Bradley N Reames1, Kyle H Sheetz2, Seth A Waits2, Justin B Dimick2, Scott E Regenbogen2. 1. All authors: Center for Healthcare Outcomes & Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. breames@umich.edu. 2. All authors: Center for Healthcare Outcomes & Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Emerging evidence supporting the use of laparoscopic colectomy in patients with cancer has led to dramatic increases in utilization. Though certain patient and hospital characteristics may be associated with the use of laparoscopy, the influence of geography is poorly understood. METHODS: We used national Medicare claims data from 2009 and 2010 to examine geographic variation in utilization of laparoscopic colectomy for patients with colon cancer. Patients were assigned to hospital referral regions (HRRs) where they were treated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to generate age, sex, and race-adjusted rates of laparoscopic colectomy for each HRR. Patient quintiles of adjusted HRR utilization were used to evaluate differences in patient and hospital characteristics across low and high-utilizing HRRs. RESULTS: A total of 93,786 patients underwent colon resections at 3,476 hospitals during the study period, of which 30,502 (32.5%) were performed laparoscopically. Differences in patient characteristics between the lowest and highest quintiles of HRR utilization were negligible, and there was no difference in the availability of laparoscopic technology. Yet adjusted rates of laparoscopic colectomy utilization varied from 0% to 66.8% across 306 HRRs in the United States. CONCLUSION: There is wide geographic variation in the utilization of laparoscopic colectomy for Medicare patients with colon cancer, suggesting treatment location may substantially influence a patient's options for surgical approach. Future efforts to reduce variation will require increased dissemination of training techniques, novel opportunities for learning among surgeons, and enhanced educational resources for patients.
PURPOSE: Emerging evidence supporting the use of laparoscopic colectomy in patients with cancer has led to dramatic increases in utilization. Though certain patient and hospital characteristics may be associated with the use of laparoscopy, the influence of geography is poorly understood. METHODS: We used national Medicare claims data from 2009 and 2010 to examine geographic variation in utilization of laparoscopic colectomy for patients with colon cancer. Patients were assigned to hospital referral regions (HRRs) where they were treated. Multivariable logistic regression was used to generate age, sex, and race-adjusted rates of laparoscopic colectomy for each HRR. Patient quintiles of adjusted HRR utilization were used to evaluate differences in patient and hospital characteristics across low and high-utilizing HRRs. RESULTS: A total of 93,786 patients underwent colon resections at 3,476 hospitals during the study period, of which 30,502 (32.5%) were performed laparoscopically. Differences in patient characteristics between the lowest and highest quintiles of HRR utilization were negligible, and there was no difference in the availability of laparoscopic technology. Yet adjusted rates of laparoscopic colectomy utilization varied from 0% to 66.8% across 306 HRRs in the United States. CONCLUSION: There is wide geographic variation in the utilization of laparoscopic colectomy for Medicare patients with colon cancer, suggesting treatment location may substantially influence a patient's options for surgical approach. Future efforts to reduce variation will require increased dissemination of training techniques, novel opportunities for learning among surgeons, and enhanced educational resources for patients.
Authors: E S Fisher; F S Whaley; W M Krushat; D J Malenka; C Fleming; J A Baron; D C Hsia Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1992-02 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Ruben Veldkamp; Esther Kuhry; Wim C J Hop; J Jeekel; G Kazemier; H Jaap Bonjer; Eva Haglind; Lars Påhlman; Miguel A Cuesta; Simon Msika; Mario Morino; Antonio M Lacy Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: E Kapiteijn; E K Kranenbarg; W H Steup; C W Taat; H J Rutten; T Wiggers; J H van Krieken; J Hermans; J W Leer; C J van de Velde Journal: Eur J Surg Date: 1999-05
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alexander T Hawkins; Molly M Ford; M Benjamin Hopkins; Roberta L Muldoon; Jonathan P Wanderer; Alexander A Parikh; Timothy M Geiger Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Scott E Regenbogen; Anne H Cain-Nielsen; Edward C Norton; Lena M Chen; John D Birkmeyer; Jonathan S Skinner Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2017-05-17 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Brett L Ecker; Lindsay E Y Kuo; Kristina D Simmons; John P Fischer; Jon B Morris; Rachel R Kelz Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-06-20 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: M Zimmermann; C Benecke; C Jung; M Hoffmann; J Nolde; E Schlöricke; H P Bruch; T Keck; T Laubert Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis Date: 2016-05-02 Impact factor: 2.571
Authors: Bradley N Reames; Christopher P Scally; Timothy L Frankel; Justin B Dimick; Hari Nathan Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2016-02-09 Impact factor: 3.647