Insights on DRGs, guideline compliance and economic sustainability. The case of mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction

Background

Immediate breast reconstruction is recommended for eligible patients undergoing mastectomy, raising the issue of economic sustainability of both mastectomy and breast reconstruction performed within the same hospitalization, as opposed to two surgical procedures in two different hospitalizations.

Study design

A retrospective analysis was conducted to compare economic sustainability of mastectomies with or without immediate breast reconstruction.

Methods

Economic data on hospitalizations for mastectomy in a Teaching Hospital between 1 January 2019 and 31 March 2021 were analyzed to assess their sustainability.

Results

338 admissions were selected (63.9% with immediate breast reconstruction (CI 99%: 57.2% to 70.6%). Compared to mastectomy alone, mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction had higher cost of € 2,245 (p < 0.001), with operating rooms and devices as main cost drivers. Current reimbursements rates (which are the same for mastectomy alone and for mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction) led to an average loss of € 1,719 for each mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction.

Conclusion

Current DRGs reimbursement rates for hospital admissions for breast cancer surgery do not guarantee immediate breast reconstruction's economic sustainability. DRGs system should be revised, or other solutions as bundled payment should be implemented in the light of the costs of innovation in healthcare, considering mastectomy and breast reconstruction steps in a path of linked actions aimed at improving patients' health.

The value of uterine oncological surgery in a University Hospital. Results of a break-even analysis

Background

Robotic surgery has many clinical advantages but high costs, raising the issue of healthcare sustainability. This study aims to a comparative analysis of the value, in terms of costs and outcomes, of robotic, laparoscopic, and laparotomy surgery for uterine cancer in a University Hospital.

Methods

An observational retrospective study was carried out on hospitalizations between 1 Jan 2019 and 31 Oct 2021 for uterine cancer surgery. DRG amount, costs, economic margins and 30-days readmissions percentage (mean values and 95% CIs) were calculated for robotic, laparoscopic and laparotomy surgery. Student’s t and Chi-square tests were used to assess differences and the break-even point was calculated.

Results

1336 hospitalizations were analyzed, 366 with robotic, 591 with laparoscopic, and 379 with laparotomy surgery. Robotic surgery compared to laparoscopic and laparotomy ones showed a significant difference (p &lt; 0,001) for economic margin, which was largely negative (-1069.18 €; 95%CI: -1240.44 - -897.92 €) mainly due to devices cost (3549.37 €; 95%CI: 3459.32 € - 3639.43 €), and a lower 30-days readmissions percentage (1.4%; 95%CI: 0.2% - 2.6%) with a significant difference only versus laparotomy (p = 0.029). Laparoscopic compared to laparotomy surgery showed a significantly (p &lt; 0,001) more profitable economic margin (1692.21 €; 95%CI: 1531.75 € - 1852.66 €) without a significant difference for 30-days readmissions. The break-even analysis showed that, on average, for every uterine cancer laparoscopic elective surgery, 1.58 elective robotic surgeries are sustainable for the hospital (95% CI: 1.23 - 2.06).

Conclusions

The systematic application of the break-even analysis will allow defining over time the right distribution of robotic, laparoscopic and laparotomy surgeries’ volumes to perform in order to ensure both quality and economic-financial balance and therefore value of uterine oncological surgery in the University Hospital.

Key messages

• The value-based healthcare approach, defined as the measured improvement in a patient’s health outcomes in relation to its cost, finds effective application in uterine cancer surgery.

• The use of the break-even approach allows to promote the value-based view by identifying a useful criterion for the planning and governance of interventions for uterine malignancies.