A retrospective study of orthognathic surgery reimbursement and volume changes at an American academic medical center over a 13-year period.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to measure the association between orthognathic surgeon reimbursement and surgical volume over time. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent orthognathic surgery from January 1, 2010, to December 23, 2022, at an academic medical center was performed. Five patients per year were randomly selected and evaluated for insurance type and associated costs to create representative averages. Pearson correlation analysis was performed to test associations over 13 years with 2-tailed significance reported and statistical significance set at P < .05. RESULTS: A total of 618 patients who underwent 942 procedures were included. The average procedure charge was $6,153.76, and the average total surgeon collection was $1,535.75 per procedure. When monetary values were adjusted to reflect 2010 purchasing power, there was a negative correlation between the average charge per procedure and the year (r[11] = -0.59, P = .04). The year was not significantly correlated with the average amount collected (r[11] = -0.09, P = .78) or average insurance reimbursement (r[11] = -0.52, P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: Collections by surgeons did not change significantly over 13 years and were not correlated with the volume of procedures performed. Increased collections were correlated with increased patient costs. The stagnation of surgeon collection is concerning in the face of increased monetary inflation during this period. Increased volume of surgeries per year was correlated with decreases in patient cost and total collections.

Cost analysis of orthognathic surgery: outpatient care versus inpatient care.

With limited healthcare resources, it is important to provide the right level and form of care. The aim of this study was to determine whether selected single-jaw orthognathic surgery in outpatient care (OPC) generates lower healthcare costs than in inpatient care (IPC). The costs of surgically assisted rapid maxillary expansion (SARME), Le Fort I osteotomy (LFI), and bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) were calculated for 165 patients, 107 treated in OPC and 58 in IPC. Additionally, costs for revisits, emergency visits, emergency phone calls, re-operations, and plate removal during the first 12 months postoperatively were recorded. The total mean costs of the different operations including revisits, emergency visits, and phone calls were 34.2-48.8% lower in OPC than in IPC at 12 months postoperatively. Operation costs were lower for LFI in OPC (P = 0.009) and for SARME in IPC (P = 0.007). Anaesthesia costs were lower for LFI (P < 0.001) and BSSO (P < 0.001) in OPC, and there were fewer revisits (P = 0.001) and lower costs (P = 0.002) after LFI in OPC compared to IPC. This study showed that selected single-jaw orthognathic surgeries in outpatient care are associated with lower healthcare costs compared to inpatient care.

Efficacy and Cost of Maxillary Patient-Specific Implants in Orthognathic Surgery: A Review of Three Patient Cases.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-specific implants (PSIs) are accurate, efficient alternatives to traditional plate fixation. They are well-suited for use in procedures that require the utmost accuracy, stability, and efficiency. Although PSIs have demonstrated such qualities in craniomaxillofacial reconstruction, they have so far found limited utilization elsewhere. CASE PRESENTATION: We explored the departmental protocol for Lefort 1 PSI orthognathic surgery at a high-volume, tertiary referral center. Three cases were selected that matched predetermined criteria, which included treatment by the same surgical team, concurrent Lefort 1 osteotomy and bilateral sagittal split osteotomy, Angle's type 3 malocclusion, lack of interdental osteotomies, and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification 2 or less without metabolic or osseous diseases. The operative outcomes from these patients were then compared to similar cases also meeting the same criteria and conducted within the same time period. CONCLUSION: The use of PSI in Lefort 1 osteotomy is associated with anatomically sound designs that could contribute to postoperative stability of the jaws. They also have not shown increased rates of complications such as infection, dehiscence, or relapse at 6 weeks postoperatively but may in fact decrease the operative duration. These findings are consistent with the results gleaned from literature on the use of PSI in craniomaxillofacial reconstruction.

Accuracy and cost effectiveness of a waferless osteotomy approach, using patient specific guides and plates in orthognathic surgery: a systematic review.

The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the accuracy of waferless osteotomy procedures in orthognathic surgery with a secondary aim to determine the cost-effectiveness of the procedure. A literature search was conducted on the databases PubMed and Scopus, with PRISMA guidelines followed. An initial yield of 4149 articles were identified, ten of which met the desired inclusion criteria. The total sample of patients undergoing waferless osteotomies included in this review was 142 patients. Nine of the studies used surgical cutting guides along with customised surgical plates to eliminate the surgical wafer and one study used pre-bent locking plates instead of customised plates. The eligible articles determined their surgical accuracy by comparing the positions of bony or dental landmarks on the pre-operative and post-operative images. The articles all reported acceptable accuracy within previously established clinical parameters. The majority of authors concluded that it is an accurate surgical approach and can be cost effective which is often a barrier to novel techniques however there were studies that contrasted the view of the cost efficacy. Due to the lack of published randomised controlled trials, current evidence is not strong enough to recommend the use of surgical cutting guides and customised/pre-bent plates for orthognathic surgery.

The Impact of Surgical Volume on Outcomes and Cost in Cleft Repair: A Kids' Inpatient Database Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Centralization of specialist services, including cleft service delivery, is occurring worldwide with the aim of improving the outcomes. This study examines the relationship between hospital surgical volume in cleft palate repair and outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the Kids' Inpatient Database was undertaken. Children 3 years or younger undergoing cleft palate repair in 2012 were identified. Hospital volume was categorized by cases per year as low volume (LV; 0-14), intermediate volume (IV; 15-46), or high volume (HV; 47-99); differences in complications, hospital costs, and length of stay (LOS) were determined by hospital volume. RESULTS: Data for 2389 children were retrieved: 24.9% (n = 595) were LV, 50.1% (n = 1196) were IV, and 25.0% (n = 596) were HV. High-volume centers were more frequently located in the West (71.9%) compared with LV (19.9%) or IV (24.5%) centers (P < 0.001 for hospital region). Median household income was more commonly highest quartile in HV centers compared with IV or LV centers (32.3% vs 21.7% vs 18.1%, P < 0.001). There was no difference in complications between different volume centers (P = 0.74). Compared with HV centers, there was a significant decrease in mean costs for LV centers ($9682 vs $,378, P < 0.001) but no significant difference in cost for IV centers ($9260 vs $9682, P = 0.103). Both IV and LV centers had a significantly greater LOS when compared with HV centers (1.97 vs 2.10 vs 1.74, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite improvement in LOS in HV centers, we did not find a reduction in cost in HV centers. Further research is needed with analysis of outpatient, long-term outcomes to ensure widespread cost-efficiency.

Cleft-Palate Repair: Does Hospital Case-Volume Impact Outcomes or Cost?

BACKGROUND: How hospital case-volume affects operative outcomes and cost continues to grow in importance. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of case volume with operative outcomes and cost in cleft palate repair. METHODS: Subjects undergoing cleft palate repair between 2004 and 2015 were identified in the Pediatric Health Information System. Outcomes were compared between two groups: those undergoing treatment at a high-volume institution, and those undergoing treatment at a low-volume institution. Primary outcomes were as follows: any complication, prolonged length of stay, and increased total cost. RESULTS: Over 20,000 patients (n = 20,320) from 49 institutions met inclusion criteria. On univariate analysis, those subjects who underwent treatment at a high-volume institution had a lower rate of overall complications (3.4 percent versus 5.1 percent; p < 0.001), and lower rates of prolonged length of stay (4.5 percent versus 5.8 percent; p < 0.001) and increased total cost (48.6 percent versus 50.9 percent; p = 0.002). In multivariate regression analyses, subjects treated in high-volume centers were less likely to experience any complication (OR, 0.678; p < 0.001) and were less likely to have an extended length of stay (OR, 0.82; p = 0.005). Subjects undergoing palate repair at a high-volume institution were no less likely to incur increased total cost (OR, 1.01; p = 0.805). CONCLUSION: In institutions performing a high volume of cleft palate repairs, subjects had significantly decreased odds of experiencing a complication or prolonged length of stay. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Length of Stay and Cost in Patients Undergoing Orthognathic Surgery: Does Surgeon Volume Matter?

PURPOSE: The relations among procedure-specific annual surgeon volume, hospital length of stay (LOS), and hospital costs for patients undergoing the 2 most common orthognathic surgical (OGS) procedures, segmental osteoplasty or osteotomy of the maxilla (SOM) or open osteoplasty or osteotomy of the mandibular ramus (SOMR), are not known. The authors hypothesized that treatment by high-volume surgeons would be associated with decreased LOS and costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients 8 to 64 years old who underwent elective SOM or SOMR were selected from the 2001 to 2009 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Patients with missing vital status or payment mode status or who underwent more than 1 OGS procedure during the index hospitalization were excluded. Based on year- and procedure-specific annual surgeon volumes, the highest (highest quartile) and lowest (lowest quartile) procedure volume surgeon groups were compared. Multivariable logistic regression was used to study the relation between surgeon volume and extended patient LOS (defined as LOS ≥ 75th percentile). Generalized linear models with a log-link and gamma distribution were used to examine the association between surgeon volume and hospital costs. Models were adjusted for patient- and hospital-level factors and type of procedure (SOM or SOMR). Analysis was weighted to represent national-level estimates and an α value of 0.05 was used for all comparisons. RESULTS: After weighting to the population level, 8,062 patients were included for study. Most were white (80.6%), female (61.4%), and privately insured (84.6%). Mean age was 26 years (standard deviation, 0.38 yr). After adjusting for potential confounders, patients treated by high-volume surgeons showed 40% lower odds of extended LOS (odds ratio = 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.38-0.95; P = .032) and incurred substantially lower costs (-$1,484.74; 95% CI, -2,782.76 to -185.58; P = .025) compared with patients treated by low-volume surgeons. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that regionalization of patients to high-volume surgeons for OGS procedures could decrease LOS and incurred costs.

Barriers to Reconstructive Surgery in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Cross-Sectional Study of 453 Cleft Lip and Cleft Palate Patients in Vietnam.

BACKGROUND: Despite health system advances, residents of low- and middle-income countries continue to experience substantial barriers in accessing health care, particularly for specialized care such as plastic and reconstructive surgery. METHODS: A cross-sectional household survey of patients seeking surgical care for cleft lip and/or cleft palate was completed at five Operation Smile International mission sites throughout Vietnam (Hanoi, Nghe An, Hue, Ho Chi Minh City, An Giang, and Bac Lieu) in November of 2014. RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-three households were surveyed. Cost, mistrust of medical providers, and lack of supplies and trained physicians were cited as the most significant barriers to obtaining surgery from local hospitals. There was no significant difference in household income or hospital access between those who had and had not obtained cleft surgery in the past. Fewer households that had obtained cleft surgery in the past were enrolled in health insurance (p < 0.001). Of those households/patients who had surgery previously, 83 percent had their surgery performed by a charity. Forty-three percent of participants did not have access to any other surgical cleft care and 41 percent did not have any other access to nonsurgical cleft care. CONCLUSIONS: The authors highlight barriers specific to surgery in low- and middle-income countries that have not been previously addressed. Patients rely on charitable care outside the centralized health care system; as a result, surgical treatment of cleft lip and palate is delayed beyond the standard optimal window compared with more developed countries. Using these data, the authors developed a more evidence-based framework designed to understand health behaviors and perceptions regarding reconstructive surgical care.

Is There a Difference in Cost Between Standard and Virtual Surgical Planning for Orthognathic Surgery?

PURPOSE: Virtual surgical planning (VSP) and 3-dimensional printing of surgical splints are becoming the standard of care for orthognathic surgery, but costs have not been thoroughly evaluated. The purpose of this study was to compare the cost of VSP and 3-dimensional printing of splints ("VSP") versus that of 2-dimensional cephalometric evaluation, model surgery, and manual splint fabrication ("standard planning"). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study including patients planned for bimaxillary surgery from January 2014 to January 2015 at Massachusetts General Hospital. Patients were divided into 3 groups by case type: symmetric, nonsegmental (group 1); asymmetric (group 2); and segmental (group 3). All cases underwent both VSP and standard planning with times for all activities recorded. The primary and secondary predictor variables were method of treatment planning and case type, respectively. Time-driven activity-based micro-costing analysis was used to quantify the differences in cost. Results were analyzed using a paired t test and analysis of variance. RESULTS: The sample included 43 patients (19 in group 1, 17 in group 2, and 7 in group 3). The average times and costs were 194 ± 14.1 minutes and $2,765.94, respectively, for VSP and 540.9 ± 99.5 minutes and $3,519.18, respectively, for standard planning. For the symmetric, nonsegmental group, the average times and costs were 188 ± 17.8 minutes and $2,700.52, respectively, for VSP and 524.4 ± 86.1 minutes and $3,380.17, respectively, for standard planning. For the asymmetric group, the average times and costs were 187.4 ± 10.9 minutes and $2,713.69, respectively, for VSP and 556.1 ± 94.1 minutes and $3,640.00, respectively, for standard planning. For the segmental group, the average times and costs were 208.8 ± 13.5 minutes and $2,883.62, respectively, for VSP and 542.3 ± 118.4 minutes and $3,537.37, respectively, for standard planning. All time and cost differences were statistically significant (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that VSP for bimaxillary orthognathic surgery takes significantly less time and is less expensive than standard planning for the 3 types of cases analyzed.

Economic Analysis of Cleft Palate Repair in International Adoptees.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Major international tertiary care referral center for cleft palate repair. PATIENTS: One hundred thirty-eight patients at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia who had palate repair performed between 2010 and 2013, excluding syndromic patients, patients undergoing palate revision, and patients with incomplete payment information. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Fees and charges for procedures. RESULTS: Surgeon payment was significantly higher for international adoptees (Δ = $2047.51 [$128.35 to $3966.66], P = .038). Medicaid-adjusted surgeon payments averaged $1006 more for adoptees ([-$394.19 to $2406.98], P = .158). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital and anesthesiology costs for adoptee palate repair were highly variable but did not differ significantly from those for nonadoptees. Partly due to payer mix, surgeon reimbursement was somewhat higher for international adoptees. No difference in total payment was found.

A Comparative Cost Analysis of Cleft Lip Adhesion and Nasoalveolar Molding before Formal Cleft Lip Repair.

BACKGROUND: Patients with complete cleft lip and palate may benefit from cleft lip adhesion or nasoalveolar molding before formal cleft lip repair. The authors compared the relative costs to insurers of these two treatment modalities and the burden of care to families. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of cleft lip and palate patients treated with nasoalveolar molding or cleft lip adhesion at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia between January of 2007 and June of 2012. Demographic, appointment, and surgical data were reviewed; surgical, inpatient hospital, and orthodontic charges and costs were obtained. Multivariate linear regression and two-sample, two-tailed independent t tests were performed to compare cost and appointment data between groups. RESULTS: Forty-two cleft adhesion and 35 nasoalveolar molding patients met inclusion criteria. Mean costs for nasoalveolar molding were $3550.24 ± $667.27. Cleft adhesion costs, consisting of both hospital and surgical costs, were $9370.55 ± $1691.79. Analysis of log costs demonstrated a significant difference between the groups, with the mean total cost for nasoalveolar molding significantly lower than that for adhesion (p < 0.0001). Nasoalveolar molding patients had significantly more made, cancelled, no-show, and missed visits and a higher missed percentage than adhesion patients (p < 0.0001) for all except no-show appointments, (p = 0.0199), indicating a higher burden of care to families. CONCLUSIONS: Nasoalveolar molding may cost less before formal cleft lip repair treatment than cleft lip adhesion. Third-party payers who cover adhesion and not nasoalveolar molding may not be acting in their own best interest. Nasoalveolar molding places a higher burden of care on families, and this fact should be considered in planning treatment.

Orthognathic surgery in the office setting.

The delivery of care by oral and maxillofacial surgeons is becoming more challenging because of escalating health care costs and limited reimbursement from insurance providers. The changing health care landscape forces surgical practices to be flexible and adaptive to change in order to remain viable. The delivery of surgical services continues to evolve as care traditionally performed in a hospital environment is now routinely achieved in an outpatient setting. Outpatient facilities can aid in controlling the perioperative costs associated with orthognathic surgery. Safe and efficient orthognathic surgery completed in the office can aid in controlling the escalation of health care costs.

Cost comparison of genioplasty: when indicated, wire osteosynthesis is more cost effective than plate and screw fixation.

PURPOSE: This retrospective study was conducted to determine the difference in the cost of genioplasty according to the osseous fixation technique used. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study among orthognathic surgery patients treated over a 54-month period ending in June 30, 2011 was conducted. Immediately post surgery, panoramic and cephalometric radiographs of these patients were assessed to determine the presence of genioplasty procedure and the type of fixation used. The cost of the actual fixation used by the surgeons was compared with that which the cost would have been had the surgeons used the criteria described in the hypotheses, for plate and screws fixation when genioplasty is performed. RESULTS: A review of 1,498 orthognathic surgery patients revealed that 473 of these patients underwent genioplasty. Out of 473 patients, 425 had genioplasty to either advance and-or superiorly reposition the chin. Of these, 230 had wire osteosynthesis and 243 had some form of rigid fixation. The unit cost of fixation for genioplasty when wire osteosynthesis is used is less than C$5.00. The mean unit cost estimate in our patient group when pre-bent plates are used was C$542.00. All 230 patients in whom wire osteosynthesis was used demonstrated stable fixation of the bony parts and no immediate postsurgical adjustment was required in any patient. CONCLUSIONS: For patients requiring genioplasty to advance and-or superiorly reposition the chin, it is possible to use wire osteosynthesis to achieve accurate and stable fixation while reducing the fixation cost by more than C$500.00 per case. The surgeon should include cost considerations in the selection of treatment methods.

A Scottish cost analysis of interceptive orthodontics for thumb sucking habits.

OBJECTIVE: There is a potential cost saving to be made within the NHS by providing simple interceptive treatment rather than comprehensive treatment at a later date. The focus of this study is to determine the size of this potential cost by looking at the cost to NHS Tayside for the provision of interceptive treatment for cessation of thumb sucking and where this has been unsuccessful (or not provided) the costs of correction of the associated malocclusion. DESIGN: A cost analysis is described, investigating the costs of treatment solely to the NHS, both in the primary and secondary setting. METHODS: Three potential treatment pathways are identified with the costs calculated for each pathway. The actual cost of providing this treatment in NHS Tayside, and the potential cost saving in Tayside if there was a change in clinical practice are calculated. Both discounting of costs and a sensitivity analysis are performed. RESULTS: The cost to NHS Tayside of current practice was calculated to be between £123,710 and £124,930 per annum. Change in practice to replace use of a removable with a fixed habit breaker for the interceptive treatment of thumb sucking reduced the calculated cost to between £99,581 and £105,017. CONCLUSION: A saving could be made to the NHS, both locally and nationally, if the provision of a removable habit breaker was changed to a fixed habit breaker. In addition, increasing the proportion receiving active treatment, in the form of a fixed habit breaker, rather than monitoring, would appear to further reduce the cost to the NHS considerably.

Orthognathic surgery dilemma: increasing access.

With the national decline in orthognathic surgery procedures being performed, the specialty must entertain methods of increasing access to this critical service. This report explores the reasons for the decline and the strategies we have used to enhance access in our community.

Follow-up: orthognathic surgery. Is there a future? A national survey.

BACKGROUND: The authors recently documented a significant decrease in orthognathic surgical cases performed by both plastic and oral surgeons in Ohio over a recent 5-year period. The main reason noted was related to third-party reimbursement. This is a potentially serious issue that may affect the quality of health care for patients with dentofacial deformities. Therefore, an expanded survey was conducted to determine whether this was indicative of a national trend. METHODS: A three-page questionnaire was sent nationally to plastic surgeons and oral surgeons who were members of the American Society of Maxillofacial Surgery and the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, respectively. Surveys requested information regarding changes in the number of orthognathic operations over a 5-year period (1999-2003) and reasons for these changes. RESULTS: Of the 3273 surveys sent, 883 were returned, representing an overall response rate of 27 percent. Of the 883 returned, 771 (87.3 percent) were completed by oral surgeons and 112 (12.7 percent) were completed by plastic surgeons. The majority surveyed (70.0 percent) noted a decrease in the number of orthognathic procedures performed over a 5-year period, and 443 (77.3 percent) stated that the decrease was attributable to problems with insurance. Professional reimbursement per hour was calculated based on data collected from consecutive operations performed at the authors' institution. These data demonstrated that reimbursement per hour is significantly lower when orthognathic surgery procedures were compared with other standard plastic surgery operations. CONCLUSIONS: Orthognathic surgery may rapidly be becoming a cosmetic procedure. This has the potential of creating a two-tier system whereby only those who can afford it will undergo orthognathic correction.