Sindhu R Kaitha1, George Salem2, Yan D Zhao3, Mohammad F Madhoun1, Allshine Chen3, William M Tierney1. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Digestive Diseases, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, OUHSC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, OUHSC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The need to define the cost of endoscopic procedures becomes increasingly important in an era of providing low-cost, high-quality care. We examined the impact of informing endoscopists of the cost of accessories and pathology specimens as a cost-minimization strategy. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study of therapeutic outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. During the pre-intervention phase (phase 1), the endoscopists were not briefed on the cost of accessories or pathology specimens obtained during the procedure. During a 3-week intervention phase and the post-intervention phase (phase 2) endoscopists were informed of the dollar value of accessories and pathology specimens after the completion of all procedures. In all cases the institutional costs (not charges) were used. The endoscopists were blinded to their observation. RESULTS: A total of 969 EGD, colonoscopy, and EGD+colonoscopy performed by 6 endoscopists were reviewed, 456 procedures in phase 1 and 513 procedures in phase 2. There was no significant difference between phases 1 and 2 in total device and pathology cost in dollars (188.8±151.4 vs. 188.9±151.8, P=0.99), total device cost (36.2±107.9 vs. 39.0±95.96, P=0.67) and total pathology cost (152.6±101.3 vs. 149.9±112.5, P=0.70). There was not a significant difference in total device and pathology cost when examined by specific procedures performed, or for any of the endoscopists between phases 1 and 2. CONCLUSIONS: Making endoscopists more cost conscious by informing them of the costs of each procedure during EGD and colonoscopy does not result in lower procedural costs. Analysis of cost-minimization strategies involving procedures in other health-care settings and procedures using high-cost accessories are warranted.
OBJECTIVES: The need to define the cost of endoscopic procedures becomes increasingly important in an era of providing low-cost, high-quality care. We examined the impact of informing endoscopists of the cost of accessories and pathology specimens as a cost-minimization strategy. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study of therapeutic outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and colonoscopy. During the pre-intervention phase (phase 1), the endoscopists were not briefed on the cost of accessories or pathology specimens obtained during the procedure. During a 3-week intervention phase and the post-intervention phase (phase 2) endoscopists were informed of the dollar value of accessories and pathology specimens after the completion of all procedures. In all cases the institutional costs (not charges) were used. The endoscopists were blinded to their observation. RESULTS: A total of 969 EGD, colonoscopy, and EGD+colonoscopy performed by 6 endoscopists were reviewed, 456 procedures in phase 1 and 513 procedures in phase 2. There was no significant difference between phases 1 and 2 in total device and pathology cost in dollars (188.8±151.4 vs. 188.9±151.8, P=0.99), total device cost (36.2±107.9 vs. 39.0±95.96, P=0.67) and total pathology cost (152.6±101.3 vs. 149.9±112.5, P=0.70). There was not a significant difference in total device and pathology cost when examined by specific procedures performed, or for any of the endoscopists between phases 1 and 2. CONCLUSIONS: Making endoscopists more cost conscious by informing them of the costs of each procedure during EGD and colonoscopy does not result in lower procedural costs. Analysis of cost-minimization strategies involving procedures in other health-care settings and procedures using high-cost accessories are warranted.
Authors: Uzma D Siddiqui; Subhas Banerjee; Bradley Barth; Shailendra S Chauhan; Klaus T Gottlieb; Vani Konda; John T Maple; Faris M Murad; Patrick R Pfau; Douglas K Pleskow; Jeffrey L Tokar; Amy Wang; Sarah A Rodriguez Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Matthew Gitelis; Yalini Vigneswaran; Michael B Ujiki; Woody Denham; Mark Talamonti; Joseph P Muldoon; John G Linn Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2014-12-17 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: G A Paspatis; G Tribonias; K Konstantinidis; A Theodoropoulou; E Vardas; E Voudoukis; M M Manolaraki; I Chainaki; G Chlouverakis Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.788
Authors: Yalini Vigneswaran; John G Linn; Matthew Gitelis; Joseph P Muldoon; Brittany Lapin; Woody Denham; Mark Talamonti; Michael B Ujiki Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2015-03-14 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Michael J Guzman; Matthew E Gitelis; John G Linn; Michael B Ujiki; Matthew Waskerwitz; Konstantin Umanskiy; Joseph P Muldoon Journal: Dis Colon Rectum Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 4.585
Authors: Reed B Hogan; Raymond Santa-Cruz; E Stephens Weeks; Laura Alexander; Reed B Hogan Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2008-08-23 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Sunanda Kane; Navtej Buttar; Ferga Gleeson; Mark Larson; Louis Wong Kee Song; Raymond Yates Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Sindhu R Kaitha; George Salem; Yan D Zhao; Mohammad F Madhoun; Allshine Chen; William M Tierney Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 10.864