Literature DB >> 15785881

Diagnosis-related group assignment in laparoscopic and open colectomy: financial implications for payer and provider.

Anthony J Senagore1, Ann Brannigan, Ravi P Kiran, Karen Brady, Conor P Delaney.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In carefully matched patients, the length of hospital stay after laparoscopic colectomy is shorter than after open surgery. Higher operating room costs for laparoscopic surgery are offset by lower costs for hospitalization because of less utilization of pharmacy, laboratory, and nursing services. Clinical outcome is comparable. We examined the effect of the surgical approach for colectomy (open vs. laparoscopic) regarding the reasons for disease-related group assignment to disease-related group 148, and institutional cost under Part A of the U.S. Medicare system.
METHODS: Colectomy patients were assigned to either disease-related group 148 (colorectal resection with complications) or disease-related group 149 (colorectal resection without complications) with significant institutional reimbursement implications (disease-related group 149, US 8,310 dollars; disease-related group 148, US 20,291 dollars). A total of 100 consecutive disease-related group 148 patients undergoing laparoscopic colectomy from July 2000 to September 2002 were identified from a prospective database and case-matched with 100 patients undergoing open colectomy. Patients were matched for gender, age, operative procedure, and pathology. A certified coder determined the reason(s) for disease-related group 148 assignment, which were grouped into: preoperative comorbidity, a combination of preoperative comorbidity/postoperative complications, or postoperative complications alone.
RESULTS: Significantly more lapararoscopy patients were assigned to disease-related group 148 solely because of preoperative comorbidities (62 percent vs. 21 percent; P < 0.0001). Significantly more patients in the open surgery group were classified as disease-related group 148 solely because of postoperative complications (22 percent vs. 42 percent; P < 0.0001). An additional group of patients were assigned to the disease-related group 148 category based on a combination of preoperative and postoperative diagnoses (16 percent vs. 37 percent). The mean direct hospital costs were significantly less for laparoscopy patients (US 3971 dollars vs. US 5997 dollars; P = 0.0095). Increased cost to Part A of Medicare for 20 open surgery patients who "migrated" to disease-related group 148 because of postoperative complications was US 239,620 dollars.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data are the first to demonstrate that disease related group assignment can change solely because of a differential rate of postoperative complications for two competing operative techniques. This change occurred at twice the rate for open colectomy and resulted in significantly increased cost to the insurer under a prospective payment program. The savings to the institution coupled with the shortened length of stay offset the potential loss in revenue to the institution.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15785881     DOI: 10.1007/s10350-004-0907-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  18 in total

1.  Has laparoscopic colorectal surgery become more cost-effective over time?

Authors:  O E Aly; Z Quayyum
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2012-01-31       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Short- and long-term costs of laparoscopic colectomy are significantly less than open colectomy.

Authors:  David P Eisenberg; Jane Wey; Philip Q Bao; Melissa Saul; Andrew R Watson; Wolfgang H Schraut; Kenneth K W Lee; A James Moser; Steven J Hughes
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-02-21       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 3.  [Minimally invasive surgery and the economics of it. Can minimally invasive surgery be cost efficient from a business point of view?].

Authors:  J P Ritz; M Stufler; H J Buhr
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 0.955

4.  Can reoperative surgery be profitable? Maximizing reimbursement.

Authors:  Anthony J Senagore
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2006-11

5.  Practice and hospital economics.

Authors:  Anthony J Senagore
Journal:  Clin Colon Rectal Surg       Date:  2006-08

Review 6.  A critical appraisal of the cost effectiveness of laparoscopic colorectal surgery for oncological and non-oncological resections.

Authors:  Muhammad Shafique Sajid; Munir Ahmad Rathore; Mirza Khurrum Baig; Parv Sains
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2017-05-10

7.  A new perspective on the value of minimally invasive colorectal surgery-payer, provider, and patient benefits.

Authors:  Deborah S Keller; Anthony J Senagore; Kathryn Fitch; Andrew Bochner; Eric M Haas
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-11-04       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Cost of practice in a tertiary/quaternary referral center: is it sustainable?

Authors:  K G Cologne; G S Hwang; A J Senagore
Journal:  Tech Coloproctol       Date:  2014-06-18       Impact factor: 3.781

9.  New casemix classification as an alternative method for budget allocation in thai oral healthcare service: a pilot study.

Authors:  Thunthita Wisaijohn; Atiphan Pimkhaokham; Phenkhae Lapying; Chumpot Itthichaisri; Supasit Pannarunothai; Isao Igarashi; Koichi Kawabuchi
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2010-09-20

10.  DRG migration: A novel measure of inefficient surgical care in a value-based world.

Authors:  Byron D Hughes; Hemalkumar B Mehta; Eric Sieloff; Yong Shan; Anthony J Senagore
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 2.565

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.