Tag: cost analysis

Posted on

Hospital cost differences between open and endoscopic lumbar spine decompression surgery

J Neurosurg Spine 40:77–83, 2024

In recent years, fully endoscopic decompression surgery for degenerative spine disease has become increasingly popular in the US. Although an endoscopic approach has demonstrated some benefits compared with open procedures in randomized controlled trials, the cost of advanced technologies remains contested. The authors evaluated the differences in costs and cost drivers between open and endoscopic decompression surgical procedures performed at a single institution.

METHODS Using associated Current Procedural Terminology codes, the authors identified all open and endoscopic decompression lumbar surgical procedures performed from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2022. Preoperative comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were captured. The costs of index surgery–related readmission for revision, washout, or other complications were included in the index surgery expenses. Associated inhospital costs were collected; these were reported in comparative percentages with open surgical procedures as the baseline because of an institutional agreement. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS The retrospective search identified 633 open surgical procedures and 195 endoscopic surgical procedures for inclusion. The two patient cohorts were similar, with clinically nonrelevant but statistically significant differences in mean age (open 55.7 years vs endoscopic 59.4 years, p = 0.01) and mean American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class (open 2.3 vs endoscopic 2.4, p = 0.03). Postoperatively, patients who underwent open surgical procedures had significantly longer mean hospital stays (open 1.4 days vs endoscopic 0.7, p < 0.01) and more perioperative complications (open 7.9% of patients vs endoscopic 3.1%, p = 0.02), and they required washout surgical procedures in some cases (open 1.3% vs endoscopic 0%, p = 0.12). The largest cost difference between open and endoscopic surgical procedures was the significantly greater cost of disposable supplies for endoscopic cases (10.1% vs 31.7% of the total cost of open procedures, p < 0.01), and open surgical procedures were generally less costly in total (100.0% vs 115.1%, p < 0.01). In multivariate linear regression, endoscopic surgery was independently associated with greater total costs (standardized beta 15.9%, p < 0.01), although length of hospital stay (standardized beta 34.0%) and readmissions (standardized beta 30.0%, p < 0.01) had larger effects on cost.

CONCLUSIONS The endoscopic approach was associated with greater total in-hospital costs compared with open procedures. The findings of further cost evaluations, including those of patient-reported outcomes, social cost, and capital costs per procedure type, need to be included in operational and clinical decisions.

Posted on

Effect of fixed-setting versus programmable valve on incidence of shunt revision after ventricular shunting for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus

J Neurosurg 133:564–572, 2020

Although ventricular shunting is an effective therapy for idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (iNPH), the effect of shunt valve type on the incidence of revision surgery is not well defined. To address this issue, shunt revision rates between patients with iNPH receiving a fixed-setting valve (FSV) versus a programmable valve (PV) were compared.

METHODS Patients with iNPH treated with ventricular shunting between 2001 and 2017 were included for analysis. The incidence of shunt revision was noted and risk factors for revision were identified using a Cox proportional hazards model. Costs associated with admission for ventricular shunt procedures were obtained from the Vizient national database.

RESULTS There were 348 patients included for analysis, with 98 patients (28.1%) receiving a PV. Shunt revision occurred in 73 patients (21.0%), with 12 patients (3.4%) undergoing multiple revisions. Overall revision rates were lower in patients receiving a PV (13.3% vs 24.0%; p = 0.027), as was the incidence of multiple revisions (0.0% vs 4.8%; p = 0.023). Patients with initial placement of an FSV were also more likely to undergo valve exchange during follow-up (12.4% vs 2.0%; p = 0.003). Patients with a PV were less likely to undergo revision due to persistent symptoms without obstruction (2.0% vs 8.8%; p = 0.031) and distal obstruction (1.0% vs 6.8%; p = 0.030). In a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, initial placement of a PV was associated with reduced risk of revision due to persistent symptoms without obstruction (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.04–0.93; p = 0.036). PVs were associated with more frequent shunt series (1.3 vs 0.6; p < 0.001) and head CT scans (3.6 vs 2.7; p = 0.038) during follow-up. There was no significant difference in mean total costs between patients receiving an FSV and a PV ($24,282.50 vs $24,396.90; p = 0.937).

CONCLUSIONS The authors’ results suggest that PVs lead to reduced rates of shunt revision in patients with iNPH, and decreased risk of revision due to persistent symptoms of iNPH, thereby justifying the higher upfront cost of PVs despite similar overall treatment costs between these devices.

 

Posted on

Cost of Readmissions Following Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion

Neurosurgery DOI:10.1093/neuros/nyz443

Postoperative readmissions are a significant driver of variation in bundled care costs associated with cervical spine surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the factors predicting the cost of readmission episodes following elective anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF).

METHODS: We queried the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Readmissions Database for patients undergoing elective ACDF during 2012 to 2015. Multivariable linear regression was performed to establish the factors associated with the cost of each 30-/90-d readmission episode.

RESULTS: A total of 139 877 and 113 418 patients met inclusion criteria for the evaluation of 30- and 90-d readmissions, respectively. Among these, the national rates of 30- and 90-d readmission after an elective ACDF were 3% and 6%, respectively. The median cost of a 30- and 90-d readmission episode was $6727 (IQR: $3844-$13 529) and $8507 (IQR: $4567- $17 460), respectively. Relative predictor importance analysis revealed that the number of procedures at index admission (IA), length of stay at IA, and time elapsed between index surgical admission and readmission were the top predictors of both 30- and 90-d readmission costs (all P < .001). Although cervical myelopathy accounted for only 3.6% of all 30-d readmissions, it accounted for the largest share (8%) of 30-d readmission costs.

CONCLUSION: In this analysis from a national all-payer database, we determined the factors associated with the cost of readmissions following elective ACDF. These results are important in assisting policymakers and payers with a better risk adjustment in bundled care payment systems and for surgeons in implementing readmission cost-reduction efforts.

Posted on

Is There a Need for a 6-Month Postradiosurgery Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Treatment of Vestibular Schwannoma?

Neurosurgery, Volume 86, Issue 2, February 2020, Pages 250–256

Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is a common treatment modality for vestibular schwannoma (VS), with a role in primary and recurrent/progressive algorithms. At our institution, routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is obtained at 6 and 12 mo following SRS for VS.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the safety and financial impact of eliminating the 6-mo post-SRS MRI in asymptomatic VS patients. METHODS: A prospectively maintained SRS database was retrospectively reviewed for VS patients with 1 yr of post-treatment follow-up, 2005 to 2015. Decisions at 6-mo MRI were binarily categorized as routine follow-up vs clinical action—defined as a clinical visit, additional imaging, or an operation as a direct result of the 6-mo study.

RESULTS: A total of 296 patients met screening criteria, of whom 53 were excluded for incomplete follow-up and 8 for NF-2. Nine were reimaged prior to 6 mo due to clinical symptoms. Routine 6-mo post-SRS MRI was completed by 226 patients (76% of screened cohort), following from which zero instances of clinical action occurred.When scaled using national insurance database-derived financials—which estimated the mean per-study charge for MRI of the brain with and without contrast at $1767—the potential annualized national charge reduction was approximated as $1 611 504.

CONCLUSION: For clinically stable VS, 6-mo post-SRS MRI does not contribute significantly to management. We recommend omitting routine MRI before 12 mo, in patients without new or progressive neurological symptoms. If extrapolated nationally to the more than 100 active SRS centers, thousands of patients would be spared an inconvenient, nonindicated study, and national savings in health care dollarswouldbe on the order ofmillions annually.

Posted on

Comparative durability and costs analysis of ventricular shunts

J Neurosurg 130:1252–1259, 2019

Ventricular shunt (VS) durability has been well studied in the pediatric population and in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus; however, further evaluation in a more heterogeneous adult population is needed. This study aims to evaluate the effect of diagnosis and valve type—fixed versus programmable—on shunt durability and cost for placement of shunts in adult patients.

METHODS The authors retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients who underwent implantation of a VS for hydrocephalus at their institution over a 3-year period between August 2013 and October 2016 with a minimum postoperative follow-up of 6 months. The primary outcome was shunt revision, which was defined as reoperation for any indication after the initial procedure. Supply costs, shunt durability, and hydrocephalus etiologies were compared between fixed and programmable valves.

RESULTS A total of 417 patients underwent shunt placement during the index time frame, consisting of 62 fixed shunts (15%) and 355 programmable shunts (85%). The mean follow-up was 30 ± 12 (SD) months. The shunt revision rate was 22% for programmable pressure valves and 21% for fixed pressure valves (HR 1.1 [95% CI 0.6–1.8]). Shunt complications, such as valve failure, infection, and overdrainage, occurred with similar frequency across valve types. Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis showed no difference in durability between fixed (mean 39 months) and programmable (mean 40 months) shunts (p = 0.980, log-rank test). The median shunt supply cost per index case and accounting for subsequent revisions was $3438 (interquartile range $2938–$3876) and $1504 (interquartile range $753–$1584) for programmable and fixed shunts, respectively (p < 0.001, Wilcoxon rank-sum test). Of all hydrocephalus etiologies, pseudotumor cerebri (HR 1.9 [95% CI 1.2–3.1]) and previous shunt malfunction (HR 1.8 [95% CI 1.2–2.7]) were found to significantly increase the risk of shunt revision. Within each diagnosis, there were no significant differences in revision rates between shunts with a fixed valve and shunts with a programmable valve.

CONCLUSIONS Long-term shunt revision rates are similar for fixed and programmable shunt pressure valves in adult patients. Hydrocephalus etiology may play a significant role in predicting shunt revision, although programmable valves incur higher supply costs regardless of initial diagnosis. Utilization of fixed pressure valves versus programmable pressure valves may reduce supply costs while maintaining similar revision rates. Given the importance of developing cost-effective management protocols, this study highlights the critical need for large-scale prospective observational studies and randomized clinical trials of ventricular shunt valve revisions and additional patient-centered outcomes.

Posted on

Cost Utility Analysis of the Cervical Artificial Disc vs Fusion for the Treatment of 2-Level Symptomatic Degenerative Disc Disease: 5-Year Follow-up

mobi-c

Neurosurgery 79:135–145, 2016

The cervical total disc replacement (cTDR) was developed to treat cervical degenerative disc disease while preserving motion.

OBJECTIVE: Cost-effectiveness of this intervention was established by looking at 2-year follow-up, and this update reevaluates our analysis over 5 years.

METHODS: Data were derived from a randomized trial of 330 patients. Data from the 12- Item Short Form Health Survey were transformed into utilities by using the SF-6D algorithm. Costs were calculated by extracting diagnosis-related group codes and then applying 2014 Medicare reimbursement rates. A Markov model evaluated qualityadjusted life years (QALYs) for both treatment groups. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the stability of the model. The model adopted both societal and health system perspectives and applied a 3% annual discount rate.

RESULTS: The cTDR costs $1687 more than anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) over 5 years. In contrast, cTDR had $34 377 less productivity loss compared with ACDF. There was a significant difference in the return-to-work rate (81.6% compared with 65.4% for cTDR and ACDF, respectively; P = .029). From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) for cTDR was 2$165 103 per QALY. From a health system perspective, the ICER for cTDR was $8518 per QALY. In the sensitivity analysis, the ICER for cTDR remained below the US willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY in all scenarios (2$225 816 per QALY to $22 071 per QALY).

CONCLUSION: This study is the first to report the comparative cost-effectiveness of cTDR vs ACDF for 2-level degenerative disc disease at 5 years. The authors conclude that, because of the negative ICER, cTDR is the dominant modality.

Posted on

Cost-effectiveness analysis in minimally invasive spine surgery

Cost-effectiveness analysis in MISS

Neurosurg Focus 36 (6):E4, 2014

Medical care has been evolving with the increased influence of a value-based health care system. As a result, more emphasis is being placed on ensuring cost-effectiveness and utility in the services provided to patients. This study looks at this development in respect to minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS) costs.

Methods. A literature review using PubMed, the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) Registry, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) was performed. Papers were included in the study if they reported costs associated with minimally invasive spine surgery (MISS). If there was no mention of cost, CEA, cost-utility analysis (CUA), quality-adjusted life year (QALY), quality, or outcomes mentioned, then the article was excluded.

Results. Fourteen studies reporting costs associated with MISS in 12,425 patients (3675 undergoing minimally invasive procedures and 8750 undergoing open procedures) were identified through PubMed, the CEA Registry, and NHS EED. The percent cost difference between minimally invasive and open approaches ranged from 2.54% to 33.68%—all indicating cost saving with a minimally invasive surgical approach. Average length of stay (LOS) for minimally invasive surgery ranged from 0.93 days to 5.1 days compared with 1.53 days to 12 days for an open approach. All studies reporting EBL reported lower volume loss in an MISS approach (range 10–392.5 ml) than in an open approach (range 55–535.5 ml).

Conclusions. There are currently an insufficient number of studies published reporting the costs of MISS. Of the studies published, none have followed a standardized method of reporting and analyzing cost data. Preliminary findings analyzing the 14 studies showed both cost saving and better outcomes in MISS compared with an open approach. However, more Level I CEA/CUA studies including cost/QALY evaluations with specifics of the techniques utilized need to be reported in a standardized manner to make more accurate conclusions on the cost effectiveness of minimally invasive spine surgery.

Posted on

The economic impact of ventriculoperitoneal shunt failure

J Neurosurg Pediatrics 8:539–599, 2011.DOI: 10.3171/2011.9.PEDS11192

Detailed costs to individuals with hydrocephalus and their families as well as to third-party payers have not been previously described. The purpose of this study was to determine the primary caregiver out-of-pocket expenses and the third-party payer reimbursement rate associated with a shunt failure episode.

Methods. A retrospective study of children born between 2000 and 2005 who underwent initial ventriculoperitoneal (VP) shunt placement and who subsequently experienced a shunt failure requiring surgical intervention within 2 years of their initial shunt placement was conducted. Institutional reimbursement and demographic data from Children’s Hospital of Alabama (CHA) were augmented with a caregiver survey of any out-of pocket expenses encountered during the shunt failure episode. Institutional reimbursements and caregiver out-of-pocket expenses were then combined to provide the cost for a shunt failure episode at CHA.

Results. For shunt failures, the median reimbursement total was $5008 (interquartile range [IQR] $2068– $17,984), the median caregiver out-of-pocket expenses was $419 (IQR $251–$1112), and the median total cost was $5411 (IQR $2428–$18,582). Private insurance reimbursed at a median rate of $5074 (IQR $2170–$14,852) compared with public insurance, which reimbursed at a median rate of $4800 (IQR $1876–$19,395). Caregivers with private insurance reported a median $963 (IQR $322–$1741) for out-of-pocket expenses, whereas caregivers with public insurance reported a median $391 (IQR $241–$554) for out-of-pocket expenses (p = 0.017).

Conclusions. This study confirmed that private insurance reimbursed at a higher rate, and that although patients had a shorter length of stay as compared with those with public insurance, their out-of-pocket expenses associated with a shunt failure episode were greater. However, it could not be determined if the significant difference in outof- pocket expenses between those with private and those with public insurance was due directly to the cost of shunt failure. This model does not take into consideration community resources and services available to those with public insurance. These resources and services could offset the out-of-pocket burden, and therefore should be considered in future cost models.

Proudly powered by WordPress