Multicenter Stratified Comparison of Hospital Costs Between Laparoscopic and Open Colorectal Cancer Resections: Influence of Tumor Location and Operative Risk.

OBJECTIVE: To compare actual 90-day hospital costs between elective open and laparoscopic colon and rectal cancer resection in a daily practice multicenter setting stratified for operative risk. BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic resection has developed as a commonly accepted surgical procedure for colorectal cancer. There are conflicting data on the influence of laparoscopy on hospital costs, without separate analyses based on operative risk. METHODS: Retrospective analyses using a population-based database (Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit). All elective resections for a T1-3N0-2M0 stage colorectal cancer were included between 2010 and 2012 in 29 Dutch hospitals. Operative risk was stratified for age (<75 years or ≥75 years) and ASA status (I-II/III-IV). Ninety-day hospital costs were measured uniformly in all hospitals based on time-driven activity-based costing. RESULTS: Total 90-day hospital costs ranged from &OV0556;10474 to &OV0556;20865 in the predefined subgroups. For colon cancer surgery (N = 4202), laparoscopic resection was significant less expensive than open resection in all subgroups, savings because of laparoscopy ranged from &OV0556;409 (<75 years ASA I-II) to &OV0556;1932 (≥75 years ASA I-II). In patients ≥75 years and ASA I-II, laparoscopic resection was associated with 46% less mortality (P = 0.05), 41% less severe complications (P < 0.001), 25% less hospital stay (P = 0.013), and 65% less ICU stay (P < 0.001). For rectal cancer surgery (N=2328), all laparoscopic subgroups had significantly higher total hospital costs, ranging from &OV0556;501 (<75 years ASA I-II) to &OV0556;2515 (≥75 years ASA III-IV). CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic resection resulted in the largest cost reduction in patients over 75 years with ASA I-II undergoing colonic resection, and the largest cost increase in patients over 75 years with ASA III-IV undergoing rectal resection as compared with an open approach.

Single center cost analysis of single-port and conventional laparoscopic surgical treatment in colorectal malignant diseases.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Single-port laparoscopy (SPL) is a relatively new technique, used in various procedures. There is limited knowledge about the cost effectiveness and the learning curve of this technique. The primary aim of this study was to compare hospital costs between SPL and conventional laparoscopic resections (CLR) for colorectal cancer; the secondary aim was to identify a learning curve of SPL. METHODS: All elective colorectal cancer SPL and CLR performed in a major teaching hospital between 2011 and 2012 that were registered in the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit were included (n = 267). The economic evaluation was conducted from a hospital perspective, and costs were calculated using time-driven activity-based costing methodology up to 90 days after discharge. When looking at SPL only, the introduction year (2011) was compared to the next year (2012). RESULTS: SPL (n = 78) was associated with lower mortality, lower reintervention rates, and more complications as compared to CLR (n = 189); however, none of these differences were statistically significant. A significant shorter operating time was seen in the SPL. Total costs were higher for SPL group as compared to CLR; however, this difference was not statistically significant. For the SPL group, most clinical outcomes improved between 2011 and 2012; moreover, total hospital costs for SPL in 2012 became comparable to CLR. CONCLUSION: No significant differences in financial outcomes between SPL and CLR were identified. After the introduction period, SPL showed similar results as compared to CLR. Conclusions are based on a small single-port group and the conclusions of this manuscript should be an impetus for further research.

Hospital costs of colorectal cancer surgery for the oldest old: A Dutch population-based study.

Background Due to increasing healthcare costs, discussions regarding increased hospital costs when operating on high-risk patients is rising. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze if oldest-old colorectal cancer patients have a greater impact on hospital costs than their younger counterparts. METHODS: All colorectal cancer procedures performed in 29 Dutch hospitals between 2010 and 2012 and listed in the Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit were analyzed. Oldest-old patients (≥85 years) were compared to patients <85 years. Ninety-day hospital costs were measured uniformly in all hospitals based on time-driven activity-based costs. RESULTS: Compared to <85-year-old patients (n = 9130), the oldest old (n = 783) had longer hospital stays (LOS) (11.3 vs. 13.2, P < 0.001), more severe complications (21.8% vs. 29.0%, P < 0.001), more failure to rescue (13.9% vs. 37.0%, P < 0.001) and higher mortality (3.0% vs. 10.7%, P < 0.001). Deceased oldest-old patients had significantly less LOS and less LOS ICU. Total hospital costs were 3% lower for oldest-old patients (€13,168) than for <85-year-old patients (€13,644, P < 0.001). In cases of severe complications or death, hospital costs for the oldest old were 25% and 31% lower than those of <85-year-old patients (both P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although frequently assumed to be more expensive, operating on oldest-old patients with colorectal cancer does not increase hospital costs compared to younger patients. This was most likely due to faster deterioration or less aggressive treatment of oldest-old patients when (severe) complications occurred. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;114:1009-1015. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Colorectal cancer surgery for obese patients: Financial and clinical outcomes of a Dutch population-based registry.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to explore the association among adverse events, body mass index (BMI), and hospital costs after colorectal cancer surgery in a country with an intermediate BMI distribution. METHODS: All colorectal cancer procedures in 29 Dutch hospitals listed in a 2010-2012 population-based database and with a BMI > 18.5 were included (n = 8687). Hospital costs were measured uniformly and based on time-driven activity-based costing. The BMI classification of the World Health Organization was used. RESULTS: Patients in obesity classes 1 (23.6% [after risk-adjustment OR 1.245, CI 1.064-1.479, P = 0.007]) and ≥2 (28.1% [after risk-adjustment OR 1.816, CI 1.382-2.388, P < 0.001]) were associated with more severe complications and higher hospital costs (€14,294, +9.6%, after risk-adjustment +7.9%, P < 0.001; and €15,913 +22.0%, after risk-adjustment +21.2%, P < 0.001, respectively) than normal weight patients (20.8% and €13,040, respectively). Pre-obese patients had significantly lower mortality rates (2.7%, after risk-adjustment, OR 0.756, CI 0.577-0.991, P = 0.042) than normal-weight patients (3.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Obese surgical colorectal cancer patients in a country with an intermediate BMI distribution are associated with a significant increase in hospital costs because these patients suffer from more severe complications. This is the first study to provide evidence for the "obesity-paradox" for mortality in colorectal cancer surgery. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:489-495. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Nationwide Outcomes Measurement in Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Improving Quality and Reducing Costs.

BACKGROUND: Recent literature suggests that focus in health care should shift from reducing costs to improving quality; where quality of health care improves, cost reduction will follow. Our primary aim was to investigate whether improving the quality of surgical colorectal cancer care, by using a national quality improvement initiative, leads to a reduction of hospital costs. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective analysis of clinical and financial outcomes after colorectal cancer surgery in 29 Dutch hospitals (9,913 patients). Detailed clinical data were obtained from the 2010 to 2012 population-based Dutch Surgical Colorectal Audit. Patient-level costs were measured uniformly in all participating hospitals and based on time-driven, activity-based costing. Odds ratios (OR) and relative differences (RD) were risk adjusted for hospitals and differences in patient characteristics. RESULTS: Over 3 consecutive years, severe complications and mortality declined by 20% (risk-adjusted OR 0.739, 95% CI 0.653 to 0.836, p < 0.001), and 29% (risk-adjusted OR 0.757, 95% CI 0.571 to 1.003, p = 0.05), respectively. Simultaneously, costs during primary admission decreased 9% (risk-adjusted RD -7%, 95% CI -10% to -5%, p < 0.001) without an increase in costs within the first 90 days after discharge (RD -2%, 95% CI -10% to 6%, p = 0.65). An inverse relationship (at hospital level) between severe complication rate and hospital costs was identified (R = 0.64). Hospitals with increasing severe complication rates (between 2010 and 2012) were associated with increasing costs; hospitals with declining severe complication rates were associated with cost reduction. CONCLUSIONS: This report presents evidence for simultaneous quality improvement and cost reduction. Participation in a nationwide quality improvement initiative with continuous quality measurement and benchmarked feedback reveals opportunities for targeted improvements, bringing the medical field forward in improving value of health care delivery. The focus of health care should shift to improving quality, which will catalyze costs savings as well.