Catherine R Harris1, E Charles Osterberg1, Thomas Sanford1, Amjad Alwaal2, Thomas W Gaither1, Jack W McAninch1, Charles E McCulloch3, Benjamin N Breyer4. 1. Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 2. Department of Urology, King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 4. Department of Urology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. Electronic address: benjamin.breyer@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine which factors are associated with higher costs of urethroplasty procedure and whether these factors have been increasing over time. Identification of determinants of extreme costs may help reduce cost while maintaining quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis using the 2001-2010 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-Nationwide Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS). The HCUP-NIS captures hospital charges which we converted to cost using the HCUP cost-to-charge ratio. Log cost linear regression with sensitivity analysis was used to determine variables associated with increased costs. Extreme cost was defined as the top 20th percentile of expenditure, analyzed with logistic regression, and expressed as odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: A total of 2298 urethroplasties were recorded in NIS over the study period. The median (interquartile range) calculated cost was $7321 ($5677-$10,000). Patients with multiple comorbid conditions were associated with extreme costs [OR 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19-2.04, P = .02] compared with patients with no comorbid disease. Inpatient complications raised the odds of extreme costs (OR 3.2, CI 2.14-4.75, P <.001). Graft urethroplasties were associated with extreme costs (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.2-2.64, P = .005). Variations in patient age, race, hospital region, bed size, teaching status, payor type, and volume of urethroplasty cases were not associated with extremes of cost. CONCLUSION: Cost variation for perioperative inpatient urethroplasty procedures is dependent on preoperative patient comorbidities, postoperative complications, and surgical complexity related to graft usage. Procedural cost and cost variation are critical for understanding which aspects of care have the greatest impact on cost.
OBJECTIVE: To determine which factors are associated with higher costs of urethroplasty procedure and whether these factors have been increasing over time. Identification of determinants of extreme costs may help reduce cost while maintaining quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis using the 2001-2010 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project-Nationwide Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS). The HCUP-NIS captures hospital charges which we converted to cost using the HCUP cost-to-charge ratio. Log cost linear regression with sensitivity analysis was used to determine variables associated with increased costs. Extreme cost was defined as the top 20th percentile of expenditure, analyzed with logistic regression, and expressed as odds ratios (OR). RESULTS: A total of 2298 urethroplasties were recorded in NIS over the study period. The median (interquartile range) calculated cost was $7321 ($5677-$10,000). Patients with multiple comorbid conditions were associated with extreme costs [OR 1.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19-2.04, P = .02] compared with patients with no comorbid disease. Inpatient complications raised the odds of extreme costs (OR 3.2, CI 2.14-4.75, P <.001). Graft urethroplasties were associated with extreme costs (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.2-2.64, P = .005). Variations in patient age, race, hospital region, bed size, teaching status, payor type, and volume of urethroplasty cases were not associated with extremes of cost. CONCLUSION: Cost variation for perioperative inpatient urethroplasty procedures is dependent on preoperative patient comorbidities, postoperative complications, and surgical complexity related to graft usage. Procedural cost and cost variation are critical for understanding which aspects of care have the greatest impact on cost.
Authors: Uwais B Zaid; Mitchel Hawkins; Leslie Wilson; Jie Ting; Catherine Harris; Amjad Alwaal; Lee C Zhao; Allen F Morey; Benjamin N Breyer Journal: Urology Date: 2015-03-25 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Jennifer T Anger; Jill C Buckley; Richard A Santucci; Sean P Elliott; Christopher S Saigal Journal: Urology Date: 2010-12-18 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Marco Bandini; Guido Barbagli; Riccardo Leni; Giuseppe O Cirulli; Giuseppe Basile; Sofia Balò; Francesco Montorsi; Salvatore Sansalone; Andrea Salonia; Alberto Briganti; Denis Butnaru; Massimo Lazzeri Journal: World J Urol Date: 2021-04-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Oluseyi Aliu; Andrew W P Lee; Jonathan E Efron; Robert S D Higgins; Charles E Butler; Anaeze C Offodile Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-09-01
Authors: Eoghan M Cunnane; Niall F Davis; Connor V Cunnane; Katherine L Lorentz; Alan J Ryan; Jochen Hess; Justin S Weinbaum; Michael T Walsh; Fergal J O'Brien; David A Vorp Journal: Biomaterials Date: 2021-01-09 Impact factor: 12.479