Christopher P Scally1,2, Terry Shih3,4, Jyothi R Thumma3,4, Justin B Dimick3,4. 1. Department of Surgery, Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. cscally@med.umich.edu. 2. Center for Healthcare Outcomes & Policy, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 16, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. cscally@med.umich.edu. 3. Department of Surgery, Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Center for Healthcare Outcomes & Policy, 2800 Plymouth Road, Building 16, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In 2006, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a national coverage decision restricting bariatric surgery to designated centers of excellence (COE). Although prior studies show mixed results on complications and reoperations, no prior studies evaluated whether this policy reduced spending for bariatric surgery. We sought to determine whether the coverage restriction to COE-designated hospitals was associated with lower payments from CMS. METHODS: We utilized national Medicare claims data to examine 30-day episode payments for patients who underwent bariatric surgery from 2003 to 2010 (n = 72,117 patients). We performed an interrupted time series analysis, adjusting for patient factors, preexisting temporal trends, and changes in procedure type, to determine whether the 2006 coverage decision was associated with lower Medicare payments above and beyond any existing secular trends. For these analyses, we included payments for the index hospitalization, readmissions, physician services, and post-discharge ancillary care. RESULTS: After accounting for patient factors, preexisting temporal trends, and changes in procedure type, there were no statistically significant improvements in episode payments after (US$14,720) vs before (US$14,283) the coverage decision (+US$437, 95% CI, -US$10 to +US$883). In a direct assessment of payments for COE-designated hospitals (US$14,481) vs. non-COE-designated hospitals (US$14,756), no significant differences in episode payments were found (-US$275, 95% CI, -US$696 to +US$145). CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant reductions in 30-day episode payments after vs before restricting coverage to COE-designated hospitals. Center of excellence status is not a proxy for savings to the healthcare system.
INTRODUCTION: In 2006, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a national coverage decision restricting bariatric surgery to designated centers of excellence (COE). Although prior studies show mixed results on complications and reoperations, no prior studies evaluated whether this policy reduced spending for bariatric surgery. We sought to determine whether the coverage restriction to COE-designated hospitals was associated with lower payments from CMS. METHODS: We utilized national Medicare claims data to examine 30-day episode payments for patients who underwent bariatric surgery from 2003 to 2010 (n = 72,117 patients). We performed an interrupted time series analysis, adjusting for patient factors, preexisting temporal trends, and changes in procedure type, to determine whether the 2006 coverage decision was associated with lower Medicare payments above and beyond any existing secular trends. For these analyses, we included payments for the index hospitalization, readmissions, physician services, and post-discharge ancillary care. RESULTS: After accounting for patient factors, preexisting temporal trends, and changes in procedure type, there were no statistically significant improvements in episode payments after (US$14,720) vs before (US$14,283) the coverage decision (+US$437, 95% CI, -US$10 to +US$883). In a direct assessment of payments for COE-designated hospitals (US$14,481) vs. non-COE-designated hospitals (US$14,756), no significant differences in episode payments were found (-US$275, 95% CI, -US$696 to +US$145). CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant reductions in 30-day episode payments after vs before restricting coverage to COE-designated hospitals. Center of excellence status is not a proxy for savings to the healthcare system.
Authors: Daniel J Gottlieb; Weiping Zhou; Yunjie Song; Kathryn Gilman Andrews; Jonathan S Skinner; Jason M Sutherland Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Cathryn Gust; Onur Baser; Justin B Dimick; Jason M Sutherland; Jonathan S Skinner Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Sunil Eappen; Bennett H Lane; Barry Rosenberg; Stuart A Lipsitz; David Sadoff; Dave Matheson; William R Berry; Mark Lester; Atul A Gawande Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-04-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Brian Serumaga; Dennis Ross-Degnan; Anthony J Avery; Rachel A Elliott; Sumit R Majumdar; Fang Zhang; Stephen B Soumerai Journal: BMJ Date: 2011-01-25
Authors: Nicole M Gilbertson; Julian M Gaitán; Victoria Osinski; Elizabeth A Rexrode; James C Garmey; J Hunter Mehaffey; Taryn E Hassinger; Sibylle Kranz; Coleen A McNamara; Arthur Weltman; Peter T Hallowell; Steven K Malin Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-10-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Brett Doble; Sarah Wordsworth; Chris A Rogers; Richard Welbourn; James Byrne; Jane M Blazeby Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 4.129