Introduction and Objectives: Lack of access to urologic specialists is approaching crisis levels as the number of urologists is decreasing, while the demand for urologic care is increasing. The financial implications of this have not been explored. The objective of this study is to examine the impact of access and other patient factors on cost to treat urolithiasis. We hypothesized that markers of poor access would associate with higher costs of surgical encounters for patients presenting with urolithiasis. Methods: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the Registry for Stones of the Kidney and Ureter (ReSKU) from September 2015 to July 2018 was conducted to investigate characteristics of surgical patients treated for urinary stone disease. Univariate analysis was performed using the Welch two-sample t-test. Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression. Statistical analysis was performed in R version 3.5. Results: When taking into account age, delayed presentation, procedure type, stone size >20 mm, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) code, gender, race, income, distance, urologist density, body mass index, diabetes, infection, education, language, insurance, and stone complexity, patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedure (p < 0.001; odds ratio [OR] 12.9, confidence interval [CI] 4.05-48.5), urologist density in the bottom quartile (p = 0.014; OR 4.66, CI 1.40-16.9), diabetes (p = 0.018; OR 4.38, CI 1.32-15.6), and infection (p = 0.007; OR 4.51, CI 1.55-14.0) were the only variables statistically significant for association with top quartile of total cost. Conclusions: Surgical encounter costs are largely dictated by patient clinical factors, but low regional urologist density appears to independently predicted for high-cost stone surgery. Increasing patients' access to a urologist may prove to be financially beneficial in the longitudinal reduction in health care costs for stone disease.
Introduction and Objectives: Lack of access to urologic specialists is approaching crisis levels as the number of urologists is decreasing, while the demand for urologic care is increasing. The financial implications of this have not been explored. The objective of this study is to examine the impact of access and other patient factors on cost to treat urolithiasis. We hypothesized that markers of poor access would associate with higher costs of surgical encounters for patients presenting with urolithiasis. Methods: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data from the Registry for Stones of the Kidney and Ureter (ReSKU) from September 2015 to July 2018 was conducted to investigate characteristics of surgical patients treated for urinary stone disease. Univariate analysis was performed using the Welch two-sample t-test. Multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression. Statistical analysis was performed in R version 3.5. Results: When taking into account age, delayed presentation, procedure type, stone size >20 mm, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) code, gender, race, income, distance, urologist density, body mass index, diabetes, infection, education, language, insurance, and stone complexity, patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy procedure (p < 0.001; odds ratio [OR] 12.9, confidence interval [CI] 4.05-48.5), urologist density in the bottom quartile (p = 0.014; OR 4.66, CI 1.40-16.9), diabetes (p = 0.018; OR 4.38, CI 1.32-15.6), and infection (p = 0.007; OR 4.51, CI 1.55-14.0) were the only variables statistically significant for association with top quartile of total cost. Conclusions: Surgical encounter costs are largely dictated by patient clinical factors, but low regional urologist density appears to independently predicted for high-cost stone surgery. Increasing patients' access to a urologist may prove to be financially beneficial in the longitudinal reduction in health care costs for stone disease.
Authors: David B Bayne; Manint Usawachintachit; Manuel Armas-Phan; David T Tzou; Scott Wiener; Timothy T Brown; Marshall Stoller; Thomas L Chi Journal: Urology Date: 2019-05-25 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Sima P Porten; Damien A Richardson; Anobel Y Odisho; Jack W McAninch; Peter R Carroll; Matthew R Cooperberg Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-09-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Thomas P Frye; Daniel J Sadowski; Whitney E Zahnd; Wiley D Jenkins; Danuta I Dynda; Georgia S Mueller; Shaheen R Alanee; Kevin T McVary Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-12-10 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Helena C Chang; David T Tzou; Manint Usawachintachit; Brian D Duty; Ryan S Hsi; Jonathan D Harper; Mathew D Sorensen; Marshall L Stoller; Roger L Sur; Thomas Chi Journal: J Endourol Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: William D Brubaker; Kai B Dallas; Christopher S Elliott; Alan C Pao; Glenn M Chertow; John T Leppert; Simon L Conti Journal: J Endourol Date: 2018-11-16 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Aditya Bagrodia; Amit Gupta; Jay D Raman; Karim Bensalah; Margaret S Pearle; Yair Lotan Journal: Urology Date: 2008-08-21 Impact factor: 2.649