Department of Orthopaedics, Wexner Medical Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University and Division of Health Services Management and Policy, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Spine J. 2020 Jun;20(6):882-887. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2020.01.015. Epub 2020 Feb 7.
While free-standing ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) have been extolled as lower cost settings than hospital outpatient facilities/departments (HOPDs) for performing routine elective spine surgeries, differences in 90-day costs and complications have yet to be compared between the two types of treatment facilities.
We carried a comprehensive analysis to report the differences on payments to providers and facilities as a reflection of true costs to patients, employers and health plans for patients undergoing primary, single-level lumbar microdiscectomy/decompression at ASC versus HOPD.
Retrospective review of Medicare advantage and commercially insured enrollees from the Humana dataset from 2007 to 2017Q1.
To understand the differences in 90-day complications, readmissions, emergency department visits and costs for patients undergoing primary, single-level lumbar microdiscectomy/decompressions at an ASC versus HOPD.
The Humana 2007 to 2017Q1 was queried using Current Procedural Terminology codes to identify patients undergoing primary, single-level lumbar microdiscectomy/decompressions. Patients undergoing two-level surgery, open laminectomies, fusions, revision discectomies, and/or deformities were excluded. Service Location codes for HOPD (Location Code 22) and free-standing ASC (Location Code 24) were used to determine surgery treatment facilities. Using propensity scoring, we matched two groups who had surgery performed in ASCs or HOPDs based on age, gender, race, region and Elixhauser comorbidity index. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed on matched cohorts to assess for differences in 90-day outcomes between facilities, while controlling for age, gender, race, region, plan, and Elixhauser comorbidity index.
A total of 1,077 and 10,475 primary single-level decompressions were performed in ASCs and HOPDs, respectively. Following a matching algorithm with propensity scoring, the two cohorts were comprised of 990 patients each. Observed differences in 90-day complication rates were not statistically or clinically significant (ASC=9.1% vs. HOPD=10.3%; p=.362) nor were readmissions (ASC=4.5% vs. HOPD=5.3%; p=.466). On average, performing surgery in an ASC versus HOPD resulted in significant cost savings of over $2,000/case in Medicare Advantage ($5,814 vs. $7,829) and over $3,500/case ($10,116 vs. $13,623) in commercial beneficiaries.
Performing single-level decompression surgeries in an ASC compared with HOPDs was associated with approximately $2,000 to $3,500 cost-savings per case with no statistically significant impact on complication or readmission rates.
虽然独立的门诊手术中心(ASC)在执行常规择期脊柱手术方面被称赞为比医院门诊设施/部门(HOPD)成本更低的选择,但两种治疗设施之间的 90 天成本和并发症差异尚未进行比较。
我们进行了一项全面分析,以报告向提供者和医疗机构支付款项的差异,这反映了接受 ASC 与 HOPD 进行原发性单节段腰椎显微减压/切除术的患者的实际成本,包括患者、雇主和医疗保健计划。
对 Humana 数据集 2007 年至 2017 年第一季度的医疗保险优势和商业保险参保者进行回顾性审查。
了解 ASC 与 HOPD 进行原发性单节段腰椎显微减压/切除术的患者在 90 天内并发症、再入院、急诊就诊和费用方面的差异。
使用当前程序术语代码对 Humana 2007 年至 2017 年第一季度进行查询,以确定接受原发性单节段腰椎显微减压/切除术的患者。排除接受双节段手术、开放式椎板切除术、融合术、翻修椎间盘切除术和/或畸形的患者。HOPD(位置代码 22)和独立门诊手术中心(位置代码 24)的服务位置代码用于确定手术治疗设施。使用倾向评分,我们根据年龄、性别、种族、地区和 Elixhauser 合并症指数,对在 ASC 或 HOPD 进行手术的两组患者进行匹配。对匹配队列进行多变量逻辑回归分析,以评估设施之间 90 天结局的差异,同时控制年龄、性别、种族、地区、计划和 Elixhauser 合并症指数。
分别有 1077 例和 10475 例原发性单节段减压术在 ASC 和 HOPD 中进行。通过倾向评分匹配算法,两个队列各包含 990 例患者。90 天并发症发生率的观察差异无统计学意义或临床意义(ASC=9.1% vs. HOPD=10.3%;p=.362),再入院率也无统计学意义(ASC=4.5% vs. HOPD=5.3%;p=.466)。平均而言,与 HOPD 相比,在 ASC 中进行手术每个病例可节省超过 2000 美元(医疗保险优势:5814 美元 vs. 7829 美元),商业受益人的每个病例可节省超过 3500 美元(10116 美元 vs. 13623 美元)。
与 HOPD 相比,在 ASC 中进行单节段减压手术与每个病例约 2000 至 3500 美元的成本节约相关,且对并发症或再入院率无统计学显著影响。