Hospital quality, patient risk, and Medicare expenditures for cancer surgery

Not Clearing the Air: Hospital Price Transparency for a Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy

INTRODUCTION

In 2019, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) established a new requirement that all hospitals publish information on the standard costs of services provided. Increased price transparency allows patients to compare healthcare costs and make informed decisions about their care. We investigated compliance with this rule with regards to laparoscopic cholecystectomy, a commonly performed operation and one of the 70 shoppable services (SSs) included in the CMS requirement, among prominent hospitals in the United States.

METHODS

The 2021-2022 US News "Best Hospitals for Gastroenterology and GI Surgery" was used to identify the top 50 hospitals for gastrointestinal surgery. Each hospital's website was assessed for the presence of a machine-readable file (MRF) as required by CMS. Each MRF was then evaluated for inclusion of all seven required elements: description of item/service, gross charge, payer-specific negotiated charge, deidentified minimum and maximum negotiated charges, discounted cash price, and billing code. The presence of a consumer-friendly display of SSs was also evaluated. The Current Procedural Terminology code 47562 (removal of gallbladder with an endoscope) was used to search for all six required elements: payer-specific negotiated charge, discounted cash price, de-identified minimum and maximum negotiated charges, campus location of the SS, and billing code. The SS display was further evaluated for provision of additional information on ancillary charges, which are recommended but not required. The MRF and SS were also evaluated for accessibility and date of last update. Hospitals were analyzed according to rank. Compliance with CMS requirements was compared between hospitals.

RESULTS

Fifty one hospitals were included. Of these 51 hospitals, one (2%) provided all the required information for both MRF and SS, 44 (86%) did not provide all necessary components of both the MRF and SS, six (12%) had all necessary elements of an MRF only, and two (4%) had all necessary elements of the SS only. The MRF was accessible in 80% (41) of studied hospitals and 76% (39) provided a gross charge but just 35% (18) of hospitals included the discounted cash price. The SS specified location for all hospitals, indicated a billing code in 96% (49), and provided a payer-specific charge in 96% (48), but less often provided de-identified minimum (30; 59%) and maximum (30; 59%) charges. Thirty nine (76%) hospitals reported that the listed price included an ancillary charge. There was no significant difference between hospitals in having all required elements of both the MRF and SS or the MRF only or SS only.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals are providing healthcare consumers with standard charge information, although with significant variation in what is disclosed. There is no association between hospital reputation and provision of standard charge information.

Neoadjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: Propensity-Matched Analysis of Postoperative Complications Using ACS-NSQIP

BACKGROUND

The use of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is increasing. While there is an association between NAT and improved post-pancreatectomy complication rates in limited patient populations, the strength of the relationship and its applicability to a broader and modern pancreatectomy cohort remains unclear.

METHODS

We used the 2014-2018 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project to evaluate NAT use for PDAC patients undergoing pancreatectomy. We also used propensity score matching techniques to compare 30-day postoperative outcomes, including clinically relevant postoperative pancreatic fistula (CR-POPF) and delayed gastric emptying (DGE), between patients selected for NAT versus upfront surgery.

RESULTS

Patients receiving NAT were more likely to undergo vascular resections (33% vs. 16%, p < 0.001), have perioperative transfusions (18% vs. 12%, p < 0.001), and undergo longer procedures. Rates of CR-POPF (6%, vs. 10%, p < 0.001), DGE (11% vs. 13%, p = 0.016), postoperative percutaneous drainage (9% vs. 12%, p < 0.001), and SSI (15% vs. 18%, p < 0.001) were lower for patients selected for NAT. The association of NAT with CR-POPF remained statistically significant (adjusted odds ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.42-0.66) after adjustment for operative technique, gland texture, and need for vascular resection for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, but not for patients undergoing distal pancreatectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Among PDAC patients undergoing resection, selection for NAT is associated with fewer CR-POPFs, postoperative procedural interventions, and infectious complications, particularly for patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy. These associations should be considered in discussions of multidisciplinary treatment sequencing for patients with PDAC.

Local Referral of High-risk Patients to High-quality Hospitals: Surgical Outcomes, Cost Savings, and Travel Burdens

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the potential changes in Medicare payments and clinical outcomes of referring high-risk surgical patients to local high-quality hospitals within small geographic areas.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Previous studies have documented a benefit in referring high-risk patients to high-quality hospitals on a national basis, suggesting selective referral as a mechanism to improve the value of surgical care. Practically, referral of patients should be done within small geographic regions; however, the benefit of local selective referral has not been studied.

METHODS

We analyzed data on elderly Medicare beneficiaries undergoing any of 4 elective inpatient surgical procedures between 2012 and 2014. Hospitals were categorized into Metropolitan Statistical Areas by zip code and stratified into quintiles of quality based on rates of postoperative complications. Patient risk was calculated by modeling the predicted risk of a postoperative complication. Medicare payments for each surgical episode were calculated. Distances between patients' home zip code and high- and low-quality hospitals were calculated.

RESULTS

One quarter of high-risk patients underwent surgery at a low-quality hospital despite the availability of a high-quality hospital in their small geographic area. Shifting these patients to a local high-quality hospital would decrease spending 12% to 37% ($2,500 for total knee and hip replacement, $6,700 for colectomy, and $11,400 for lung resection). Approximately 45% of high-risk patients treated at low-quality hospitals could travel a shorter distance to reach a high-quality hospital than the low-quality hospital they received care at.

CONCLUSIONS

Complication rates and Medicare payments are significantly lower for high-risk patients treated at local high-quality hospitals. This suggests triaging high-risk patients to local high-quality hospitals within small geographic areas may serve as a template for improving the value of surgical care.

Local Referral of High-Risk Pancreatectomy Patients to Improve Surgical Outcomes and Minimize Travel Burden

BACKGROUND

Referring patients to high-quality hospitals for complex procedures may improve outcomes. This is most feasible within small geographic areas. However, access to specialized surgical procedures may be an implementation barrier. We sought to determine the availability of high-quality hospitals performing pancreatectomy and the potential benefit and travel burden of referral within small geographic areas.

METHODS

We identified elderly Medicare beneficiaries undergoing pancreatectomy between 2012 and 2014. Hospitals were stratified into quintiles of quality based on postoperative complication rates. Patient risk was assessed by modeling the predicted risk of developing a postoperative complication. The geographic unit of analysis was Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Hospitals were categorized into MSA by zip code. Travel distance was calculated using patient and hospital zip code.

RESULTS

Among high-risk patients, 40.7% received care at the lowest-quality hospitals even though 80% had a high-quality hospital in the same MSA. Shifting these patients from low- to high-quality hospitals would decrease serious complications from 46.6 to 21.9% (P < 0.001) and mortality from 10.9 to 8.9% (P = 0.047). Three quarters of high-risk patients treated at low-quality hospitals could reach a high-quality hospital by extending their travel < 5 miles, and nearly 60% traveled farther to a low-quality hospital than was necessary to reach a high-quality hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

High-risk pancreatectomy patients often receive care at low-quality hospitals despite the availability of high-quality hospitals in the area or within an acceptable distance. Referral of high-risk patients to high-quality hospitals within small geographic areas may be an effective strategy to improve outcomes following pancreatic surgery.

Who Will be the Costliest Patients? Using Recent Claims to Predict Expensive Surgical Episodes

INTRODUCTION

Surgery accounts for almost half of inpatient spending, much of which is concentrated in a subset of high-cost patients. To study the effects of surgeon and hospital characteristics on surgical expenditures, a way to adjust for patient characteristics is essential.

DESIGN

Using 100% Medicare claims data, we identified patients aged 66-99 undergoing elective inpatient surgery (coronary artery bypass grafting, colectomy, and total hip/knee replacement) in 2014. We calculated price-standardized Medicare payments for the surgical episode from admission through 30 days after discharge (episode payments). On the basis of predictor variables from 2013, that is, Elixhauser comorbidities, hierarchical condition categories, Medicare's Chronic Conditions Warehouse (CCW), and total spending, we constructed models to predict the costs of surgical episodes in 2014.

RESULTS

All sources of comorbidity data performed well in predicting the costliest cases (Spearman correlation 0.86-0.98). Models on the basis of hierarchical condition categories had slightly superior performance. The costliest quintile of patients as predicted by the model captured 35%-45% of the patients in each procedure's actual costliest quintile. For example, in hip replacement, 44% of the costliest quintile was predicted by the model's costliest quintile.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion of surgical spending can be predicted using patient factors on the basis of readily available claims data. By adjusting for patient factors, this will facilitate future research on unwarranted variation in episode payments driven by surgeons, hospitals, or other market forces.

Local referrals as a strategy for increasing value of surgical care among medicare patients undergoing liver and pancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

The focus of the current Medicare payment reform is to increase value - i.e. improve health care quality while lowering costs. This study sought to define cost variation and surgical quality among hospitals within small geographic areas typical of work commute patterns.

METHODS

Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) Inpatient Files was used to identify patients undergoing elective liver and pancreatic surgery between 2013 and 2015. Hospitals were assigned to combined statistical areas (CSAs) based on zip codes. Average price-standardized Medicare payments were used to identify highest- and lowest-cost hospitals within CSAs, and clinical outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

The study included 12,016 patients. Medicare payments for index hospitalization were 45% ($12,580), 42% ($16,831), 44% ($12,901) and 50% ($18,605) higher for the highest-vs. lowest-cost hospitals for non-complex pancreatic procedures, complex pancreatic procedures, non-complex liver procedures, and complex liver procedures, respectively. Surgical quality was worse at highest-vs. lowest-cost hospitals, demonstrated by higher rates of complications, prolonged LOS and 90-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

There was a significant variation in surgical cost for each procedure between CSAs, and within CSAs. Highest-cost hospitals demonstrated worse quality metrics than the lowest-cost hospitals. Local referrals to low-cost hospitals represent an opportunity for increasing value of surgical care.

A national assessment of the utilization, quality and cost of laparoscopic liver resection

BACKGROUND

Despite recent enthusiasm for the use of laparoscopic liver resection, data evaluating costs associated with laparoscopic liver resections are lacking. We sought to examine the use of laparoscopic liver surgery, and investigate variations in cost among hospitals performing these procedures.

METHODS

A nationally representative sample of 12,560 patients who underwent a liver resection in 2012 was identified. Multivariable analyses were performed to compare outcomes associated with liver resection.

RESULTS

Among the 12,560 patients who underwent liver resection, 685 (5.4%) underwent a laparoscopic liver resection. The proportion of liver resections performed laparoscopically varied among hospitals ranging from 4.6% to 20.0%; the median volume of laparoscopic liver resections was 10 operations/year. Although laparoscopic surgery was associated with lower postoperative morbidity (aOR = 0.60, 95%CI: 0.36-0.99) and shorter lengths of stay [(LOS) aIRR = 0.83, 95%CI: 0.70-0.97], it was not associated with inpatient mortality (p = 0.971) or hospital costs (p = 0.863). Costs associated with laparoscopic liver resection varied ranging from $5,907 (95%CI: $5,140-$6,674) to $67,178 (95%CI: $66,271-$68,083). The observed variations between hospitals were due to differences in morbidity (coefficient: $20,415, 95%CI: $16,000-$24,830) and LOS (coefficient: $24,690, 95%CI: $21,688-$27,692).

CONCLUSIONS

Although laparoscopic liver resection was associated with improved short-term perioperative clinical outcomes, utilization of laparoscopic liver resection remains low.

Simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation and the impact of postoperative complications on hospitalization cost

OBJECTIVE

considering simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation cases, to evaluate the financial impact of postoperative complications on hospitalization cost.

METHODS

a retrospective study of hospitalization data from patients consecutively submitted to simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplantation (SPKT), from January 2008 to December 2014, at Kidney Hospital/Oswaldo Ramos Foundation (Sao Paulo, Brazil). The main studied variables were reoperation, graft pancreatectomy, death, postoperative complications (surgical, infectious, clinical, and immunological ones), and hospitalization financial data for transplantation.

RESULTS

the sample was composed of 179 transplanted patients. The characteristics of donors and recipients were similar in patients with and without complications. In data analysis, 58.7% of the patients presented some postoperative complication, 21.8% required reoperation, 12.3% demanded graft pancreatectomy, and 8.4% died. The need for reoperation or graft pancreatectomy increased hospitalization cost by 53.3% and 78.57%, respectively. The presence of postoperative complications significantly increased hospitalization cost. However, the presence of death, internal hernia, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and pancreatic graft dysfunction did not present statistical significance in hospitalization cost (in average US$ 18,516.02).

CONCLUSION

considering patients who underwent SPKT, postoperative complications, reoperation, and graft pancreatectomy, as well as surgical, infectious, clinical, and immunological complications, significantly increased the mean cost of hospitalization. However, death, internal hernia, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and pancreatic graft dysfunction did not statistically interfere in hospitalization cost.

Variation in the cost-of-rescue among medicare patients with complications following hepatopancreatic surgery

BACKGROUND

The relationship of expenditures related to rescuing patients from complications and hospital quality has not been well characterized. We sought to examine the relationship between payments for treating post-operative complications after liver and pancreas surgery and hospital quality.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent hepatopancreatic surgery was performed using claims data from 2013 to 2015 in the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review (MEDPAR) database. Medicare payments for index hospitalization and readmissions, as well as perioperative clinical outcomes were analyzed. Hospitals were stratified using average payments for patients who were rescued from complications (cost-of-rescue).

RESULTS

A total of 13,873 patients and 737 hospitals were included in the analyses. Patient characteristics were similar across hospitals. Risk-adjusted rates of overall complications were higher at the highest cost-of-rescue hospitals (relative risk [RR], 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.16-1.58), as well as rates of serious complications (RR, 1.78, 95% CI 1.51-2.09), 30-day readmission (RR 1.21 95% CI 1.06-1.39), 90-day mortality (RR, 1.29, 95% CI 1.01-1.64), and rates of failure-to-rescue (RR, 1.50, 95% CI 1.14-1.97).

CONCLUSION

Highest cost-of-rescue hospitals demonstrated worse quality metrics, including higher rates of serious complications, failure-to-rescue, 30-day readmission, and 90-day mortality.

Early Impact of Medicare Accountable Care Organizations on Inpatient Surgical Spending

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether hospital participation in accountable care organizations (ACOs) is associated with reduced Medicare spending for inpatient surgery.

BACKGROUND

ACOs have proliferated rapidly and now cover more than 32 million Americans. Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) ACOs have shown modest success in reducing medical spending. Whether they have reduced surgical spending remains unknown.

METHODS

We used 100% Medicare claims from 2010 to 2014 for patients aged 65 to 99 years undergoing 6 common elective surgical procedures [abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair, colectomy, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), hip or knee replacement, or lung resection]. We compared total Medicare payments for 30-day surgical episodes, payments for individual components of care (index hospitalization, readmissions, physician services, and postacute care), and clinical outcomes for patients treated at MSSP ACO hospitals versus matched controls at non-ACO hospitals. We accounted for preexisting trends independent of ACO participation using a difference-in-differences approach.

RESULTS

Among 341,675 patients at 427 ACO hospitals and 1,024,090 matched controls at 1531 non-ACO hospitals, patient and hospital characteristics were well-balanced. Average baseline payments were similar at ACO versus non-ACO hospitals. ACO participation was not associated with reductions in total Medicare payments [difference-in-differences estimate=-$72, confidence interval (CI95%): -$228 to +$84] or individual components of payments. ACO participation was also not associated with clinical outcomes. Duration of ACO participation did not affect our estimates.

CONCLUSION

Although Medicare ACOs have had success reducing spending for medical care, they have not had similar success with surgical spending. Given that surgical care accounts for 30% of total health care costs, ACOs and policymakers must pay greater attention to reducing surgical expenditures.

Quality Measurement and Pay for Performance

Recent debate has focused on which quality measures are appropriate for surgical oncology and how they should be implemented and incentivized. Current quality measures focus primarily on process measures (use of adjuvant therapy, pathology reporting) and patient-centered outcomes (health-related quality of life). Pay for performance programs impacting surgical oncology patients focus primarily on preventing postoperative complications, but are not specific to cancer surgery. Future pay for performance programs in surgical oncology will likely focus on incentivizing high-quality, low-cost cancer care by evaluating process measures, patient-centered measures, and costs of care specific to cancer surgery.

Variation in Medicare Payments and Reimbursement Rates for Hepatopancreatic Surgery Based on Quality: Is There a Financial Incentive for High-Quality Hospitals?

BACKGROUND

To better define the financial impact of high-quality care for payers and hospitals, we compared outcomes and Medicare payments between high-quality (HQ) and low-quality (LQ) hospitals after hepatopancreatic surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Between 2013 through 2015, a total of 15,874 Medicare beneficiaries underwent hepatopancreatic surgery. Using the entire cohort, multivariable logistic regression was performed to categorize hospitals into quintiles based on the probability of experiencing a major complication; HQ (bottom 20%) and LQ (top 20%) hospitals were identified. Only HQ and LQ hospitals were included in the final propensity matching to compare payments. Major complication was defined as a complication associated with a length of stay of >75th percentile. Incremental payment and cost of complication were estimated using multivariable linear regression.

RESULTS

Major complications occurred in 9.7% (n = 309 of 3,182) at HQ hospitals compared with 20% (n = 625 of 3,130) at LQ hospitals (p < 0.001). The incremental increased payment associated with major complication was $29,640, which was lower than the incremental hospital cost of $42,935. The Medicare reimbursement rate was also 6% lower at both HQ and LQ hospitals when a major complication occurred vs not; however, HQ hospitals had a 3% higher reimbursement rate compared with LQ hospitals when a major complication did not occur (p = 0.002). Mean unadjusted Medicare payment was lower at HQ hospitals by $5,165 per patient vs LQ hospitals (p < 0.001), largely because HQ hospitals had a lower overall incidence of major complications (n = 315 vs n = 625). By having 310 fewer patients with a major complication, HQ hospitals collectively achieved $3.1 million/year in Medicare savings.

CONCLUSIONS

High-quality hospitals are able to achieve substantial Medicare savings by avoiding major complications. Occurrence of major complications was associated with lower Medicare reimbursement rates at both HQ and LQ hospitals vs when no complications occurred.