Cost Analysis of Outpatient Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion at an Academic Medical Center without Dedicated Ambulatory Surgery Centers

Can anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) be safely performed in ambulatory surgical centers (ASC’s)?

Background:

Can anterior cervical diskectomy/fusion (ACDF) be safely performed in ambulatory surgical centers (ASC’s: i.e. discharges 4-7.5 hr. postoperatively) that meet the following stringent “exclusion criteria”; elevated Body Mass Index (BMI), major comorbidities, age > 65, American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) scores > II, and largely multilevel ACDF.

Materials:

Presently, most ACDF are still being performed in hospital-based outpatient surgical centers (HBSC: utilizing 23-hour stays), or as inpatients.

Results:

Notably, unreliable disparate study designs involving very different patient populations resulted in nearly comparable, but implausible outcomes for 1-level vs. multilevel ACDF series performed in ASC. A summary of these outcome data included the following rates of; i.e. postoperative hospital transfers (0-6%), 30-day (up to 2.2%), and up to 90 day (2.2%) emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, and reoperations.

Conclusion:

Nevertheless, it is just common sense that “less should be less”, that 1-level ACDF should involve less risk compared with multilevel ACDF procedures performed in ASC.

Opioid prescription trends after ambulatory anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Opioid utilization has been well studied for inpatient anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF). However, the amount and type of opioids prescribed following ambulatory ACDF and the associated risk of persistent use are largely unknown.

PURPOSE

To characterize opioid prescription filling following single-level ambulatory ACDF compared with inpatient procedures.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Retrospective cohort study.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Opioid-naive patients who underwent ambulatory (no overnight stay) or inpatient single-level ACDF from 2011 to 2019 were identified from a national insurance database.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Rate, amount, and type of perioperative opioid prescription.

METHODS

Opioid-naive patients who underwent ambulatory (no overnight stay) or inpatient single-level ACDF from 2011 to 2019 were identified from a national insurance database. Perioperative opioids were defined as opioid prescriptions 30 days before and 14 days after the procedure. Rate, amount, and type of opioid prescription were characterized. Multivariable analyses controlling for any differences in demographics and comorbidities between the two treatment groups were utilized to determine any association between surgical setting and persistent opioid use (defined as the patient still filling new opioid prescriptions >90 days postoperatively).

RESULTS

A total of 42,521 opioid-naive patients were identified, of which 2,850 were ambulatory and 39,671 were inpatient. Ambulatory ACDF was associated with slightly increased perioperative opioid prescription filling (52.7% vs 47.3% for inpatient procedures; p<.001). Among the 20,280 patients (47.7%) who filled perioperative opioid prescriptions, the average amount of opioids prescribed (in morphine milligram equivalents) was similar between ambulatory and inpatient procedures (550 vs 540, p=.413). There was no association between surgical setting and persistent opioid use in patients who filled a perioperative opioid prescription, even after controlling for comorbidities, (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15, p=.066).

CONCLUSIONS

Ambulatory ACDF patients who filled perioperative opioid prescriptions were prescribed a similar amount of opioids as those undergoing inpatient procedures. Further, ambulatory ACDF does not appear to be a risk factor for persistent opioid use. These findings are important for patient counseling as well as support the safety profile of this new surgical pathway.

Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion in the Ambulatory Surgery Center Versus Inpatient Setting: One-Year Cost-Utility Analysis

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.

OBJECTIVE

Assess the cost-utility of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) performed in the ambulatory surgery center (ASC) versus inpatient hospital setting for Medicare and privately insured patients at one-year follow-up.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Outpatient ACDF has gained popularity due to improved safety and reduced costs. Formal cost-utility studies for ambulatory versus inpatient ACDF are lacking, precluding an accurate assessment of cost-effectiveness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 6504 patients enrolled in the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) undergoing one-level to two-level ACDF at a single ASC (520) or the inpatient hospital setting (5984) were compared. Propensity matching generated 748 patients for analysis (374 per cohort). Demographic data, resource utilization, patient-reported outcome measures, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed. Direct costs (1-year resource use×unit costs based on Medicare national allowable payment amounts) and indirect costs (missed workdays×average US daily wage) were recorded. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated.

RESULTS

Complication rates and improvements in patient-reported outcome measures and QALYs were similar between groups. Ambulatory ACDF was associated with significantly lower total costs at 1 year for Medicare ($5879.46) and privately insured ($12,873.97) patients, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for inpatient ACDF was $3,674,662 and $8,046,231 for Medicare and privately insured patients, respectively, reflecting unacceptably poor cost-utility.

CONCLUSION

Inpatient ACDF is associated with significant increases in total costs compared to the ASC setting without a safety, outcome, or QALY benefit. The ASC setting is a dominant option from a health economy perspective for first-time one-l to two-level ACDF in select patients compared to the inpatient hospital setting.

Prediction of Admission Costs Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Utilizing Machine Learning

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective case series.

OBJECTIVE

Predict cost following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) within the 90-day global period using machine learning models.

BACKGROUND

The incidence of ACDF has been increasing with a disproportionate decrease in reimbursement. As bundled payment models become common, it is imperative to identify factors that impact the cost of care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) was accessed in 2018 for all primary ACDFs by the International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) procedure codes. Costs were calculated by utilizing the total hospital charge and each hospital's cost-to-charge ratio. Hospital characteristics, such as volume of procedures performed and wage index, were also queried. Readmissions within 90 days were identified, and cost of readmissions was added to the total admission cost to represent the 90-day healthcare cost. Machine learning algorithms were used to predict patients with 90-day admission costs >1 SD from the mean.

RESULTS

There were 42,485 procedures included in this investigation with an average age of 57.7±12.3 years with 50.6% males. The average cost of the operative admission was $24,874±25,610, the average cost of readmission was $25,371±11,476, and the average total cost was $26,977±28,947 including readmissions costs. There were 10,624 patients who were categorized as high cost. Wage index, hospital volume, age, and diagnosis-related group severity were most correlated with the total cost of care. Gradient boosting trees algorithm was most predictive of the total cost of care (area under the curve=0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

Bundled payment models utilize wage index and diagnosis-related groups to determine reimbursement of ACDF. However, machine learning algorithms identified additional variables, such as hospital volume, readmission, and patient age, that are also important for determining the cost of care. Machine learning can improve cost-effectiveness and reduce the financial burden placed upon physicians and hospitals by implementing patient-specific reimbursement.

Public Insurance Payment Does Not Compensate Hospital Cost for Care of Long-Bone Fractures Requiring Additional Surgery to Promote Union

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the total hospital costs associated with the treatment of lower extremity long-bone fracture aseptic and septic unhealed fracture, to determine if insurance adequately covers these costs, and to examine whether insurance type correlates with barriers to accessing care.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Academic Level II trauma center.

PATIENTS

All patients undergoing operative treatment of OTA/AO classification 31, 32, 33, 41, 42, and 43 fractures between 2012 and 2020 at a single Level II trauma center with minimum of 1-year follow-up.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the total cost of treatment for all hospital-based episodes of care. Distance traveled from primary residence was measured as a surrogate for barriers to care.

RESULTS

One hundred seventeen patients with uncomplicated fracture healing, 82 with aseptic unhealed fracture, and 44 with septic unhealed fracture were included in the final cohort. The median cost of treatment for treatment of septic unhealed fracture was $148,318 [interquartile range(IQR) 87,241-256,928], $45,230 (IQR 31,510-68,030) for treatment of aseptic unhealed fracture, and $33,991 (IQR 25,609-54,590) for uncomplicated fracture healing. The hospital made a profit on all patients with commercial insurance, but lost money on all patients with public insurance. Among patients with unhealed fracture, those with public insurance traveled 4 times further for their care compared with patients with commercial insurance (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Septic unhealed fracture of lower extremity long-bone fractures is an outsized burden on the health care system. Public insurance for both septic and aseptic unhealed fracture does not cover hospital costs. The increased distances traveled by our Medi-Cal and Medicare population may reflect the economic disincentive for local hospitals to care for publicly insured patients with unhealed fractures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Influence of Time of Discharge and Length of Stay on 30-Day Outcomes After Elective Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery

BACKGROUND

Encouraging early time of discharge (TOD) for medical inpatients is commonplace and may potentially improve patient throughput. It is unclear, however, whether early TOD after elective spine surgery achieves this goal without a consequent increase in re-presentations to the hospital.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether early TOD results in increased rates of hospital readmission or return to the emergency department after elective anterior cervical spine surgery.

METHODS

We analyzed 686 patients who underwent elective uncomplicated anterior cervical spine surgery at a single institution. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship between sociodemographic, procedural, and discharge characteristics, and the outcomes of readmission or return to the emergency department and TOD.

RESULTS

In multiple logistic regression, TOD was not associated with increased risk of readmission or return to the emergency department within 30 days of surgery. Weekend discharge (odds ratio [OR] 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.53), physical therapy evaluation (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28-0.71), and occupational therapy evaluation (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.17-0.63) were all significantly associated with decreased odds of discharge before noon. Disadvantaged status, as measured by area of deprivation index, was associated with increased odds of readmission or re-presentation (OR 1.86, 95% CI 0.95-3.66), although this result did not achieve statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

There does not appear to be an association between readmission or return to the emergency department and early TOD after elective spine surgery. Overuse of inpatient physical and occupational therapy consultations may contribute to decreased patient throughput in surgical admissions.

Ramifications of Postoperative Dysphagia on Health Care Resource Utilization Following Elective Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Interbody Fusion for Cervical Spondylotic Myelopathy

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate patient risk factors and health care resource utilization associated with postoperative dysphagia following elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) for cervical spondylotic myelopathy.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There is a paucity of data on factors predisposing patients to dysphagia and the burden this complication has on health care resource utilization following ACDF.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2016 to 2017. All adult (above 18 y old) patients undergoing ACDF for cervical spondylotic myelopathy were identified using the ICD-10-CM diagnosis and procedural coding system. Patients were then categorized by whether they had a recorded postoperative dysphagia or no dysphagia. Weighted patient demographics, comorbidities, perioperative complications, length of hospital stay (LOS), discharge disposition, and total cost of admission were assessed. A multivariate stepwise logistic regression was used to determine both the odds ratio for risk-adjusted postoperative dysphagia as well as extended LOS.

RESULTS

A total of 17,385 patients were identified, of which 1400 (8.1%) experienced postoperative dysphagia. Compared with the No-Dysphagia cohort, the Dysphagia cohort had a greater proportion of patients experiencing a complication (P=0.004), including 1 complication (No-Dysphagia: 2.9% vs. Dysphagia: 6.8%), and >1 complication (No-Dysphagia: 0.3% vs. Dysphagia: 0.4%). The Dysphagia cohort experienced significantly longer hospital stays (No-Dysphagia: 1.9±2.1 d vs. Dysphagia: 4.2±4.3 d, P<0.001), higher total cost of admission (No-Dysphagia: $19,441±10,495 vs. Dysphagia: $25,529±18,641, P<0.001), and increased rates of nonroutine discharge (No-Dysphagia: 16.5% vs. Dysphagia: 34.3%, P<0.001). Postoperative dysphagia was found to be a significant independent risk factor for extended LOS on multivariate analysis, with an odds ratio of 5.37 (95% confidence interval: 4.09, 7.05, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Patients experiencing postoperative dysphagia were found to have significantly longer hospital LOS, higher total cost of admission, and increased nonroutine discharge when compared with the patients who did not.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.