Comparative Efficacy of Robot-Assisted and Laparoscopic Distal Pancreatectomy: A Single-Center Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP) has become a routine procedure in pancreatic surgery. Although robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) has not been popularized yet, it has shown new advantages in some aspects, and exploring its learning curve is of great significance for guiding clinical practice. METHODS: 149 patients who received RDP and LDP in our surgical team were enrolled in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups including LDP group and RDP group. The perioperative outcomes, histopathologic results, long-term postoperative complications, and economic cost were collected and compared between the two groups. The cumulative summation (CUSUM) analysis was used to explore the learning curve of RDP. RESULTS: The hospital stay, postoperative first exhaust time, and first feeding time in the RDP group were better than those in the LDP group (P < 0.05). The rate of spleen preservation in patients with benign and low-grade tumors in the RDP group was significantly higher than that of the LDP group (P=0.002), though the cost of operation and hospitalization was significantly higher (P < 0.001). The learning curve of RDP in our center declined significantly with completing 32 cases. The average operation time, the hospital stay, and the time of gastrointestinal recovery were shorter after the learning curve node than before. CONCLUSION: RDP provides better postoperative recovery and is not difficult to replicate, but the high cost was still a major disadvantage of RDP.

ACA Medicaid expansion reduced disparities in use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Early evaluation of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion demonstrated persistent disparities among Medicaid beneficiaries in use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery. Longer-term effects of expansion remain unknown. This study evaluated the impact of expansion on the use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery among Medicaid and uninsured patients. METHODS: State inpatient databases (2012-2017), the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database, and the Area Resource File from the Health Resources and Services Administration, were used to examine 8,264 non-elderly adults who underwent pancreatic surgery in nine expansion and two non-expansion states. High-volume hospitals were defined as performing 20 or more resections/year. Linear probability triple differences models measured pre- and post-Affordable Care Act utilization rates of pancreatic surgery at high-volume hospitals among Medicaid and uninsured patients versus privately insured patients in expansion versus non-expansion states. RESULTS: The Affordable Care Act's expansion was associated with increased rates of utilization of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery by Medicaid and uninsured patients (48% vs 55.4%, P = .047) relative to privately insured patients in expansion states (triple difference estimate +11.7%, P = .022). A pre-Affordable Care Act gap in use of high-volume hospitals among Medicaid and uninsured patients in expansion states versus non-expansion states (48% vs 77%, P < .0001) was reduced by 15.1% (P = .001) post Affordable Care Act. A pre Affordable Care Act gap between expansion versus non-expansion states was larger for Medicaid and uninsured patients relative to privately insured patients by 24.9% (P < .0001) and was reduced by 11.7% (P = .022) post Affordable Care Act. Rates among privately insured patients remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: Medicaid expansion was associated with greater utilization of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery among Medicaid and uninsured patients. These findings are informative to non-expansion states considering expansion. Future studies should target understanding referral mechanism post-expansion.

Evaluation of cost-effectiveness among open, laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP) is still a matter of debate. This study compares the cost-effectiveness of open (ODP), laparoscopic (LDP) and robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). METHODS: Pubmed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases were searched. Studies comparing cost-effectiveness of ODP and MIDP were included. RESULTS: A total of 1052 titles were screened and 16 articles were included in the study, 2431 patients in total. LDP resulted the most cost-efficient procedure, with a mean total cost of 14,682 ± 5665 € and the lowest readmission rates. ODP had lower surgical procedure costs, 3867 ± 768 €. RDP was the safest approach regarding hospital stay costs (5239 ± 1741 €), length of hospital stay, morbidity, clinically relevant pancreatic fistula and reoperations. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis MIDP resulted as the most cost-effective approach. LDP seems to be protective against high costs, but RDP seems to be safer.

Is Improved Survival in Early-Stage Pancreatic Cancer Worth the Extra Cost at High-Volume Centers?

BACKGROUND: Volume of operative cases may be an important factor associated with improved survival for early-stage pancreatic cancer. Most high-volume pancreatic centers are also academic institutions, which have been associated with additional healthcare costs. We hypothesized that at high-volume centers, the value of the extra survival outweighs the extra cost. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study used data from the California Cancer Registry linked to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2012. Stage I-II pancreatic cancer patients who underwent resection were included. Multivariable analyses estimated overall survival and 30-day costs at low- vs high-volume pancreatic surgery centers. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net benefit (INB) were estimated, and statistical uncertainty was characterized using net benefit regression. RESULTS: Of 2,786 patients, 46.5% were treated at high-volume centers and 53.5% at low-volume centers. There was a 0.45-year (5.4 months) survival benefit (95% CI 0.21-0.69) and a $7,884 extra cost associated with receiving surgery at high-volume centers (95% CI $4,074-$11,694). The ICER was $17,529 for an additional year of survival (95% CI $7,997-$40,616). For decision-makers willing to pay more than $20,000 for an additional year of life, high-volume centers appear cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Although healthcare costs were greater at high-volume centers, patients undergoing pancreatic surgery at high-volume centers experienced a survival benefit (5.4 months). The extra cost of $17,529 per additional year is quite modest for improved survival and is economically attractive by many oncology standards.

Outcomes of Complex Gastrointestinal Cancer Resection at US News & World Report Top-Ranked vs Non-Ranked Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The US News & World Report (USNWR) annual ranking of the best hospitals for gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery offers direction to patients and healthcare providers, especially for recommendations on complex medical and surgical gastrointestinal (GI) conditions. The objective of this study was to examine the outcomes of complex GI cancer resections performed at USNWR top-ranked, compared to non-ranked, hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: Using the Vizient database, data for patients who underwent esophagectomy, gastrectomy, and pancreatectomy for malignancy between January and December 2018 were reviewed. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed according to USNWR rank status. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, mortality index (observed-to-expected mortality ratio), rate of serious complication, and cost. Secondary analysis was performed for outcomes of patients who developed serious complications. RESULTS: There were 3,054 complex GI cancer resections performed at 42 top-ranked hospitals vs 3,608 resections performed at 198 non-ranked hospitals. The mean annual case volume was 73 cases at top-ranked hospitals compared to 18 cases at non-ranked hospitals. Compared with non-ranked hospitals, top-ranked hospitals had lower in-hospital mortality (0.96% vs 2.26%, respectively, p < 0.001) and lower mortality index (0.71 vs 1.53, respectively). There were no significant differences in length of stay, rate of serious complications, or direct cost between groups. In patients who developed serious morbidity, top-ranked hospitals had a lower mortality compared with non-ranked hospitals (8.2% vs 16.8%, respectively, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of complex GI cancer resection, USNWR top-ranked hospitals performed a 4-fold higher case volume and were associated with improved outcomes. Patients with complex GI-related malignancies may benefit from seeking surgical care at high-volume regional USNWR top-ranked hospitals.

Total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation reduces resource utilization in pediatric patients.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is associated with poor quality of life. Total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation (TPIAT) has traditionally been reserved for patients with refractory disease. We hypothesized TPIAT would lead to decreased costs and resource utilization after operation in children. METHODS: Retrospective review of 39 patients who underwent TPIAT at a single children's hospital was performed. All inpatient admissions, imaging, endoscopic procedures, and operations were recorded for the year prior to and following operation. Costs were determined from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. RESULTS: Median hospital admissions before operation was 5 (IQR:2-7) and decreased to 2 (IQR:1-3) after (p < 0.01). Median total cost for the year before operation was $36,006 (IQR:$19,914-$47,680), decreasing to $24,900 postoperatively (IQR:$17,432-$44,005, p = 0.03). Removing cost of TPIAT itself, total cost was further reduced to $10,564 (IQR:$3096-$29,669, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In children with debilitating CP, TPIAT has favorable impact on cost reduction, hospitalizations, and invasive procedures. Early intervention at a specialized pancreas center of excellence should be considered to decrease future resource utilization and costs among children.

Hepatopancreatic Surgery in the Rural United States: Variation in Outcomes at Critical Access Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Sixty million Americans live in rural America, with roughly 17.5% of the rural population being 65 y or older. Outcomes and costs of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing hepatopancreatic surgery at critical access hospitals (CAHs) are not known. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medicare files were used to identify patients who underwent hepatopancreatic resection. Outcomes were compared (CAHs versus non-CAHs). RESULTS: Patients undergoing hepatopancreatic surgery at non-CAHs versus CAHs had a similar comorbidity score (4 versus 5, P = 0.53). After adjusting for patient-level factors and procedure-specific volume, there was no difference in complication rate (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.24). The median cost of hospitalization was roughly $4000 less at CAHs than that at non-CAHs (P < 0.001). However, compared with patients undergoing surgery at non-CAHs, beneficiaries operated at CAHs had more than two times the odds of dying within 30 (aOR 2.45, 95% CI 1.42-4.2) and 90 d (aOR 2.28, 95% CI 1.4-3.71). CONCLUSIONS: Only a small subset of Medicare beneficiaries underwent hepatic or pancreatic resection at a CAH. Despite similar complication rate, Medicare beneficiaries undergoing surgery at a CAH had more than two times the odds of dying within 30 and 90 d after surgery.

Cost-effectiveness and quality of life analysis of laparoscopic and robotic distal pancreatectomy: a propensity score-matched study.

BACKGROUND: This study analyzed the Quality of Life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic (LDP) versus robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP). METHOD: All patients who underwent LDP or RDP from 2011 to 2017 and with a minimum postoperative follow-up of 12 months were included in the study. To minimize bias, a propensity score-matched analysis (1:2) was performed. Two different questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D) were completed by the patients. The mean differential cost and mean differential Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY) were calculated and plotted on a cost-utility plane. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 152 patients. After having applied the propensity score matching, the final population included 103 patients divided into RDP group (n = 37, 36%) and LDP (n = 66, 64%). No differences were found between groups regarding the baseline, intraoperative, postoperative, and pathological variables (p > 0.05). The QoL analysis showed a significant improvement in the RDP group on the postoperative social function, nausea, vomiting, and financial status (p = 0.010, p = 0.050, and p = 0.030, respectively). As expected, the crude costs analysis confirmed that RDP was more expensive than LDP (12,053 Euros vs. 5519 Euros, p < 0.001). However, the robotic approach had a higher probability of being more cost-effective than the laparoscopic procedure when a willingness to pay of more than 4800 Euros/QALY was accepted. CONCLUSION: RDP was associated with QoL improvement in specific domains. Crude costs were higher relative to LDP. Cost-effectiveness threshold resulted to be 4800 euros/QALY. The increasing worldwide diffusion of the robotic technology, with easier access and possible cost reduction, could increase the sustainability of this procedure.

Non-Hispanic Blacks undergoing distal pancreatectomy have higher risk-adjusted rates of morbidity and are more likely to be high-cost outliers.

BACKGROUND: Few studies evaluate racial disparities in costs and clinical outcomes for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy (DP). METHODS: We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases to identify patients undergoing DP. Multivariable regression (MVR) was used to evaluate the association between race and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: 2,493 patients underwent DP; 265 (10%) were black, and 221 (8%) were of Hispanic ethnicity. On MVR, black and Hispanic patients were less likely than whites to undergo surgery in high volume centers (OR 0.53, 95% CI [0.40, 0.71]; OR 0.45, 95% CI [0.32, 0.62]). Black patients had a greater risk of postoperative complication (OR 1.40, 95% CI [1.07, 1.83]), 90-day readmission (OR 1.53, 95% CI [1.15, 2.02]), prolonged length of stay (OR 1.74, 95% CI [1.25-2.44]), and of being a high cost outliers (OR 1.40, 95% CI [1.02, 1.91]) compared to white patients. CONCLUSION: Black patients have increased risk of having a postoperative complication, prolonged hospitalization, and of being a high-cost outlier than non-Hispanic whites.

Does health insurance protect against risk of financial catastrophe for pancreatic tumor care? A cost-based review of patients undergoing pancreatic resection at an academic institution.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is a leading cause of financial insolvency and cancer related deaths in the United States. The risk of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) was calculated for patients undergoing pancreatic resection at an academic institution. METHODS: Patients who underwent pancreatic resection between 2013 and 2017 were identified through an institutional cancer registry. A CHE was an out-of-pocket payment (OOP) > 10% of the estimated median household income. RESULTS: 319 patients met inclusion criteria. Hospital median charge was $76,700. 99% of patients had insurance and hospital bill adjustments. As a result, 61% (n = 193) made no OOP. Only 3 patients risked CHE. For all tumors combined there were no differences in survival outcomes by OOP. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to use institutional financial data to calculate CHE risk for pancreatic resection patients. Insurance adjustments to hospital charges that accompany health insurance and voluntary hospital adjustments for the uninsured protect patients against CHE.

Variations in surgical spending within hospital systems for complex cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 70% of hospitals today are part of larger health systems. Proponents of hospital consolidation tout its potential to reduce health spending and improve outcomes, but to the authors' knowledge the available evidence has suggested that this promise is unrealized. Variations in costs and outcomes within systems may highlight opportunities for collaborative quality improvement and practice standardization. To assess this potential, the authors sought to measure variations in episode spending within and across hospital systems among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing complex cancer surgery. METHODS: Using 100% Medicare claims data, the authors identified fee-for-service Medicare patients who were undergoing elective pancreatectomy, lung resection, or colectomy for cancer from 2014 through 2016. Risk-adjusted, price-standardized payments for the surgical episode from admission through 30 days after discharge were calculated. The authors then assessed the reliability-adjusted variations at the hospital and system levels. RESULTS: Average episode payments varied nearly as much within hospital systems for pancreatectomy ($1946 between the lowest and highest spending systems; 95% CI, $1910-$1972), lung resection ($625 between the lowest and highest spending systems; 95% CI, $621-$630), and colectomy ($813 between the lowest and highest spending systems; 95% CI, $809-$817) as they did between the lowest and highest spending hospitals (pancreatectomy: $2034; lung resection: $1789; and colectomy: $770). For pancreatectomy, this variation was driven by index hospitalization spending whereas both index hospitalization and postacute care use drove variations for lung resection and colectomy. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of Medicare patients undergoing complex cancer surgery, wide variations in surgical episode spending were noted both within and across hospital systems. System leaders may seek to better understand variations in practices among their hospitals to standardize care and reduce variations in outcomes, use, and costs.

Preoperative continuity of care and its relationship with cost of hepatopancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Continuity of care may be associated with health care outcomes and costs. The objective of the current study was to characterize the impact of continuity of care on perioperative outcomes, as well as on cost of care, among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing hepatopancreatic resection. METHODS: Patients with a minimum of 4 outpatient visits in the year before hepatopancreatic surgery were identified in the Medicare claims data. The Bice-Boxerman index was used to calculate continuity of care. The association of continuity of care and expenditures was assessed using a multivariable gamma regression with a log link. RESULTS: Among 25,698 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a hepatopancreatic surgical procedure (hepatectomy: n = 10,679, 41.6%, pancreatectomy: n = 15,019, 58.4%), median patient age was 72 years (interquartile range: 68-77). Overall continuity of care was poor as the median continuity of care was 0.17 (0.10-0.29). Median total surgical costs were higher among patients in the lowest continuity-of-care quartile (continuity of care1st quartile: $25,500 [interquartile range, $18,100-$41,800]) compared with patients in the highest continuity-of-care quartile (continuity of care4th quartile: $22,700 [interquartile range, $17,100-$38,400]). Among patients undergoing hepatic resection, an increase in continuity of care of 0.2 was associated with decreased costs of 5.1% (95% confidence interval: -6.3% to -3.8%) compared with a decrease of 2.5% (95% confidence interval: -3.7% to -1.2%) among pancreatic resection patients. CONCLUSION: Continuity of care in the year before surgery was associated with total cost of surgery-including the cost of the index hospitalization and the total 90-day postdischarge costs. Relative to patients with a continuity of care = 0, indicating complete fragmentation of a patient's outpatient health care, patients with a continuity of care = 0.60 had 12.1% lower total surgical costs.

Variation in value among hospitals performing complex cancer operations.

BACKGROUND: While variation in outcomes has driven centralization of complex cancer surgery, variation in cost and value remains unexplored. We evaluated outcomes relative to cost among hospitals performing esophageal and pancreatic resection for cancer. METHODS: Using 100% Medicare claims data, we identified fee-for-service Medicare patients undergoing elective esophagectomy and pancreatectomy for cancer from 2014 to 2016. Risk- and reliability-adjusted, price-standardized payments for the surgical episode from admission through 30 days post discharge, as well as risk- and reliability-adjusted complication rates for each hospital, were calculated. Hospitals were separated into quintiles relative to payments and outcomes. Highest-value hospitals were defined as hospitals in the top 2 quartiles for both cost and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 11,586 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a complex oncologic operation between 2014 and 2016, 66% had a pancreatic neoplasm, while 33% had an esophageal neoplasm. Overall, 31.1% patients underwent an operation at a high-value hospital. Among patients who underwent pancreatectomy, the risk-adjusted postoperative complication rate was 31.4% at the lowest-value hospitals vs 22.7% at highest-value hospitals (odds ratio: 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.70). The esophagectomy, risk-adjusted postoperative complication rate was 48.3% at lowest-value hospitals versus 29.8% at highest-value hospitals (odds ratio: 0.36, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.47). The average difference in episode cost of care for an esophagectomy at lowest- versus highest-value hospitals was $5,617; the difference for pancreatectomy was $2,748. CONCLUSION: There was wide variation in complication rates and average costs among lowest- versus highest-value hospitals performing esophagectomy and pancreatectomy for cancer. Even among highest quality hospitals, wide variation in average episode costs was noted. Surgeons should seek to better understand practice variation to standardize care and decrease variation in outcomes, utilization, and costs.

Assessing post-discharge costs of hepatopancreatic surgery: an evaluation of Medicare expenditure.

BACKGROUND: The true cost of liver and pancreatic surgery may not be completely ascertained by examining costs associated solely with the index hospitalization. We sought to assess post-discharge costs related to liver and pancreatic surgery after the index hospitalization. METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries who underwent liver and pancreatic resection between 2013 and 2015. To assess post-discharge costs, costs were assessed for the following: all inpatient readmissions associated with an operative complication, follow-up outpatient visits with their operating surgeon, and use of skilled nursing facilities, hospice, and home health care within 90 days of discharge. RESULTS: Among the 21,737 patients who underwent either pancreatic or liver resection, the median cost of the index admission was $20,500 (interquartile range: $16,100-$34,300) (pancreas median: $22,100; interquartile range: $16,800-$36,500 vs liver median: $19,100; interquartile range: $15,100-$29,000). Approximately 30% (n = 6,435) had an all-cause readmission; more than half of readmissions (55.8%; n = 3,589) were related to an operative complication. Skilled nursing facilities and home health care services were utilized by 18.5% (n = 4,016) and 42.6% (n = 9,259) of patients, respectively. In total, nearly 75% of patients had additional, post-discharge hidden costs associated with their operative episode of care (n = 15,733: 72.4%). Male sex (95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.30) and black/African American race (95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.34) were associated with greater odds of post-discharge costs (both <0.05). CONCLUSION: Nearly 3 out of 4 patients who underwent a liver or pancreatic resection had post-discharge costs. Male and black/African American patients had greater odds of incurring post-discharge costs. As payers move to more bundled care payment models, strategies aimed at bending the cost curve associated with both the in-hospital, as well as the post-discharge setting, are needed.

A cost-effectiveness analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy.

AIM: There is no study in the literature that evaluates the cost-effectiveness of robotic distal pancreatectomy (RDP) over laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy (LDP). We performed a comparative study of RDP and LDP with the aim of evaluating clinical and cost-effective outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is an observational, comparative prospective nonrandomized study. The primary end point was to compare the cost-effectiveness differences between both groups. A willingness to pay of €20 000 and €30 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was used as a threshold to recognize which treatment was most cost-effective. RESULTS: A total of 31 RDP and 28 LDP have been included. The overall mean total cost was similar in both groups (RDP: €9712.15 versus LDP: €9424.68; P > .5). Mean QALYs for RDP (0.652) was higher than that associated with LDP (0.59) (P > .5). CONCLUSION: This study seems to provide data of cost-effectiveness between RDP and LDP approaches, showing some benefits for RDP.

Minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy and the cost of conversion.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is preferred for distal pancreatectomy but is not always attempted due to the risk of conversion to open. We hypothesized that the total cost for MIS converted to open procedures would be comparable to those that started open. METHODS: A prospectively collected institutional registry (2011-2017) was reviewed for demographic, clinical, and perioperative cost data for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy. RESULTS: There were 80 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy: 41 open, 39 MIS (11 laparoscopic and 28 robotic). Conversion to open occurred in 14 of 39 (36%, 3 laparoscopic and 11 robotic). Length of stay was shorter for the MIS completed (6 days; range, 3-8), and MIS converted to open (7 days; range, 4-10) groups, compared with open (10 days; range, 5-36; P = .003). Laparoscopic cases were the least expensive (P = .02). Robotic converted to open procedures had the highest operating room cost. However, the total cost for robotic converted to open cohort was similar to the open cohort due to cost savings associated with a shorter length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the higher intraoperative costs of robotic surgery, there is no significant overall financial penalty for conversion to open. Financial considerations should not play a role in selecting a robotic or open approach.

Centralization of Pancreatic Surgery Improves Results: Review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The effect of operation volume on the outcomes of pancreatic surgery has been a subject of research since the 1990s. In several countries around the world, this has led to the centralization of pancreatic surgery. However, controversy persists as to the benefits of centralization and what the optimal operation volume for pancreatic surgery actually is. This review summarizes the data on the effect of centralization on mortality, complications, hospital facilities used, and costs regarding pancreatic surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic librarian-assisted search was performed in PubMed covering the years from August 1999 to August 2019. All studies comparing results of open pancreatic resections from high- and low-volume centers were included. In total 44, published articles were analyzed. RESULTS: Studies used a variety of different criteria for high-volume and low-volume centers, which hampers the evaluating of the effect of operation volume. However, mortality in high-volume centers is consistently reported to be lower than in low-volume centers. In addition, failure to rescue critically ill patients is more common in low-volume centers. Cost-effectiveness has also been evaluated in the literature. Length of hospital stay in particular has been reported to be shorter in high-volume centers than in low-volume centers. CONCLUSION: The effect of centralization on the outcomes of pancreatic surgery has been under active research and the beneficial effect of it is associated especially with better short-term prognosis after surgery.

Textbook Outcomes Among Medicare Patients Undergoing Hepatopancreatic Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To define and test "Textbook Outcome" (TO)-a composite measure for healthcare quality-among Medicare patients undergoing hepatopancreatic resections. Hospital variation in TO and Medicare payments were analyzed. BACKGROUND: Composite measures of quality may be superior to individual measures for the analysis of hospital performance. METHODS: The Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) Inpatient Files were reviewed to identify Medicare patients who underwent pancreatic and liver procedures between 2013 and 2015. TO was defined as: no postoperative surgical complications, no prolonged length of hospital stay, no readmission ≤ 90 days after discharge, and no postoperative mortality ≤ 90 days after surgery. Medicare payments were compared among patients who achieved TO versus patients who did not. Multivariable logistic regression was used to investigate patient factors associated with TO. A nomogram to predict probability of TO was developed and validated. RESULTS: TO was achieved in 44% (n = 5919) of 13,467 patients undergoing hepatopancreatic surgery. Adjusted TO rates at the hospital level varied from 11.1% to 69.6% for pancreatic procedures and from 16.6% to 78.7% for liver procedures. Prolonged length of hospital stay represented the major obstacle to achieve TO. Average Medicare payments were substantially higher among patients who did not have a TO. Factors associated with TO on multivariable analysis were age, sex, Charlson comorbidity score, previous hospital admissions, procedure type, and surgical approach (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Less than one-half of Medicare patients achieved a TO following hepatopancreatic procedures with a wide variation in the rates of TO among hospitals. There was a discrepancy in Medicare payments for patients who achieved a TO versus patients who did not. TO could be useful for the public reporting of patient level hospital performance and hospital variation.

The Impact of Dedicated Cancer Centers on Outcomes Among Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Liver and Pancreatic Cancer Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Alliance of Dedicated Cancer Centers (DCCs) is comprised of 11 institutions that are exempt from the prospective payment system utilized by Medicare for hospital reimbursement. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare short- and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing liver and pancreatic surgery for cancer at DCCs versus non-DCCs. METHODS: Patients who underwent a liver or pancreatic operation for a malignant indication between 2013 and 2015 were identified using the Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic Files. Regression analyses and the Kaplan-Meier method were used to assess short- and long-term outcomes of patients at DCCs versus non-DCCs. RESULTS: Among 13,256 patients, 7.0% of patients were treated at a DCC. Median patient age and complexity of surgical procedures were comparable among DCCs and non-DCCs (all p > 0.05). Overall complications (16.5% vs. 23.6%), 90-day readmission (26.2% vs. 30.2%), and 90-day mortality (3.0% vs. 8.7%) were lower at DCCs compared with non-DCCs (all p < 0.001). In addition, long-term hazards of death among patients undergoing hepatectomy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-0.75] and pancreatectomy (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.56-0.78) were lower among patients treated at DCCs (both p < 0.05). While Medicare payments for patients undergoing pancreatic surgery (DCC: $22,200 vs. non-DCC: $22,100; p = 0.772) were comparable among DCC and non-DCC hospitals, Medicare payments for liver resection at DCCs were 13.9% lower than non-DCCs (DCC: $16,700 vs. non-DCC: $19,400; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing hepatopancreatic surgery at DCCs had better short- and long-term outcomes for the same/lower level of Medicare expenditure as non-DCC hospitals. DCCs provide higher-value surgical care for patients undergoing liver and pancreatic cancer operations.

Defining Value for Pancreatic Surgery in Early-Stage Pancreatic Cancer.

Importance: Value-based care is increasingly important, with rising health care costs and advances in cancer treatment leading to greater survival for patients with cancer. Regionalization of surgical care for pancreatic cancer has been extensively studied as a strategy to improve perioperative outcomes, but investigation of long-term outcomes relative to health care costs (ie, value) is lacking. Objective: To identify patient and hospital characteristics associated with improved overall survival, decreased costs, and greater value among patients with pancreatic cancer undergoing curative resection. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study identified 2786 patients with stages I to II pancreatic cancer who underwent pancreatic resection at 157 hospitals from January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2012. The study used the California Cancer Registry, which collects data from all California residents newly diagnosed with cancer, linked to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database, which collects administrative data from all California licensed hospitals. Data were analyzed from November 11, 2017, through September 4, 2018. Exposures: Pancreatic resection at high-volume and/or National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were overall survival, surgical hospitalization costs, and value. High value was defined as the fourth quintile or higher for survival and the second quintile or less for costs. Costs were calculated from charges using cost-charge ratios and adjusted for geographic variation and inflation. Multivariable regression models were used to determine factors associated with overall survival, costs, and high value. Results: Among the 2786 patients included (1394 [50.0%] male; mean [SD] age, 67.0 [10.7] years), postoperative chemotherapy (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.79; P < .001) and high-volume centers (aHR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61-0.99; P = .04) were associated with greater overall survival. Higher Elixhauser comorbidity index scores (estimate, 0.006; 95% CI, 0.003-0.008), complications (estimate, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.17-0.27), readmissions (estimate, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.29-0.39), and longer lengths of stay (estimate, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.03-0.04) were associated with higher costs (P < .001), whereas postoperative chemotherapy was associated with lower costs (estimate, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.11 to -0.02; P = .006). National Cancer Institute-designated and high-volume centers were not associated with costs. Although grades III and IV tumors (odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.39-0.91; P = .001), T3 category disease (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.46-0.95; P = .005), complications (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.86; P < .001), readmissions (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.44-0.84; P < .001), and length of stay (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.78-0.85; P < .001) were inversely associated with high-value care, NCI designation (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.66-1.49; P = .74) and high-volume centers (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.54-1.61; P = .07) were not. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, high-value care was associated with important patient characteristics and postoperative outcomes. However, NCI-designated and high-volume centers were not associated with greater value. These data suggest that targeted measures to enhance value may be needed in these centers.