Cost-Benefit Analysis of Transitional Care in Neurosurgery

Neurosurgery ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 85 (5) ◽  
pp. 672-679 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jingyi Liu ◽  
Natalia Gormley ◽  
Hormuzdiyar H Dasenbrock ◽  
Linda S Aglio ◽  
Timothy R Smith ◽  
...  

AbstractBACKGROUNDTransitional care programs (TCPs) coordinate care to improve safety and efficiency surrounding hospital discharge. While TCPs have the potential to reduce hospital length of stay and readmissions, their financial implications are less well understood.OBJECTIVETo perform a cost-benefit analysis of a previously published neurosurgical TCP implemented at an urban academic hospital from 2013 to 2015.METHODSPatients received intensive preoperative education and framing of expectations for hospitalization, in-hospital discharge planning and medication reconciliation with a nurse educator, and a follow-up phone call postdischarge. The cost-benefit analysis involved program costs (nurse educator salary) and total direct hospital costs within the 30-d perioperative window including readmission costs.RESULTSThe average cost of the TCP was $435 per patient. The TCP was associated with an average total cost reduction of 17.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.3%-26.7%, P = .001). This decrease was driven by a 14.3% reduction in the average initial admission cost (95% CI: 6.2%-23.7%, P = .001), largely attributable to the 16.3% decrease in length of stay (95% CI: 9.93%-23.49%, P < .001). Thirty-day readmissions were significantly decreased in the TCP group, with a 5.5% readmission rate for controls and 2.4% for TCP enrollees (P = .04). The average cost of readmission was decreased by 71.3% (95% CI: 58.7%-74.7%, P < .01).CONCLUSIONThis neurosurgical TCP was associated with decreased costs of initial admissions, 30-d readmissions, and total costs of hospitalization alongside previously published decreased length of stay and reduced 30-d readmission rates. These results underscore the clinical and financial feasibility and impact of transitional care in a surgical setting.

Blood ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 122 (21) ◽  
pp. 1697-1697 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meera Chappidi ◽  
Y. Natalia Alfonso ◽  
David Bishai ◽  
Sophie Lanzkron

Abstract Introduction The most common reason for acute care utilization for individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD) is Vaso-Occlusive crisis (VOC). Patients typically seek out care through the emergency department (ED) At these locations patients often have long waits to get care and often receive sub optimal pain management, which Results in over 40% of patients requiring hospital admission. Johns Hopkins Hospital has implemented a new model of service for people with SCD; an outpatient Sickle Cell Infusion Clinic (SCIC) that was opened in 2008 as an alternative source of urgent care for patients having VOC. The purpose of this study is to determine the net financial benefit of implementing the sickle cell infusion clinic model. Methods A cost-benefit analysis is conducted from the payer’s perspective focusing on direct medical cost (procedures, drugs, tests, etc.) of SCD patients and excludes indirect medical costs (patients’ productive changes). Health care costs and utilization data was available for the last 3 out of 5 years that the SCIC was opened. A literature review was conducted to determine the costs of individual components of the total costs for SCD patients: inpatient hospitalization, ED visit, primary care and secondary care visits, and other healthcare costs for patients with SCD. The overall and average visit cost of the SCIC was determined from the 2012-2013 budget and visits. The billing data for a subset of patients seen in the SCIC that were insured by one of the Medicaid’s MCO was used to determine utilization and costs of healthcare services for 2010, 2011, and 2012. The baseline utilization of healthcare services before the SCIC was implemented was estimated from the literature. As we did not have baseline data we estimated that the 2010 utilization of healthcare services reflected a 20% decrease in hospitalizations and a 40% decrease in ED visits. The overall cost of care for patients with SCD was determined from the above-mentioned sample of billing claims data and utilization estimates. The costs of running the SCIC was added to the overall costs of care. Finally, net savings for the SCIC was determined by calculating the difference in overall cost and savings per beneficiary per month (PBPM). All values are reported in 2012 inflation-adjusted dollars. Results For the subset of patients covered by the Medicaid MCO, the SCIC model resulted in a 7.6% ($676 PBPM) cost savings in the first year (estimated baseline compared to 2010) with savings of 29.2% ($2598 PBPM) when comparing estimated baseline to 2012. The total medical costs for the subset of patients using the SCIC in 2010 was $3,492,339 with an average cost of $94,388 per patient. The SCIC had 1,428 visits by 246 unique patients in FY2012 with an average cost per visit of $434 or $203 PBPM. Other costs in this patient population include: inpatient hospitalization ($3,985 PBPM), ED visits ($326 PBPM), primary and secondary care visits ($26 PBPM), and pharmacy ($493 PBPM). The total cost of care for the same number of sickle cell patients as in our sample who did not utilize the SCIC would have been $3,779,588, with an average cost of $102,151per patient. The SCIC model resulted in cost savings primarily due to a decrease in hospitalizations and ED visits. The number of hospitalization decreased 52.0% (2.88 HPY) and the number of ED visits decreased 48.4% (2.32 visits VPY) in the fifth year of operating the infusion clinic model (2012). The average cost of a hospitalization and an ED visit was $10,797 and $1,024 respectively. These values did not change with the implementation of the SCIC. If we extrapolate the cost savings seen in the subset of patients using the more conservative 7.6% cost savings, to the entire patient cohort this would result in a cost savings of $1.9 million. Discussion Preliminary cost-benefit analysis shows that the SCIC model resulted in significant cost savings that increased significantly in successive years. Cost savings was driven by two major factors: 1) decrease in inpatient hospitalizations and 2) decrease in ED visits. Additional analysis to include actual baseline data is planned along with a sensitivity analysis to identify if there is a certain threshold population density for which this model would be most cost effective. Disclosures: Lanzkron: GlycoMimetics, Inc.: Research Funding.


2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ke Xin Eh ◽  
Ian Yi Han Ang ◽  
Milawaty Nurjono ◽  
Sue-Anne Ee Shiow Toh

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 594-618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah K. Reed ◽  
Kevin M. Cook ◽  
Ariel M. Aloe

This study investigated the costs of different summer reading programs and compared costs to the benefits of summer school as a way to avoid retaining students not reading proficiently at the end of third grade. Per pupil costs ranged from US$1,665 to US$2,194. The average cost was US$1,887 (range: US$266-US$5,552) with 82% of overall expenses attributable to personnel. Results indicate that offering summer reading programs could save schools across the state a total of between US$70.6 million and US$75.5 million in expenses related to providing an extra year of school had all eligible students been retained in third grade instead. This equates to about US$4 in benefit for every dollar invested in summer programs.


BMJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. l121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Walker ◽  
Michael Ben-Meir ◽  
William Dunlop ◽  
Rachel Rosler ◽  
Adam West ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives To evaluate the changes in productivity when scribes were used by emergency physicians in emergency departments in Australia and assess the effect of scribes on throughput. Design Randomised, multicentre clinical trial. Setting Five emergency departments in Victoria used Australian trained scribes during their respective trial periods. Sites were broadly representative of Australian emergency departments: public (urban, tertiary, regional referral, paediatric) and private, not for profit. Participants 88 physicians who were permanent, salaried employees working more than one shift a week and were either emergency consultants or senior registrars in their final year of training; 12 scribes trained at one site and rotated to each study site. Interventions Physicians worked their routine shifts and were randomly allocated a scribe for the duration of their shift. Each site required a minimum of 100 scribed and non-scribed shifts, from November 2015 to January 2018. Main outcome measures Physicians’ productivity (total patients, primary patients); patient throughput (door-to-doctor time, length of stay); physicians’ productivity in emergency department regions. Self reported harms of scribes were analysed, and a cost-benefit analysis was done. Results Data were collected from 589 scribed shifts (5098 patients) and 3296 non-scribed shifts (23 838 patients). Scribes increased physicians’ productivity from 1.13 (95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.17) to 1.31 (1.25 to 1.38) patients per hour per doctor, representing a 15.9% gain. Primary consultations increased from 0.83 (0.81 to 0.85) to 1.04 (0.98 to 1.11) patients per hour per doctor, representing a 25.6% gain. No change was seen in door-to-doctor time. Median length of stay reduced from 192 (interquartile range 108-311) minutes to 173 (96-208) minutes, representing a 19 minute reduction (P<0.001). The greatest gains were achieved by placing scribes with senior doctors at triage, the least by using them in sub-acute/fast track regions. No significant harm involving scribes was reported. The cost-benefit analysis based on productivity and throughput gains showed a favourable financial position with use of scribes. Conclusions Scribes improved emergency physicians’ productivity, particularly during primary consultations, and decreased patients’ length of stay. Further work should evaluate the role of the scribe in countries with health systems similar to Australia’s. Trial registration ACTRN12615000607572 (pilot site); ACTRN12616000618459.


2021 ◽  
pp. 000313482110111
Author(s):  
Henry P. Miller ◽  
Abraham Hakim ◽  
Alec Kellish ◽  
Marisa Wozniak ◽  
John Gaughan ◽  
...  

Background Robotic and laparoscopic hepatectomies having increased utilization as minimally invasive techniques are explored for hepatobiliary malignancies. Although the data on outcomes from these 2 approaches are emerging, the cost-benefit analysis of these approaches remains sparse. This study compares the costs associated with robotic vs. laparoscopic liver resections, taking into account 30-day complications. Methods Using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, a propensity-matched cohort of patients with laparoscopic or robotic liver resections between 2014 and 2017 was identified. Costs were assigned to perioperative variables, including operating room (OR) time, length of stay, blood transfusions, and 30-day complications. Cost estimates were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services billing data (2017), American Hospital Association data (2017), relevant literature, and local institutional cost data. Results In our matched cohort of 454 patients (227 per group), total costs associated with laparoscopic liver resections were estimated at $5.5 M ($24 K per patient) vs. $6.8 M ($29.8 K per patient) for robotic liver resections (21.3% difference, P < .001). The higher cost associated with robotic hepatectomies was related to blood transfusions ($22.0 K vs. $12.1 K, P = .02), length of stay ($2.05 M vs. $1.76 M, P = .046), and OR time ($4.01 M vs. $3.24 M, P < .0001). Discussion Robotic hepatectomies were associated with higher costs compared to laparoscopic hepatectomies. The 2 major contributors to the cost disparity were increased OR time and increased length of stay. Future studies are warranted to analyze high-volume Minimally Invasive Surgery surgeons’ impact in specialty centers on potentially mitigating this current cost disparity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document