Kristina H Lewis1, Fang Zhang2, David E Arterburn3, Dennis Ross-Degnan2, Matthew W Gillman2, J Frank Wharam2. 1. Kaiser Permanente Georgia, Center for Clinical and Outcomes Research, Atlanta2Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: There is conflicting evidence about how different bariatric procedures impact health care use. OBJECTIVE: To compare the impact of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (AGB) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) on health care use and costs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective interrupted time series with comparison series study using a national claims data set. The data analysis was initiated in September 2011 and completed in January 2015. We identified bariatric surgery patients aged 18 to 64 years who underwent a first AGB or RYGB between 2005 and 2011. We propensity score matched 4935 AGB to 4935 RYGB patients according to baseline age group, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic variables, comorbidities, year of procedure and baseline costs, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospital days. Median postoperative follow-up time was 2.5 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Quarterly and yearly total health care costs, ED visits, hospital days, and prescription drug costs. We used segmented regression to compare pre-to-post changes in level and trend of these measures in the AGB vs the RYGB groups and difference-in-differences analysis to estimate the magnitude of difference by year. RESULTS: Both AGB and RYGB were associated with downward trends in costs; however, by year 3, AGB patients had total annual costs that were 16% higher than RYGB patients (P < .001; absolute change: $818; 95% CI, $278 to $1357). In postoperative years 1 and 2, AGB was associated with 27% to 29% fewer ED visits than RYGB (P < .001; absolute changes: -0.6; 95% CI, -0.9 to -0.4 and -0.4; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.1 visits/person, respectively); however, by year 3, there were no detectable differences. Postoperative annual hospital days were not significantly different between the groups. Although both procedures lowered prescription costs, annual postoperative prescription costs were 17% to 32% higher for AGB patients than RYGB patients (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Both laparoscopic AGB and RYGB were associated with flattened total health care cost trajectories but RYGB patients experienced lower total and prescription costs by 3 years postsurgery. On the other hand, RYGB was associated with increased ED visits in the 2 years after surgery. Clinicians and policymakers should weigh such differences in use and costs when making recommendations or shaping regulatory guidance about these procedures.
IMPORTANCE: There is conflicting evidence about how different bariatric procedures impact health care use. OBJECTIVE: To compare the impact of laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (AGB) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) on health care use and costs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective interrupted time series with comparison series study using a national claims data set. The data analysis was initiated in September 2011 and completed in January 2015. We identified bariatric surgery patients aged 18 to 64 years who underwent a first AGB or RYGB between 2005 and 2011. We propensity score matched 4935 AGB to 4935 RYGB patients according to baseline age group, sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic variables, comorbidities, year of procedure and baseline costs, emergency department (ED) visits, and hospital days. Median postoperative follow-up time was 2.5 years. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Quarterly and yearly total health care costs, ED visits, hospital days, and prescription drug costs. We used segmented regression to compare pre-to-post changes in level and trend of these measures in the AGB vs the RYGB groups and difference-in-differences analysis to estimate the magnitude of difference by year. RESULTS: Both AGB and RYGB were associated with downward trends in costs; however, by year 3, AGBpatients had total annual costs that were 16% higher than RYGB patients (P < .001; absolute change: $818; 95% CI, $278 to $1357). In postoperative years 1 and 2, AGB was associated with 27% to 29% fewer ED visits than RYGB (P < .001; absolute changes: -0.6; 95% CI, -0.9 to -0.4 and -0.4; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.1 visits/person, respectively); however, by year 3, there were no detectable differences. Postoperative annual hospital days were not significantly different between the groups. Although both procedures lowered prescription costs, annual postoperative prescription costs were 17% to 32% higher for AGBpatients than RYGB patients (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Both laparoscopic AGB and RYGB were associated with flattened total health care cost trajectories but RYGB patients experienced lower total and prescription costs by 3 years postsurgery. On the other hand, RYGB was associated with increased ED visits in the 2 years after surgery. Clinicians and policymakers should weigh such differences in use and costs when making recommendations or shaping regulatory guidance about these procedures.
Authors: Matthew L Maciejewski; Valerie A Smith; Edward H Livingston; Andrew L Kavee; Leila C Kahwati; William G Henderson; David E Arterburn Journal: Med Care Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Martin A Makary; Jeanne M Clark; Jeanne M Clarke; Andrew D Shore; Thomas H Magnuson; Thomas Richards; Eric B Bass; Francesca Dominici; Jonathan P Weiner; Albert W Wu; Jodi B Segal Journal: Arch Surg Date: 2010-08
Authors: Nicolas V Christou; John S Sampalis; Moishe Liberman; Didier Look; Stephane Auger; Alexander P H McLean; Lloyd D MacLean Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Nancy Krieger; Jarvis T Chen; Pamela D Waterman; David H Rehkopf; S V Subramanian Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Grace F Chao; Jie Yang; Jyothi R Thumma; Karan R Chhabra; David E Arterburn; Andrew M Ryan; Dana A Telem; Justin B Dimick Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2021-11-11 Impact factor: 13.787
Authors: Julie A Campbell; Martin Hensher; Daniel Davies; Matthew Green; Barry Hagan; Ian Jordan; Alison Venn; Alexandr Kuzminov; Amanda Neil; Stephen Wilkinson; Andrew J Palmer Journal: Pharmacoecon Open Date: 2019-12
Authors: Jean-Eric Tarride; Aristithes G Doumouras; Dennis Hong; J Michael Paterson; Semra Tibebu; Richard Perez; Julia Ma; Valerie H Taylor; Feng Xie; Vanessa Boudreau; Eleanor Pullenayegum; David R Urbach; Mehran Anvari Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2020-09-16 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Tingting Wu; Koen B Pouwels; Richard Welbourn; Sarah Wordsworth; Seamus Kent; Carlos K H Wong Journal: Int J Obes (Lond) Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 5.095