Literature DB >> 26275548

Financial modeling of current surgical robotic system in outpatient laparoscopic cholecystectomy: how should we think about the expense?

S D Schwaitzberg1,2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: More than 500,000 robotically assisted procedures were performed worldwide in 2013. Despite broad adoption, there remains a lack of clarity concerning the added cost of the robotic system to the procedure especially in light of an increasing number of ambulatory procedures which are now marketed by hospitals, surgeons and the manufacturer. These procedures are associated with much less reimbursement than inpatient procedures. It is unclear whether these added expenses can be absorbed in these scenarios. Reports vary in opinion concerning the added net costs during robotically assisted laparoscopic hernia or cholecystectomy.
METHODS: The worldwide revenues, procedures, and the installed base of robotic system data were reviewed and reanalyzed from the 2013 Intuitive Surgical Investors report. This provided an opportunity to look cost per case projections from the vantage point of actual revenue.
RESULTS: This analysis was based on revenue of 2.27 billion US dollars in the three categories of capital acquisition, instrumentation and accessories, and service revenue. These revenues were then spread across 523,000 cases with varying assumptions. Without regard to expense offsets, the additional cost ranges from $2908 to $8675 depending on what system was purchased and the ability to distribute costs against case volume. Estimates of commercial and government revenue were then compared against these expenses.
CONCLUSION: The use of the extraordinary technology in the face of low-morbidity low-cost established minimally invasive procedures needs to withstand scrutiny of outcome assessment, revenue and expense considerations and appropriateness review in order to create financially viable approaches to high-volume minimally invasive procedures. Revenue estimates associated with outpatient reimbursement make it difficult to support these expenses, recognizing inpatient procedures represent a different net financial picture.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Outpatient surgery; Procedural expense; Procedural revenue; Robot; Surgical robot

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26275548     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-015-4457-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  6 in total

1.  Does the cost of robotic cholecystectomy translate to a financial burden?

Authors:  Alexander Rosemurgy; Carrie Ryan; Richard Klein; Prashant Sukharamwala; Thomas Wood; Sharona Ross
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-12-10       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  A cost evaluation methodology for surgical technologies.

Authors:  Imad Ismail; Sandrine Wolff; Agnes Gronfier; Didier Mutter; Lee L Swanström; Lee L Swantröm
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-10-16       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Reducing robotic prostatectomy costs by minimizing instrumentation.

Authors:  Joan C Delto; George Wayne; Rafael Yanes; Alan M Nieder; Akshay Bhandari
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2014-12-02       Impact factor: 2.942

4.  Are hospitals "keeping up with the Joneses"?: Assessing the spatial and temporal diffusion of the surgical robot.

Authors:  Huilin Li; Mitchell H Gail; R Scott Braithwaite; Heather T Gold; Dawn Walter; Mengling Liu; Cary P Gross; Danil V Makarov
Journal:  Healthc (Amst)       Date:  2014-07

5.  Laparoscopic cholecystectomy after the learning curve: what should we expect?

Authors:  M Misra; J Schiff; G Rendon; J Rothschild; S Schwaitzberg
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2005-07-21       Impact factor: 4.584

6.  Can laparoscopic cholecystectomy be performed with a positive margin at medicaid reimbursement rates?

Authors:  Richard C Frazee; Victoria G Elliott; Wilma Larsen; Seth Lerner; Keith W Minnis; Court Huber; James Nolan; Harry Papaconstantinou; W Roy Smythe
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 6.113

  6 in total
  4 in total

Review 1.  [Robotic approach to hepatobiliary surgery. German version].

Authors:  L F Gonzalez-Ciccarelli; P Quadri; D Daskalaki; L Milone; A Gangemi; P C Giulianotti
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 2.  Robotic approach to hepatobiliary surgery.

Authors:  L F Gonzalez-Ciccarelli; P Quadri; D Daskalaki; L Milone; A Gangemi; P C Giulianotti
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 3.  Value-based assessment of robotic pancreas and liver surgery.

Authors:  James C Patti; Ana Sofia Ore; Courtney Barrows; Vic Velanovich; A James Moser
Journal:  Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 7.293

4.  Cost analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic general surgery procedures.

Authors:  Rana M Higgins; Matthew J Frelich; Matthew E Bosler; Jon C Gould
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-05-02       Impact factor: 4.584

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.