Wall‐Wieler, Elizabeth

BACKGROUND: Despite the widespread adoption of minimally invasive surgery in the US, disparities in its use persist. One unexplored contributor is geographic access to robotic surgical systems. This study evaluates the geospatial association between: (1) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) and open surgery rates, (2) availability of robotic systems and open surgery, and (3) open surgery rates in demographically similar areas with differing robotic access. STUDY DESIGN: Data from 6 sources were linked at the ZIP Code Tabulation Area (ZCTA) level to identify hospitals and to extract procedure modality, presence of robotic systems, and area characteristics. Regression analysis assessed the association between SVI and open surgery rates. Open rates were then compared between hospitals with and without robotic systems. Propensity score matching was used to compare open rates across matched ZCTAs by robotic access and SVI levels. RESULTS: Higher social vulnerability was associated with increased open surgery rates (estimate = 0.20; p < 0.01), with rates ranging from 18.3% in low-vulnerability areas to 32.7% in high-vulnerability areas. Among 3,446 eligible ZCTAs, 57% had at least 1 robotic system. ZCTAs without robotic systems had higher open surgery rates (42.9 vs 19.4 per 100 procedures; relative rate = 2.21; p < 0.01). This association remained significant after matching (relative rate = 1.66; p < 0.01), for the low-mid- and high-SVI strata, and 3 of the 5 procedures examined. CONCLUSIONS: When correcting for geographic variation, the availability of robotic surgery was associated with a decrease in open surgery rates.

Abstract Objective To evaluate 2-year cost to insured patients treated with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) for type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. Methods Using the 2017 to 2023 Merative™ claims database, we identified adult patients with severe obesity and T2D who were treated with a RYGB or GLP-1 RAs. Patients with RYGB had no treatment with GLP-1 RAs, and those who received GLP-1 RA therapy with tirzepatide or semaglutide for ≥ 2 years had no metabolic and bariatric surgery (MBS) procedures. The study cohorts were matched on demographics including obesity, associated medical problems, and baseline direct or out-of-pocket (OOP) costs to patients in the year prior to treatment initiation. Direct costs included those from outpatient services, inpatient admissions, and outpatient prescription filled that were paid directly by patients. We compared this cost up to two years after treatment initiation using paired t-tests. Results 1012 matched RYGB and GLP-1 RA patients were analyzed, including 35% male. At 1-year after treatment initiation, healthcare costs paid directly by patients were similar for the RYGB ($2,301) and GLP-1 RA ($2,179) (delta = $122, p = 0.15) cohorts. From one to two years after index treatment date, OOP costs were significantly lower in the RYGB treatment group ($1,277 vs. $2,104, p < 0.01). Two years after treatment initiation, RYGB patients spent $704 less in OOP costs than similar patients treated with GLP-1 RA medications (p < 0.01). Conclusions Direct OOP healthcare costs were lower for RYGB compared to GLP-1 RA use patients 2-years after treatment initiation.

Importance: Many patients who would benefit from minimally invasive surgery (MIS) have open surgery; robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) addresses some of the limitations of laparoscopic surgery and could increase rates of MIS across different patient populations. Objective: To determine whether the introduction of RAS increases MIS rates and whether increases are seen across different patient populations undergoing common general surgery procedures. Design: A retrospective cohort study was performed to compare rates of MIS in the year before and after the index date for hospitals that did and did not introduce RAS. Generalized estimating equation regression models were used to compare rates in MIS over time. Setting: PINC AI Healthcare Database, an all-payor discharge database of hospitals in the United States. Participants: Hospitals that performed cholecystectomy, inguinal hernia repair, ventral hernia repair, and colorectal resection from 2016 to 2022. Exposure: RAS hospitals performing at least 1 common general surgery procedure using RAS. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary analysis examined rates of MIS, defined as the rate of common general surgeries that were minimally invasive (laparoscopic or RAS) in a hospital. The secondary analysis examined MIS rates for common general surgeries, across age, sex, race, ethnicity, and payor. Results: Of 408 hospitals included in the study, 153 (38%) introduced RAS for common general surgeries. The relative MIS rate for hospitals that introduced RAS compared with hospitals that did not went from 1.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02–1.14; P < 0.01) before the index date to 1.15 (95% CI, 1.09–1.22; P < 0.01) after the index date (P interaction < 0.01), indicating a larger increase in MIS rates among hospitals introducing RAS. MIS rates increased significantly more in hospitals that introduced RAS across patient age, sex, ethnicity, race, and payor compared with hospitals that did not introduce RAS. Conclusions and Relevance: Hospitals that introduced RAS for common general surgery procedures were associated with an increase in MIS rates across different patient populations compared with hospitals that did not introduce RAS.

Objective: To determine out-of-pocket (OOP) costs 2 years after sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or initiating Ozempic for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. Background: Individuals with obesity and T2D have a variety of treatment options. The risks and benefits of these treatment options are becoming more well-documented; however, the real-world patient costs of these options are not known. Methods: Adults with body mass index of 35 kg/m2 or higher and T2D who had an SG or used Ozempic were identified in the employer-based retrospective claims database Merative (previously Truven IBM Marketscan) from 2017 to 2021. SG cohort was defined as having an SG (without filling a prescription for Ozempic), and the Ozempic cohort was defined as continuously filling a prescription for Ozempic for at least 2 years (and not having any bariatric surgery). Individuals in each cohort were 1:1 propensity matched on demographics, obesity-related comorbidities, and baseline OOP costs. in the year before treatment. OOP costs were compared in the 2 years after treatment using paired t tests. Results: A total of 302 SGs were matched to 302 Ozempic patients (mean age: 50, mean baseline body mass index: 40, 41% males). OOP health care costs were similar for the SG ($2267) and Ozempic ($2131) cohorts 1 year after the index date (difference = $136, P = 0.19). OOP health care costs were significantly lower in the SG cohort ($1155 vs $2,084, P < 0.01) 2 years after the index date. Conclusions: Within 2 years of starting treatment, OOP health care costs were significantly lower among individuals who had a SG versus those treated with Ozempic.