Can postoperative process of care utilization or complication rates explain the volume-cost relationship for cancer surgery?

A Comparison of Clinical and Cost Outcomes After Pancreatectomies at a Safety-net Hospital using a National Registry

BACKGROUND

Our institution (UFHJ) meets the criteria of both a large, specialized medical center (LSCMC) and a safety-net hospital (AEH). Our aim is to compare pancreatectomy outcomes at UFHJ against other LSCMCs, AEHs, and against institutions that meet criteria for both LSCMC and AEH. In addition, we sought to evaluate differences between LSCMCs and AEHs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Pancreatectomies for pancreatic cancer were queried from the Vizient Clinical Data Base (2018 to 2020). Clinical and cost outcomes were compared between UFHJ and LSCMCs, AEHs, and a combined group, respectively. Indices >1 indicated the observed value was greater than the expected national benchmark value.

RESULTS

The mean number of pancreatectomy cases performed per institution in the LSCMC group was 12.15, 11.73, and 14.31 in 2018, 2019, and 2020, respectively. At AEHs, 25.33, 24.56, and 26.37 mean cases per institution per year, respectively. In the combined group of both LSCMCs and AEHs, 8.10, 7.60, and 7.22 mean cases, respectively. At UFHJ, 17, 34, and 39 cases were performed each year, respectively. Length of stay index decreased below national benchmarks at UFHJ (1.08 to 0.82), LSCMCs (0.91 to 0.85), and AEHs (0.94 to 0.93), with an increasing case mix index at UFHJ (3.33 to 4.20) from 2018 to 2020. In contrast, length of stay index increased in the combined group (1.14 to 1.18) and overall was the lowest at LSCMCs (0.89). Mortality index declined at UFHJ (5.07 to 0.00) below national benchmarks compared with LSCMCs (1.23 to 1.29), AEHs (1.19 to 1.45), and the combined group (1.92 to 1.99), and was significantly different between all groups ( P <0.001). Thirty-day re-admissions were lower at UFHJ (6.25% to 10.26%) compared with LSCMCs (17.62% to 16.83%) and AEHs (18.93% to 15.51%), and significantly lower at AEHs compared with LSCMCs ( P <0.001). Notably, 30-day re-admissions were lower at AEHs compared with LSCMCs ( P <0.001) and declined over time and were the lowest in the combined group in 2020 (17.72% to 9.52%). Direct cost index at UFHJ declined (1.00 to 0.67) below the benchmark compared with LSCMCs (0.90 to 0.93), AEHs (1.02 to 1.04), and the combined group (1.02 to 1.10). When comparing LSCMCs and AEHs, there were no significant differences between direct cost percentages ( P =0.56); however, the direct cost index was significantly lower at LSCMCs.

CONCLUSION

Pancreatectomy outcomes at our institution have improved over time exceeding national benchmarks and often were significant to LSCMCs, AEHs, and a combined comparator group. In addition, AEHs were able to maintain good quality care when compared with LSCMCs. This study highlights the role that safety-net hospitals can provide high-quality care to a medically vulnerable patient population in the presence of high-case volume.

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.

Variation in resource utilization associated with the surgical management of ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

Identify the major factors that drive standardized cost in providing surgical care for women with ovarian cancer, characterize the magnitude of variation in resource utilization between centers, and to investigate the relationship between resource utilization and quality of care provided.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of hospitals across the United States reporting to the Premier Database who cared for patients with ovarian cancer diagnosed between 2007 and 2014. The primary outcome was standardized total cost of the index hospitalization. To assess the relationship between hospital standardized costs and patient outcomes, we identified four measures of quality: 1) complications, 2) re-operation, 3) length of stay > 15 days, and 4) unplanned readmission.

RESULTS

The study population included 15,857 patients treated at 226 hospitals. The median standardized cost for hospitalizations was $13,267 (IQR = $3342). Reoperation was associated with 49% increase (95% CI = 43%-56%), and having minor complication was associated with 10% (95% CI = 8%-12%) increase in standardized cost, a moderate complication was associated with 36% (95% CI = 33%-38%) increase, and a major complication was associated with 83% (95% CI = 76%-89%) increase. The average risk-adjusted hospital standardized costs for hospitals in the highest resource use quartiles was 56% higher than the average hospital costs for hospitals in the lowest quartile ($10,826 vs. $16,933). The largest variation was in operating room standardized cost (45.5% of the total variation in operating room cost is explained by differences in hospital practices) and supplies (41.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

We identified significant variation in standardized costs among women who underwent surgery for ovarian cancer, operating room and supply costs are the largest drivers of variation.

Drivers of Cost for Pancreatic Surgery: It's Not About Hospital Volume

BACKGROUND

Outcomes for pancreatic resection have been studied extensively due to the high morbidity and mortality rates, with high-volume centers achieving superior outcomes. Ongoing investigations include healthcare costs, given the national focus on reducing expenditures. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the relationships between pancreatic surgery costs with perioperative outcomes and volume status.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 27,653 patients who underwent elective pancreatic resections from October 2013 to June 2017 using the Vizient database. Costs were calculated from charges using cost-charge ratios and adjusted for geographic variation. Generalized linear modeling adjusting for demographic, clinical, and operation characteristics was performed to assess the relationships between cost and length of stay, complications, in-hospital mortality, readmissions, and hospital volume. High-volume centers were defined as hospitals performing ≥ 19 operations annually.

RESULTS

The unadjusted mean cost for pancreatic resection and corresponding hospitalization was $20,352. There were no differences in mean costs for pancreatectomies performed at high- and low-volume centers [- $1175, 95% confidence interval (CI) - $3254 to $904, p = 0.27]. In subgroup analysis comparing adjusted mean costs at high- and low-volume centers, there was no difference among patients without an adverse outcome (- $99, 95% CI - $1612 to 1414, p = 0.90), one or more adverse outcomes (- $1586, 95% CI - $4771 to 1599, p = 0.33), or one or more complications (- $2835, 95% CI - $7588 to 1919, p = 0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

While high-volume hospitals have fewer adverse outcomes, there is no relationship between surgical volume and costs, which suggests that, in itself, surgical volume is not an indicator of improved healthcare efficiency reflected by lower costs. Patient referral to high-volume centers may not reduce overall healthcare expenditures for pancreatic operations.

Regionalization and Its Alternatives

This article begins by introducing the historical background surrounding the volume-outcomes relationship literature, particularly in complex cancer surgery. The state of evidence surrounding mortality, as well as other outcomes, in relation to both hospital and surgeon procedure volume is synthesized. Where it is understood, the level of adoption of regionalization of various complex surgeries in the United States is also presented. Various controversies are weighed and discussed. Finally, various models of regionalization and proposed alternatives to regionalization from the peer-reviewed literature are presented.