Literature DB >> 19541006

Opportunity cost: a systematic application to surgery.

Abhishek Chatterjee1, Michael J Payette, Christopher P Demas, Samuel R G Finlayson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Opportunity cost is the potential gain or loss when a person chooses to perform an activity over its next best alternative. With respect to surgery, opportunity cost can occur if a less efficient technology uses more operating time than its next best alternative. This additional operating time could be used in a productive way that, when economically valued, adds a "cost" to the less efficient technology. Although fundamental to the economist's view of costs and widely used in economic assessments, opportunity cost analysis is infrequently used in economic evaluation of surgical technology. Previous cost comparison studies in the surgical literature have not addressed opportunity cost when estimating the efficiency of competing technologies. With increasing healthcare costs and new technologic advancements in surgery, a surgeon's ability to understand opportunity cost and apply it when choosing between two comparable technologies is essential. Our objective is to present a system to estimate the opportunity cost for given surgical specialties and present a model to demonstrate its principle.
METHODS: To demonstrate the principle of opportunity cost, our model used a hypothetical scenario comparing two clinically equivalent technologies that differed in that the use of one device (Device A) extended operating time in a hypothetical procedure by 30 minutes compared to its competitor device (Device B). How this extra operating time could potentially be used was then valued using the opportunity cost calculated by our study design. Our study design included 5 surgical procedures from 5 surgical specialties that were elective, profitable, high-volume (performed more than 100 times per year), and had a duration of less than 240 minutes. The data were taken from a university hospital setting in 2007 and included procedure volume, profit margin, and duration. The outcome measure was opportunity cost, which was estimated by dividing the selected procedure's profit margin by its duration.
RESULTS: Surgical specialty results are presented in the accompanying Tables. Otolaryngology has the highest opportunity cost at $38/min. This cost was calculated by using myringotomy as the procedure that was elective, short in duration, performed in high volume, and provided the highest profit margin. By applying our model, the otolaryngology surgeon using the less efficient Device A to perform a hypothetical procedure would incur an opportunity cost of $1,140 ($38/min x 30 min). This is because he could have performed additional myringotomy procedures in the time saved had he instead used the more efficient Device B in his hypothetical cases. General surgery has the lowest opportunity cost at $9/min; laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair was the procedure used for its calculation. Under the same model, the general surgeon using Device A would incur an opportunity cost of $270 ($9/min x 30 min). This is because the general surgeon could have performed additional laparoscopic femoral/hernia repairs had she used the more efficient Device B in her hypothetical cases.
CONCLUSION: In acknowledging opportunity cost, a surgeon can more accurately compare the efficiency of competing surgical devices. This comparison is carried out by estimating and applying a dollar amount to the potential utility of time created by the use of the less efficient device.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19541006     DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2009.03.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surgery        ISSN: 0039-6060            Impact factor:   3.982


  9 in total

1.  Opportunity cost in the economic evaluation of da Vinci robotic assisted surgery.

Authors:  Fernando Fuertes-Guiró; Montserrat Girabent-Farrés; Eduardo Viteri-Velasco
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2015-03-06

2.  Understanding Costs of Care in the Operating Room.

Authors:  Christopher P Childers; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 14.766

Review 3.  Applying economic principles to outcomes analysis.

Authors:  Melissa J Shauver; Kevin C Chung
Journal:  Clin Plast Surg       Date:  2012-11-26       Impact factor: 2.017

4.  Total Disc Replacement Versus Anterior-Posterior Interbody Fusion in the Lumbar Spine and Lumbosacral Junction: A Cost Analysis.

Authors:  Timo Stubig; Malik Ahmed; Amir Ghasemi; Luigi Aurelio Nasto; Michael Grevitt
Journal:  Global Spine J       Date:  2017-07-20

5.  Ascending the Learning Curve of Robotic Abdominal Wall Reconstruction.

Authors:  David K Halpern; Raelina S Howell; Harika Boinpally; Cristina Magadan-Alvarez; Patrizio Petrone; Collin E M Brathwaite
Journal:  JSLS       Date:  2019 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.172

6.  Financial impact of adapting robotics to a thoracic practice in an academic institution.

Authors:  Abbas Abbas; Charles Bakhos; Roman Petrov; Larry Kaiser
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 2.895

7.  The relationship between relative value units and outcomes: a multivariate analysis of plastic surgery procedures.

Authors:  Khang T Nguyen; Michael S Gart; John T Smetona; Apas Aggarwal; Karl Y Bilimoria; John Y S Kim
Journal:  Eplasty       Date:  2012-12-27

8.  Comparison of a pressure-sensing sheath and radial arterial line for intraoperative blood pressure monitoring in neurointerventional procedures.

Authors:  Michael T Froehler; Rohan Chitale; Jordan A Magarik; Matthew R Fusco
Journal:  J Neurointerv Surg       Date:  2018-02-27       Impact factor: 5.836

Review 9.  Procedure costs associated with the use of Harmonic devices compared to conventional techniques in various surgeries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hang Cheng; Jeffrey W Clymer; Rana A Qadeer; Nicole Ferko; Behnam Sadeghirad; Chris G Cameron; Joseph F Amaral
Journal:  Clinicoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2018-07-24
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.