Dataset Information

Resource utilization and disaggregated cost analysis of bariatric surgery in the Australian public healthcare system.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To present a comprehensive real-world micro-costing analysis of bariatric surgery.

Methods

Patients were included if they underwent primary bariatric surgery (gastric banding [GB], gastric bypass [GBP] and sleeve gastrectomy [SG]) between 2013 and 2019. Costs were disaggregated into cost items and average-per-patient costs from the Australian healthcare systems perspective were expressed in constant 2019 Australian dollars for the entire cohort and subgroup analysis. Annual population-based costs were calculated to capture longitudinal trends. A generalized linear model (GLM) predicted the overall bariatric-related costs.

Results

N = 240 publicly funded patients were included, with the waitlist times of ≤ 10.7 years. The mean direct costs were $11,269. The operating theatre constituted the largest component of bariatric-related costs, followed by medical supplies, salaries, critical care use, and labour on-costs. Average cost for SG ($12,632) and GBP ($15,041) was higher than that for GB ($10,049). Operating theatre accounted for the largest component for SG/GBP costs, whilst medical supplies were the largest for GB. We observed an increase in SG and a decrease in GB procedures over time. Correspondingly, the main cost driver changed from medical supplies in 2014-2015 for GB procedures to operating theatre for SG thereafter. GLM model estimates of bariatric average cost ranged from $7,580 to $36,633.

Conclusions

We presented the first detailed characterization of the scale, disaggregated profile and determinants of bariatric-related costs, and examined the evolution of resource utilization patterns and costs, reflecting the shift in the Australian bariatric landscape over time. Understanding these patterns and forecasting of future changes are critical for efficient resource allocation.

SUBMITTER: Xia Q

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8586836 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a disease that causes damage in the macular region of the retina, leading to irreversible blindness. This study aims to understand the profile and care of patients with AMD and its cost at the Brazilian public health system to identify AMD-care needs. METHODS:This is a retrospective observational study of AMD with real-world data from the Brazilian public healthcare system, using DATASUS claim databases. Patients with AMD were selected from 01/Jan/2014 to 31/Jan/2020; had at least one claim of ICD10 code H35.3 (Degeneration of macula and posterior pole), and were submitted to one of two procedures exclusively available for AMD patients - optical coherence tomography (OCT) and medical treatment of retinal disease (antiangiogenic); aged ≥18 years at first ICD10 claim, and presenting at least 1 year of follow-up in the database. We described patients' characteristics, healthcare resource utilization and cost, and the antiangiogenic intravitreal treatment received by AMD patients, including the number of doses and interval time between them. RESULTS:Patients searching for AMD treatment since 2014 were mostly females (59%), white (61%), and a mean age of 72 years. They were mainly located in the Southeast (87%), and few patients were found in the North (1%) and Central-West (1.5%) regions, probably reflecting where the Brazilian guideline to treat AMD (Protocolo Clínico e Diretrizes Terapêuticas - PCDT) was incorporated as routine care for AMD. The average antiangiogenic dose of 2.5 antiangiogenic therapies within a year was below the expected. Most injections had an interval time of 20 to 40 days between doses, although some patients were treated more than 100 days. Another setback is that patients traveled longer distances for OCT and antiangiogenic treatment than overall AMD-healthcare, between 10 and 100 km. CONCLUSIONS:AMD patients seem to be undertreated, as they receive a mean of 2.5 doses of antiangiogenic treatment within a year. Inequalities among regions are evident, as the Southeast and South regions comprise almost all patients receiving the treatment from the public health system, probably reflecting the region with more access to AMD care according to PCDT recommendations.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare safety and healthcare utilization after sleeve gastrectomy versus Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in a national Medicare cohort.Summary background dataThough bariatric surgery is increasing among Medicare beneficiaries, no long-term, national studies examining comparative effectiveness between procedures exist. Bariatric outcomes are needed for shared decision-making and coverage policy concerns identified by the cMS Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee.MethodsRetrospective instrumental variable analysis of Medicare claims (2012-2017) for 30,105 bariatric surgery patients entitled due to disability or age. We examined clinical safety outcomes (mortality, complications, and reinterventions), healthcare utilization [Emergency Department (ED) visits, rehospitalizations, and expenditures], and heterogeneity of treatment effect. We compared all outcomes between sleeve and bypass for each entitlement group at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years.ResultsAmong the disabled (n = 21,595), sleeve was associated with lower 3-year mortality [2.1% vs 3.2%, absolute risk reduction (ARR) 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.2% to -0.03%], complications (22.2% vs 27.7%, ARR 95%CI: -8.5% to -2.6%), reinterventions (20.1% vs 27.7%, ARR 95%CI: -10.7% to -4.6%), ED utilization (71.6% vs 77.1%, ARR 95%CI: -8.5% to -2.4%), and rehospitalizations (47.4% vs 52.3%, ARR 95%Ci: -8.0% to -1.7%). Cumulative expenditures were $46,277 after sleeve and $48,211 after bypass (P = 0.22). Among the elderly (n = 8510), sleeve was associated with lower 3-year complications (20.1% vs 24.7%, ARR 95%CI: -7.6% to -1.7%), reinterventions (14.0% vs 21.9%, ARR 95%CI: -10.7% to -5.2%), ED utilization (51.7% vs 57.2%, ARR 95%CI: -9.1% to -1.9%), and rehospitalizations (41.8% vs 45.8%, ARR 95%Ci: -7.5% to -0.5%). Expenditures were $38,632 after sleeve and $39,270 after bypass (P = 0.60). Procedure treatment effect significantly differed by entitlement for mortality, revision, and paraesophageal hernia repair.ConclusionsBariatric surgery is safe, and healthcare utilization benefits of sleeve over bypass are preserved across both Medicare elderly and disabled subpopulations.