G Assmann1, R Kasch, A Hofer, A P Schulz, R Kayser, A Lahm, H Merk, S Flessa. 1. Department of Health Care Management, Faculty of Law and Economics, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-University, Friedrich-Loeffler-Straße 70, 17487, Greifswald, Germany, grit.assmann@uni-greifswald.de.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Aseptic loosening is one of the most common intermediate and long-term complications after total hip replacement (THR). These complications cause suffering and require expensive revision surgery. Little concrete data on direct costs are available from the hospital's, moreover operating department's perspective. We here provide a detailed analysis of the costs of THR revision and relate them to reimbursement underlying the German diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Major cost parameters were identified using for orientation the cost matrix of the German Institute for Hospital Reimbursement (InEK GmbH). We then retrospectively analysed the major direct costs of aseptic revision THR in terms of contribution margins I and II. The analysis included a total of 114 patients who underwent aseptic revision from 1 January 2009 to 31 March 2012. Data were retrieved from the hospital information system and patient records. All costs of surgery, diagnostic tests, and other treatments were calculated as purchase prices in EUR. The comparative analysis of direct costs and reimbursements was done for DRG I46A and I46B from the hospital's, especially treating department's rather than the society or healthcare insurance's perspective. RESULTS: The average direct cost incurred by the hospital for a THR revision was <euro>4,380.0. The largest share was accounted for surgical costs (62.7 % of total). Implant and staff costs were identified as the most important factors that can be influenced. The proportion of the daily contribution margin that was left to cover the hospital's indirect cost decreased with the relative cost weight of the DRG to which a patient was assigned. CONCLUSION: Our study for the first time provides a detailed analysis of the major direct case costs of THR revision for aseptic loosening from the provider's perspective. Our findings suggest that these revision operations could be performed cost-beneficially by the operating unit. From an economic perspective, cases with higher cost weights are more favorable for a hospital. These results need to be confirmed in multicenter studies.
INTRODUCTION: Aseptic loosening is one of the most common intermediate and long-term complications after total hip replacement (THR). These complications cause suffering and require expensive revision surgery. Little concrete data on direct costs are available from the hospital's, moreover operating department's perspective. We here provide a detailed analysis of the costs of THR revision and relate them to reimbursement underlying the German diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Major cost parameters were identified using for orientation the cost matrix of the German Institute for Hospital Reimbursement (InEK GmbH). We then retrospectively analysed the major direct costs of aseptic revision THR in terms of contribution margins I and II. The analysis included a total of 114 patients who underwent aseptic revision from 1 January 2009 to 31 March 2012. Data were retrieved from the hospital information system and patient records. All costs of surgery, diagnostic tests, and other treatments were calculated as purchase prices in EUR. The comparative analysis of direct costs and reimbursements was done for DRG I46A and I46B from the hospital's, especially treating department's rather than the society or healthcare insurance's perspective. RESULTS: The average direct cost incurred by the hospital for a THR revision was <euro>4,380.0. The largest share was accounted for surgical costs (62.7 % of total). Implant and staff costs were identified as the most important factors that can be influenced. The proportion of the daily contribution margin that was left to cover the hospital's indirect cost decreased with the relative cost weight of the DRG to which a patient was assigned. CONCLUSION: Our study for the first time provides a detailed analysis of the major direct case costs of THR revision for aseptic loosening from the provider's perspective. Our findings suggest that these revision operations could be performed cost-beneficially by the operating unit. From an economic perspective, cases with higher cost weights are more favorable for a hospital. These results need to be confirmed in multicenter studies.
Authors: Iskandar Tamimi; Pablo Carnero; David Bautista; David Gonzalez; Pablo Rodrigo; María Jose Bravo; Abel Gómez; Faleh Tamimi; David Garcia de Quevedo Journal: Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil Date: 2022-04-11
Authors: Richard Kasch; Sebastian Merk; Grit Assmann; Andreas Lahm; Matthias Napp; Harry Merk; Steffen Flessa Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Pablo Carnero-Martín de Soto; Iskandar Tamimi-Mariño; David Bautista-Enrique; María J Bravo-Zurita; Abel Gómez Cáceres; Faleh Tamimi; Marc S Dawid-Milner Journal: J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 2.041
Authors: William F Sherman; Travis R Flick; Charles S Dranoff; Matthew J Weintraub; Nisha N Kale; Corinne Sommi; Fernando L Sanchez Journal: Arthroplast Today Date: 2021-01-11
Authors: R Kasch; G Assmann; S Merk; T Barz; M Melloh; A Hofer; H Merk; S Flessa Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: William J Long; Samir Nayyar; Kevin K Chen; David Novikov; Roy I Davidovitch; Jonathan M Vigdorchik Journal: Arthroplast Today Date: 2018-01-02