S P Kim1, C P Gross2, M C Smaldone3, L C Han4, H Van Houten4, Y Lotan5, R S Svatek6, R H Thompson7, R J Karnes7, Q-D Trinh8, A Kutikov3, N D Shah9. 1. 1] University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Urology Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA [2] Center for Reducing Racial Disparities, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, USA. 2. 1] Yale University, Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, New Haven, CT, USA [2] Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA. 3. Fox Chase Cancer Center, Department of Surgery, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 5. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA. 6. Department of Urology, UT Health Science Center San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA. 7. Mayo Clinic, Department of Urology, Rochester, MN, USA. 8. Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Division of Urologic Surgery, Boston, MA, USA. 9. 1] Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA [2] Mayo Clinic, Knowledge and Evaluation Research Unit, Rochester, MN, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the increasing use of robotic surgery in the United States, the comparative effectiveness and differences in reimbursement of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) and open prostatectomy (ORP) in privately insured patients are unknown. Therefore, we sought to assess the differences in perioperative outcomes and hospital reimbursement in a privately insured patient population who were surgically treated for prostate cancer. METHODS: Using a large private insurance database, we identified 17,610 prostate cancer patients who underwent either MIRP or ORP from 2003 to 2010. The primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), perioperative complications, 90-day readmissions rates and hospital reimbursement. Multivariable regression analyses were used to evaluate for differences in primary outcomes across surgical approaches. RESULTS: Overall, 8981 (51.0%) and 8629 (49.0%) surgically treated prostate cancer patients underwent MIRP and ORP, respectively. The proportion of patients undergoing MIRP markedly rose from 11.9% in 2003 to 72.5% in 2010 (P<0.001 for trend). Relative to ORP, MIRP was associated with a shorter median LOS (1.0 day vs 3.0 days; P<0.001) and lower adjusted odds ratio of perioperative complications (OR: 0.82; P<0.001). However, the 90-day readmission rates of MIRP and ORP were similar (OR: 0.99; P=0.76). MIRP provided higher adjusted mean hospital reimbursement compared with ORP (US $19,292 vs. US $17,347; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among privately insured patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, robotic surgery rapidly disseminated with over 70% of patients undergoing MIRP by 2009-2010. Although MIRP was associated with shorter LOS and modestly better perioperative outcomes, hospitals received higher reimbursement for MIRP compared with ORP.
BACKGROUND: With the increasing use of robotic surgery in the United States, the comparative effectiveness and differences in reimbursement of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) and open prostatectomy (ORP) in privately insured patients are unknown. Therefore, we sought to assess the differences in perioperative outcomes and hospital reimbursement in a privately insured patient population who were surgically treated for prostate cancer. METHODS: Using a large private insurance database, we identified 17,610 prostate cancerpatients who underwent either MIRP or ORP from 2003 to 2010. The primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), perioperative complications, 90-day readmissions rates and hospital reimbursement. Multivariable regression analyses were used to evaluate for differences in primary outcomes across surgical approaches. RESULTS: Overall, 8981 (51.0%) and 8629 (49.0%) surgically treated prostate cancerpatients underwent MIRP and ORP, respectively. The proportion of patients undergoing MIRP markedly rose from 11.9% in 2003 to 72.5% in 2010 (P<0.001 for trend). Relative to ORP, MIRP was associated with a shorter median LOS (1.0 day vs 3.0 days; P<0.001) and lower adjusted odds ratio of perioperative complications (OR: 0.82; P<0.001). However, the 90-day readmission rates of MIRP and ORP were similar (OR: 0.99; P=0.76). MIRP provided higher adjusted mean hospital reimbursement compared with ORP (US $19,292 vs. US $17,347; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among privately insured patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, robotic surgery rapidly disseminated with over 70% of patients undergoing MIRP by 2009-2010. Although MIRP was associated with shorter LOS and modestly better perioperative outcomes, hospitals received higher reimbursement for MIRP compared with ORP.
Authors: Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Walter Artibani; Andrea Cestari; Antonio Galfano; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni; Bertrand Guillonneau; Mani Menon; Francesco Montorsi; Vipul Patel; Jens Rassweiler; Hendrik Van Poppel Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2009-01-25 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jesse Sammon; Maxine Sun; Praful Ravi; Khurshid R Ghani; Marco Bianchi; Wooju Jeong; Shahrokh F Shariat; Jens Hansen; Jan Schmitges; Claudio Jeldres; Craig G Rogers; James O Peabody; Francesco Montorsi; Mani Menon; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Paul L Nguyen; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Toni K Choueiri; Wesley W Choi; Yin Lei; Karen E Hoffman; Jim C Hu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Colin B Begg; Elyn R Riedel; Peter B Bach; Michael W Kattan; Deborah Schrag; Joan L Warren; Peter T Scardino Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jason D Wright; Cande V Ananth; Sharyn N Lewin; William M Burke; Yu-Shiang Lu; Alfred I Neugut; Thomas J Herzog; Dawn L Hershman Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-02-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jim C Hu; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Michael J Barry; Anthony V D'Amico; Aaron C Weinberg; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Florian Rudolf Schroeck; Bruce L Jacobs; Sam B Bhayani; Paul L Nguyen; David Penson; Jim Hu Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 20.096