Zachary L Gentry1, Teresa K L Boitano2, Haller J Smith3, Dustin K Eads4, John F Russell4, J Michael Straughn3. 1. School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. Electronic address: gentryzl@uab.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 3. Division of Gynecologic Oncology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. 4. UAB Finance, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the financial impact of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in gynecologic oncology patients. METHODS: This study identified gynecologic oncology patients who were placed on the ERAS protocol after elective laparotomy from 10/2016-6/2017. A control group was identified from the year prior to ERAS implementation. Financial experts assisted in procuring data for these patient encounters, including payer status, direct and indirect costs, contribution margin, and length of stay (LOS). SPSS Statistics v. 24 was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: 376 patients met criteria for inclusion: 179 in the ERAS group and 197 in the control group. Patient demographics were similar between the two cohorts. Payer status across the groups was not statistically significant in patients with private insurance (control 43.7% vs. ERAS 41.3%), Medicare (38.1% vs. 31.8%), or self-pay patients (12.2% vs. 15.1%). There was a significantly higher number of Medicaid patients in the ERAS group (6.1% vs. 11.7%; p = 0.05). Hospital direct costs ($5596 vs. 5346) and indirect costs ($5182 vs. $4954) per encounter were similar between groups. However, overall contribution margin per encounter decreased in the ERAS group ($11,619 vs. $8528; p = 0.01). LOS was significantly lower in the ERAS group (4.1 vs. 2.9 days; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ERAS protocol in gynecologic oncology patients does not lead to increased costs for the patient or hospital system. The decreased contribution margin is likely due to a reduction in per diem payments caused by the reduction in LOS. On a per-patient-day basis, contribution margin was the same for both groups ($2877 vs $2857). The reduction in LOS also created capacity for additional cases, the financial impact of which was not evaluated.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the financial impact of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol in gynecologic oncology patients. METHODS: This study identified gynecologic oncology patients who were placed on the ERAS protocol after elective laparotomy from 10/2016-6/2017. A control group was identified from the year prior to ERAS implementation. Financial experts assisted in procuring data for these patient encounters, including payer status, direct and indirect costs, contribution margin, and length of stay (LOS). SPSS Statistics v. 24 was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: 376 patients met criteria for inclusion: 179 in the ERAS group and 197 in the control group. Patient demographics were similar between the two cohorts. Payer status across the groups was not statistically significant in patients with private insurance (control 43.7% vs. ERAS 41.3%), Medicare (38.1% vs. 31.8%), or self-pay patients (12.2% vs. 15.1%). There was a significantly higher number of Medicaid patients in the ERAS group (6.1% vs. 11.7%; p = 0.05). Hospital direct costs ($5596 vs. 5346) and indirect costs ($5182 vs. $4954) per encounter were similar between groups. However, overall contribution margin per encounter decreased in the ERAS group ($11,619 vs. $8528; p = 0.01). LOS was significantly lower in the ERAS group (4.1 vs. 2.9 days; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the ERAS protocol in gynecologic oncology patients does not lead to increased costs for the patient or hospital system. The decreased contribution margin is likely due to a reduction in per diem payments caused by the reduction in LOS. On a per-patient-day basis, contribution margin was the same for both groups ($2877 vs $2857). The reduction in LOS also created capacity for additional cases, the financial impact of which was not evaluated.
Authors: Michelle Kuznicki; Adrianne Mallen; Emily Clair McClung; Sharon E Robertson; Sarah Todd; David Boulware; Stacy Martin; Rod Quilitz; Roberto J Vargas; Sachin M Apte Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 3.437
Authors: Nathan A Brooks; Andrea Kokorovic; John S McGrath; Wassim Kassouf; Justin W Collins; Peter C Black; James Douglas; Hooman Djaladat; Siamak Daneshmand; James W F Catto; Ashish M Kamat; Stephen B Williams Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 4.226