Conceptual Considerations for Payment Bundling in Breast Reconstruction

Trends in Hospital Billing for Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Procedures from 2013 to 2020

BACKGROUND

 With greater acceptance of postmastectomy breast reconstruction (PMBR) as a safe and reliable treatment option, the role of plastic surgeons in breast cancer management continues to rise. As Medicare reimbursements for surgical procedures decline, hospitals may increase charges. Excessive markups can negatively affect uninsured and underinsured patients. We aimed to analyze mastectomy and breast reconstruction procedures to gain insights into recent trends in utilization and billing.

METHODS

 We queried the 2013 to 2020 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data with 14 Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes to collect service count numbers, hospital charges, and reimbursements. We calculated utilization (service counts per million female Medicare enrollees), weighted mean charges and reimbursements, and charge-to-reimbursement ratios (CRRs). We calculated total and annual percentage changes for the included CPT codes.

RESULTS

 Among the 14 CPT codes, 12 CPT codes (85.7%) with nonzero service counts were included. Utilization of mastectomy and breast reconstruction procedures decreased from 1,889 to 1,288 (-31.8%) procedures per million female Medicare beneficiaries from 2013 to 2020. While the utilization of immediate implant placements (CPT 19340) increased by 36.2%, the utilization of delayed implant placements (CPT 19342) decreased by 15.1%. Reimbursements for the included CPT codes changed minimally over time (-2.9%) but charges increased by 28.9%. These changes resulted in CRRs increasing from 3.3 to 4.4 (+33.3%) from 2013 to 2020. Free flap reconstructions (CPT 19364) had the highest CRRs throughout the study period, increasing from 7.0 in 2013 to 10.3 in 2020 (+47.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

 Our analysis of mastectomy and breast reconstruction procedures billed to Medicare Part B from 2013 to 2020 showed increasingly excessive procedural charges. Rises in hospital charges and CRRs may limit uninsured and underinsured patients from accessing necessary care for breast cancer management. Legislations that monitor hospital markups for PMBR procedures may be considered by policymakers.

A Multi-institutional Analysis of a Textbook Outcome Among Patients Undergoing Microvascular Breast Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Individual outcomes may not accurately reflect the quality of perioperative care. Textbook outcomes (TOs) are composite metrics that provide a comprehensive evaluation of hospital performance and surgical quality. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and predictors of TOs in a multi-institutional cohort of patients who underwent breast reconstruction with deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flaps.

METHODS

For autologous reconstruction, a TO was previously defined as a procedure without intraoperative complications, reoperation, infection requiring intravenous antibiotics, readmission, mortality, systemic complications, operative duration ≤12 hours for bilateral and ≤10 hours for unilateral/stacked reconstruction, and length of stay (LOS) ≤5 days. We investigated associations between patient-level factors and achieving a TO using multivariable regression analysis.

RESULTS

Of 1000 patients, most (73.2%) met a TO. The most common reasons for deviation from a TO were reoperation (9.6%), prolonged operative time (9.5%), and prolonged LOS (9.2%). On univariate analysis, tobacco use, obesity, widowed/divorced marital status, and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy or bilateral reconstruction were associated with a lower likelihood of TOs (P < 0.05). After adjustment, bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (odds ratio [OR], 5.71; P = 0.029) and hormonal therapy (OR, 1.53; P = 0.050) were associated with a higher likelihood of TOs; higher body mass index (OR, 0.91; P = <0.001) was associated with a lower likelihood.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 30% of patients did not achieve a TO, and the likelihood of achieving a TO was influenced by patient and procedural factors. Future studies should investigate how this metric may be used to evaluate patient and hospital-level performance to improve the quality of care in reconstructive surgery.

Health Care Value in Plastic Surgery Practice

SUMMARY

As value-based care gains traction in response to towering health care expenditures and issues of health care inequity, hospital capacity, and labor shortages, it is important to consider how a value-based approach can be achieved in plastic surgery. Value is defined as outcomes divided by costs across entire cycles of care. Drawing on previous studies and policies, this article identifies key opportunities in plastic surgery to move the levers of costs and outcomes to deliver higher value care. Specifically, outcomes in plastic surgery should include conventional measures of complication rates and patient-reported outcome measures to drive quality improvement and benchmark payments. Meanwhile, cost reduction in plastic surgery can be achieved through value-based payment reform, efficient workflows, evidence-based and cost-conscious selection of medical devices, and greater use of outpatient surgical facilities. Lastly, the authors discuss how the diminished presence of third-party payers in aesthetic surgery exemplifies the cost-conscious and patient-centered nature of value-based plastic surgery. To lead in future health policy and care delivery reform, plastic surgeons should strive for high-value care, remain open to new ways of care delivery, and understand how plastic surgery fits into overall health care delivery.

Early Complications in Prepectoral Breast Reconstructions with and without Acellular Dermal Matrix: A Preliminary Analysis of Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Prepectoral tissue expander (TE) placement for two-stage postmastectomy reconstruction is usually performed in conjunction with insertion of acellular dermal matrix (ADM). However, the effects of ADM use on TE loss or other early complications remain unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare early postoperative complications in patients who underwent prepectoral breast implant reconstruction with or without ADM use.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients at their institution who underwent prepectoral breast reconstruction from January of 2018 to June of 2021. The primary outcome was TE loss within 90 days of surgery; secondary outcomes included other complications such as infection, TE exposure, mastectomy skin flap necrosis requiring revision, and seroma.

RESULTS

Data on 714 patients with 1225 TEs (1060 with ADM and 165 without) were analyzed. Baseline demographics did not differ by ADM use, although mastectomy breast tissue weight was higher in patients without ADM (750.3 g versus 540.8 g; P < 0.001). Rates of TE loss were similar in reconstructions with (3.8%) ADM and without (6.7%; P = 0.09). We also did not find differences in the rates of secondary outcomes between cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

ADM use had no statistically significant effect on early complication rates among patients undergoing breast reconstruction with prepectoral TEs. Still, this study was underpowered, and data trended toward statistical significance; thus, larger studies are required in the future. Additional research and randomized studies should focus on larger cohorts and examine long-term complications such as capsular contracture and implant malposition.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Patient Preferences for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction

Importance

Up to 40% of women experience dissatisfaction after breast reconstruction due to unexpected outcomes that are poorly aligned with personal preferences. Identifying what attributes patients value when considering surgery could improve shared decision-making. Adaptive choice-based conjoint (ACBC) analysis can elicit individual-level treatment preferences.

Objectives

To identify which attributes of breast reconstruction are most important to women considering surgery and to describe how these attributes differ by those who prefer flap vs implant reconstruction.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This web-based, cross-sectional study was conducted from March 1, 2022, to January 31, 2023, at Duke University and between June 1 and December 31, 2022, through the Love Research Army with ACBC analysis. Participants were 105 women at Duke University with a new diagnosis of or genetic predisposition to breast cancer who were considering mastectomy with reconstruction and 301 women with a history of breast cancer or a genetic predisposition as identified through the Love Research Army registry.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Relative importance scores, part-worth utility values, and maximum acceptable risks were estimated.

Results

Overall, 406 women (105 from Duke University [mean (SD) age, 46.3 (10.5) years] and 301 from the Love Research Army registry [mean (SD) age, 59.2 (11.9) years]) participated. The attribute considered most important was the risk of abdominal morbidity (mean [SD] relative importance [RI], 28% [11%]), followed by chance of major complications (RI, 25% [10%]), number of additional operations (RI, 23% [12%]), appearance of the breasts (RI, 13% [12%]), and recovery time (RI, 11% [7%]). Most participants (344 [85%]) preferred implant-based reconstruction; these participants cared most about abdominal morbidity (mean [SD] RI, 30% [11%]), followed by the risk of complications (mean [SD], RI, 26% [11%]) and additional operations (mean [SD] RI, 21% [12%]). In contrast, participants who preferred flap reconstruction cared most about additional operations (mean [SD] RI, 31% [15%]), appearance of the breasts (mean [SD] RI, 27% [16%]), and risk of complications (mean [SD] RI, 18% [6%]). Factors independently associated with choosing flap reconstruction included being married (odds ratio [OR], 2.30 [95% CI, 1.04-5.08]; P = .04) and higher educational level (college education; OR, 2.43 [95% CI, 1.01-5.86]; P = .048), while having an income level of greater than $75 000 was associated with a decreased likelihood of choosing the flap profile (OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.21-0.97]; P = .01). Respondents who preferred flap appearance were willing to accept a mean (SD) increase of 14.9% (2.2%) chance of abdominal morbidity (n = 113) or 6.4% (4.8%) chance of complications (n = 115).

Conclusions and Relevance

This study provides information on how women value different aspects of their care when making decisions for breast reconstruction. Future studies should assess how decision aids that elicit individual-level preferences can help tailor patient-physician discussions to focus preoperative counseling on factors that matter most to each patient and ultimately improve patient-centered care.

Decreasing length of stay in breast reconstruction patients: A national analysis of 2019-2020

BACKGROUND

The effects of COVID-19 on breast reconstruction included shifts toward alloplastic reconstruction methods to preserve hospital resources and minimize COVID exposures. We examined the effects of COVID-19 on breast reconstruction hospital length of stay (LOS) and subsequent early postoperative complication rates.

METHODS

Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, we examined female patients who underwent mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction from 2019 to 2020. We compared postoperative complications across 2019-2020 for alloplastic and autologous reconstruction patients. We further performed subanalysis of 2020 patients based on LOS.

RESULTS

Both alloplastic and autologous reconstruction patients had shorter inpatient stays. Regarding the alloplastic 2019 versus 2020 cohorts, complication rates did not differ (p > 0.05 in all cases). Alloplastic patients in 2020 with longer LOS had more unplanned reoperations (p < 0.001). Regarding autologous patients in 2019 versus 2020, the only complication increasing from 2019 to 2020 was deep surgical site infection (SSI) (2.0% vs. 3.6%, p = 0.024). Autologous patients in 2020 with longer LOS had more unplanned reoperations (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

In 2020, hospital LOS decreased for all breast reconstruction patients with no complication differences in alloplastic patients and a slight increase in SSIs in autologous patients. Shorter LOS may lead to improved satisfaction and lower healthcare costs with low complication risk, and future research should examine the potential relationship between LOS and these outcomes.

Mapping Patient Encounters in Breast Cancer Care: An Analysis of 8800 Clinical Encounters Among Patients Undergoing Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Transitions toward value-based systems require a comprehensive definition of the complexity and duration of provider effort required for a given diagnosis. This study modeled the numbers of clinical encounters involved in various treatment pathways among breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy.

METHODS

Clinical encounters with medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, breast surgeons, or plastic surgeons ≤4 years after diagnosis among all patients undergoing mastectomy from 2017 to 2018 were reviewed. Relative encounter volumes were modeled each 90-day period after diagnosis.

RESULTS

A total of 8807 breast cancer-related encounters from 221 patients were analyzed, with mean (SD) encounter volume 39.9 (27.2) encounters per patient. Most encounters occurred in the first year after diagnosis (70.0%), with years 2, 3, and 4 representing 15.8%, 9.1%, and 3.5% of encounters, respectively. Overall stage was associated with encounter volume, with higher encounter volume with increasing stage (stages 0: 27.4 vs I: 28.5 vs II: 48.4 vs III: 61.1 vs IV: 80.8 mean encounters). Body mass index (odds ratio [OR], 0.22), adjuvant radiation (OR, 6.8), and receipt of breast reconstruction (OR, 3.5) were also associated with higher encounter volume (all P 's < 0.01). Duration of encounter volume varied by treatment phases, with medical oncology and plastic surgery sustaining high clinical encounter volume 3 years after diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Encounter utilization in breast cancer care persists 3 years after index diagnosis and is influenced by overall stage and treatment characteristics, including receipt of breast reconstruction. These results may inform the design of episode durations within value-based models and institutional resource allocation for breast cancer care.

Value in psoriasis (IRIS) trial: implementing value-based healthcare in psoriasis management - a 1-year prospective clinical study to evaluate feasibility and value creation

INTRODUCTION

Currently, the healthcare sector is under tremendous financial pressure, and many acknowledge that a dramatic shift is required as the current system is not sustainable. Furthermore, the quality of care that is delivered varies strongly. Several solutions have been proposed of which the conceptual framework known as value-based healthcare (VBHC) is further explored in this study for psoriasis. Psoriasis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease, which is associated with a high disease burden and high treatment costs. The objective of this study is to investigate the feasibility of using the VBHC framework for the management of psoriasis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a prospective clinical study in which new patients attending the psoriasis clinic (PsoPlus) of the Ghent University Hospital will be followed up during a period of 1 year. The main outcome is to determine the value created for psoriasis patients. The created value will be considered as a reflection of the evolution of the value score (ie, the weighted outputs (outcomes) divided by weighted inputs (costs)) obtained using data envelopment analysis. Secondary outcomes are related to comorbidity control, outcome evolution and treatment costs. In addition, a bundled payment scheme will be determined as well as potential improvements in the treatment process. A total of 350 patients will be included in this trial and the study initiation is foreseen on 1 March 2023.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Ghent University Hospital. The findings of this study will be disseminated by various means: (1) publication in one or more peer-reviewed dermatology and/or management journals, (2) (inter)national congresses, (3) via the psoriasis patient community and (4) through the research team's social media channels.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05480917.

Defining the Value of Breast Reconstruction Surgeons: Quantifying Clinical Encounter and Operative Volume at an Academic Center

Despite growing rates of postmastectomy breast reconstruction, the time contribution of breast reconstruction surgeons in comprehensive breast cancer care is often poorly accounted for by hospital and healthcare systems. This study models encounter volume and operative time utilization of breast reconstruction surgeons among patients undergoing postmastectomy breast reconstruction.

METHODS

All clinical encounters and operative time from a consecutive sample of breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy and reconstruction were analyzed. Encounter volume and operative time utilization less than or equal to 4 years after diagnosis were modeled over time.

RESULTS

A total of 5057 breast cancer encounters were analyzed. Mean (SD) clinical encounter volume was 45.9 (28.5) encounters per patient, with encounter volume varying by specialty [plastic surgery: 16.5; medical oncology: 15.9; breast surgery: 7.2; radiation oncology: 6.3 mean encounters]. Receipt of adjuvant radiation, neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and major complications during reconstruction predicted higher encounter volume. Mean (SD) operative time utilization was 702 (317) minutes per patient [plastic surgery: 547 (305); breast surgery: 155 (71) minutes]. While both encounter volume and operative time for radiation oncologists and breast surgeons, respectively, were concentrated in the first year after diagnosis, medical oncologists and plastic surgeons sustained high clinical and operative time utilization 3 years after breast cancer diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Encounter volume and operative time utilization with breast reconstruction surgeons persist 3 years after a breast cancer diagnosis and are tied to treatment characteristics and incidence of reconstruction complications. Institutional- and system-level resource allocation must account for the complex and lengthy duration of care inherent to breast reconstruction care.

Applying Lessons from COVID-19 to Cost Centers across the Phases of Surgical Care

The financial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been particularly significant in surgical specialties, with an estimated loss of $22 billion due to deferrals and cancelations of procedures. Evidence suggests that alternative payment models may have reduced the financial impact of COVID-19 for some providers; however, representation of plastic surgery in these models has historically been limited. It is critical for plastic surgeons to understand cost drivers throughout the surgical care episode to design strategies to reduce costs in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this perspective, we use the American College of Surgeons Five Phases of Surgical Care framework to examine inflationary spending pressures at each stage of the surgical continuum of care. We then highlight cost-containment strategies relevant to plastic and reconstructive surgery within these stages, including those developed before the COVID-19 pandemic, such as bundled payment models and utilization of ambulatory surgery centers, and others expanded during the pandemic, including further use of telemedicine for pre and postoperative visits and expansion of enhanced recovery after surgery pathways and home-based rehabilitation for breast reconstruction. Using innovations from the COVID-19 pandemic can help plastic surgeons further innovate to decrease costs and improve outcomes for patients.

[Episode-based bundled payment model: evaluation of medical costs for early operable breast cancer]

INTRODUCTION

Episode-based bundled payment model is actually opposing to fee-for-service model, intending to incentivize coordinated care. The aims of these study were to determine episode-based costs for surgery in early breast cancer patients and to propose a payment model.

METHODS

OPTISOINS01 was a multicenter prospective study including early breast cancer patients from diagnosis to one-year follow up. Direct medical costs, quality and patient reported outcomes were collected.

RESULTS

Data from 604 patients were analyzed. Episode-based costs for surgery were higher in case of: planned radical surgery (OR=9,47 ; IC95 % [3,49-28,01]; P<0,001), hospitalization during more than one night (OR=6,73; IC95% [2,59-17,46]; P<0,001), home hospitalization (OR=11,07 ; IC95 % [3,01-173][3,01-54][3,01-543][3,01-54,33]; P<0,001) and re-hospitalization (OR=25,71 ; IC95 % [9,24-89,17; P<0,001). The average cost was 5 268 € [2 947-18 461] when a lumpectomy was planned and 7408 € [4 222-22 565] in case of radical mastectomy. Bootstrap method was applied for internal validation of the cost model showing the reliability of the model with an area under the curve of 0,83 (95 % CI [0,80-0,86]). Care quality and patient reported outcomes were not related to the costs.

DISCUSSION

This is the first report of episode-based costs for breast cancer surgery. An external validation will be necessary to validate our payment model.

Considerations for Payment Bundling in Cleft Care

SUMMARY

Since the introduction of the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative, progress has been made in piloting bundled payment models to improve care coordination and curtail health care expenditures. In light of improvements in patient outcomes and the concomitant reduction in health care spending for certain high-volume and high-cost procedures, such as total joint arthroplasty and breast reconstruction, the authors discuss theoretical considerations for bundling payments for the care of patients with orofacial clefts. The reasons for and against adopting such a payment model to consolidate cleft care, as well as the challenges to implementation, are discussed. The authors purport that bundled payments can centralize components of cleft care and offer financial incentives to reduce costs and improve the value of care provided, but that risk adjustment based on the longitudinal nature of care, disease severity, etiologic heterogeneity, variations in outcomes reporting, and varying definitions of the episode of care remain significant barriers to implementation.

Analysis of 20-Year Trends in Medicare Reimbursement for Reconstructive Microsurgery

BACKGROUND

 Microsurgery is being increasingly utilized across surgical specialties, including plastic surgery. Microsurgical techniques require greater time and financial investment compared with traditional methods. This study aimed to evaluate 20-year trends in Medicare reimbursement and utilization for commonly billed reconstructive microsurgery procedures from 2000 to 2019.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 Microsurgical procedures commonly billed by plastic surgeons were identified. Reimbursement data were extracted from The Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for each current procedural terminology (CPT) code. All monetary data were adjusted for inflation to 2019 U.S. dollars. The average annual and total percentage changes in reimbursement were calculated based on these adjusted trends. To assess utilization trends, CMS physician/supplier procedure summary files were queried for the number of procedures billed by plastic surgeons from 2010 to 2018.

RESULTS

 After adjusting for inflation, the average reimbursement for all procedures decreased by 26.92% from 2000 to 2019. The greatest mean decrease was observed in CPT 20969 free osteocutaneous flaps with microvascular anastomosis (-36.93%). The smallest mean decrease was observed in repair of blood vessels with vein graft (-9.28%). None of the included procedures saw an increase in reimbursement rate over the study period. From 2000 to 2019, the adjusted reimbursement rate for all procedures decreased by an average of 1.35% annually. Meanwhile, the number of services billed to Medicare by plastic surgeons across the included CPT codes increased by 42.17% from 2010 to 2018.

CONCLUSION

 This is the first study evaluating 20-year trends in inflation-adjusted Medicare reimbursement and utilization in reconstructive microsurgery. Reimbursement for all included procedures decreased over 20% during the study period, while number of services increased. Increased consideration of these trends will be important for U.S. policymakers, hospitals, and surgeons to assure continued access and reconstructive options for patients.

The Costs of Breast Reconstruction and Implications for Episode-Based Bundled Payment Models

BACKGROUND

Implementation of payment reform for breast reconstruction following mastectomy demands a comprehensive understanding of costs related to the complex process of reconstruction. Bundled payments for services to women with breast cancer may profoundly impact reimbursement and access to breast reconstruction. The authors' objectives were to determine the contribution of cancer therapies, comorbidities, revisions, and complications to costs following immediate reconstruction and the optimal duration of episodes to incentivize cost containment for bundled payment models.

METHODS

The cohort was composed of women who underwent immediate breast reconstruction between 2009 and 2016 from the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database. Continuous enrollment for 3 months before and 24 months after reconstruction was required. Total costs were calculated within predefined episodes (30 days, 90 days, 1 year, and 2 years). Multivariable models assessed predictors of costs.

RESULTS

Among 15,377 women in the analytic cohort, 11,592 (75 percent) underwent tissue expander, 1279 (8 percent) underwent direct-to-implant, and 2506 (16 percent) underwent autologous reconstruction. Adjuvant therapies increased costs at 1 year [tissue expander, $39,978 (p < 0.001); direct-to-implant, $34,365 (p < 0.001); and autologous, $29,226 (p < 0.001)]. At 1 year, most patients had undergone tissue expander exchange (76 percent) and revisions (81 percent), and a majority of complications had occurred (87 percent). Comorbidities, revisions, and complications increased costs for all episode scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Episode-based bundling should consider separate bundles for medical and surgical care with adjustment for procedure type, cancer therapies, and comorbidities to limit the adverse impact on access to reconstruction. The authors' findings suggest that a 1-year time horizon may optimally capture reconstruction events and complications.

Autologous Breast Reconstruction versus Implant-Based Reconstruction: How Do Long-Term Costs and Health Care Use Compare?

BACKGROUND

The authors compared long-term health care use and cost in women undergoing immediate autologous breast reconstruction and implant-based breast reconstruction.

METHODS

This study was conducted using the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, which contains deidentified retrospective administrative claims data, including medical claims and eligibility information from a large U.S. health insurance plan. Women who underwent autologous or implant-based breast reconstruction between January of 2004 and December of 2014 were included. The authors compared 2-year use rates and predicted costs of care. Comparisons were tested using the t test.

RESULTS

Overall, 12,296 women with immediate breast reconstruction were identified; 4257 with autologous (35 percent) and 8039 with implant-based (65 percent) breast reconstruction. The proportion of autologous breast reconstruction decreased from 47.2 percent in 2004 to 32.7 percent in 2014. The mean predicted reconstruction cost of autologous reconstruction was higher than that of implant-based reconstruction in both unilateral and bilateral surgery. Similar results for mean predicted 2-year cost of care were seen in bilateral procedures. However, in unilateral procedures, the 2-year total costs were higher for implant-based than for autologous reconstruction. Two-year health care use rates were higher for implant-based reconstruction than for autologous reconstruction for both unilateral and bilateral procedures. Women undergoing unilateral implant-based reconstruction had higher rates of hospital admissions (30.3 versus 23.1 per 100; p < 0.01) and office visits (2445.1 versus 2283.6 per 100; p < 0.01) than those who underwent autologous reconstruction. Emergency room visit rates were similar between the two methods. Bilateral procedures yielded similar results.

CONCLUSION

Although implant-based breast reconstruction is a less expensive index operation than autologous breast reconstruction, it was associated with higher health care use, resulting in similar total cost of care over 2 years.

Is Bigger Better?: The Effect of Hospital Consolidation on Index Hospitalization Costs and Outcomes Among Privately Insured Recipients of Immediate Breast Reconstruction

OBJECTIVES

To examine the relationship between hospital market competition and inpatient costs, procedural markup, inpatient complications, and length of stay among privately insured patients undergoing immediate reconstruction after mastectomy.

METHODS

A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of privately insured female patients undergoing immediate breast reconstruction in the 2009 to 2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample was performed. The Herfindahl-Hirschman index was used to describe hospital market competition; associations with outcomes were explored via hierarchical models adjusting for patient, hospital, and market characteristics.

RESULTS

A weighted total of 42,411 patients were identified; 5920 (14.0%) underwent free flap reconstruction. In uncompetitive markets, 6.8% (n=857) underwent free flap reconstruction, compared with 13.6% (n=2773) in highly competitive markets and 24.6% (n=2290) in moderately competitive markets. For every 5 additional hospitals in a market, adjusted costs were 6.6% higher (95% CI: 2.8%-10.5%), for free flap reconstruction, and 5.1% higher (95% CI: 2.0%-8.4%) for nonfree flap reconstruction. Similarly, higher procedural markup was associated with increased hospital market competition both for nonfree flap reconstruction (5.5% increase, 95% CI: 1.1%-10.1%) and for free flap reconstruction (8.2% increase, 95% CI: 1.8%-15.0%). Notably, there was no association between incidence of inpatient complications or extended length of stay and hospital market competition among either free flap or nonfree flap reconstruction patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Decreasing market competition was associated with lower inpatient costs and equivocal clinical outcomes. This suggests that some of the economies of scale, access to capital and care delivery efficiencies gained from increased market power following hospital mergers are passed onto payers and consumers as lower costs.

Providing Gender Confirmation Surgery at an Academic Medical Center: Analysis of Use, Insurance Payer, and Fiscal Impact

BACKGROUND

Expansion of insurance coverage for gender confirmation surgery (GCS) has led to a large demand for GCS in the US. We sought to determine the financial impact of providing comprehensive GCS services at an academic medical center.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of patients older than 18 years who presented for GCS between January 1, 2015 and July 31, 2018 at a single academic medical center. The use of GCS services and associated work relative value units is reported. Departmental and hospital-level operating (profit) margins are reported relative to other hospital services, as well as the payer mix.

RESULTS

A total of 818 patients underwent 970 GCS procedures between January 2015 and July 2018. Mean (SD) age was 35.32 (12.84) years. Four hundred and ninety-three (60.3%) patients underwent a masculinizing procedure, and 325 (39.7%) had a feminizing procedure. The most commonly performed procedure was chest masculinization (n = 403). The GCS case volume grew to generate 23.8% (plastic surgery) and 17.8% (urology) of total annual departmental work relative value units, and was associated with positive operating margins after recouping new faculty hiring costs. There were positive operating margins for GCS procedures for the hospital system that compare favorably with other common procedures and admissions. Medicare and Medicaid remained the most common payer throughout the study period, but dropped from 70% in 2015 to 48% in 2018.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that providing GCS at our academic medical center is profitable for both the surgical department and the hospital system. This suggests such a program can be a favorable addition to academic medical centers in the US.

Applying a value-based care framework to post-mastectomy reconstruction

PURPOSE

Reconstructive breast surgeons, like all procedural care providers, face a transition from volume reimbursement (i.e., per unit of service) to value-based care. Value can be defined as the relationship between outcomes and costs, or more specifically healthcare outcomes per unit cost. Although the definition of a meaningful outcome for a particular treatment can vary, some weighted average of survival, function, complications, process measures, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) comprise the numerator, while the total cost of a complete care cycle is the denominator. We aim to construct a value-based care framework for reconstructive surgery using post-mastectomy reconstruction as an organizing element.

METHODS

A preexisting value framework was applied to breast reconstruction using expert opinion and literature review. Domains and associated realization strategies were constructed based on established health economic principles.

RESULTS

Seven domains were identified including: implementing an inclusive and transparent process for stakeholder engagement, practicing clear and explicit treatment goals, anchoring care delivery to the patient perspective, maximizing value across the entire continuum of care, optimizing operation efficiency, and scaling best practices with implementation science.

CONCLUSIONS

In the near future, reconstructive plastic surgeons may be asked to solve clinical problems for fixed reimbursement (i.e. bundled payments). Considering breast reconstruction through a value lens provides surgeons with an opportunity to adapt and thrive in an evolving healthcare landscape. Lastly, we hope this document helps promote value assessment within the specialty.

The Role of Maxillofacial Prosthetics for the Surgically Treated Patient at National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

The current role of maxillofacial prosthetic care for head and neck cancer patients is not well understood. Additionally, perceived barriers for service provision are unknown. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current role of maxillofacial prosthetic care at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers and to identify perceived barriers to care.

STUDY DESIGN

Multicenter, cross-sectional survey of head and neck division leaders at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers.

METHODS

Each head and neck division leader from the 47 NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers was invited to participate. The main outcomes of this study were: 1) to evaluate the current role of maxillofacial prosthetics for the surgically treated head and neck cancer patient within NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers and 2) to identify perceived barriers to care. Measured outcomes were obtained from an anonymous online survey and reported.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight of the 47 head and neck service chiefs responded (60% response rate). Respondents expressed preference for prosthetic rehabilitation for hard palate/upper gum, auricular, and nasal defects. Local flap or free tissue transfer was preferred for lower gum and soft palate defects. Cost-related factors were among the most reported perceived barriers to maxillofacial prosthetic care.

CONCLUSIONS

Maxillofacial prosthetics have an important role in the rehabilitation of the head and neck cancer patient. Perceived barriers for services exist, particularly as it relates to cost. Providers should be aware that these issues are likely to be more severe in regional or community centers.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 129:409-414, 2019.