Dataset Information

Detailed cost of robotic-assisted surgery in the Australian public health sector: from implementation to a multi-specialty caseload.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A barrier to the uptake of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) continues to be the perceived high costs. A lack of detailed costing information has made it difficult for public hospitals in particular to determine whether use of the technology is justified. This study aims to provide a detailed description of the patient episode costs and the contribution of RAS specific costs for multiple specialties in the public sector.

Methods

A retrospective descriptive costing review of all RAS cases undertaken at a large public tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia from August 2016 to December 2018 was completed. This included RAS cases within benign gynaecology, cardiothoracic, colorectal and urology, with the total costs described utilizing various inpatient costing data, and RAS specific implementation, maintenance and consumable costs.

Results

Of 211 RAS patients, substantial variation was found between specialties with the overall median cost per patient being $19,269 (Interquartile range (IQR): $15,445 to $32,199). The RAS specific costs were $8828 (46%) made up of fixed costs including $4691 (24%) implementation and $2290 (12%) maintenance, both of which are volume dependent; and $1848 (10%) RAS consumable costs. This was in the context of 37% robotic theatre utilisation.

Conclusions

There is considerable variation across surgical specialties for the cost of RAS. It is important to highlight the different cost components and drivers associated with a RAS program including its dependence on volume and how it fits within funding systems in the public sector.

SUBMITTER: McBride K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7849115 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Detailed cost of robotic-assisted surgery in the Australian public health sector: from implementation to a multi-specialty caseload.

McBride Kate K Steffens Daniel D Stanislaus Christina C Solomon Michael M Anderson Teresa T Thanigasalam Ruban R Leslie Scott S Bannon Paul G PG

BMC health services research 20210201 1

<h4>Background</h4>A barrier to the uptake of robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) continues to be the perceived high costs. A lack of detailed costing information has made it difficult for public hospitals in particular to determine whether use of the technology is justified. This study aims to provide a detailed description of the patient episode costs and the contribution of RAS specific costs for multiple specialties in the public sector.<h4>Methods</h4>A retrospective descriptive costing review o ...[more]

PMID: 33522941

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Schizophrenia spectrum disorders exert a large and disproportionate economic impact. Early intervention services may be able to alleviate the burden of schizophrenia spectrum disorders on diagnosed individuals, caregivers, and society at large. Economic analyses of observational studies have supported investments in specialized team-based care for early psychosis; however, questions remain regarding the economic viability of first-episode services in the fragmented U.S. healthcare system. The clinic for Specialized Treatment Early in Psychosis (STEP) was established in 2006, to explicitly model a nationally-relevant U.S. public-sector early intervention service. The purpose of this study was to conduct an economic evaluation of STEP, a Coordinated Specialty Care service (CSC) based in a U.S. State-funded community mental health center, relative to usual treatment (UT). METHODS:Eligible patients were within 5 years of psychosis onset and had no more than 12 weeks of lifetime antipsychotic exposure. Participants were randomized to STEP or UT. The annual per-patient cost of the STEP intervention per se was estimated assuming a steady-state caseload of 30 patients. A cost-offset analysis was conducted to estimate the net value of STEP from a third-party payer perspective. Participant healthcare service utilization was evaluated at 6 months and over the entire 12 months post randomization. Generalized linear model multivariable regressions were used to estimate the effect of STEP on healthcare costs over time, and generate predicted mean costs, which were combined with the per-patient cost of STEP. RESULTS:The annual per-patient cost of STEP was $1,984. STEP participants were significantly less likely to have any inpatient or ED visits; among individuals who did use such services in a given period, the associated costs were significantly lower for STEP participants at month 12. We did not observe a similar effect with regard to other healthcare services. The predicted average total costs were lower for STEP than UT, indicating a net benefit for STEP of $1,029 at month 6 and $2,991 at month 12; however, the differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS:Our findings are promising with regard to the value of STEP to third-party payers.

Project description:Sacrocolpopexy has been dubbed the “gold standard” repair for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). This study sought to determine a genetic cause for sacrocolpopexy failure by comparing genotypes from 10 women who suffered from early POP reoccurance after sacrocolpopexy surgery, versus 40 randomly selected women with long term success after the same procedure. We objectively defined early overt failure after robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as having a pelvic organ prolapse quantification system examination (POP-Q) of stage III or IV occurring in more than one compartment within six months after surgery. All medical records identified during this process were then reviewed by a panel of urogynecology attendings and fellows to select patients who were truly clinical outliers. By this method we identified 10 patients (cases) who experienced early overt surgical failure. We also randomly selected 40 controls from our research database which includes greater than 500 patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy during the same time period and had been objectively and subjectively assessed for ≥ 12 months with surgical success at ≥ 12 months that did not undergo prolapse re-operation or re-treatment. Demographics and peri-operative details were compared between cases and controls. Exclusion criteria for controls included use of other graft material besides polypropylene mesh, prior surgery for prolapse involving graft material, and conversion to laparotomy. DNA from the 10 cases and 40 controls was isolated from buccal swabs and genotyped on a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array that contains 250,000 markers (NspI 250K SNP array, Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA). All women in this study identified as Caucasian. All subjects provided written informed consent to study participation and data release. This was a case-control study approved by the Institutional Review Board at the Atlantic Health System in Morristown New Jersey (R11-10-004).

Project description:Sacrocolpopexy has been dubbed the âgold standardâ repair for apical pelvic organ prolapse (POP). This study sought to determine a genetic cause for sacrocolpopexy failure by comparing genotypes from 10 women who suffered from early POP reoccurance after sacrocolpopexy surgery, versus 40 randomly selected women with long term success after the same procedure. We objectively defined early overt failure after robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy as having a pelvic organ prolapse quantification system examination (POP-Q) of stage III or IV occurring in more than one compartment within six months after surgery. All medical records identified during this process were then reviewed by a panel of urogynecology attendings and fellows to select patients who were truly clinical outliers. By this method we identified 10 patients (cases) who experienced early overt surgical failure. We also randomly selected 40 controls from our research database which includes greater than 500 patients who underwent robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy during the same time period and had been objectively and subjectively assessed for â¥ 12 months with surgical success at â¥ 12 months that did not undergo prolapse re-operation or re-treatment. Demographics and peri-operative details were compared between cases and controls. Exclusion criteria for controls included use of other graft material besides polypropylene mesh, prior surgery for prolapse involving graft material, and conversion to laparotomy. DNA from the 10 cases and 40 controls was isolated from buccal swabs and genotyped on a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array that contains 250,000 markers (NspI 250K SNP array, Affymetrix, Santa Clara, CA). All women in this study identified as Caucasian. All subjects provided written informed consent to study participation and data release. This was a case-control study approved by the Institutional Review Board at the Atlantic Health System in Morristown New Jersey (R11-10-004). This case-control study compared single genotypes of 10 cases to 40 controls. All subjects were identified as Caucasian. Cases were women who experienced early overt POP recurrence after robotic sacrocolpopexy, and controls were randomly selected women with long term success after the same procedure.

Dataset Information

Detailed cost of robotic-assisted surgery in the Australian public health sector: from implementation to a multi-specialty caseload.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Detailed cost of robotic-assisted surgery in the Australian public health sector: from implementation to a multi-specialty caseload.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure