Dataset Information

Benchmarking the value of care: Variability in hospital costs for common operations and its association with procedure volume.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Efforts to improve health care value (quality/cost) have become a priority in the United States. Although many seek to increase quality by reducing variability in adverse outcomes, less is known about variability in costs. In conjunction with the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Healthcare Economics Committee, the objective of this study was to examine the extent of variability in total hospital costs for two common procedures: laparoscopic appendectomy (LA) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC).

Methods

Nationally weighted data for adults 18 years and older was obtained for patients undergoing each operation in the 2014 and 2016 National Inpatient Sample. Data were aggregated at the hospital-level to attain hospital-specific median index hospital costs in 2019 US dollars and corresponding annual procedure volumes. Cost variation was assessed using caterpillar plots and risk-standardized observed/expected cost ratios. Correlation analysis, variance decomposition, and regression analysis explored costs' association with volume.

Results

In 2016, 1,563 hospitals representing 86,170 LA and 2,276 hospitals representing 230,120 LC met the inclusion criteria. In 2014, the numbers were similar (1,602 and 2,259 hospitals). Compared with a mean of US $10,202, LA median costs ranged from US $2,850 to US $33,381. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy median costs ranged from US $4,406 to US $40,585 with a mean of US $12,567. Differences in cost strongly associated with procedure volume. Volume accounted for 9.9% (LA) and 12.4% (LC) of variation between hospitals, after controlling for the influence of other hospital (8.2% and 5.0%) and patient (6.3% and 3.7%) characteristics and in-hospital complications (0.8% and 0.4%). Counterfactual modeling suggests that were all hospitals to have performed at or below their expected median cost, one would see a national cost savings of greater than US $301.9 million per year (95% confidence interval, US $280.6-325.5 million).

Conclusion

Marked variability of median hospital costs for common operations exists. Differences remained consistent across changing coding structures and database years and were strongly associated with volume. Taken together, the findings suggest room for improvement in emergency general surgery and a need to address large discrepancies in an often-overlooked aspect of value.

Level of evidence

Epidemiological, level III.

SUBMITTER: Zogg CK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7802807 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe frequency of use of endovenous thermal ablation (EVTA) to treat chronic venous insufficiency has increased rapidly in the US. Wide variability in EVTA use among physicians has been documented, and standard EVTA rates were defined in the 2017 Medicare database.ObjectiveTo assess whether providing individualized physician performance reports is associated with reduced variability in EVTA use and cost savings.Design, setting, and participantsThis prospective quality improvement study used data from all US Medicare patients aged 18 years or older who underwent at least 1 EVTA between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017, and between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019. All US physicians who performed at least 11 EVTAs yearly for Medicare patients in 2017 and 2019 were included in the assessment.InterventionA performance report comprising individual physician EVTA use per patient with peer-benchmarking data was distributed to all physicians in November 2018.Main outcomes and measuresThe mean number of EVTAs performed per patient was calculated for each physician. Physicians who performed 3.4 or more EVTA procedures per patient per year were considered outliers. The change in the number of procedures from 2017 to 2019 was analyzed overall and by inlier and outlier status. An economic analysis was also performed to estimate the cost savings associated with the intervention.ResultsA total of 188 976 patients (102 222 in 2017 and 86 754 in 2019) who had an EVTA performed by 1558 physicians were included in the analysis. The median patient age was 72.2 years (IQR, 67.9-77.8 years); 67.3% of patients were female, and 84.9% were White. Among all physicians, the mean (SD) number of EVTAs per patient decreased from 2017 to 2019 (1.97 [0.85] vs 1.89 [0.77]; P < .001). There was a modest decrease in the mean number of EVTAs per patient among inlier physicians (1.83 [0.57] vs 1.78 [0.55]; P < .001) and a more substantial decrease among outlier physicians (4.40 [1.01] vs 3.67 [1.41] ; P < .001). Outliers in 2017 consisted of 90 physicians, of whom 71 (78.9%) reduced their EVTA use after the intervention. The number of EVTAs per patient decreased by a mean (SD) of 0.09 (0.46) procedures overall (median, 0.10 procedures [IQR, -0.10 to 0.30 procedures]; P < .001). The estimated cost savings associated with the decrease was $6.3 million in 2019.Conclusions and relevanceIn this quality improvement study, substantial variability in the number of EVTAs performed per patient was observed across the US. When physicians were provided with a 1-time peer-benchmarked performance report card, the timing of the intervention was associated with a significant decrease in the number of EVTAs performed per patient, particularly among outlier physicians. This quality improvement initiative was associated with reduced variability in EVTA use in the US and a substantial savings for Medicare.

Project description:BackgroundWithin the growing geriatric population, there is an increasing need for emergency operations. Optimizing outcomes can require a structured system of surgical care based on key quality indicators. To investigate this, the current study sought to answer 2 questions. First, to what degree does hospital emergency operative volume impact mortality for geriatric patients undergoing emergency general surgery (EGS) operations? Second, at what procedure-specific hospital volume will geriatric patients undergoing an emergency operation achieve at or better than average mortality risk?Study designRetrospective cohort study of geriatric patients (aged 65 years and older) who underwent 1 of 10 EGS operations identified from the California State Inpatient Database (2010 to 2011). β-Logistic generalized linear regression was used, with the hospital as the unit of analysis, to investigate the relationship between hospital operative volume and in-hospital riskv-adjusted mortality. Hospital operative volume thresholds to optimize probability of survival were defined.ResultsThere were 41,860 operations evaluated at 299 hospitals. For each operation, mortality decreased as hospital emergency operative volume increased (p < 0.001 for each operation); for every standardized increase in volume (meaning +1 natural logarithm of volume), the reduction in mortality ranged from 14% for colectomy to 61% for appendectomy. Hospital volume thresholds, which optimize to 95% probability of survival, varied by procedure, with a mean of 14 operations over 2 years. More than 50% of hospitals did not meet the threshold benchmarks, representing 22% of patients.ConclusionsSurvival rates for geriatric patients were improved substantially when emergency operations were performed at hospitals with higher operative volumes. Consistent with all active Quality Programs of the American College of Surgeons, hospital operative volume appears to be an important metric of surgical quality for older patients undergoing emergency operations.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Choosing Wisely Top-5 list of activities to avoid includes "Don't obtain baseline laboratory studies in patients without significant systemic disease (ASA I or II) undergoing low-risk surgery - specifically complete blood count, basic or comprehensive metabolic panel, coagulation studies when blood loss (or fluid shifts) is/are expected to be minimal." Accordingly, we define low-value preoperative tests (LVTs) as those performed before minor surgery in patients without significant systemic disease. The objective of the current study was to examine the extent, variability, drivers, and costs of LVTs before carpal tunnel release (CTR) surgeries in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA). METHODS:Using fiscal year (FY) 2015-2017 data derived from the VHA Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW), we determined the overall national and facility-level rates and associated costs of receiving any of 8 common LVTs in the 30 days before CTR in ASA physical status (PS) I-II patients. We also examined the patient, procedure, and facility factors associated with receiving ?1 LVT with mixed-effects logistic regression and the number of tests received with mixed-effects negative binomial regression. RESULTS:From FY15-17, 10,000 ASA class I-II patients received a CTR by 699 surgeons in 125 VHA facilities. Overall, 47.0% of patients had a CTR that was preceded by ?1 LVT, with substantial variability between facilities (range = 0%-100%; interquartile range = 36.3%), representing $339,717 in costs. Older age and female sex were associated with higher odds of receiving ?1 LVT. Local versus other modes of anesthesia were associated with lower odds of receiving ?1 LVT. Several facilities experienced large (>25%) increases or decreases from FY15 to FY17 in the proportion of patients receiving ?1 LVT. CONCLUSIONS:Counter to guidance from the ASA, we found that almost half of CTRs performed on ASA class I-II VHA patients were preceded by ?1 LVT. Although the total cost of these tests is relatively modest, CTR is just one of many low-risk procedures (eg, trigger finger release, cataract surgery) that may involve similar preoperative testing practices. These results will inform site selection for qualitative investigation of the drivers of low-value testing and the development of interventions to improve preoperative testing practice, especially in locations where rates of LVT are high.

Project description:The association between hospital volume and the death rate for patients who are hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia remains unclear. It is also not known whether a volume threshold for such an association exists.We conducted cross-sectional analyses of data from Medicare administrative claims for all fee-for-service beneficiaries who were hospitalized between 2004 and 2006 in acute care hospitals in the United States for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or pneumonia. Using hierarchical logistic-regression models for each condition, we estimated the change in the odds of death within 30 days associated with an increase of 100 patients in the annual hospital volume. Analyses were adjusted for patients' risk factors and hospital characteristics. Bootstrapping procedures were used to estimate 95% confidence intervals to identify the condition-specific volume thresholds above which an increased volume was not associated with reduced mortality.There were 734,972 hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction in 4128 hospitals, 1,324,287 for heart failure in 4679 hospitals, and 1,418,252 for pneumonia in 4673 hospitals. An increased hospital volume was associated with reduced 30-day mortality for all conditions (P<0.001 for all comparisons). For each condition, the association between volume and outcome was attenuated as the hospital's volume increased. For acute myocardial infarction, once the annual volume reached 610 patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 539 to 679), an increase in the hospital volume by 100 patients was no longer significantly associated with reduced odds of death. The volume threshold was 500 patients (95% CI, 433 to 566) for heart failure and 210 patients (95% CI, 142 to 284) for pneumonia.Admission to higher-volume hospitals was associated with a reduction in mortality for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia, although there was a volume threshold above which an increased condition-specific hospital volume was no longer significantly associated with reduced mortality.

Project description:Background:Access to surgical care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) such as Tanzania is extremely limited. Northern Tanzania is served by a single tertiary referral hospital, Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre (KCMC). The surgical volumes, workflow, and payment mechanisms in this region have not been characterized. Understanding these factors is critical in expanding access to healthcare. The authors sought to evaluate the operations and financing of the main operating theaters at KCMC in Sub-Saharan Africa. Methods:The 2018 case volume and specialty distribution (general, orthopaedic, and gynecology) in the main operating theaters at KCMC was retrieved through retrospective review of operating report books. Detailed workflow (i.e. planned and cancelled cases, lengths of procedures, lengths of operating days) and financing data (patient payment methods) from the five KCMC operating theater logs were retrospectively reviewed for the available five-month period of March 2018 to July 2018. Descriptive statistics and statistical analysis were performed. Results:In 2018, the main operating theaters at KCMC performed 3817 total procedures, with elective procedures (2385) outnumbering emergency procedures (1432). General surgery (1927) was the most operated specialty, followed by orthopaedics (1371) and gynecology (519). In the five-month subset analysis period, just 54.6% of planned operating days were fully completed. There were 238 cancellations (20.8% of planned operations). Time constraints (31.1%, 74 cases) was the largest reason; lack of patient payment accounted for as many cancellations as unavailable equipment (6.3%, 15 cases each). Financing for elective theater cases included insurance 45.5% (418 patients), and cash 48.4% (445 patients). Conclusion:While surgical volume is high, there are non-physical inefficiencies in the system that can be addressed to reduce cancellations and improve capacity. Improving physical resources is not enough to improve access to care in this region, and likely in many LMIC settings. Patient financing and workflow will be critical considerations to truly improve access to surgical care.