Cost-effectiveness of stereotactic body radiation therapy versus surgical resection for stage I non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The traditional treatment for clearly operable (CO) patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is lobectomy, with wedge resection (WR) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) serving as alternatives in marginally operable (MO) patients. Given an aging population with an increasing prevalence of screening, it is likely that progressively more people will be diagnosed with stage I NSCLC, and thus it is critical to compare the cost-effectiveness of these treatments. METHODS: A Markov model was created to compare the cost-effectiveness of SBRT with WR and lobectomy for MO and CO patients, respectively. Disease, treatment, and toxicity data were extracted from the literature and varied in sensitivity analyses. A payer (Medicare) perspective was used. RESULTS: In the base case, SBRT (MO cohort), SBRT (CO cohort), WR, and lobectomy were associated with mean cost and quality-adjusted life expectancies of $42,094/8.03, $40,107/8.21, $51,487/7.93, and $49,093/8.89, respectively. In MO patients, SBRT was the dominant and thus cost-effective strategy. This result was confirmed in most deterministic sensitivity analyses as well as probabilistic sensitivity analysis, in which SBRT was most likely cost-effective up to a willingness-to-pay of more than $500,000/quality-adjusted life year. For CO patients, lobectomy was the cost-effective treatment option in the base case (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $13,216/quality-adjusted life year) and in nearly every sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT was nearly always the most cost-effective treatment strategy for MO patients with stage I NSCLC. In contrast, for patients with CO disease, lobectomy was the most cost-effective option.

The financial impact of COVID-19 on a surgical department: The effects of surgical shutdowns and the impact on a health system.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in sweeping shutdowns of surgical operations to increase hospital capacity and conserve resources. Our institution, following national and state guidelines, suspended nonessential surgeries from March 16 to May 4, 2020. This study examines the financial impact of this decision on our institution's health system by comparing 2 waves of COVID-19 cases. METHODS: The total revenue was obtained for surgical cases occurring during the first wave of the pandemic between March 1, 2020 and July 31, 2020 and the second wave between October 1, 2020 and February 29, 2021 for all surgical departments. During the same time intervals, in the prepandemic year 2019, total revenue was also obtained for comparison. Net revenue and work relative value units per month were compared to each respective month for all surgical divisions within the department of surgery. RESULTS: Comparing the 5-month first wave period in 2020 to prepandemic 2019 for all surgical departments, there was a net revenue loss of $99,674,376, which reflected 42% of the health system's revenue loss during this period. The department of surgery contributed to a net revenue loss of $58,368,951, which was 24.9% of the health system's revenue loss. Within the department of surgery, there was a significant difference between the net revenue loss per month per division of the first and second wave: first wave median -$636,952 [interquartile range: -1,432,627; 26,111] and second wave median -$274,626 [-781,124; 396,570] (P = .04). A similar difference was detected when comparing percent change in work relative value units between the 2 waves (wave 1: median -13.2% [interquartile range: -41.3%, -1.8%], wave 2: median -7.8% [interquartile range: -13.0%, 1.8%], P = .003). CONCLUSION: Stopping elective surgeries significantly decreased revenue for a health system. Losses for the health system totaled $234,839,990 during the first wave, with lost surgical revenue comprising 42% of that amount. With elective surgeries continuing during the second wave of COVID-19 cases, the health system losses were substantially lower. The contribution surgery has to a hospital's cash flow is essential in maintaining financial solvency. It is important for hospital systems to develop innovative and alternative solutions to increase capacity, offer comprehensive care to medical and surgical patients, and prevent shutdowns of surgical activity through a pandemic to maintain financial security.

Palliative Care Consultation for Goals of Care and Future Acute Care Costs: A Propensity-Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals are under increasing pressure to manage costs across multiple episodes of care. Most studies of the financial impact of palliative care have focused on costs during a single hospitalization. OBJECTIVE: To compare future acute health-care costs and utilization between patients who received inpatient palliative care consultation for goals of care (Palliative Care Service [PCS]) and a propensity-matched cohort of patients who did not receive palliative care consultation (non-PCS) in a single academic medical center. METHODS: Data were extracted from the hospital's electronic records for admissions and discharges between July 2014 and October 2016. A stratified propensity score matching was used to account for nonrandom assignment and potential inherent differences between PCS and non-PCS groups using variables of theoretical interest: age, gender, race, diagnosis, risk of mortality, and prior acute care costs. RESULTS: The analytical sample for this study included 41 363 patients (PCS = 1853; non-PCS = 39 510). Future acute care costs were significantly higher in the non-PCS group after propensity score matching (highest tier = US$15 654 vs US$8831; second highest tier = US$12 200 vs US$5496; P = .0001). The non-PCS group also had significantly higher future acute care utilization across all propensity tiers and outcomes including 30-day readmission ( P = .0001), number of future hospital days ( P = .0001), and number of future intensive care unit days ( P = .0001). CONCLUSION: Palliative care consultations for goals of care may decrease future health-care utilization with cost savings that persist into future hospitalizations.

Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery is associated with equivalent cost and shorter hospital stay when compared with traditional sternotomy.

OBJECTIVE: Mitral valve surgery is increasingly performed through minimally invasive approaches. There are limited data regarding the cost of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery. Moreover, there are no data on the specific costs associated with mitral valve surgery. We undertook this study to compare the costs (total and subcomponent) of minimally invasive mitral valve surgery relative to traditional sternotomy. METHODS: All isolated mitral valve repairs performed in our health system from March 2012 through September 2013 were analyzed. To ensure like sets of patients, only those patients who underwent isolated mitral valve repairs with preoperative Society of Thoracic Surgeons scores of less than 4 were included in this study. A total of 159 patients were identified (sternotomy, 68; mini, 91). Total incurred direct cost was obtained from hospital financial records. RESULTS: Analysis demonstrated no difference in total cost (operative and postoperative) of mitral valve repair between mini and sternotomy ($25,515 ± $7598 vs $26,049 ± $11,737; P = .74). Operative costs were higher for the mini cohort, whereas postoperative costs were significantly lower. Postoperative intensive care unit and total hospital stays were both significantly shorter for the mini cohort. There were no differences in postoperative complications or survival between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery can be performed with overall equivalent cost and shorter hospital stay relative to traditional sternotomy. There is greater operative cost associated with minimally invasive mitral valve surgery that is offset by shorter intensive care unit and hospital stays.