Kate E McBride1, Daniel Steffens2, Michael J Solomon3, Cherry Koh3, Nabila Ansari4, Christopher J Young4, Brendan Moran5. 1. RPA Institute of Academic Surgery (IAS), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and the University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, Central Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: kate.mcbride@health.nsw.gov.au. 2. Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, Central Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. RPA Institute of Academic Surgery (IAS), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and the University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Faculty of Medicine and Health, Central Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Department of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 4. RPA Institute of Academic Surgery (IAS), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital and the University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Department of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 5. Peritoneal Malignancy Institute, Basingstoke, Basingstoke, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cost-effective cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for treatment of patients with peritoneal malignancy remains an ongoing financial challenge for healthcare systems, hospitals and patients. This study aims to describe the detailed in-hospital costs of CRS and HIPEC compared with an Australian Activity Based Funding (ABF) system, and to evaluate how the learning curve, disease entities and surgical outcomes influence in-hospital costs. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive costing review of all CRS and HIPEC cases undertaken at a large public tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia from April 2017 to June 2019. In-hospital cost variables included staff, critical care, diagnosis, operating theatre, and other costs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to investigate the differences between actual cost and the provision of funding, and potential factors associated with these costs. RESULTS: Of the 118 CRS and HIPEC procedures included in the analyses, the median total cost was AU$130,804 (IQR: 105,744 to 153,972). Provision of funding via the ABF system was approximately one-third of the total CRS and HIPEC costs (p < 0.001). Surgical staff proficiency seems to reduce the total CRS and HIPEC costs. Surgical time, length of intensive care unit and hospital stay are the main predictors of total CRS and HIPEC costs. CONCLUSION: Delivery of CRS and HIPEC is expensive with high variability. A standard ABF system grossly underestimates the specific CRS and HIPEC funding required with supplementation essential to sustaining this complex highly specialised service. Crown
BACKGROUND: Cost-effective cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for treatment of patients with peritoneal malignancy remains an ongoing financial challenge for healthcare systems, hospitals and patients. This study aims to describe the detailed in-hospital costs of CRS and HIPEC compared with an Australian Activity Based Funding (ABF) system, and to evaluate how the learning curve, disease entities and surgical outcomes influence in-hospital costs. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive costing review of all CRS and HIPEC cases undertaken at a large public tertiary referral hospital in Sydney, Australia from April 2017 to June 2019. In-hospital cost variables included staff, critical care, diagnosis, operating theatre, and other costs. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to investigate the differences between actual cost and the provision of funding, and potential factors associated with these costs. RESULTS: Of the 118 CRS and HIPEC procedures included in the analyses, the median total cost was AU$130,804 (IQR: 105,744 to 153,972). Provision of funding via the ABF system was approximately one-third of the total CRS and HIPEC costs (p < 0.001). Surgical staff proficiency seems to reduce the total CRS and HIPEC costs. Surgical time, length of intensive care unit and hospital stay are the main predictors of total CRS and HIPEC costs. CONCLUSION: Delivery of CRS and HIPEC is expensive with high variability. A standard ABF system grossly underestimates the specific CRS and HIPEC funding required with supplementation essential to sustaining this complex highly specialised service. Crown
Authors: Daniel Steffens; Jane Young; Bernhard Riedel; Rachael Morton; Linda Denehy; Alexander Heriot; Cherry Koh; Qiang Li; Adrian Bauman; Charbel Sandroussi; Hilmy Ismail; Mbathio Dieng; Nabila Ansari; Neil Pillinger; Sarah O'Shannassy; Sam McKeown; Derek Cunningham; Kym Sheehan; Gino Iori; Jenna Bartyn; Michael Solomon Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: Femke A van der Zant; Bob J L Kooijman; Judith E K R Hentzen; Wijnand Helfrich; Emily M Ploeg; Robert J van Ginkel; Barbara L van Leeuwen; Lukas B Been; Joost M Klaase; Patrick H J Hemmer; Christian S van der Hilst; Schelto Kruijff Journal: BJS Open Date: 2022-09-02