Hospitals with decreasing cost-to-charge ratios bill greater surgical charges for similar outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The cost-to-charge ratio reflects the markup of hospital services. A lower cost-to-charge ratio indicates lower costs and/or greater charges. This study examines factors associated with cost-to-charge ratio trends to determine whether decreasing cost-to-charge ratio is associated with worse surgical outcomes. METHODS: The Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration Inpatient database (2018-2020) was queried for common surgical procedures and linked to the Distressed Communities Index, RAND Corporation Hospital data, Center for Medicare Services Cost Reports, and American Hospital Association data. Only hospitals with monotonically increasing or decreasing cost-to-charge ratio were included in the study. Univariable analysis compared these hospitals. Using patient-level data, interpretable machine learning predicted cost-to-charge ratio trend while identifying influential factors. RESULTS: The cohort had 67 hospitals (27 increasing cost-to-charge ratio and 40 decreasing cost-to-charge ratio) with 35,661 surgeries. Decreasing cost-to-charge ratio hospitals were more often proprietarily owned (78% vs 33%, P = .01) and had greater mean total charges ($134,349 ± $114,510 vs $77,185 ± $82,027, P < .01) with marginally greater mean estimated costs ($14,863 ± $12,343 vs $14,458 ± $15,440, P < .01). Patients from decreasing cost-to-charge ratio hospitals had greater rates of most comorbidities (P < .05) but no difference in mortality or overall complications. Machine-learning models revealed charges rather than clinical factors as most influential in cost-to-charge ratio trend prediction. CONCLUSIONS: Decreasing cost-to-charge ratio hospitals charge vastly more despite minimally greater estimated costs and no difference in outcomes. Although differences in case-mix existed, charges were the predominant differentiators. Patient clinical factors had far less of an impact.

For the Love of the Game: Calculating the Premium Associated with Academic Surgical Practice.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the premium associated with a career in academic surgery, as measured by compensation normalized to the work relative value unit (wRVU). BACKGROUND: An academic surgical career, embodying innovation and mentorship, offers intrinsic rewards, but is not well monetized. We know compensation for academic surgeons is less than their non-academic counterparts, but the value of clinical effort, as normalized to the wRVU, between academic and non-academic surgeons has not been well characterized. Thus, we analyzed the variations in the valuation of academic and non-academic surgical work from 2010 to 2022. METHODS: We utilized Medical Group Management Association Provider Compensation data from 2010, 2014, 2018, and 2022 to compare academic and non-academic surgeons. We analyzed raw total cash compensation (TCC), wRVU, TCC per wRVU (TCC/wRVU), and TCC to collections (TCCtColl). We calculated collections per wRVU (Coll/wRVU). We adjusted TCC and TCCtColl for inflation using the Consumer Price Index. Linear modeling for trend analysis was performed. RESULTS: Compared to non-academic, academic surgeons had lower TCC (2010: $500,415.0±23,666 vs. $631,515.5±23,948.2, -21%; 2022: $564,789.8±23,993.9 vs. $628,247.4±15,753.2, -10%), despite higher wRVUs (2022: 9,109.4±474.9 vs. 8,062.7±252.7) and higher Coll/wRVU (2022: 76.68±8.15 vs. 71.80±6.10). Trend analysis indicated TCC will converge in 2038 at an estimated $660,931. CONCLUSIONS: In 2022, academic surgeons had more clinical activity and superior organizational revenue capture, despite less total and normalized clinical compensation. Based on TCC/wRVUs, academia charges a premium of 16% over non-academic surgery. However, trend analysis suggests that TCC will converge within the next twenty years.

Expanded analysis for patients with acute cholecystitis indicates outcomes vary based on COVID-19 status and treatment modality.

BACKGROUND: The impact of different phases of COVID-19 infection on outcomes from acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) is not well understood. Therefore, we examined outcomes of acute cholecystitis during the COVID-19 pandemic, comparing the effect of different treatment modalities and COVID-19 infection status. We hypothesized that patients with acute COVID-19 would have worse outcomes than COVID-negative patients, but there would be no difference between COVID-negative and COVID-recovered patients. METHODS: We used 2020-2023 National COVID Cohort Collaborative data to identify adults with ACC. Treatment (antibiotics-only, cholecystostomy tube, or cholecystectomy) and COVID-19 status (negative, active, or recovered) were collected. Treatment failure of nonoperative managements was noted. Adjusted analysis using a series of generalized linear models controlled for confounders (age, sex, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, severity at presentation, and year) to better assess differences in outcomes among treatment groups, as well as between COVID-19 groups. RESULTS: In total, 32,433 patients (skewed count) were included: 29,749 COVID-negative, 2112 COVID-active, and 572 (skewed count) COVID-recovered. COVID-active had higher rates of sepsis at presentation. COVID-negative more often underwent cholecystectomy. Unadjusted, COVID-active had higher 30-day mortality, 30-day complication, and longer length of stay than COVID-negative and COVID-recovered. Adjusted analysis revealed cholecystectomy carried lower odds of mortality for COVID-active and COVID-negative patients than antibiotics or cholecystostomy. COVID-recovered patients' mortality was unaffected by treatment modality. Treatment failure from antibiotics was more common for COVID-negative patients. CONCLUSION: Acute cholecystitis outcomes are affected by phase of COVID-19 infection and treatment modality. Cholecystectomy does not lead to worse outcomes for COVID-active and COVID-recovered patients than nonoperative treatments; thus, these patients can be considered for cholecystectomy if their physiology is not prohibitive.

Survival Tree Provides Individualized Estimates of Survival After Lung Transplant.

INTRODUCTION: Identifying contributors to lung transplant survival is vital in mitigating mortality. To enhance individualized mortality estimation and determine variable interaction, we employed a survival tree algorithm utilizing recipient and donor data. METHODS: United Network Organ Sharing data (2000-2021) were queried for single and double lung transplants in adult patients. Graft survival time <7 d was excluded. Sixty preoperative and immediate postoperative factors were evaluated with stepwise logistic regression on mortality; final model variables were included in survival tree modeling. Data were split into training and testing sets and additionally validated with 10-fold cross validation. Survival tree pruning and model selection was based on Akaike information criteria and log-likelihood values. Estimated survival probabilities and log-rank pairwise comparisons between subgroups were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 27,296 lung transplant patients (8175 single; 19,121 double lung) were included. Stepwise logistic regression yielded 47 significant variables associated with mortality. Survival tree modeling returned six significant factors: recipient age, length of stay from transplant to discharge, recipient ventilator duration post-transplant, double lung transplant, recipient reintubation post-transplant, and donor cytomegalovirus status. Eight subgroups consisting of combinations of these factors were identified with distinct Kaplan-Meier survival curves. CONCLUSIONS: Survival trees provide the ability to understand the effects and interactions of covariates on survival after lung transplantation. Individualized survival probability with this technique found that preoperative and postoperative factors influence survival after lung transplantation. Thus, preoperative patient counseling should acknowledge a degree of uncertainty given the influence of postoperative factors.

Idiopathic Myointimal Hyperplasia of the Mesenteric Veins: A Rare Imitator of Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Idiopathic myointimal hyperplasia of the mesenteric veins (IMHMV) is a rare cause of chronic colonic ischemia characterized by intimal smooth muscle proliferation and luminal narrowing of the small to medium sized mesenteric veins. It predominantly affects the rectosigmoid colon in otherwise healthy, middle-aged males. Definitive diagnosis and treatment are surgical; however, patients are frequently misdiagnosed, which often results in a protracted clinical course. We describe a case of IMHMV presenting as left hemicolitis in a 53-year-old male, as well as the endoscopic, histopathologic, and radiographic findings that established the diagnosis.