Dataset Information

Comparison of General Surgical Practice Size and Setting in 2017 vs 2013 in the US.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

As health care delivery markets have changed and new payment models have emerged, physicians in many specialties have consolidated their practices, but whether this consolidation has occurred in surgical practices is unknown.

Objective

To examine changes in the size of surgical practices, market-level factors associated with this consolidation, and how place of service for surgical care delivery varies by practice size.

Design, setting, and participants

A cross-sectional study of Medicare Data on Provider Practice and Specialty from January 1 to December 31, 2013, compared with January 1 to December 31, 2017, was conducted on all general surgeon practices caring for patients enrolled in Medicare in the US. Data analysis was performed from November 4, 2019, to January 9, 2020.

Exposures

Practice sizes in 2013 and 2017 were compared relative to hospital market concentration measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index in the hospital referral region.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was the change in size of surgical practices over the study period. Secondary outcomes included change in surgical practice market concentration and the place of service for provision of surgical care stratified by surgical practice size.

Results

From 2013 to 2017, the number of surgical practices in the US decreased from 10 432 to 8451. The proportion of surgeons decreased in practices with 1 (from 26.2% to 17.4%), 2 (from 8.3% to 6.6%), and 3 to 5 (from 18.0% to 16.5%) surgeons, and the proportion of surgeons in practices with 6 or more surgeons increased (from 47.6% to 59.5%). Hospital concentration was associated with an increase in the size of the surgical practice. Each 10% increase in the hospital market concentration was associated with an increase of 0.204 surgeons (95% CI, 0.020-0.388 surgeons; P = .03) per practice from 2013 to 2017. Similarly, a 10% increase in the hospital-level HHI was associated with an increase in the surgical practice HHI of 0.023 (95% CI, 0.013-0.033; P < .001). Large surgical practices increased their share of Medicare services provided from 36.5% in 2013 to 45.6% in 2017. Large practices (31.3% inpatient in 2013 to 33.1% in 2017) were much more likely than small practices (19.0% inpatient in 2013 to 17.7% in 2017) to be based in hospital settings and this gap widened over time.

Conclusions and relevance

Surgeons have increasingly joined larger practices over time, and there has been a significant decrease in solo, small, and midsize surgical practices. The consolidation of surgeons into larger practices appears to be associated with hospital market concentration in the same market. Although overall care appears to be more hospital based for larger practices, the association between the consolidation of surgical practices and patient access and outcomes should be studied.

SUBMITTER: Tsai TC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8082320 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:This study compares the clinical features and physician selection of either Regional Anesthesia (peribulbar or retrobulbar block) with Monitored Anesthesia Care (RA-MAC) or General Anesthesia (GA) for open globe injury repair.A non-randomized, comparative, retrospective case series at a University Referral Center.All adult repairable open globe injuries receiving primary repair between January 1st, 2004 and December 31st, 2014 (11 years). Exclusion criteria were patients less than 18 years of age and those treated with primary enucleation.Data was gathered via retrospective chart review.Data collected from each patient was age, gender, injury type, location, length of wound, presenting visual acuity, classification of anesthesia used, duration of the procedure performed, months of clinical follow-up, and final visual acuity.During the 11 years study period, 448 patients were identified who had open globe injuries with documented information on zone of injury. Globe injury repair was performed using RA-MAC in 351/448 (78%) patients and general anesthesia in 97/448 (22%) patients. Zone 1, 2 and 3 injuries were recorded in 241, 135, and 72 patients respectively. The rates in specific zones, of RA-MAC versus GA were as follows: Zone 1 - 213/241 (88%) vs 28/241 (12%), Zone 2 - 104/135 (77%) vs 31/135 (23%) and Zone 3 - 34/72 (47%) vs 38/72 (53%). Open globe injuries repaired under RA-MAC had significantly shorter wound length (p<0.001), more anterior wound location (p<0.001) and shorter operative times (p<0.001). RA-MAC cases also had a better presenting and final visual acuity (p<0.001). Neither class of anesthesia conferred a greater visual acuity improvement (p=0.06). The use of GA did not cause any delay in the time elapsed from injury until surgical repair (p=0.74).RA-MAC is a reasonable alternative to GA for the repair of open globe injuries in selected adult patients. RA-MAC was selected more often for Zone 1 and Zone 2 injuries. For eyes with Zone 3 injuries, there are equal selection ratio for RA-MAC and GA.

Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a global health crisis, and surgeons are at increased occupational risk of contracting COVID-19. The impact of the disease on prevalent general surgical practice is uncertain and continues to evolve. The study aimed to study the impact of COVID-19 on general surgical practice in India and the future implications of the pandemic. A survey questionnaire was designed and electronically circulated 1 month after India entered a national lockdown during COVID-19 pandemic, amongst members of Indian Association of Gastro-intestinal Endo-surgeons (IAGES), a surgical association with nearly eight thousand members from across the country. Survey questions pertaining to pre-COVID era surgical practices, impact on current practice, and financial implications were asked. Responses were collected and statistically analyzed. One hundred fifty-three surgeons completed the survey, of which only 9.2% were women. Majority (41%) were into practice for more than 20 years; 36.6% were into private practice at multiple hospitals (free-lancers). Amongst the respondents, 41.8% had mainly laparoscopic practice with mean outpatient consultation of 26 patients/day and elective surgeries of 43 cases/month prior to lockdown. Post-lockdown, daily outpatient consults reduced to 4 patients per day, and 77% had not performed a single elective procedure. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) chemoprophylaxis was reported by 52% surgeons. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was used by 52% for all cases, while 71.5% stated there are insufficient guidelines for future surgical practice in terms of safety. A drop of more than 75% of their monthly income was experienced by 52% surgeons, while 22% faced 50-75% reduction. One third (33%) of respondents own a hospital and are expecting a monthly financial liability of 2.25 million rupees (nearly 30,000 US dollars). COVID-19 has led to a drastic reduction in outpatient and elective surgical practices. There is a definite need for guidelines regarding safety for future surgical practices and solutions to overcome the financial liabilities in the near future.

Project description:ImportanceInfusion reactions occur in 7% to 20% of patients receiving biologics. Home infusions are convenient and incur lower costs but may be associated with more adverse events; the safety of receiving biologic infusions for immune-mediated diseases at home remains unclear.ObjectiveTo assess whether patients receiving home biologic infusions have increased adverse events requiring emergency department (ED) or hospital admission compared with patients receiving facility infusions.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used administrative claims data from a large national insurer for adult patients who received biologic infusions for immune-mediated disease between January 2007 and December 2017. Patients with hematologic malignant neoplasms or bone marrow transplantation were excluded. Data were analyzed from August 2019 to October 2020.Main outcomes and measuresED or hospital admission on the same or next day after administration of a biologic infusion at home vs at a facility; secondary outcomes included discontinuation of the biologic after an ED or hospital admission and postinfusion mortality.ResultsOf a total of 57 220 patients (mean [SD] age, 50.1 [14.8] years; 512 314 [68.1%] women) who received 752 150 biologic infusions (34 078 home infusions [4.5%] to 3954 patients and 718 072 facility infusions [95.5%] to 54 770 patients), patients who received home infusions were younger (mean [SD] age, 43.2 [13.2] vs 51.3 [14.8] years), more likely to be men (14 031 [41.2%] vs 225 668 [31.4%]), and had a lower Charlson comorbidity score compared with patients who received facility infusions (mean [SD] score, 0.5 [1.0] vs 1.1 [1.3]). Home infusions were associated with 25% increased odds of ED or hospital admission on the same or next day after the infusion (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.44; P = .002) and 28% increased odds of discontinuation of the biologic after the ED or hospital admission (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.08-1.51; P = .005). There was no difference in postinfusion mortality between home or facility infusions. The rates of adverse events were highest with home infusions of tocilizumab (48 of 481 infusions [10.0%]), vedolizumab (150 of 2681 infusions [5.6%]), and infliximab (1085 of 20 653 infusions [5.3%]), although the number of tocilizumab and vedolizumab infusions was low.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, biologic infusions administered at home, compared with those administered at a facility, were associated with increased adverse events requiring escalation of care. Because the number of home infusions has increased and is expected to continue to rise, the safety implications of administering biologic infusions at home needs to be further assessed.

Project description:BackgroundAntipsychotics are increasingly prescribed to children and adolescents worldwide, but little is known about reasons for prescribing. We aimed to examine patterns of paediatric antipsychotic prescribing in Australian primary care services in 2011 and 2017, including diagnoses, sociodemographic characteristics, off-label prescribing, and psychotropic co-prescribing.MethodsRetrospective analysis of electronic health records (EHRs) using a large Australian general practice database (MedicineInsight). Diagnoses of mental disorders were extracted from EHRs and associated with antipsychotic prescriptions within the same calendar year for three age-groups: 0-9, 10-14, and 15-18-year-olds.ResultsIn 2017, children/adolescents with mental health diagnoses were more likely to be prescribed antipsychotics (2.9% of 27,412 patients) than in 2011 (2.0% of 8418 patients; absolute difference +0.9, 95% CI + 0.5, +1.4). The likelihood was greater for patients with bipolar disorders (21.6% vs. 41.5%), eating disorders (1.1% vs. 7.2%), and autism without behavioural problems (3.7% vs. 6.1%). Depression/anxiety (adjusted 26.8% of patients 2011; 30.8% 2017) was the most common diagnosis associated with antipsychotics in both years. Most antipsychotics were prescribed off-label (69.8% 2011; 79.7% 2017; absolute difference +9.8, 95% CI + 1.54, +18.4). Off-label prescribing increased most among those aged 15-18-years, females, and patients living in outer regional/remote/very remote communities and the most disadvantaged areas. The three most frequently prescribed antipsychotics in both years were risperidone, quetiapine, and olanzapine. Psychotropic co-prescribing among patients receiving antipsychotic prescriptions was approximately 69% in both years.ConclusionsPrescribing antipsychotics for mental health diagnoses to children/adolescents attending Australian general practices was more frequent in 2017 than 2011, and most commonly associated with depression/anxiety diagnoses. In both years, most prescribing was off-label. The majority of patients were co-prescribed other classes of psychotropics along with antipsychotics.