Episode-based cost reduction for endovascular aneurysm repair

Early Financial Outcomes of Physician Modified Endograft Programs Are Dictated by Device Cost

INTRODUCTION

Physician-modified endografts (PMEGs) have been used for repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms (TAAAs) for 2 decades with good outcomes but limited financial data. This study compared the financial and clinical outcomes of PMEGs to the Cook Zenith-Fenestrated (ZFEN) graft and open surgical repair (OSR).

METHODS

A retrospective review of financial and clinical data was performed for all patients who underwent endovascular or OSR of juxtarenal aortic aneurysms and TAAAs from January 2018 to December 2022 at an academic medical center. Clinical presentation, demographics, operative details, and outcomes were reviewed. Financial data was obtained through the institution's finance department. The primary end point was contribution margin (CM).

RESULTS

Thirty patients met inclusion criteria, consisting of twelve PMEG, seven ZFEN, and eleven open repairs. PMEG repairs had a total CM of -$110,000 compared to $18,000 for ZFEN and $290,000 for OSR. Aortic and branch artery implants were major cost-drivers for endovascular procedures. Extent II TAAA repairs were the costliest PMEG procedure, with a total device cost of $59,000 per case. PMEG repairs had 30-d and 1-y mortality rates of 8.3% which was not significantly different from ZFEN (0.0%, P = 0.46; 0.0%, P = 0.46) or OSR (9.1%, P = 0.95; 18%, P = 0.51). Average intensive care unit and hospital stay after PMEG repairs were comparable to ZFEN and shorter than OSR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that PMEG repairs yield a negative CM. To make these cases financially viable for hospital systems, device costs will need to be reduced or reimbursement rates increased by approximately $8800.

Current Medicare reimbursement for complex endovascular aortic repair is inadequate based on results from a multi-institutional cost analysis

OBJECTIVE

Complex endovascular juxta-, para- and suprarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (comEVAR) is frequently accomplished with commercially available fenestrated (FEVAR) devices or off-label use of aortoiliac devices with parallel branch stents (chEVAR). We sought to evaluate the implantable vascular device costs incurred with these procedures as compared with standard Medicare reimbursement to determine the financial viability of comEVAR in the modern era.

METHODS

Five geographically distinct institutions with high-volume, complex aortic centers were included. Implantable aortoiliac and branch stent device cost data from 25 consecutive, recent, comEVAR in the treatment of juxta-, para-, and suprarenal aortic aneurysms at each center were analyzed. Cases of rupture, thoracic aneurysms, reinterventions, and physician-modified EVAR were excluded, as were ancillary costs from nonimplantable equipment. Data from all institutions were combined and stratified into an overall cost group and two, individual cost groups: FEVAR or chEVAR. These groups were compared, and each respective group was then compared with weighted Medicare reimbursement for Diagnosis-Related Group codes 268/269. Median device costs were obtained from an independent purchasing consortium of >3000 medical centers, yielding true median cost-to-institution data rather than speculative, administrative projections or estimates.

RESULTS

A total of 125 cases were analyzed: 70 FEVAR and 53 chEVAR. Two cases of combined FEVAR/chEVAR were included in total cost analysis, but excluded from direct FEVAR vs chEVAR comparison. Median Medicare reimbursement was calculated as $35,755 per case. Combined average implantable device cost for all analyzed cases was $28,470 per case, or 80% of the median reimbursement ($28,470/$35,755). Average FEVAR device cost per case ($26,499) was significantly lower than average chEVAR cost per case ($32,122; P < .002). Device cost was 74% ($26,499/$35,755) of total reimbursement for FEVAR and 90% ($32,122/$35,755) for chEVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Results from this multi-institutional analysis show that implantable device cost alone represents the vast majority of weighted total Medicare reimbursement per case with comEVAR, and that chEVAR is significantly more costly than FEVAR. Inadequate Medicare reimbursement for these cases puts high-volume, high-complexity aortic centers at a distinct financial disadvantage. In the interest of optimizing patient care, these data suggest a reconsideration of previously established, outdated, Diagnosis-Related Group coding and Medicare reimbursement for comEVAR.

Proposed public policies to improve outcomes in vascular surgery: an experts' forum

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes of vascular surgeries and identify strategies to improve public vascular care.

METHODS

This was a descriptive, qualitative, and cross-sectional survey involving 30 specialists of the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein via Zoom. The outcomes of vascular procedures performed in the Public Health System extracted through Big Data analysis were discussed, and 53 potential strategies to improve public vascular care to improve public vascular care.

RESULTS

There was a consensus on mandatory reporting of some key complications after complex arterial surgeries, such as stroke after carotid revascularization and amputations after lower limb revascularization. Participants agreed on the recommendation of screening for diabetic feet and infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. The use of Telemedicine as a tool for patient follow-up, auditing of centers for major arterial surgeries, and the concentration of complex arterial surgeries in reference centers were also points of consensus, as well as the need to reduce the values of endovascular materials. Regarding venous surgery, it was suggested that there should be incentives for simultaneous treatment of both limbs in cases of varicose veins of the lower limbs, in addition to the promotion of ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy in the public system.

CONCLUSION

After discussing the data from the Brazilian Public System, proposals were defined for standardizing measures in population health care in the area of vascular surgery. Notification of complications of arterial surgeries is essential in identifying strategies to improve surgical outcomes. Screening of prevalent and/or morbid diseases allows early intervention and prevention of complications. Use of telemedicine in vascular follow-up allows optimizing the use of resources and reducing the burden on health services. Concentrating complex cases in reference hospitals leads to improved surgical outcomes.

Feasibility and Cost Analysis of Ambulatory Endovascular Aneurysm Repair

PURPOSE

We sought to compare the costs of ambulatory endovascular aneurysm repair (a-EVAR) and inpatient EVAR (i-EVAR) at up to 1-year of follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients undergoing elective EVAR between April 2016 and December 2018 at two academic centers. Patients planned for a-EVAR were compared with i-EVAR. Costs at 30 days and 1 year were extracted. These included operating room (OR) use, bed occupancy, laboratory and imaging, emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, and reinterventions. Baseline characteristics were compared. Multiple regression model was used to identify predictors of increased EVAR costs. Repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare cost differences at 30 days and 1 year via an intention-to-treat analysis. Bonferroni post hoc test compared between-group differences. A p value<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy patients were included. Most underwent percutaneous EVAR (>94%) under spinal anesthesia (>84%). Ambulatory endovascular aneurysm repair was successful in 84% (84/100). Ambulatory endovascular aneurysm repair patients (76±8 years) were younger than i-EVAR (78±9 years). They also had a smaller mean aneurysm diameter (56±6 mm) compared with i-EVAR (59±6 mm). Emergency department visits, readmissions, and reinterventions were similar up to 1 year (all p=NS). Ambulatory endovascular aneurysm repair costs showed a non-statistically significant reduction in total costs at 30 days and 1 year by 27% and 21%, respectively. Patients younger than 85 years and males had a 30-day cost reduction by 34% (p=0.027) and 33% (p=0.035), respectively with a-EVAR.

CONCLUSIONS

Same-day discharge is feasible and successful in selected patients. Patients younger than 85 years and males have a short-term cost benefit with EVAR done in the ambulatory setting without increased complications or reinterventions.

CLINICAL IMPACT

This study shows the overall safety of ambulatory EVAR with proper patient selection. These patient had similar post-intervention complications to inpatients. Same day discharge also resulted in short-term reduction in costs in male patients and patients younger than 85 years.

Quantifying The Costs of Creating and Maintaining Hemodialysis Access in An All-Payer Rate-Controlled Health System

OBJECTIVES

The creation and maintenance of durable hemodialysis access is critically important for reducing patient morbidity and controlling overall costs within health systems. Our objective was to quantify the costs associated with hemodialysis access creation and its maintenance over time within a rate-controlled health system where charges equate to payments.

METHODS

The Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission administrative claims database was used to identify patients who underwent first-time access creation from 2012-2020. Patients were identified using CPT codes for access creation, and costs were accrued for the initial encounter and all subsequent outpatient access-related encounters. T-tests and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare reinterventions and access-related costs ($USD) between arteriovenous fistulae (AVF) and arteriovenous grafts (AVG). Multivariable modeling was used to quantify the association of access type with charge variation.

RESULTS

Overall, 12,716 patients underwent first-time access creation (69.3% AVF vs. 30.7% AVG). There was no difference in freedom from reintervention between the two access types at any point following creation (HR: 1.03, 95%CI: 0.97-1.10); however, AVF were associated with a lower number of cumulative reinterventions (1.50 vs. 2.24) compared to AVG (P<0.0001). AVF was associated with lower overall costs in the year of creation ($9,388 vs. $13,539, P<0.0001), a difference that remained significant over the subsequent 3 years. The lower costs associated with AVF were present both in the costs associated with creation and subsequent maintenance. On multivariable analysis, AVF was associated with a $3,557 reduction in total access-related costs versus AVG (95%CI -$3828, -3287).

CONCLUSION

AVF require fewer interventions and are associated with lower costs at placement and over the first three years of maintenance compared to AVG. The use of AVF for first-time hemodialysis access represents an opportunity for healthcare savings in appropriately selected patients with a high preoperative likelihood of AVF maturation.

Perioperative Outcomes for Centers Routinely Admitting Postoperative Endovascular Aortic Aneurysm Repair to the ICU

BACKGROUND

Intensive care unit (ICU) admission after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) varies across medical centers. We evaluated the association of postoperative ICU use with perioperative and long-term outcomes after EVAR.

STUDY DESIGN

The Vascular Quality Initiative (2003-2019) was queried for index elective EVARs. Included centers were categorized by percentage of patients with EVARs postoperatively admitted to the ICU; routine ICU (rICU) centers as ≥80% ICU admissions and nonroutine ICU (nrICU) centers as ≤20% ICU admissions. Patients admitted preoperatively or with same day discharge were excluded. Perioperative outcomes and survival were compared between rICU and nrICU centers.

RESULTS

Of 45,310 EVARs in the database, 35,617 were performed at rICU or nrICU centers - 5,443 (15.3%) at 71 rICU centers and 30,174 (84.7%) at 200 nrICU centers. Overall, mean age was 73.4 years and 81.6% were male. Postoperative myocardial infarction, pulmonary complications, stroke, leg ischemia, and in-hospital mortality were similar between rICU and nrICU centers (all p > 0.05). Postoperative length of stay (LOS) was prolonged at rICU centers (mean) (2.2 ± 3.6 vs 2 ± 4.2 days, p < 0.001). One-year survival was similar between rICU and nrICU centers, respectively, (94.9% vs 95.4%, p = 0.085). When compared with nrICU centers, rICU centers had similar 1-year mortality risk (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15, 95% CI 0.99-1.34, p = 0.076), but were associated with longer postoperative LOS (means ratio 1.1, 95% CI 1.08-1.13, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine ICU use after EVAR was associated with prolonged postoperative LOS, without improved perioperative/long-term morbidity or mortality. Updated care pathways to include postoperative admission to lower acuity care units may reduce costs without compromising care.

Financial viability of endovascular aortic repair in the modern era

BACKGROUND

In the current era of cost containment, the financial impact of high-cost procedures such as endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) remains an area of intensive interest. Previous reports suggested slim to negative operating margins with EVAR, prompting widespread initiatives to reduce cost and to improve reimbursement. In 2015, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced the reclassification of EVAR to more specific diagnosis-related group (DRG) coding and predicted an overall increase in hospital reimbursement. The potential impact of this change has not been described.

METHODS

Patients undergoing elective EVAR at a single institution between January 2014 and December 2018 were identified retrospectively, then stratified by date. Group 1 patients underwent EVAR before DRG change in 2015 and were classified with DRG 237/238, major cardiovascular procedure. Group 2 patients underwent EVAR after the change and were classified as DRG 268/269, aortic/heart assist procedures. The total direct cost included implant cost, operating room (OR) labor, room and board, and other supply costs. Net revenue reflected real payer mix values without extrapolation based on standard Medicare rates. Hospital profit was defined as the contribution to indirect (CTI), subtracting total direct cost from net revenue.

RESULTS

A total of 188 encounters were included, 67 (36%) in group 1 and 121 (64%) in group 2. Medicare patients composed 84% of group 1 and 81% of group 2. CTI (profit) increased by $4447 (+123%) from $3615 in group 1 to $8062 in group 2. Net revenue per encounter increased by $2054 (+7.1%). In group 1, the higher reimbursement DRG code 237 was applied in 5 of 67 (7.5%) patients, whereas DRG code 268 was assigned in 19 of 121 (15.1%) patients in group 2. Total direct cost per encounter decreased by $2012 (-7.9%). This decrease in cost was driven by a reduction in implant cost, from a mean $16,914 per encounter in group 1 to a mean $15,655 in group 2 (-$1259 or -7.4% per encounter) and by a decrease in OR labor cost, $2838 in group 1 to $2361 in group 2 (-$477 or -17.0% per encounter).

CONCLUSIONS

A significant improvement in hospital CTI was observed for elective EVAR during the course of the study. The increased DRG reimbursement after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services coding changes in 2015 was a major driver of this salutary change. Notably, efforts to reduce implant and OR cost as well as to improve coding and documentation accuracy over time had an equally important impact on financial return.

Impact of posthospital syndrome on outcomes of elective endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm

OBJECTIVE

Posthospital syndrome (PHS) is an acquired, transient period of health vulnerability after a hospital admission for acute illness. It is characterized by physiologic deconditioning secondary to stressors from disruption in circadian rhythm, depletion of nutritional and physiologic reserve as well as the pain and discomfort associated with hospitalization. PHS is reported as an independent risk factor for readmission and adverse postoperative outcomes. The aim of this study is to investigate whether preoperative hospitalization affects outcomes of elective endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR).

METHODS

The Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database for California (2009-2011) were queried using International Classification of Disease Codes, Ninth Edition, codes of 441.4 (abdominal aneurysm without mention of rupture), 397.1 (EVAR with graft), and 397.8 (EVAR with branching or fenestrated graft). PHS exposure is defined as any inpatient admission 30 or fewer days before elective EVAR. Primary outcomes are all-cause mortality and overall complications. Secondary outcomes include length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and hospital charge.

RESULTS

A total of 6155 patients were identified. of which 327 patients (5.6%) had more than one episode of hospital admission 30 days or less before elective EVAR. In-hospital mortality was comparable after PHS exposure (P = .09). However, PHS exposure was associated with increased 30-day readmission (9.5% vs 18.4%; P < .001), LOS (3.0 vs 4.5 days; P < .001), and overall complications (14.8% vs 24.5%; P < .001). Risk adjustment was made based on age, sex, race, baseline comorbidities, and reason for preoperative admission. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that PHS exposure was a predictor for longer LOS (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-3.2; P < .001), higher incidence of 30-day readmission (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.6; P < .001), and overall complications (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.2; P < .001). Additional cost associated with increased 30-day readmission attributable to PHS exposure was estimated at $448,302 per 100 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

PHS is an independent risk-adjusted predictor for increased LOS, 30-day readmission, and overall complications after elective EVAR. Recent hospital admission should be assessed carefully before elective EVAR. Medical optimization with an attempt to delay elective surgery by up to 30 days may help to improve surgical outcomes and decrease unnecessary health care expenditures.

Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation in the Ambulatory Setting: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

Erectile dysfunction is a common problem that may be definitively treated with the implantation of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP). The preponderance of available data on IPP surgery derives from institutional studies, most notably from academic centers or large single-surgeon series, where the majority of procedures are performed in a hospital setting. Because insurance companies and health systems look to reduce health care costs, IPP surgery in outpatient freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (ASC) is becoming more prevalent.

AIM

To review the utility of surgery in an ASC setting and to explore its role in the modern practice of urology, focusing on IPP implantation.

METHODS

A critical review was performed of the literature on ambulatory surgery, with specific focus on IPP surgery, using the PubMed database. Key search terms and phrases included erectile dysfunction, penile prosthesis, ambulatory surgery, ambulatory surgery center, outpatient surgery.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The main outcome measure was the use of IPP implantation in an ASC.

RESULTS

In contemporary surgical practice, the implementation of ambulatory surgery in free-standing centers is increasing. The principal benefits include reducing cost and improving efficiency. Studies on the modern use of IPPs support the prospect of implantation in an ambulatory setting, which can achieve similar outcomes to surgeries classically performed in the inpatient hospital setting. Novel approaches to anesthesia, surgical, and nursing care have revolutionized IPP surgery so that it can now be safely and effectively performed in the ambulatory setting.

CONCLUSION

The role of ambulatory IPP implantation has increased, with the majority of cases being performed outside the hospital. Although there will always be a need for hospital-based surgery, such as significant medical comorbidities, more studies demonstrating the safety and feasibility of ambulatory surgery are needed. For those men who would otherwise be candidates for ambulatory surgery but whose insurance mandates hospital-based treatment, such studies proving utility, safety, and reduced cost could inspire policy change and broaden the ambulatory practice of IPP surgery. Segal RL, Siegelbaum MH, Lerner BD, et al. Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation in the Ambulatory Setting: A Systematic Review. Sex Med Rev 2020;8:338-347.