Ya-Chen Tina Shih1, Chan Shen2, Jim C Hu3. 1. Section of Cancer Economics and Policy, Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: yashih@mdanderson.org. 2. Section of Cancer Economics and Policy, Department of Health Services Research, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Department of Urology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the association between ownership of robotic surgical systems and hospital profit margins. METHODS: This study used hospital annual utilization data, annual financial data, and discharge data for year 2011 from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. We first performed bivariate analysis to compare mean profit margin by hospital and market characteristics and to examine whether these characteristics differed between hospitals that had one or more robotic surgical systems in 2011 and those that did not. We applied the t test and the F test to compare mean profit margin between two groups and among three or more groups, respectively. We then conducted multilevel logistic regression to determine the association between ownership of robotic surgical systems and having a positive profit margin after controlling for other hospital and market characteristics and accounting for possible correlation among hospitals located within the same market. RESULTS: The study sample included 167 California hospitals with valid financial information. Hospitals with robotic surgical systems tended to report more favorable profit margins. However, multilevel logistic regression showed that this relationship (an association, not causality) became only marginally significant (odds ratio [OR] = 6.2; P = 0.053) after controlling for other hospital characteristics, such as ownership type, teaching status, bed size, and surgical volumes, and market characteristics, such as total number of robotic surgical systems owned by other hospitals in the same market area. CONCLUSIONS: As robotic surgical systems become widely disseminated, hospital decision makers should carefully evaluate the financial and clinical implications before making a capital investment in this technology.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine the association between ownership of robotic surgical systems and hospital profit margins. METHODS: This study used hospital annual utilization data, annual financial data, and discharge data for year 2011 from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. We first performed bivariate analysis to compare mean profit margin by hospital and market characteristics and to examine whether these characteristics differed between hospitals that had one or more robotic surgical systems in 2011 and those that did not. We applied the t test and the F test to compare mean profit margin between two groups and among three or more groups, respectively. We then conducted multilevel logistic regression to determine the association between ownership of robotic surgical systems and having a positive profit margin after controlling for other hospital and market characteristics and accounting for possible correlation among hospitals located within the same market. RESULTS: The study sample included 167 California hospitals with valid financial information. Hospitals with robotic surgical systems tended to report more favorable profit margins. However, multilevel logistic regression showed that this relationship (an association, not causality) became only marginally significant (odds ratio [OR] = 6.2; P = 0.053) after controlling for other hospital characteristics, such as ownership type, teaching status, bed size, and surgical volumes, and market characteristics, such as total number of robotic surgical systems owned by other hospitals in the same market area. CONCLUSIONS: As robotic surgical systems become widely disseminated, hospital decision makers should carefully evaluate the financial and clinical implications before making a capital investment in this technology.
Authors: Benjamin B Albright; Tilman Witte; Alena N Tofte; Jeremy Chou; Jonathan D Black; Vrunda B Desai; Elisabeth A Erekson Journal: J Minim Invasive Gynecol Date: 2015-08-10 Impact factor: 4.137
Authors: Huilin Li; Mitchell H Gail; R Scott Braithwaite; Heather T Gold; Dawn Walter; Mengling Liu; Cary P Gross; Danil V Makarov Journal: Healthc (Amst) Date: 2014-07
Authors: Quoc-Dien Trinh; Jesse Sammon; Maxine Sun; Praful Ravi; Khurshid R Ghani; Marco Bianchi; Wooju Jeong; Shahrokh F Shariat; Jens Hansen; Jan Schmitges; Claudio Jeldres; Craig G Rogers; James O Peabody; Francesco Montorsi; Mani Menon; Pierre I Karakiewicz Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Kevin J Hancock; V Suzanne Klimberg; Omar Nunez-Lopez; Aakash H Gajjar; Guillermo Gomez; Douglas S Tyler; Laila Rashidi Journal: J Robot Surg Date: 2021-02-25