulitis (emergent: low SVI 37.2% vs. high SVI 40.4%) or colon cancer (emergent: low SVI 26.0% vs. high SVI 29.9%) (both p < 0.05). On multivariable analyses, risk-adjusted probability of undergoing an urgent/emergent operation remained associated with SVI (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients residing in vulnerable communities characterized by a high SVI were more likely to undergo a non-elective colon resection for either diverticulitis or colon cancer. Patients from high SVI areas had a higher risk of postoperative complications, as well as index hospitalization expenditures; however, there were no differences in mortality or readmission rates.