A prospective cost analysis of pancreatoduodenectomy.

BACKGROUND

In our cost-conscious health care system hospitals are finding that costs are as important as charges or reimbursements, especially as hospitals compete for managed care contracts. We have prospectively gathered cost data for more than 60 common operations performed at our institution over the last 3 years.

METHODS

Over a 25-month period, from January 1993 to February 1995, 30 pancreaticoduodenectomy procedures were performed for which cost data were available. Cases were divided according to diagnosis (neoplastic or benign) and were evaluated for complications which prolonged length of stay (LOS). Costs were analyzed by an item-by-item prospective micro-cost analysis technique. Items were grouped into two areas: operating room (OR) costs and hospital (ward) costs. OR costs included disposable equipment, nondisposable equipment, OR room, OR staff, postanesthesia care, and anesthesia costs. Ward costs included hospital room, pharmacy, and radiology costs.

RESULTS

OR costs for the 30 PD patients were similar and represented approximately 21% of total hospital costs. Of the 30 patients, complications resulting in a prolonged LOS occurred in 10 (33%): intra abdominal abscess in 3 (2 with pancreatic leaks), superficial marginal ulceration in 2, delayed return of gastrointestinal function in 2 (1 with pulmonary edema) and 1 each of bile leak, urosepsis, and chylous ascites. No cost differences were observed when comparing neoplasm versus chronic pancreatitis for all parameters. When comparing patients who had complications versus those who did not, however, there was a statistically significant cost difference for both hospital ward or total costs. Regardless of whether a PD was performed for neoplastic or benign disease, postoperative complications increased hospital ward costs by 76% due to increased LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

This cost analysis study is an example of the methodology that would allow surgeons to investigate any common surgical procedure by first identifying areas of increased costs. This quantitative knowledge focuses the clinician on areas to improve quality which will then lower costs.