Assessing the impact of center volume on the cost-effectiveness of centralizing ERCP

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

ERCP is a complex endoscopic procedure in which the center's procedure volume influences outcomes. With the increasing healthcare expenses and limited resources, promoting cost-effective care becomes essential for healthcare provision. This study was a cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate the hypothesis that high-volume (HV) centers perform ERCP with higher quality at lower costs than low-volume (LV) centers.

METHODS

A baseline case compared the current distribution of ERCPs among HV and LV centers with a hypothetical scenario in which all ERCPs are performed at HV centers. A cost-effectiveness analysis was constructed, followed by 1- and 2-way sensitivity analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulations.

RESULTS

In the baseline case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was -$151,270 per year, due to the hypothetical scenario's lower costs and slightly higher quality-adjusted life years. The model was most sensitive to changes in transportation costs (109.34%), probability of significant adverse events (AEs) after successful ERCP at LV centers (42.12%), utility after ERCP with significant AEs (30.10%), and probability of significant AEs after successful ERCP at HV centers (23.53%); only transportation costs above $3655 changed the study outcome, however. The current ERCP distribution would only be cost-effective if LV centers achieved higher success (≥92.4% vs 89.3%), with much lower significant AEs (≤.5% vs 6.7%). The study's main findings remained unchanged while combining all model parameters in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show that HV centers have high-performance rates at lower costs, raising the need to consider the principle of centralization of ERCPs into HV centers to improve the quality of care.

Influence of broader geographic allograft sharing on outcomes and cost in smaller lung transplant centers

OBJECTIVE

On November 24, 2017, Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network implemented a change to lung allocation replacing donor service area with a 250 nautical mile radius around donor hospitals. We sought to evaluate the experience of a small to medium size center following implementation.

METHODS

Patients (47 pre and 54 post) undergoing lung transplantation were identified from institutional database from January 2016 to October 2019. Detailed chart review and analysis of institutional cost data was performed. Univariate analysis was performed to compare eras.

RESULTS

Similar short-term mortality and primary graft dysfunction were observed between groups. Decreased local donation (68% vs 6%; P < .001), increased travel distance (145 vs 235 miles; P = .004), travel cost ($8626 vs $14,482; P < .001), and total procurement cost ($60,852 vs $69,052; P = .001) were observed postimplementation. We also document an increase in waitlist mortality postimplementation (6.9 vs 31.6 per 100 patient-years; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Following implementation of the new allocation policy in a small to medium size center, several changes were in accordance with policy intention. However, concerning shifts emerged, including increased waitlist mortality and resource utilization. Continued close monitoring of transplant centers stratified by size and location are paramount to maintaining global availability of lung transplantation to all Americans regardless of geographic residence or socioeconomic status.

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.

Surgeon volume and hospital volume in endocrine neck surgery: how many procedures are needed for reaching a safety level and acceptable costs? A systematic narrative review

The relationship between quality of care and provider's experience is well known in all fields of surgery. Even in thyroidectomies and parathyroidectomies, the emphasis on positive volume-outcome relationships is believed. It led us to an evaluation of volume activity's impact in terms of quality of care. A systematic narrative review was performed. According to the PRISMA criteria, we selected 87 paper and, after the study selection was performed, 22 studies were finally included in this review. All articles included were unanimous in attributing to activity volume of surgeons as well as centers a substantial importance. Some differences in outcomes between these investigated categories have been found: best results of the high volume surgeon is evident expecially in terms of complications, on the contrary best outcomes of a high volume center are mainly economics, such as hospital stay and general costs of the procedures. A cut-off of 35-40 thyroidectomies per year for single surgeon, and 90-100 thyroidectomies for single center appears reasonable for identifying an adequate activity. Concerning parathyroidectomy, we can consider reasonable a cut off at 10-12 operations/year. More studies are needed in a European or more circumscribed perspective.

Antireflux Surgery in the USA: Influence of Surgical Volume on Perioperative Outcomes and Costs-Time for Centralization?

BACKGROUND

Few studies have analyzed the relationship between surgical volume and outcomes after antireflux procedures. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of surgical volume on postoperative results and costs for patients undergoing surgery for gastroesophageal reflux disease.

METHODS

We analyzed the National Inpatient Sample (period 2000-2013). Adult patients (≥18 years old) with gastroesophageal reflux disease who underwent fundoplication were included. Hospital surgical volume was determined using the 30th and 60th percentile cut points using weighted discharges and categorized as low (<10 operations/year), intermediate (10-25 operations/year), or high (>25 operations/year). We performed multivariable logistic regression models to assess the effect of surgical volume on patient outcomes.

RESULTS

The studied cohort comprised 75,544 patients who had antireflux surgery. When operations performed at low-volume hospitals, postoperative bleeding, cardiac failure, renal failure, respiratory failure, and inpatient mortality were more common. In intermediate-volume hospitals, patients were more likely to have postoperative infection, esophageal perforation, bleeding, cardiac failure, renal failure, and respiratory failure. The length of hospital stay was longer at low- and intermediate-volume hospitals (1.08 and 0.55 days longer, respectively). There was an increase in charges of 5120 dollars per patient at low-volume centers, and 4010 dollars per patient at intermediate-volume centers.

CONCLUSIONS

When antireflux surgery is performed at high-volume hospitals, morbidity is lower, length of hospital stay is shorter, and costs for the healthcare system are decreased.

Postoperative pancreatic fistula-impact on outcome, hospital cost and effects of centralization

BACKGROUND

One of the most serious complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). This study investigated the incidence of POPF before and after centralization of pancreatic surgery in Southern Sweden and its impact on outcome and health care costs.

METHODS

The local registry comprising all pancreatic resections at Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden, was searched for PDs from 2005 to 2015. The patients were analysed in three groups: low-volume, high-volume and after introduction of an enhanced recovery program. Only the clinically relevant POPF grades B and C (CR-POPF) were investigated.

RESULTS

322 consecutive patients were identified. The annual operation volume increased almost threefold and the postoperative length of stay and total hospital cost decreased concurrently. The incidence of CR-POPF did not decrease over time. The group with CR-POPF had more complications and prolonged length of stay. The cost was 1.5 times higher for patients with CR-POPF and the cost did not decline despite the increase of hospital volume.

CONCLUSION

Centralization of pancreatic surgery did not decrease the rate of CR-POPF nor its subsequent impact on LOS and costs. Further efforts must be made to reduce the incidence of CR-POPF.

An Operative Complexity Index Shows Higher Volume Hospitals and Surgeons Perform More Complex Adult Spine Deformity Operations

BACKGROUND

Though previous studies have shown improved outcomes associated with higher volume surgeons and hospitals, this may not be replicated in ASDS due to case complexity variation. We hypothesized that high-volume surgeons perform more complex surgeries. Therefore, we defined an Operative Complexity Index (OCI), specifically for the National Inpatient Samples (NIS) data, which provides information on in-hospital postoperative complications, to assess rates of adult spine deformity surgery (ASDS) cases as they relate to surgeon and hospital operative volume.

METHODS

The 2001 to 2010 NIS was queried for patients greater than 21 years of age with in-hospital stays, including a spine arthrodesis for a diagnosis of scoliosis. Surgeon and hospital identifiers were used to allocate records into volume quartiles by number of surgeries per year. The OCI was devised considering the number of fusion levels, surgical approach, revision status, and use of osteotomy. The index was validated using blood-loss-related diagnostic and procedural codes. One-way ANOVA assessed continuous measures. Chi-square assessed categorical measures.

RESULTS

141,357 ASDS cases met the inclusion criteria. High-volume surgeons performed a higher rate of longfusions (> 8 levels), revision surgeries, and surgeries requiring osteotomy. The OCI showed weak, but significant, correlation with blood loss values: acute blood loss anemia (r = 0.21) and treatment with blood products (r = 0.12) (p < 0.001). High OCI also was also associated with increased length of stay (r = 0.27) and total charges (r = 0.41) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The operative complexity index (OCI) for ASDS increases with high-volume surgeons and centers, indicating it can be useful to adjust for surgical invasiveness in the NIS database. Operative complexity must be considered when evaluating patient safety and quality indices among hospitals and surgeons.

Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2017 Rates; Quality Reporting Requirements for Specific Providers; Graduate Medical Education; Hospital Notification Procedures Applicable to Beneficiaries Receiving Observation Services; Technical Changes Relating to Costs to Organizations and Medicare Cost Reports; Finalization of Interim Final Rules With Comment Period on LTCH PPS Payments for Severe Wounds, Modifications of Limitations on Redesignation by the Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board, and Extensions of Payments to MDHs and Low-Volume Hospitals. Final rule

We are revising the Medicare hospital inpatient prospective payment systems (IPPS) for operating and capital-related costs of acute care hospitals to implement changes arising from our continuing experience with these systems for FY 2017. Some of these changes will implement certain statutory provisions contained in the Pathway for Sustainable Growth Reform Act of 2013, the Improving Medicare Post-Acute Care Transformation Act of 2014, the Notice of Observation Treatment and Implications for Care Eligibility Act of 2015, and other legislation. We also are providing the estimated market basket update to apply to the rate-of-increase limits for certain hospitals excluded from the IPPS that are paid on a reasonable cost basis subject to these limits for FY 2017. We are updating the payment policies and the annual payment rates for the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for inpatient hospital services provided by long-term care hospitals (LTCHs) for FY 2017. In addition, we are making changes relating to direct graduate medical education (GME) and indirect medical education payments; establishing new requirements or revising existing requirements for quality reporting by specific Medicare providers (acute care hospitals, PPS-exempt cancer hospitals, LTCHs, and inpatient psychiatric facilities), including related provisions for eligible hospitals and critical access hospitals (CAHs) participating in the Electronic Health Record Incentive Program; updating policies relating to the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing Program, the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program, and the Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program; implementing statutory provisions that require hospitals and CAHs to furnish notification to Medicare beneficiaries, including Medicare Advantage enrollees, when the beneficiaries receive outpatient observation services for more than 24 hours; announcing the implementation of the Frontier Community Health Integration Project Demonstration; and making technical corrections and changes to regulations relating to costs to related organizations and Medicare cost reports; we are providing notice of the closure of three teaching hospitals and the opportunity to apply for available GME resident slots under section 5506 of the Affordable Care Act. We are finalizing the provisions of interim final rules with comment period that relate to a temporary exception for certain wound care discharges from the application of the site neutral payment rate under the LTCH PPS for certain LTCHs; application of two judicial decisions relating to modifications of limitations on redesignation by the Medicare Geographic Classification Review Board; and legislative extensions of the Medicare-dependent, small rural hospital program and changes to the payment adjustment for low-volume hospitals.

Assessing the Costs Associated with Volume-Based Referral for Hepatic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Although proposed as a means for quality improvement, little is known regarding the economic consequences of volume-based referral. The objective of the current study was to investigate the relationship between inpatient costs and hospital volume.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective liver surgery were identified using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2001 to 2012. Multivariable hierarchical regression analyses were performed to calculate and compare risk-adjusted costs and postoperative outcomes across hospital volume terciles.

RESULTS

A total of 27,813 patients underwent surgery at 2207 hospitals. Although costs were comparable across the three volume groups (all p > 0.05), patients who developed a postoperative complication incurred a higher overall cost (complication vs. no complication; median costs $17,974 [IQR 13,865-25,623] vs. $41,731 [IQR 27,008-64,266], p < 0.001). In contrast, while the incidence of postoperative complications (low vs. intermediate vs. high; 22.0 vs. 19.2 vs. 13.0 %, p < 0.001) and subsequent failure-to-rescue (low vs. intermediate vs. high; 16.6 vs. 24.7 vs. 15.1 %, p < 0.001) was lower at high-volume hospitals, costs associated with "rescue" were substantially higher at high-volume hospitals (low vs. intermediate vs. high; $39,289 vs. $36,157 vs. $48,559, both p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with lower volume hospitals, improved outcomes among patients who developed a complication at high-volume hospitals were associated with an increased cost.

The volume-outcome relationship and minimum volume standards--empirical evidence for Germany

For decades, there is an ongoing discussion about the quality of hospital care leading i.a. to the introduction of minimum volume standards in various countries. In this paper, we analyze the volume-outcome relationship for patients with intact abdominal aortic aneurysm and hip fracture. We define hypothetical minimum volume standards in both conditions and assess consequences for access to hospital services in Germany. The results show clearly that patients treated in hospitals with a higher case volume have on average a significant lower probability of death in both conditions. Furthermore, we show that the hypothetical minimum volume standards do not compromise overall access measured with changes in travel times.

Impact of hospital volume on perioperative outcomes and costs of radical cystectomy: analysis of the Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission database

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of hospital case volume on perioperative outcomes and costs of radical cystectomy (RC) after controlling for differences in patient case mix.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission database was queried for patients who underwent an open RC between 2000 and 2011. Patients were divided into tertiles based on hospital case volume. Groups were compared for differences in length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, length of total hospital stay, rate of in-hospital deaths and procedure-related costs.

RESULTS

In total, 1620 patients underwent a RC during the study period. Of these patients, 457 (28.2%) underwent surgery at 37 low volume centers, 465 (28.7%) at six mid volume centers and 698 (43.1%) at a single high volume center. The mean case volume of each group was 1.1, 7.0 and 63.5 RC/center/year, respectively. After controlling for marked differences in patient case mix, having surgery at the single high-volume center was independently associated with a decrease in length of ICU stay (coefficient = -0.41 days, 95% CI -0.78--0.05, p = 0.03), in-hospital mortality (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04-0.80, p = 0.02) and total medical costs (coefficient = -2.91k USD, 95% CI -4.15--1.67, p < 0.001). Decreased total costs were driven by reductions in charges associated with the operating room, drugs, radiology tests, labs, supplies and physical/occupational therapy (all p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Undergoing RC at a high volume medical center was associated with improved outcomes and reduced costs. These data support the centralization of RC to high volume centers.