Tag: Value-based care

Posted on

Awake Versus Asleep Craniotomy for Glioma: A Comparison of Survival and Costs Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing

Operative Neurosurgery 30:653–667, 2026

Awake versus asleep (general anesthesia) craniotomy are two approaches for glioma resection, and this work compares their intraoperative costs and survival outcomes.

Key Insights and Themes

Clinical question centers on whether awake craniotomy (AC) differs from asleep craniotomy under general anesthesia (GA) in intraoperative cost and in survival for glioma patients.

Cohort identification included all glioma resections at one institution from 2017–2022: 298 GA cases and 67 AC cases.

Awake-craniotomy indication primarily involved tumors in eloquent brain regions to allow intraoperative monitoring of neural function, while noneloquent tumors typically started under GA.

Costing method (TDABC) used process maps plus automated time-stamped extraction from the electronic medical record to capture intraoperative resources and time.

Cost components were dominated by supplies and personnel, with other elements (turnover and overhead) described as relatively minor contributors.

Baseline overall intraoperative cost had a median total of $6600 (IQR $2875), largely driven by supply cost (median $3178) and personnel cost (median $3141).

Operating-room time was longer for AC (median 5.2 hours) than GA (median 4.5 hours), and AC had about 30 additional minutes of incision-to-closure time.

Patient/tumor comparability showed GA patients were older, but there were no differences in WHO grade distribution or extent of resection between groups.

Unadjusted total cost difference showed higher median intraoperative cost for AC ($8506) versus GA ($6033).

Unadjusted subcomponent differences showed AC had higher median supply cost ($4238 vs $2928) and higher median personnel cost ($4111 vs $2962) than GA.

Adjusted total cost effect found AC associated with $2175 additional intraoperative cost versus GA after accounting for confounders.

Adjusted cost drivers attributed the added AC cost to higher supply cost (+$1272) and higher personnel cost (+$970).

Supply subcomponents were higher for AC than GA across consumables, implants, sterilization, and medications in unadjusted comparisons.

Personnel mix differed in that neurology attendings/fellows were included in AC but not GA at this institution, contributing to personnel-cost differences.

Unadjusted survival showed higher overall survival for AC on Kaplan–Meier analysis (log-rank P = .011), while progression-free survival did not significantly differ (log-rank P = .106).

Adjusted survival showed no significant differences between AC and GA in overall survival (HR 0.84, P = .48) or progression-free survival (HR 0.9, P = .66) after multivariable adjustment.

Key limitation (missing GA neuromonitoring costs) is that electrophysiological neuromonitoring personnel costs for GA were not captured due to EMR documentation limits.

Scope limitation (episode-of-care costs) is that the analysis focuses on intraoperative costs, and commenters note postoperative/inpatient costs could change conclusions about overall expense.

Conclusion

Awake craniotomy for glioma resection had higher intraoperative costs than asleep craniotomy, but after adjustment it showed no significant survival advantage in overall or progression-free survival.

Posted on

Which spine surgeries belong in the ambulatory surgical center?

Neurosurg Focus 60(4):E2, 2026

This study uses time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to quantify true costs of common cervical and lumbar spine procedures performed in an outpatient hospital setting and compares these costs to Medicare ambulatory surgical center (ASC) reimbursement. Findings show microdiscectomy, lumbar laminectomy/decompression, and ACDF most often fall below Medicare ASC reimbursement, while endoscopic discectomy and posterior lumbar fusion frequently exceed reimbursement.

The analysis identifies supplies and personnel as primary cost drivers, highlights heterogeneity in Medicare ASC facility fees that do not reflect procedural complexity or number of levels, and argues that reimbursement reform is needed to expand the range of spine procedures economically feasible in ASCs.

Objective Identify spine procedures that are economically suitable to move from an outpatient hospital setting to an ambulatory surgical center (ASC) by comparing true costs (via TDABC) with Medicare ASC reimbursement.

Methods Retrospective cohort (2020–2024) of outpatient hospital spine cases with length of stay ≤ 1 day; procedures: cervical disc arthroplasty, ACDF, lumbar laminectomy/decompression, microdiscectomy, endoscopic discectomy, and posterior lumbar fusion; primary outcomes were total costs and proportion of cases with cost below Medicare reimbursement; regression adjusted for age, sex, BMI, and number of levels.

Costing approach (TDABC) Episode mapped across preop, intraop (wheels-in to wheels-out), and recovery phases; costs included supplies (consumables, implants, meds), personnel time (per-minute rates by role), and overhead.

Key cervical finding ACDF was more often below corresponding ASC reimbursement than cervical disc arthroplasty (71.8% vs 40.0%); adjusted odds favored ACDF (OR 5.3, 95% CI 3.0–9.4).

Key lumbar cost levels Mean lumbar episode cost was $4,640 ± $6,475; posterior lumbar fusion had the highest mean cost ($25,042 ± $15,645) and microdiscectomy the lowest ($3,233 ± $2,142).

Key lumbar viability finding Microdiscectomy (95.3%) and laminectomy/decompression (94.5%) most often cost less than reimbursement; endoscopic discectomy (31.0%) and posterior lumbar fusion (30.0%) were least often below reimbursement; adjusted odds were higher for laminectomy/decompression (OR 6.0) and microdiscectomy (OR 4.7), and far lower for endoscopic discectomy (OR 0.01) and fusion (OR 0.02).

Conclusions (procedures best suited for ASC under current payments) Microdiscectomy, lumbar laminectomy/decompression, and ACDF appear most economically suitable for transition from hospital outpatient to ASC in existing payment structures.

Reimbursement implication Broader feasibility in ASCs likely requires reimbursement reform, given mismatches between procedural complexity/resource use and Medicare ASC payment patterns.

Posted on

How Do the True Intraoperative Costs of Endoscopic Diskectomy Compare With Microdiskectomy for Lumbar Disk Herniations?

Operative Neurosurgery 27:690–697, 2024

Endoscopic lumbar diskectomy (ED) is a minimally invasive option for addressing lumbar disk herniations. With the introduction of value-based care systems, assessing the true cost of certain procedures is critical when creating reimbursement models and comparing procedures. Here, we compared the costs of performing a microdiskectomy (MD) and ED using time-driven activity-based costing.

METHODS: Total cost for the intraoperative episode was calculated using time-driven activity-based costing methodology. Individual costs were obtained by direct observation and electronic medical records and through querying multiple departments (business operations, sterile processing, plant operations, and pharmacy). Timestamps for all involved personnel and material resources were documented. A retrospective analysis was performed on 202 patients who underwent lumbar diskectomy through either MD (n = 167) or ED (n = 35) from 2018 to 2022. Personnel cost was calculated by multiplying the cost per unit time for each personnel type by the length of time spent in the operating room. Supply cost was calculated by aggregating the cost of all individual supplies, from medications to consumables to surgical trays, used during the case. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses were performed comparing the costs between these procedures.

RESULTS: The average intraoperative cost per case for ED and MD was $3915 ± $1025 and $3162 ± $954, respectively. Multivariable regression analysis revealed that ED had higher total cost ( β -coefficient: $912 ± $281, P = <.01) and supply cost ( β -coefficient: $474 ± $155, P = <.01) than MD. When accounting for surgeon as a covariate, however, total cost (P = .478) and supply cost (P = .468) differences between ED and MD were negligible.

CONCLUSION: ED has shown to be a better value option in addressing lumbar disk herniations, mostly because of advantages in perioperative care. Here, we show that when correcting for surgeon-level effects, the cost between the two procedures is statistically insignificant, reaffirming the value provided by ED.

Posted on

What is the Marginal Cost of Using Robot Assistance or Navigation for Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion? A Time-Driven Activity-Based Cost Analysis

Neurosurgery 95:556–565, 2024

Our primary objective was to compare the marginal intraoperative cost of 3 different methods for pedicle screw placement as part of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusions (TLIFs). Specifically, we used time-driven activity-based costing to compare costs between robot-assisted TLIF (RA-TLIF), TLIF with intraoperative navigation (ION-TLIF), and freehand (non-navigated, nonrobotic) TLIF.

METHODS: Total cost was divided into direct and indirect costs. We identified all instances of RA-TLIF (n = 20), ION-TLIF (n = 59), and freehand TLIF (n = 233) from 2020 to 2022 at our institution. Software was developed to automate the extraction of all intraoperatively used personnel and material resources from the electronic medical record. Total costs were determined through a combination of direct observation, electronic medical record extraction, and interdepartmental collaboration (business operations, sterile processing, pharmacy, and plant operation departments). Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to compare costs between TLIF modalities, accounting for patient-specific factors as well as number of levels fused, surgeon, and hospital site.

RESULTS: The average total intraoperative cost per case for the RA-TLIF, ION-TLIF, and freehand TLIF cohorts was $24 838 ± $10 748, $15 991 ± $6254, and $14 498 ± $6580, respectively. Regression analysis revealed that RA-TLIF had significantly higher intraoperative cost compared with both ION-TLIF ( β -coefficient: $7383 ± $1575, P < .001) and freehand TLIF ( β -coefficient: $8182 ± $1523, P < .001). These cost differences were primarily driven by supply cost. However, there were no significant differences in intraoperative cost between ION-TLIF and freehand TLIF (P = .32).

CONCLUSION: We demonstrate a novel use of time-driven activity-based costing methodology to compare different modalities for executing the same type of lumbar fusion procedure. RA-TLIF entails significantly higher supply cost when compared with other modalities, which explains its association with higher total intraoperative cost. The use of ION, however, does not add extra expense compared with freehand TLIF when accounting for confounders. This might have implications as surgeons and hospitals move toward bundled payments.

Proudly powered by WordPress