F Nickel1, C Tapking1, U Zech2, K Huennemeyer3, A T Billeter1, P C Müller1, H G Kenngott1, B P Müller-Stich1, L Fischer4. 1. Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. 2. Klinik für Endokrinologie, Stoffwechsel und klinische Chemie, Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. 3. Klinik für Allgemeine Innere Medizin und Psychosomatik, Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. 4. Klinik für Allgemein-, Viszeral- und Transplantationschirurgie, Universität Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Deutschland. Lars.Fischer@med.uni-heidelberg.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Morbid obesity is a medical and economic challenge. Patients who have the indications for bariatric surgery face a long way from the first visit until surgery and a high utilization of resources is required. OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to evaluate labor costs and labor time required to supervise obese patients from their first visit until preparation of a bariatric report to ask for cost acceptance of bariatric surgery from their health insurance. In addition, the reasons for not receiving bariatric surgery after receiving cost acceptance from the health insurance were evaluated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients who had indications for bariatric surgery according to the S3 guidelines between 2012 and 2013, were evaluated regarding labor costs and labor time of the process from the first visit until receiving cost acceptance from their health insurance. Furthermore, body mass index (BMI), age, sex, Edmonton Obesity Staging System (EOSS) stage and comorbidities were evaluated. Patients who had not received surgery up to December 2015 were contacted via telephone to ask for the reasons. RESULTS: In the present study 176 patients were evaluated (110 females, 62.5%). Until preparation of a bariatric report the patients required an average of 2.7 combined visits in the department of surgery with the department of nutrition, 1.7 visits in the department of psychosomatic medicine, 1.5 separate visits in the department of nutrition and 1.4 visits in the department of internal medicine. Average labor costs from the first visit until the bariatric survey were 404.90 ± 117.00 euros and 130 out of 176 bariatric reports were accepted by the health insurance (73.8%). For another 40 patients a second bariatric survey was made and 20 of these (50%) were accepted, which results in a total acceptance rate of 85.2% (150 out of 176). After a mean follow-up of 2.8 ± 1.1 years only 93 out of 176 patients had received bariatric surgery (53.8%). Of these 16 had received acceptance of surgery by their health insurance only after a second bariatric survey. CONCLUSION: A large amount of labor and financial resources are required for treatment of obese patients from first presentation up to bariatric surgery. The cost-benefit calculation of an obesity center needs to include that approximately one half of the patients do not receive surgery within more than 2.5 years.
BACKGROUND: Morbid obesity is a medical and economic challenge. Patients who have the indications for bariatric surgery face a long way from the first visit until surgery and a high utilization of resources is required. OBJECTIVES: The present study aimed to evaluate labor costs and labor time required to supervise obesepatients from their first visit until preparation of a bariatric report to ask for cost acceptance of bariatric surgery from their health insurance. In addition, the reasons for not receiving bariatric surgery after receiving cost acceptance from the health insurance were evaluated. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Patients who had indications for bariatric surgery according to the S3 guidelines between 2012 and 2013, were evaluated regarding labor costs and labor time of the process from the first visit until receiving cost acceptance from their health insurance. Furthermore, body mass index (BMI), age, sex, Edmonton Obesity Staging System (EOSS) stage and comorbidities were evaluated. Patients who had not received surgery up to December 2015 were contacted via telephone to ask for the reasons. RESULTS: In the present study 176 patients were evaluated (110 females, 62.5%). Until preparation of a bariatric report the patients required an average of 2.7 combined visits in the department of surgery with the department of nutrition, 1.7 visits in the department of psychosomatic medicine, 1.5 separate visits in the department of nutrition and 1.4 visits in the department of internal medicine. Average labor costs from the first visit until the bariatric survey were 404.90 ± 117.00 euros and 130 out of 176 bariatric reports were accepted by the health insurance (73.8%). For another 40 patients a second bariatric survey was made and 20 of these (50%) were accepted, which results in a total acceptance rate of 85.2% (150 out of 176). After a mean follow-up of 2.8 ± 1.1 years only 93 out of 176 patients had received bariatric surgery (53.8%). Of these 16 had received acceptance of surgery by their health insurance only after a second bariatric survey. CONCLUSION: A large amount of labor and financial resources are required for treatment of obesepatients from first presentation up to bariatric surgery. The cost-benefit calculation of an obesity center needs to include that approximately one half of the patients do not receive surgery within more than 2.5 years.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bariatric surgery; Health expenditures; Health insurance; Metabolic surgery
Authors: Lars Sjöström; Anna-Karin Lindroos; Markku Peltonen; Jarl Torgerson; Claude Bouchard; Björn Carlsson; Sven Dahlgren; Bo Larsson; Kristina Narbro; Carl David Sjöström; Marianne Sullivan; Hans Wedel Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lars Sjöström; Markku Peltonen; Peter Jacobson; Sofie Ahlin; Johanna Andersson-Assarsson; Åsa Anveden; Claude Bouchard; Björn Carlsson; Kristjan Karason; Hans Lönroth; Ingmar Näslund; Elisabeth Sjöström; Magdalena Taube; Hans Wedel; Per-Arne Svensson; Kajsa Sjöholm; Lena M S Carlsson Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-06-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Hannes G Kenngott; Gabriella Clemens; Matthias Gondan; Jonas Senft; Markus K Diener; Gottfried Rudofsky; Peter P Nawroth; Markus W Büchler; Lars Fischer; Beat P Müller-Stich Journal: Trials Date: 2013-06-20 Impact factor: 2.279