A Comparison of Ambulatory Surgery Center Production Costs and Medicare Payments: Evidence on Colonoscopy and Endoscopy

The Medical Costs of Determining Eligibility and Waiting for a Kidney Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Recent efforts to increase access to kidney transplant (KTx) in the United States include increasing referrals to transplant programs, leading to more pretransplant services. Transplant programs reconcile the costs of these services through the Organ Acquisition Cost Center (OACC).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the costs associated with pretransplant services by applying microeconomic methods to OACC costs reported by transplant hospitals.

RESEARCH DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND MEASURES

For all US adult kidney transplant hospitals from 2013 through 2018 (n=193), we crosslinked the total OACC costs (at the hospital-fiscal year level) to proxy measures of volumes of pretransplant services. We used a multiple-output cost function, regressing total OACC costs against proxy measures for volumes of pretransplant services and adjusting for patient characteristics, to calculate the marginal cost of each pretransplant service.

RESULTS

Over 1015 adult hospital-years, median OACC costs attributable to the pretransplant services were $5 million. Marginal costs for the pretransplant services were: initial transplant evaluation, $9k per waitlist addition; waitlist management, $2k per patient-year on the waitlist; deceased donor offer management, $1k per offer; living donor evaluation, procurement and follow-up: $26k per living donor. Longer time on dialysis among patients added to the waitlist was associated with higher OACC costs at the transplant hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

To achieve the policy goals of more access to KTx, sufficient funding is needed to support the increase in volume of pretransplant services. Future studies should assess the relative value of each service and explore ways to enhance efficiency.

Setting Up an Ambulatory GI Endoscopy Suite in the USA-Anesthesia and Sedation Challenges

Gastrointestinal endoscopy units, both freestanding and associated with ambulatory surgical centers, are on the increase, and the trend is likely to continue. The concept is relatively new, and there are insufficient guidelines and a general dearth of information for prospective planners and physicians. Debate continues in areas such as the selection of patients, appropriateness of procedures, and access to tertiary care. Leaders often scramble to address both critical and non-critical issues, often after the center has opened to the public. They often encounter issues which were not anticipated. In this review, we have provided comprehensive and concise information on the various aspects of starting and running an endoscopy unit. Some of the areas considered are referral and recruitment systems, determination of the need and site selection, layout and regulations, aspects related to drugs, equipment, medical emergencies, and emergency room transfers, discharge criteria, post-discharge follow-up, and finally, we have addressed issues related to avoiding and managing cancelations. It is assumed that a majority of the procedures are performed with predominantly propofol-induced deep sedation.

Skill-mix change and outcomes in primary care: Longitudinal analysis of general practices in England 2015-2019

BACKGROUND

Increasing the employment of staff with new clinical roles in primary care has been proposed as a solution to the shortages of GPs and nurses. However, evidence of the impacts this has on practice outcomes is limited. We examine how outcomes changed following changes in skill-mix in general practices in England.

METHODS

We obtained annual data on staff in 6,296 English general practices between 2015 and 2019 and grouped professionals into four categories: GPs, Nurses, Health Professionals, and Healthcare Associate Professionals. We linked 10 indicators of quality of care covering the dimensions of accessibility, clinical effectiveness, user experiences and health system costs. We used both fixed-effect and first-differences regressions to model changes in staff composition and outcomes, adjusting for practice and population factors.

RESULTS

Employment increased over time for all four staff groups, with largest increases for Healthcare Professionals (from 0.04 FTE per practice in 2015 to 0.28 in 2019) and smallest for Nurses who experienced a 3.5 percent growth. Increases in numbers of GPs and Nurses were positively associated with changes in practice activity and outcomes. The introduction of new roles was negatively associated with patient satisfaction: a one FTE increase in Health Professionals was associated with decreases of 0.126 [-0.175, -0.078] and 0.116 [-0.161, -0.071] standard deviations in overall patient satisfaction and satisfaction with making an appointment. Pharmacists improved medicine prescribing outcomes. All staff categories were associated with higher health system costs. There was little evidence of direct complementarity or substitution between different staff groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Introduction of new roles to support GPs does not have straightforward effects on quality or patient satisfaction. Problems can arise from the complex adaptation required to adjust practice organisation and from the novelty of these roles to patients. These findings suggest caution over the implementation of policies encouraging more employment of different professionals in primary care.

Differences in patient outcomes after outpatient GI endoscopy across settings: a statewide matched cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Outpatient GI endoscopy has been shifting from hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) in recent years. However, evidence on whether patient outcomes after endoscopic procedures are comparable across settings is limited. This study compares the incidence of unplanned hospital visits after GI endoscopy performed in ASCs versus HOPDs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study examining unplanned hospital visits after outpatient GI endoscopy performed in Massachusetts during 2014 to 2017 using Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database and Medicare fee-for-service claims. We identified screening colonoscopy, nonscreening colonoscopy, and esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) performed in ASCs or HOPDs and estimated unplanned hospital visit rates within 7 and 30 days after these procedures. To compare rates between ASCs and HOPDs, we constructed procedure-specific, propensity score-matched samples and used multilevel logistic regressions adjusting for patient, procedure, and facility characteristics.

RESULTS

Seven-day unplanned hospital visit rates were 10.6, 18.3, and 38.9 per 1000 procedures for screening colonoscopy, nonscreening colonoscopy, and EGD, respectively, with significant variation across facilities. ASC patients consistently had fewer postprocedure hospital encounters. The relative risk of having 7-day hospital visits after screening colonoscopy performed in ASCs was .88 (95% confidence interval [CI], .79-.98) compared with HOPDs. The estimates were .84 (95% CI, .75-.94) for nonscreening colonoscopy and .57 (95% CI, .50-.65) for EGD. Thirty-day visits showed similar patterns.

CONCLUSIONS

Unplanned hospital visits after outpatient GI endoscopy were not uncommon. However, ASC patients consistently had less frequent hospital-based acute care encounters, indicating that GI endoscopy could be performed safely in ASCs for select patients.

Establishing funding rates for colonoscopy and gastroscopy procedures in Ontario

Introduction

This paper describes the funding rates established in Ontario to reflect best practices in hospital-based care delivery for these endoscopic procedures: colonoscopy, colonoscopy biopsy, gastroscopy, gastroscopy biopsy, and colonoscopy combined with gastroscopy.

Methods

The funding rates are based on direct costs and were established using a micro-costing approach after receipt of inputs from 3 working groups and a review of the administrative data and literature, where applicable. The first group advised on nursing activities, time, and staffing ratios along the patient pathway for each of the procedures. The second group provided recommendations about the duration for each procedure, and the third group provided information about supplies and equipment, their use, and costs.

Results

The resulting funding rates are $161.18 for colonoscopy and $151.08 for gastroscopy (without accompanying interventions), $16.06 for colonoscopy biopsy and $8.22 for gastroscopy biopsy (added to the respective procedures), and $207.26 for combined colonoscopy and gastroscopy. Detailed costs for each component embedded in the rates are also provided.

Conclusions

The rates came into effect in April 2018. The process and outcomes described here allowed for a transparent pricing mechanism in which funding follows the patient, clinical expert consensus is the basis for practice, and providers and payers both understand the components.

Specialization as an Organizing Principle: The Case of Ambulatory Surgery Centers

Ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) recently have grown to become the dominant provider of specific surgical procedures in the United States. While the majority of ASCs focus primarily on a single specialty, many have diversified to offer a wide range of surgical specialties. We exploited a unique data set from Pennsylvania for the years 2004 to 2014 to conduct an empirical investigation of the relative cost of production in ASCs over varying degrees of specialization. We found that for the majority of ASCs, focus on a specialty was associated with lower facility costs. In addition, ASCs appeared to be capturing economies of scale over a broad range of service volume. In contrast to studies of cost efficiency in specialty hospitals, our results provide evidence that supports the focused factory model of production in the ASC sector.