Negotiated Rates for Surgical Cancer Care in the Era of Price Transparency-Prices Reflect Market Competition.

OBJECTIVE: To measure commercial price variation for cancer surgery within and across hospitals. BACKGROUND: Surgical care for solid-organ tumors is costly, and negotiated commercial rates have been hidden from public view. The Hospital Price Transparency Rule, enacted in 2021, requires all hospitals to list their negotiated rates on their website, thus opening the door for an examination of pricing for cancer surgery. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study using 2021 negotiated price data disclosed by US hospitals for the 10 most common cancers treated with surgery. Price variation was measured using within-hospital and across-hospital ratios. Commercial rates relative to cancer center designation and the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index at the facility level were evaluated with mixed effects linear regression with random intercepts per procedural code. RESULTS: In all, 495,200 unique commercial rates from 2232 hospitals resulted for the 10 most common solid-organ tumor cancers. Gynecologic cancer operations had the highest median rates at $6035.8/operation compared with bladder cancer surgery at $3431.0/operation. Compared with competitive markets, moderately and highly concentrated markets were associated with significantly higher rates (HHI 1501, 2500, coefficient $513.6, 95% CI, $295.5, $731.7; HHI >2500, coefficient $1115.5, 95% CI, $913.7, $1317.2). National Cancer Institute designation was associated with higher rates, coefficient $3,451.9 (95% CI, $2853.2, $4050.7). CONCLUSIONS: Commercial payer-negotiated prices for the surgical management of 10 common, solid tumor malignancies varied widely both within and across hospitals. Higher rates were observed in less competitive markets. Future efforts should facilitate price competition and limit health market concentration.

Concurrent management of lymphedema and breast reconstruction with single-stage omental vascularized lymph node transfer and autologous breast reconstruction: A case series.

INTRODUCTION: The omentum has gained recent popularity in vascularized lymph node transfers (VLNT) as well as its novel use as a free flap for autologous breast reconstruction. The omentum has multiple unique advantages. It can be harvested laparoscopically or in an open fashion when utilized with abdominally-based free flaps. Additionally, it can be split into multiple flaps for simultaneous autologous breast reconstruction with VLNT or for multiple sites of VLNT. We present the safe and advantageous use of the omentum for VLNT with simultaneous autologous breast reconstruction in a series of patients. METHODS: From the years 2019-2022, patients who underwent breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric artery perforator (DIEP) or muscle sparing tram (MS-TRAM) flaps with concurrent omental VLNT through a mini-laparotomy or breast reconstruction with Omental Fat-Augmented Free Flap (O-FAFF) with concurrent laparoscopic harvesting of omental VLNT were studied. Patient demographics included age, gender, comorbidities, prior radiation or chemotherapy, body mass index, complications, hospital length of stay, and surgical outcomes. RESULTS: A total of seven patients underwent omental VLNT with breast reconstruction for a total of 12 breasts and eight limbs treated. Three of the patients underwent autologous breast reconstruction using omental free flap. The mean age was 52.3 (range 40-75) years and mean body mass index (BMI) was 29.3 (range 23-38) kg/m2 . The flap survival rate was 100%. All the patients had successful reduction of extremity circumference and improvement of symptoms. The range of follow-up was 5 to 19 months, with an average follow-up of 14.6 months. There was only one complication among our 7 patients: a patient with a BMI of 38 developed a post-surgical abdominal wound treated with local wound care. Otherwise, post-operative courses were uneventful, and no further complications were reported. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate here additional evidence to the growing body of literature of the versatility and safety of the omentum to be utilized as an independent tool for surgical treatment of lymphedema as well as its simultaneous use with autologous breast reconstruction.

Free Flap Reconstruction in the Era of Commercial Price Transparency - What are We Paying For?

BACKGROUND: Commercial rates for free flap reconstruction were not known publicly prior to the 2021 Hospital Price Transparency Final Rule. The purpose of this study was to examine commercial facility payments to characterize nationwide variation for microsurgical operations and identify opportunities to improve market effectiveness. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was performed using 2022 commercial insurance pricing merged with hospital performance data. Facility payment rates were extracted for nine CPT codes for free flap operations. Price variation was quantified via across-hospital ratios (AHRs) and within-hospital ratios (WHRs). Mixed effects linear models evaluated commercial rates relative to value, outcomes, and equity performance metrics, in addition to facility-level factors that included healthcare market concentration. RESULTS: 20,528 commercial rates across 675 hospitals were compiled. AHRs ranged from 5.85-7.95, while WHRs ranged from 1.00-1.71. Compared to the lowest scoring hospitals (grade D), hospitals with an outcome grade of A and equity grades of B or C were associated with higher commercial rates (p<0.04); there were no significant differences in rate based on value. Higher commercial rates were also associated with nonprofit status and more concentrated markets (p<0.006). Lower commercial rates were correlated with safety-net and teaching hospitals (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Commercial rates for free flaps varied substantially both across and within hospitals. Associations of higher commercial rates with less competitive markets, and the lack of consistent association with value and equity, identify pricing failures. Additional work is needed to improve market efficiency for free flap operations.

The Reality of Commercial Payer-Negotiated Rates in Cleft Lip and Palate Repair.

BACKGROUND: Commercial payer-negotiated rates for cleft lip and palate surgery have not been evaluated on a national scale. The aim of this study was to characterize commercial rates for cleft care, both in terms of nationwide variation and in relation to Medicaid rates. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was performed of 2021 hospital pricing data from Turquoise Health, a data service platform that aggregates hospital price disclosures. The data were queried by CPT code to identify 20 cleft surgical services. Within- and across-hospital ratios were calculated per CPT code to quantify commercial rate variation. Generalized linear models were used to assess the relationship between median commercial rate and facility-level variables and between commercial and Medicaid rates. RESULTS: There were 80,710 unique commercial rates from 792 hospitals. Within-hospital ratios for commercial rates ranged from 2.0 to 2.9 and across-hospital ratios ranged from 5.4 to 13.7. Median commercial rates per facility were higher than Medicaid rates for primary cleft lip and palate repair ($5492.20 versus $1739.00), secondary cleft lip and palate repair ($5429.10 versus $1917.00), and cleft rhinoplasty ($6001.00 versus $1917.00; P < 0.001). Lower commercial rates were associated with hospitals that were smaller ( P < 0.001), safety-net ( P < 0.001), and nonprofit ( P < 0.001). Medicaid rate was positively associated with commercial rate ( P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Commercial rates for cleft surgical care demonstrated marked variation within and across hospitals, and were lower for small, safety-net, or nonprofit hospitals. Lower Medicaid rates were not associated with higher commercial rates, suggesting that hospitals did not use cost-shifting to compensate for budget shortfalls resulting from poor Medicaid reimbursement.

Commercial Price Variation for Breast Reconstruction in the Era of Price Transparency.

Importance: Breast reconstruction is costly, and negotiated commercial rates have been hidden from public view. The Hospital Price Transparency Rule was enacted in 2021 to facilitate market competition and lower health care costs. Breast reconstruction pricing should be analyzed to evaluate for market effectiveness and opportunities to lower the cost of health care. Objective: To evaluate the extent of commercial price variation for breast reconstruction. The secondary objective was to characterize the price of breast reconstruction in relation to market concentration and payer mix. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cross-sectional study conducted from January to April 2022 using 2021 pricing data made available after the Hospital Price Transparency Rule. National data were obtained from Turquoise Health, a data service platform that aggregates price disclosures from hospital websites. Participants were included from all hospitals with disclosed pricing data for breast reconstructive procedures, identified by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code. Main Outcomes and Measures: Price variation was measured via within- and across-hospital ratios. A mixed-effects linear model evaluated commercial rates relative to governmental rates and the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (health care market concentration) at the facility level. Linear regression was used to evaluate commercial rates as a function of facility characteristics. Results: A total of 69 834 unique commercial rates were extracted from 978 facilities across 335 metropolitan areas. Commercial rates increased as health care markets became less competitive (coefficient, $4037.52; 95% CI, $700.12 to $7374.92; P = .02; for Herfindahl-Hirschman Index [HHI] 1501-2500, coefficient $3290.21; 95% CI, $878.08 to $5702.34; P = .01; both compared with HHI ≤1500). Commercial rates demonstrated economically insignificant associations with Medicare and Medicaid rates (Medicare coefficient, -$0.05; 95% CI, -$0.14 to $0.03; P = .23; Medicaid coefficient, $0.14; 95% CI, $0.07 to $0.22; P < .001). Safety-net and nonprofit hospitals reported lower commercial rates (coefficient, -$3269.58; 95% CI, -$3815.42 to -$2723.74; P < .001 and coefficient, -$1892.79; -$2519.61 to -$1265.97; P < .001, respectively). Extra-large hospitals (400+ beds) reported higher commercial rates compared with their smaller counterparts (coefficient, $1036.07; 95% CI, $198.29 to $1873.85, P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: Study results suggest that commercial rates for breast reconstruction demonstrated large nationwide variation. Higher commercial rates were associated with less competitive markets and facilities that were large, for-profit, and nonsafety net. Privately insured patients with breast cancer may experience higher premiums and deductibles as US hospital market consolidation and for-profit hospitals continue to grow. Transparency policies should be continued along with actions that facilitate greater health care market competition. There was no evidence that facilities increase commercial rates in response to lower governmental rates.

Combining Breast and Ovarian Operations Increases Complications.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer resulting from a genetic mutations, such as BRCA1 or BRCA2, is seen in 5 to 10 percent of patients. More widespread genetic testing has increased the number of affected women undergoing prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy. Recent studies have yielded mixed results regarding complication rates after combined breast and ovarian operations. The authors compared surgical outcomes of breast operations performed in combination with salpingo-oophorectomies or as separate procedures. METHODS: The authors retrospectively analyzed surgical complications and length of hospital stay in 145 female patients, from which 87 had undergone combined breast surgery and salpingo-oophorectomy, and 58 had undergone these procedures separately. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios and 95 percent confidence intervals. RESULTS: Patients undergoing combined breast and ovarian operations experienced higher rates of overall complications (46.5 percent versus 19 percent; p < 0.001), infections (22.2 percent versus 8.6 percent; p < 0.05), and delayed wound healing (13.2 percent versus 0 percent; p < 0.05) related to the breast surgery, when compared with patients undergoing separate procedures. Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed a significant association between combined surgery and overall postoperative complications (OR, 5.87; 95 percent CI, 2.03 to 16.91; p = 0.02). Patients undergoing tissue expander-based breast reconstruction combined with ovarian surgery had significantly longer hospital stays compared to patients undergoing separate procedures (3.5 days versus 1.8 days; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The authors' data indicate that combining breast and ovarian operations is associated with a higher risk of postoperative complications related to the breast procedure and increases the duration of hospital stay in patients with tissue expander-based reconstructions. The authors' study provides valuable information for preoperative counseling of patients considering both breast and ovarian surgery. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Does Hydroxychloroquine Protect against Preeclampsia and Preterm Delivery in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Pregnancies?

OBJECTIVE: Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) increases the risk of complications in pregnancy. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) decreases flares and neonatal lupus syndrome. Limited evidence suggests that HCQ also reduces preeclampsia and preterm birth in SLE pregnancies. We studied whether HCQ was associated with lower odds of preeclampsia and preterm delivery in SLE pregnancies. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 129 deliveries of 110 patients with SLE delivered at a single institution (2000-2017). HCQ exposure and preeclampsia, along with other clinical data, were extracted from chart review. Crude and multivariable-adjusted logistic regression estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of 41% were exposed to HCQ, of whom 13.5% were complicated by preeclampsia versus 26.3% unexposed to HCQ (adjusted OR = 0.5; 95% CI: 0.2-1.4). The difference was pronounced for first pregnancies (7 vs. 44%), but power was limited. The difference in preterm deliveries was less pronounced comparing HCQ-exposed pregnancies with HCQ-unexposed pregnancies (34 vs. 40.8%; OR = 0.3; 95% CI: 0.3-1.5). CONCLUSION: Pregnant SLE patients trended toward less preeclampsia and preterm delivery when treated with HCQ. Future larger studies are needed to increase the statistical power, account for additional potential confounders, and more fully account for parity.