Developing a Value Framework: Utilizing Administrative Data to Assess an Enhanced Care Initiative

What defines the "value" of robotic surgery for patients with gastrointestinal cancers? Perspectives from a U.S. Cancer Center

The use of robotic surgery has experienced rapid growth across diverse medical conditions, with a notable emphasis on gastrointestinal cancers. The advanced technologies incorporated into robotic surgery platforms have played a pivotal role in enabling the safe performance of complex procedures, including gastrectomy and pancreatectomy, through a minimally invasive approach. However, there exists a noteworthy gap in high-level evidence demonstrating that robotic surgery for gastric and pancreatic cancers has substantial benefits compared to traditional open or laparoscopic methods. The primary impediment hindering the broader implementation of robotic surgery is its cost. The escalating healthcare expenses in the United States have prompted healthcare providers and payors to explore patient-centered, value-based healthcare models and reimbursement systems that embrace cost-effectiveness. Thus, it is important to determine what defines the value of robotic surgery. It must either maintain or enhance oncological quality and improve complication rates compared to open procedures. Moreover, its true value should be apparent in patients' expedited recovery and improved quality of life. Another essential aspect of robotic surgery's value lies in minimizing or even eliminating opioid use, even after major operations, offering considerable benefits to the broader public health landscape. A quicker return to oncological therapy has the potential to improve overall oncological outcomes, while a speedier return to work not only alleviates individual financial distress but also positively impacts societal productivity. In this article, we comprehensively review and summarize the current landscape of health economics and value-based care, with a focus on robotic surgery for gastrointestinal cancers.

Comprehensive value implications of surgeon volume for lung cancer surgery: Use of an analytic framework within a regional health system

Objective

We used a framework to assess the value implications of thoracic surgeon operative volume within an 8-hospital health system.

Methods

Surgical cases for non-small cell lung cancer were assessed from March 2015 to March 2021. High-volume (HV) surgeons performed >25 pulmonary resections annually. Metrics include length of stay, infection rates, 30-day readmission, in-hospital mortality, median 30-day charges and direct costs, and 3-year recurrence-free and overall survival. Multivariate regression-based propensity scores matched patients between groups. Metrics were graphed on radar charts to conceptualize total value.

Results

All 638 lung resections were performed by 12 surgeons across 6 hospitals. Two HV surgeons performed 51% (n = 324) of operations, and 10 low-volume surgeons performed 49% (n = 314). Median follow-up was 28.8 months (14.0-42.3 months). Lobectomy was performed in 71% (n = 450) of cases. HV surgeons performed more segmentectomies (33% [n = 107] vs 3% [n = 8]; P < .001). Patients of HV surgeons had a lower length of stay (3 [2-4] vs 5 [3-7]; P < .001) and infection rates (0.6% [n = 1] vs 4% [n = 7]; P = .03). Low-volume and HV surgeons had similar 30-day readmission rates (14% [n = 23] vs 7% [n = 12]; P = .12), in-hospital mortality (0% [n = 0] vs 0.6% [n = 1]; P = .33), and oncologic outcomes; 3-year recurrence-free survival was 95% versus 91%; P = .44, and 3-year overall survival was 94% versus 90%; P = 0. Charges were reduced by 28%, and direct costs were reduced by 23% (both P < .001) in the HV cohort.

Conclusions

HV surgeons provide comprehensive value across a health system. This multidomain framework can be used to help drive oncologic care decisions within a health system.

Defining Priorities in Value-Based Cancer Care: Insights From the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology National Cooperative Group Survey

PURPOSE

We determine how stakeholders prioritize the importance of oncologic outcomes, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and cancer-related health care costs.

METHODS

A survey was distributed to the National Clinical Trials Network Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology cooperative group membership from May 14 to June 30, 2022. Respondents were asked to rate (5-point Likert scale) and rank (1-9) evidence-based value domains: overall survival, treatment toxicities/complications, quality of life (QOL), financial toxicity, access to care, compliance with evidence-based care, health system performance, scientific discovery and innovation, and cost to the health care system.

RESULTS

A total of 514 members responded, including researchers (24.7%), nurses (19.5%), medical oncologists (17.9%), administrators (9.3%), surgical and radiation oncologists (9.1%), patient advocates (3.1%), and nonphysician providers (16.4%). Participants represented various practice settings including National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers (29.8%), university-affiliated academic cancer centers (21%), hospital-owned oncology practices (21.8%), and others (27.4%). There was agreement in how respondents prioritized value domains (W = 0.39, P < .001). Respondents ranked patient QOL (mean rank: 2.6 ± 1.9) as most important above all other metrics including survival (mean rank: 3.5 ± 0.3) and access to care (mean rank: 3.5 ± 2.1; P < .001). Members engaged in direct patient care also ranked access to care of higher importance than nonclinicians (P = .026). Cost to the health care system (mean rank: 7.5 ± 2.1) and health system performance (mean rank: 7 ± 2) were ranked as least important (P < .001). Inclusion of PROs into therapeutic assessment (59.3%) was the most frequently selected priority of future cooperative group initiatives.

CONCLUSION

Oncology community stakeholders deemed patient-centered value domains as most important and considered patient QOL the highest priority. Inclusion of PROs into clinical trials was endorsed as an important component of therapeutic assessment. These findings can be taken into consideration when creating a value framework for inclusion in cancer clinical trials.

Introducing value-based healthcare perspectives into hospital performance assessment: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Value-based healthcare (VBHC) puts patient outcomes at the center of the healthcare process while optimizing the use of hospital resources across multiple stakeholders. This scoping review was conducted to summarize how VBHC had been represented in theory and in practice, how it had been applied to assess hospital performance, and how well it had been ultimately implemented.

METHODS

For this review, we followed the PRISMA-ScR protocol and searched five major online databases for articles published between January 2006 and July 2022. We included original articles that used the concept of VBHC to conduct performance assessments of healthcare organizations. We extracted and analyzed key concepts and information on the dimensions of VBHC, specific strategies and methods for using VBHC in performance assessment, and the effectiveness of the assessment.

RESULTS

We identified 48 eligible studies from 7866 articles. Nineteen nonempirical studies focused on the development of a VBHC performance assessment indicator system, and 29 empirical studies reported on the ways and points of introducing VBHC into performance assessment and its effectiveness. Ultimately, we summarized the key dimensions, processes, and effects of performance assessment after introducing VBHC.

CONCLUSION

Current healthcare performance assessment has begun to focus on implementing VBHC as an integrated strategy, and future work should further clarify the reliability of metrics and their association with evaluation outcomes and consider the effective integration of clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes.

Origami plot: a novel multivariate data visualization tool that improves radar chart

OBJECTIVES

We propose the origami plot, which maintains the original functionality of a radar chart and avoids potential misuse of its connected regions, with newly added features to better assist multicriteria decision-making.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Built upon a radar chart, the origami plot adds additional auxiliary axes and points such that the area of the connected region of all dots is invariant to the ordering of axes. As such, it enables ranking different individuals by the overall performance for multicriteria decision-making while maintaining the intuitive visual appeal of the radar chart. We develop extensions of the origami plot, including the weighted origami plot, which allows reweighting of each attribute to define the overall performance, and the pairwise origami plot, which highlights comparisons between two individuals.

RESULTS

We illustrate the different versions of origami plots using the hospital compare database developed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The plot shows individual hospital's performance on mortality, readmission, complication, and infection, as well as patient experience and timely and effective care, as well as their overall performance across these metrics. The weighted origami plot allows weighing the attributes differently when some are more important than others. We illustrate the potential use of the pairwise origami plot in electronic health records (EHR) system to monitor five clinical measures (body mass index [BMI]), fasting glucose level, blood pressure, triglycerides, and low-density lipoprotein ([LDL] cholesterol) of a patient across multiple hospital visits.

CONCLUSION

The origami plot is a useful visualization tool to assist multicriteria decision making. It improves radar charts by avoiding potential misuse of the connected regions. It has several new features and allows flexible customization.

What is "Value"? Results of a Survey of Cancer Patients and Providers

BACKGROUND

We measured the importance patients with gastrointestinal cancer and health care providers place on treatment outcomes, quality of life, and costs.

METHODS

This cross-sectional survey study was conducted between June 1, 2020 and November 30, 2020. We identified surviving patients who had been treated or were anticipating treatment for pancreatic or gastric cancer at our single institution from January 1, 2000 through January 31, 2020. Surveys assessed the importance patients and providers placed on outcomes, well-being, costs, and experiences. Surveys measured how these values had changed over time. We compared the importance patients and providers place on each of the attributes of value.

RESULTS

A total of 383 patients and 164 providers responded. Providers felt experience, emotional well-being, and costs were more important than patients themselves did (all p < 0.05). Patients more commonly reported that survival had become more important to them over time, while providers believed that emotional well-being, experience, and costs had become more important to patients (all p < 0.05). Postoperative patients ranked functional well-being as more important than preoperative patients did (p = 0.031). Patients of lower income and education levels more reported concerns of costs over the course of their care (both p < 0.05). Younger age was associated with concern for direct (r = -0.167, p = 0.004) and indirect costs (r = -0.318, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Although there are consistencies amongst the views of cancer patients and providers, there remain discordances in the perception of value. Patients' values differed across their treatment and survivorship course. These data demonstrate the importance of accounting for multistakeholder perspectives in assessments of value in health care.

Enhancing the cost-effectiveness of surgical care in pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and cost meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical pathways (CP) based on Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) are increasingly utilised in patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). This systematic review aimed to compare the impact of CPs versus conventional care (CC) on peri-PD costs.

METHODS

A systematic review of major reference databases was undertaken. Quality assessment was performed using the CHEERS checklist. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated as part of the cost-effectiveness analysis. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models and Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to assess the precision and conclusiveness of the results.

RESULTS

14 studies meeting inclusion criteria were included for full qualitative synthesis. All studies reported a reduction in overall costs, length of stay and overall complication rates for CPs when compared to CC. Meta-analysis performed on nine studies demonstrated significantly reduced costs in the CP group, with considerable heterogeneity (Pooled mean difference of $ 4.28 × 10³, p < 0.01, I² = 95%). Cost-effectiveness analysis in relation to complications demonstrated dominance of CPs over CC in being cheaper as well as more effective. TSA supported the cost benefit of enhanced-recovery CPs, displaying minimal type 1 error.

CONCLUSION

Peri-PD CPs result in significant cost-reduction in comparison to CC.

A Standardized Framework for Evaluating Surgical Enhanced Recovery Pathways: A Recommendations Statement from the TDABC in Health-care Consortium

Background: Innovative methodologies to redesign care delivery are being applied to increase value in health care, including the creation of enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) for surgical patients. However, there is a lack of standardized methods to evaluate ERP implementation costs. Objectives: This Recommendations Statement aims to introduce a standardized framework to guide the economic evaluation of ERP care-design initiatives, using the Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TDABC) methodology. Methods: We provide recommendations on using the proposed framework to support the decision-making processes that incorporate ERPs. Since ERPs are usually composed of activities distributed throughout the patient care pathway, the framework can demonstrate how the TDABC may be a valuable method to evaluate the incremental costs of protocol implementation. Our recommendations are based on the review of available literature and expert opinions of the members of the TDABC in Healthcare Consortium. Results: The ERP framework, composed of 11 steps, was created describing how the techniques and methods can be applied to evaluate the economic impact of an ERP and guide health-care leaders to optimize the decision-making process of incorporating ERPs into health-care settings. Finally, six recommendations are introduced to demonstrate that using the suggested framework could increase value in ERP care-design initiatives by reducing variability in care delivery, educating multidisciplinary teams about value in health, and increasing transparency when managing surgical pathways. Conclusions: Our proposed standardized framework can guide decisions and support measuring improvements in value achieved by incorporating the perioperative redesign protocols.