Private Equity Investment in Surgical Care.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the extent of private equity investment affecting surgical care. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Over the last decade, investor-backed, for-profit private equity groups have invested in healthcare at an unprecedented rate, but the breadth of these investments affecting surgical practice remains largely unknown. METHODS: Four nationally representative databases were used to identify all merger/acquisitions involving surgical practices between 2015-2019, determine private equity investment in those transactions, and link the acquisitions with a physician dataset. RESULTS: 1,542 unique transactions were identified, of which 539 were financed by private equity. 58 transactions were then classified into their respective categories within surgical care: digestive disease, orthopedics, urology, vascular surgery, and plastic/cosmetic surgery. These transactions accounted for 199 practice sites and 1,405 physicians, averaging 24.2 physicians per transaction. Acquisition activity peaked in 2017 with a total of 63 practices involved. Digestive disease, urology, and orthopedic surgery accounted for the most activity. General surgeons were involved in a small share of the digestive disease practice acquisitions. Three "surgery-adjacent" categories were also identified: anesthesiology, ambulatory surgery centers, and surgical staffing firms. Among these, anesthesia was the largest category in terms of practices (194) and physicians (2,660) involved in transactions across the study period. Medical Service Organizations (MSOs) were a key mechanism through which private equity firms invested in surgical care. CONCLUSIONS: Private equity has engaged in substantial investment within surgical specialties, creating increased practice consolidation. These investments affect all levels of medical care and have notable implications for patients, practitioners, and policymakers.

Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Efficacy Across 3 Common Operations.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate associations between hospital participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) and 30-day total episode and post-acute care spending for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), and colec-tomy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: BPCI has been shown to reduce spending for LEJR episodes largely from reductions in post-acute care. However, BPCI efficacy in other common elective procedures, including CABG and colec-tomy, remains unclear. It is also unknown whether post-acute care spending reductions drive total spending reductions outside of LEJR. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using 100% Medicare claims data to identify BPCI (312 total) and non-BPCI (1,977 total) acute care hospitals from January 1, 2010 to November 30, 2016 with Medicare-enrolled patient discharges for at least one of the following BPCI episodes: LEJR (454,369 episodes), CABG (107,307 episodes), or colectomy (73,717 episodes). Along with difference-in-differences (DiD) analysis, we constructed generalized synthetic controls in the presence of nonparallel trends to estimate associations between BPCI participation and 30-day total and post-acute care spending. RESULTS: DiD estimates indicated reduced spending for LEJR (-$541.6 [95% confidence interval (CI): -718.0 to -365.3]) and colectomy (-$582.1 [95% CI: -927.3 to -236.8]) but not CABG (-$268.9 [95% CI: -831.5 to 293.7]). Generalized synthetic control estimates indicated reduced spending for LEJR (-$795.3 [95% CI: -10,22.1 to -582.2]) but not colectomy (-$251.3 [95% CI: -997.9 to 335.2]) or CABG (-$257.8 [95% CI: -10,24.6 to 414.8]).Post-acute care comprised 42.6% of LEJR spending reductions and 53.0% of colectomy spending reductions. CONCLUSIONS: BPCI participation was associated with significant spending reductions for LEJR and colectomy but not CABG. We conclude that BPCI has episode-dependent efficacy, largely determined by post-acute care.

Out-of-pocket Costs for Commercially-insured Patients in the Years Following Bariatric Surgery: Sleeve Gastrectomy Versus Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass.

OBJECTIVE: To compare out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for patients up to 3 years after bariatric surgery in a large, commercially-insured population. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: More information on OOP costs following bariatric surgery may affect patients' procedure choice. METHODS: Retrospective study using the IBM MarketScan commercial claims database, representing patients nationally who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2017. We compared total OOP costs after the surgical episode between the 2 procedures using difference-in-differences analysis adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, operative year, and insurance type. RESULTS: Of 63,674 patients, 64% underwent SG and 36% underwent RYGB. Adjusted OOP costs after SG were $1083, $1236, and $1266 postoperative years 1, 2, and 3. For RYGB, adjusted OOP costs were $1228, $1377, and $1369. In our primary analysis, SG OOP costs were $122 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -$155 to -$90) less than RYGB year 1. This difference remained consistent at -$119 (95%CI: -$158 to -$79) year 2 and -$80 (95%CI: -$127 to -$35) year 3. These amounts were equivalent to relative differences of -7%, -7%, and -5% years 1, 2, and 3. Plan features contributing the most to differences were co-insurance years 1, 2, and 3.The largest clinical contributors to differences were endoscopy and outpatient care year 1, outpatient care year 2, and emergency department use year 3. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to examine the association between bariatric surgery procedure and OOP costs. Differences between procedures were approximately $100 per year which may be an important factor for some patients deciding whether to pursue SG or gastric bypass.

Surgical Leadership Competencies for Navigating Hospital Network Expansion.

INTRODUCTION: Today, many hospitals are part of a multihospital network, which changes the context in which surgeons are asked to lead. This study explores key leadership competencies that surgical leaders use to navigate this hospital network expansion. METHODS: In this qualitative study, 30 surgical leaders were interviewed. Interviews were coded and analyzed via thematic analysis. RESULTS: We identified three key competencies that leaders felt were important leadership skills to successfully navigate expanding hospital networks. First, leaders must steer the departmental vision within the evolving hospital network landscape. Second, leaders must align the visions of the department and of the hospital network. Third, leaders must build a network-oriented culture within their department. CONCLUSIONS: As networks expand, leaders are tasked with unifying vision in their department. Leaders identified a unique opportunity to leverage their growing influence across the hospital network and invested in the people and culture of their department.

Challenges and Opportunities for the Academic Mission Within Expanding Health Systems: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore challenges and opportunities for surgery departments' academic missions as they become increasingly affiliated with expanding health systems. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Academic medicine is in the midst of unprecedented change. In addition to facing intense competition, narrower margins, and decreased federal funding, medical schools are becoming increasingly involved with large, expanding health systems. The impact of these health system affiliations on surgical departments' academic missions is unknown. METHODS: Semistructured interviews with 30 surgical leaders at teaching hospitals affiliated with health systems from August - December 2019. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded in an iterative process using MaxQDA software. The topic of challenges and opportunities for the academic mission was an emergent theme, analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Academic health systems typically expanded to support their business goals, rather than their academic mission. Changes in governance sometimes disempowered departmental leadership, shifted traditional compensation models, redirected research programs, and led to cultural conflict. However, at many institutions, health system growth cross-subsidized surgical departments' research and training missions, expanded their clinical footprint, enabled them to improve standards of care, and enhanced opportunities for researchers and trainees. CONCLUSIONS: Although health system expansion generally intended to advance business goals, the accompanying academic and clinical opportunities were not always fully captured. Alignment between medical school and health system goals enabled some surgical department leaders to take advantage of their health systems' reach and resources to support their academic missions.

Relationship Between Health Care Spending and Clinical Outcomes in Bariatric Surgery: Implications for Medicare Bundled Payments.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate sources of 90-day episode spending variation in Medicare patients undergoing bariatric surgery and whether spending variation was related to quality of care. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Medicare's bundled payments for care improvement-advanced program includes the first large-scale episodic bundling program for bariatric surgery. This voluntary program will pay bariatric programs a bonus if 90-day spending after surgery falls below a predetermined target. It is unclear what share of bariatric episode spending may be due to unnecessary variation and thus modifiable through care improvement. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of fee-for-service Medicare claims data from 761 acute care hospitals providing inpatient bariatric surgery between January 1, 2011 and September 30, 2016. We measured associations between patient and hospital factors, clinical outcomes, and total Medicare spending for the 90-day bariatric surgery episode using multivariable regression models. RESULTS: Of 64,537 patients, 46% underwent sleeve gastrectomy, 22% revisited the emergency department (ED) within 90 days, and 12.5% were readmitted. Average 90-day episode payments were $14,124, ranging from $12,220 at the lowest-spending quintile of hospitals to $16,887 at the highest-spending quintile. After risk adjustment, 90-day episode spending was $11,447 at the lowest quintile versus $15,380 at the highest quintile (difference $3932, P < 0.001). The largest components of spending variation were readmissions (44% of variation, or $2043 per episode), post-acute care (19% or $871), and index professional fees (15% or $450). The lowest spending hospitals had the lowest complication, ED visit, post-acute utilization, and readmission rates (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this retrospective analysis of Medicare patients undergoing bariatric surgery, the largest components of 90-day episode spending variation are readmissions, inpatient professional fees, and post-acute care utilization. Hospitals with lower spending were associated with lower rates of complications, ED visits, post-acute utilization, and readmissions. Incentives for improving outcomes and reducing spending seem to be well-aligned in Medicare's bundled payment initiative for bariatric surgery.

Bariatric Surgery in Medicare Patients: Examining Safety and Healthcare Utilization in the Disabled and Elderly.

OBJECTIVE: To compare safety and healthcare utilization after sleeve gastrectomy versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in a national Medicare cohort. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Though bariatric surgery is increasing among Medicare beneficiaries, no long-term, national studies examining comparative effectiveness between procedures exist. Bariatric outcomes are needed for shared decision-making and coverage policy concerns identified by the cMS Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee. METHODS: Retrospective instrumental variable analysis of Medicare claims (2012-2017) for 30,105 bariatric surgery patients entitled due to disability or age. We examined clinical safety outcomes (mortality, complications, and reinterventions), healthcare utilization [Emergency Department (ED) visits, rehospitalizations, and expenditures], and heterogeneity of treatment effect. We compared all outcomes between sleeve and bypass for each entitlement group at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years. RESULTS: Among the disabled (n = 21,595), sleeve was associated with lower 3-year mortality [2.1% vs 3.2%, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.2% to -0.03%], complications (22.2% vs 27.7%, ARR 95%CI: -8.5% to -2.6%), reinterventions (20.1% vs 27.7%, ARR 95%CI: -10.7% to -4.6%), ED utilization (71.6% vs 77.1%, ARR 95%CI: -8.5% to -2.4%), and rehospitalizations (47.4% vs 52.3%, ARR 95%Ci: -8.0% to -1.7%). Cumulative expenditures were $46,277 after sleeve and $48,211 after bypass (P = 0.22). Among the elderly (n = 8510), sleeve was associated with lower 3-year complications (20.1% vs 24.7%, ARR 95%CI: -7.6% to -1.7%), reinterventions (14.0% vs 21.9%, ARR 95%CI: -10.7% to -5.2%), ED utilization (51.7% vs 57.2%, ARR 95%CI: -9.1% to -1.9%), and rehospitalizations (41.8% vs 45.8%, ARR 95%Ci: -7.5% to -0.5%). Expenditures were $38,632 after sleeve and $39,270 after bypass (P = 0.60). Procedure treatment effect significantly differed by entitlement for mortality, revision, and paraesophageal hernia repair. CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery is safe, and healthcare utilization benefits of sleeve over bypass are preserved across both Medicare elderly and disabled subpopulations.

Comparative Safety of Sleeve Gastrectomy and Gastric Bypass: An Instrumental Variables Approach.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety of sleeve gastrectomy and gastric bypass in a large cohort of commercially insured bariatric surgery patients from the IBM MarketScan claims database, while accounting for measurable and unmeasurable sources of selection bias in who is chosen for each operation. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Sleeve gastrectomy has rapidly become the most common bariatric operation performed in the United States, but its longer-term safety is poorly described, and the risk of worsening gastroesophageal reflux requiring revision may be higher than previously thought. Prior studies comparing sleeve gastrectomy to gastric bypass are limited by low sample size (in randomized trials) and selection bias (in observational studies). METHODS: Instrumental variables analysis of commercially insured patients in the IBM MarketScan claims database from 2011 to 2018. We studied patients undergoing bariatric surgery from 2012 to 2016. We identified re-interventions and complications at 30 days and 2 years from surgery using Comprehensive Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Disease (ICD)-9/10 codes. To overcome unmeasured confounding, we use the prior year's sleeve gastrectomy utilization within each state as an instrumental variable-exploiting variation in the timing of payers' decisions to cover sleeve gastrectomy as a natural experiment. RESULTS: Among 38,153 patients who underwent bariatric surgery between 2012 and 2016, the share of sleeve gastrectomy rose from 52.6% (2012) to 75% (2016). At 2 years from surgery, patients undergoing sleeve gastrectomy had fewer re-interventions (sleeve 9.9%, bypass 15.6%, P < 0.001) and complications (sleeve 6.6%, bypass 9.6%, P = 0.001), and lower overall healthcare spending ($47,891 vs $55,213, P = 0.003), than patients undergoing gastric bypass. However, at the 2-year mark, revisions were slightly more common in sleeve gastrectomy than in gastric bypass (sleeve 0.6%, bypass 0.4%, P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In a large cohort of commercially insured patients, sleeve gastrectomy had a superior safety profile to gastric bypass up to 2 years from surgery, even when accounting for selection bias. However, the higher risk of revisions in sleeve gastrectomy merits further exploration.

Variation in pre-operative insurance requirements for bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: For patients who wish to undergo bariatric surgery, variation in pre-operative insurance requirements may represent inequity across insurance plan types. We conducted a cross-sectional assessment of the variation in pre-operative insurance requirements. METHODS: Original insurance policy documents for pre-operative requirements were obtained from bariatric surgery programs across the entire USA and online insurance portals. Insurance programs analyzed include commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare/TriCare plans. Poisson regression adjusting for U.S. Census region was used to evaluate variation in pre-operative requirements. Analyses were done at the insurance plan level. Our primary outcome was number of requirements required by each plan by insurance type. Our secondary outcome was number of months required to participate in medically supervised weight loss (MSWL). RESULTS: Among 43 insurance plans reviewed, representing commercial (60.5%), Medicaid (25.6%), and Medicare/TriCare (14.0%) plans, the number of pre-operative requirements ranged from 1 to 8. Adjusted Poisson regression showed significant variation in pre-operative requirements across plan types with Medicaid-insured patients required to fulfill the greatest number (4.1, 95%CI 2.7 to 5.4) compared to 2.7 (95%CI 2.2 to 3.2, P = 0.028) for commercially insured patients and 2.1 (95%CI 1.1 to 3.1, P = 0.047) for Medicare/TriCare-insured patients. Medicaid-insured patients were also required to complete a greater number of months in MSWL (6.6, 95%CI 5.5 to 7.6) compared to commercially (3.8, 95%CI 2.9 to 4.8, P < .001) and Medicare/TriCare-insured patients (1.7, 95%CI 0.3 to 3.0, P = .001). CONCLUSION: The greater frequency of pre-operative requirements in Medicaid plans compared to Medicare/TriCare and commercial plans demonstrates inequity across insurance types which may negatively impact access to bariatric surgery. Pre-operative insurance requirements must be reevaluated and standardized using established evidence to ensure all individuals have access to this life-saving intervention.

Volume-outcome relationships for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass patients in the sleeve gastrectomy era.

BACKGROUND: Sleeve gastrectomy is now the most common bariatric operation performed. With lower volumes of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), it is unclear whether decreasing surgeon experience has led to worsening outcomes for this procedure. METHODS: We used State Inpatient Databases from Florida, Iowa, New York, and Washington. Bariatric surgeons were designated as those who performed ten or more bariatric procedures yearly. Patients who had RYGB were included in our analysis. Using multi-level logistic regression, we examined whether surgeon average yearly RYGB volume was associated with RYGB patient 30-day complications, reoperations, and readmissions and 1-year revisions and readmissions. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2017 there were 27,714 patients who underwent laparoscopic RYGB by 311 surgeons. Median surgeon volume was 77 RYGBs per year. The distribution was 10 bypasses yearly at the 5th percentile, 16 bypasses at the 10th percentile, 38 bypasses at the 25th percentile, and 133 bypasses at the 75th percentile. Multi-level regression revealed that patients of surgeons with lower RYGB volumes had small but statistically significant increased risks of 30-day complications and 1-year readmissions. At 30 days, risk for any complication was 6.71%, 6.43%, and 5.55% at 10, 38, and 133 bypasses per year, respectively (p = 0.01). Risk for readmission at 1 year was 13.90%, 13.67%, and 12.90% at 10, 38, and 133 bypasses per year, respectively (p = 0.099). Of note, volume associations with complications and reoperations due to hemorrhage and leak were not statistically significant. There was also no significant association with revisions. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to examine the association of surgeon RYGB volume with patient outcomes as the national experience with RYGB diminishes. Overall, surgeon RYGB volume does not appear to have a large effect on patient outcomes. Thus, patients can safely pursue RYGB in this early phase of the sleeve gastrectomy era.

Comparison of safety and efficacy of convalescent plasma with fresh frozen plasma in severe covid-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Role of Convalescent plasma (COPLA) to treat severe COVID-19 is under investigation. We compared efficacy and safety of COPLA with fresh frozen plasma (FFP) in severe COVID-19 patients. METHODS: One group received COPLA with standard medical care (n = 14), and another group received random donor FFP, as control with standard medical care (n = 15) in severe COVID-19 disease. RESULTS: The proportion of patients free of ventilation at day seven were 78.5% in COPLA group, and 93.3 % in control group were not significant (p= 0.258). However, improved respiratory rate, O2 saturation, SOFA score, and Ct value were observed in the COPLA group. No serious adverse events were noticed by plasma transfusion in both groups.

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.

The Role of Commercial Health Insurance Characteristics in Bariatric Surgery Utilization.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to understand relationships among insurance plan type, out-of-pocket cost sharing, and the utilization of bariatric surgery among commercially insured patients. BACKGROUND: Only 1% of eligible persons undergo bariatric operations, and this underutilization is often attributed to lack of insurance coverage. But even among the insured, underinsurance is now recognized as a major barrier to accessing medical care. The relationships among commercial insurance design, out-of-pocket cost sharing, and elective surgery utilization, particularly in bariatrics, are not well understood. METHODS: Retrospective review of 73,002 commercially insured members of the IBM MarketScan commercial claims database who underwent bariatric surgery from 2014 to 2017. The exposure variables were insurance plan type and out-of-pocket cost sharing. The outcome was utilization of bariatric surgery. We also examined seasonal trends in bariatric surgery utilization stratified by average levels of cost sharing. RESULTS: Utilization of bariatric surgery was higher in plans with lower cost sharing, such as PPOs (20 operations/100,000 enrollees) than in HDHPs (high-deductible health plans, 12.1 operations/100,000 enrollees). Overall, every $1000 increase in cost sharing was associated with 5 fewer bariatric operations per 100,000 insured lives; this association was strongest in plans with high cost sharing (high-deductible and consumer-directed health plans). Members of all plan types had higher surgical utilization in quarter 4 relative to quarter 1 of each year; these seasonal variations were also most pronounced in plans with high cost sharing. CONCLUSIONS: Insurance plan types with higher cost sharing have lower utilization of bariatric surgery. Underinsurance may represent a newly identified barrier to surgical care that should be addressed by advocates and policymakers.

Wide Variation in Surgical Spending Within Hospital Systems: A Missed Opportunity for Bundled Payment Success.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to measure the extent of variation in episode spending around total hip replacement within and across hospital systems. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Bundled payment programs are pressuring hospitals to reduce spending on surgery. Meanwhile, many hospitals are joining larger health systems with the stated goal of improved care at lower cost. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of fee-for-service Medicare patients undergoing total hip replacement in 2016 at hospital systems identified in the American Hospital Association Annual Survey. We calculated risk- and reliability-adjusted average 30-day episode payments at the hospital and system level. RESULTS: Average episode payments varied nearly as much within hospital systems ($2515 between the lowest- and highest-cost hospitals, 95% confidence interval $2272-$2,758) as they did between the lowest- and highest-cost quintiles of systems ($2712, 95% confidence interval $2545-$2879). Variation was driven by post-acute care utilization. Many systems have concentrated hip replacement volume at relatively high-cost hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Given the wide variation in surgical spending within health systems, we propose tailored strategies for systems to maximize savings in bundled payment programs.

In the eye of the beholder: surgeon variation in intra-operative perceptions of hiatal hernia and reflux outcomes after sleeve gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND: Hiatal hernia repair performed at the time of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) may reduce post-operative reflux symptoms. It is unclear whether intra-operative diagnosis of hiatal hernia varies among surgeons or if it affects outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Surgeons (n = 38) participating in a statewide bariatric surgery quality improvement collaborative reviewed 33 videos of LSG in which no hiatal hernia repair was performed. Reviewers were blinded to patient information and were asked whether they perceived a hiatal hernia. Surgeon characteristics and surgeon-specific patient outcomes for LSG were compared between surgeons who identified at least one hiatal hernia during video review and those who did not. RESULTS: Ten surgeons (26%) identified at least one hiatal hernia after reviewing the videos. There were no significant differences in operative experience or practice type between surgeons who did and did not identify hiatal hernias. Surgeons who identified a hiatal hernia more often performed concurrent hiatal hernia repair in their practice when compared to those who did not (43.0% versus 36.5%, p < 0.001). Although complication rates were similar between surgeon groups, there were higher rates of de novo reflux symptoms (13.6% versus 11.1%, p = 0.032) and lower rates of antacid discontinuation at one-year (71.0% versus 77.2%, p = 0.043) among surgeons who identified hiatal hernias. CONCLUSION: Surgeons who identified hiatal hernias during video review had a higher rate of concurrent hiatal hernia repairs in their practice. This was not associated with improved patient-reported reflux symptoms after LSG. Standardizing identification and management of hiatal hernias during bariatric surgery may help improve reflux outcomes post-operatively.

Out-of-Network Bills for Privately Insured Patients Undergoing Elective Surgery With In-Network Primary Surgeons and Facilities.

Importance: Privately insured patients who receive care from in-network physicians may receive unexpected out-of-network bills ("surprise bills") from out-of-network clinicians they did not choose. In elective surgery, this can occur if patients choose in-network surgeons and hospitals but receive out-of-network bills from other involved clinicians. Objective: To evaluate out-of-network billing across common elective operations performed with in-network primary surgeons and facilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective analysis of claims data from a large US commercial insurer, representing 347 356 patients who had undergone 1 of 7 common elective operations (arthroscopic meniscal repair [116 749]; laparoscopic cholecystectomy [82 372]; hysterectomy [67 452]; total knee replacement [42 313]; breast lumpectomy [18 018]; colectomy [14 074]; coronary artery bypass graft surgery [6378]) by an in-network primary surgeon at an in-network facility between January 1, 2012, and September 30, 2017. Follow-up ended November 8, 2017. Exposure: Patient, clinician, and insurance factors potentially related to out-of-network bills. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of episodes with out-of-network bills. The secondary outcome was the estimated potential balance bill associated with out-of-network bills from each surgical procedure, calculated as total out-of-network charges less the typical in-network price for the same service. Results: Among 347 356 patients (mean age, 48 [SD, 11] years; 66% women) who underwent surgery with in-network primary surgeons and facilities, 20.5% of episodes (95% CI, 19.4%-21.7%) had an out-of-network bill. In these episodes, the mean potential balance bill per episode was $2011 (95% CI, $1866-$2157) when present. Out-of-network bills were associated with surgical assistants in 37% of these episodes; when present, the mean potential balance bill was $3633 (95% CI, $3384-$3883). Out-of-network bills were associated with anesthesiologists in 37% of episodes; when present, the mean potential balance bill was $1219 (95% CI, $1049-$1388). Membership in health insurance exchange plans, compared with nonexchange plans, was associated with a significantly higher risk of out-of-network bills (27% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 6% [95% CI, 3.9%-8.9%]; P < .001). Surgical complications were associated with a significantly higher risk of out-of-network bills, compared with episodes with no complications (28% vs 20%, respectively; risk difference, 7% [95% CI, 5.8%-8.8%]; P < .001). Among 83 021 procedures performed at ambulatory surgery centers with in-network primary surgeons, 6.7% (95% CI, 5.8%-7.7%) included an out-of-network facility bill and 17.2% (95% CI, 15.7%-18.8%) included an out-of-network professional bill. Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective analysis of commercially insured patients who had undergone elective surgery at in-network facilities with in-network primary surgeons, a substantial proportion of operations were associated with out-of-network bills.

Who Will be the Costliest Patients? Using Recent Claims to Predict Expensive Surgical Episodes.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery accounts for almost half of inpatient spending, much of which is concentrated in a subset of high-cost patients. To study the effects of surgeon and hospital characteristics on surgical expenditures, a way to adjust for patient characteristics is essential. DESIGN: Using 100% Medicare claims data, we identified patients aged 66-99 undergoing elective inpatient surgery (coronary artery bypass grafting, colectomy, and total hip/knee replacement) in 2014. We calculated price-standardized Medicare payments for the surgical episode from admission through 30 days after discharge (episode payments). On the basis of predictor variables from 2013, that is, Elixhauser comorbidities, hierarchical condition categories, Medicare's Chronic Conditions Warehouse (CCW), and total spending, we constructed models to predict the costs of surgical episodes in 2014. RESULTS: All sources of comorbidity data performed well in predicting the costliest cases (Spearman correlation 0.86-0.98). Models on the basis of hierarchical condition categories had slightly superior performance. The costliest quintile of patients as predicted by the model captured 35%-45% of the patients in each procedure's actual costliest quintile. For example, in hip replacement, 44% of the costliest quintile was predicted by the model's costliest quintile. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of surgical spending can be predicted using patient factors on the basis of readily available claims data. By adjusting for patient factors, this will facilitate future research on unwarranted variation in episode payments driven by surgeons, hospitals, or other market forces.