Literature DB >> 28284890

Access to high-volume surgeons and the opportunity cost of performing radical prostatectomy by low-volume providers.

Afsaneh Barzi1, Eric A Klein2, Siamak Daneshmand1, Inderbir Gill1, David I Quinn1, Sarmad Sadeghi3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that redirecting surgeries to high-volume providers may be associated with better outcomes and significant societal savings. Whether such referrals are feasible remains unanswered.
METHODS: Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data, SEER 18, and US Incidence data were used to determine the geographic distribution and radical prostatectomy volume for providers. Access was defined as availability of a high-volume provider within driving distance of 100 miles. The opportunity cost was defined as the value of benefits achievable by performing the surgery by a high-volume provider that was forgone by not making a referral. The savings per referral were derived from a published Markov model for radical prostatectomy.
RESULTS: A total of 14% of providers performed>27% of the radical prostatectomies with>30 cases per year and were designated high-volume providers. Providers with below-median volume (≤16 prostatectomies per year) performed>32% of radical prostatectomies. At least 47% of these were within a 100-mile driving distance (median = 22 miles), and therefore had access to a high-volume provider (>30 prostatectomies per year). This translated into a discounted savings of more than $24 million per year, representing the opportunity cost of not making a referral. The average volume for high- and low-volume providers was 55 and 13, respectively, resulting in an annual experience gap of 43 and a cumulative gap of 125 surgeries over 3 years. In 2014, the number of surgeons performing radical prostatectomy decreased by 5% while the number of high- and low-volume providers decreased by 25% and 11% showing a faster decline in the number of high-volume providers compared with low-volume surgeons.
CONCLUSIONS: About half of prostatectomies performed by surgeons with below-median annual volume were within a 100-mile driving distance (median of 22 miles) of a high-volume surgeon. Such a referral may result in minimal additional costs and substantially improved outcomes.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Access; High-volume providers; Oncologic outcomes; Opportunity cost; Radical prostatectomy

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28284890      PMCID: PMC8942442          DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.01.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Urol Oncol        ISSN: 1078-1439            Impact factor:   3.498


  29 in total

1.  Principles of good practice for decision analytic modeling in health-care evaluation: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Good Research Practices--Modeling Studies.

Authors:  Milton C Weinstein; Bernie O'Brien; John Hornberger; Joseph Jackson; Magnus Johannesson; Chris McCabe; Bryan R Luce
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2003 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.725

2.  30-day mortality and major complications after radical prostatectomy: influence of age and comorbidity.

Authors:  Shabbir M H Alibhai; Marc Leach; George Tomlinson; Murray D Krahn; Neil Fleshner; Eric Holowaty; Gary Naglie
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Cancer control and functional outcomes after radical prostatectomy as markers of surgical quality: analysis of heterogeneity between surgeons at a single cancer center.

Authors:  Andrew Vickers; Caroline Savage; Fernando Bianco; John Mulhall; Jaspreet Sandhu; Bertrand Guillonneau; Angel Cronin; Peter Scardino
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2010-11-10       Impact factor: 20.096

4.  Editorial comment.

Authors:  Stuart Howards
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 7.450

5.  Cancer statistics, 2012.

Authors:  Rebecca Siegel; Deepa Naishadham; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 508.702

6.  A comparison of radical retropubic with perineal prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer within the Uniformed Services Urology Research Group.

Authors:  R S Lance; P A Freidrichs; C Kane; C R Powell; E Pulos; J W Moul; D G McLeod; R L Cornum
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 5.588

7.  Salvage radiation in men after prostate-specific antigen failure and the risk of death.

Authors:  Shane E Cotter; Ming Hui Chen; Judd W Moul; W Robert Lee; Bridget F Koontz; Mitchell S Anscher; Cary N Robertson; Philip J Walther; Thomas J Polascik; Anthony V D'Amico
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-03-22       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  The surgical learning curve for prostate cancer control after radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Fernando J Bianco; Angel M Serio; James A Eastham; Deborah Schrag; Eric A Klein; Alwyn M Reuther; Michael W Kattan; J Edson Pontes; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2007-07-24       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Variation in the Cost of Radiation Therapy Among Medicare Patients With Cancer.

Authors:  Anthony J Paravati; Isabel J Boero; Daniel P Triplett; Lindsay Hwang; Rayna K Matsuno; Beibei Xu; Loren K Mell; James D Murphy
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2015-08-11       Impact factor: 3.840

10.  Prostatectomy at high-volume centers improves outcomes and lowers the costs of care for prostate cancer.

Authors:  A Barzi; E A Klein; T B Dorff; D I Quinn; S Sadeghi
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2015-12-15       Impact factor: 5.554

View more
  1 in total

1.  Influence of the facility caseload on the subsequent survival of men with localized prostate cancer undergoing radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Afsaneh Barzi; Primo N Lara; Denice Tsao-Wei; Dongyun Yang; Inderbir S Gill; Siamak Daneshmand; Eric A Klein; Jacek K Pinski; David F Penson; David I Quinn; Sarmad Sadeghi
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2019-08-09       Impact factor: 6.860

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.