Borah, Bijan J.

ObjectivesIdentify predictors of high‐cost otolaryngology care.Study DesignCross‐sectional.SettingTertiary academic multispecialty hospital.Subjects/MethodsAll patients undergoing ≥1 otolaryngologic procedures from 2011 to 2015. Encounter costs were standardized using previously described methods approximating Medicare reimbursement. Patients were stratified by adult/pediatric and inpatient/outpatient. “Outliers” were defined as total encounter costs ≥95th percentile. Logistic regression measured predictors of outlier status.ResultsIn total, 2433 adult inpatient encounters (95th percentile $57,611), 10,031 adult outpatient encounters ($10,772), 346 pediatric inpatient encounters ($84,639), and 3027 pediatric outpatient encounters ($8978) were included. For adult inpatient and outpatient, isolated head and neck oncologic procedures were the reference group. Among adult inpatients, laryngology and facial plastics procedures predicted higher odds of outlier status (odds ratio [OR] = 4.1 and 7.2). Involvement of multiple otolaryngology subspecialties increased the odds (OR = 4.7). Neck dissection and reconstructive procedures were the most common primary operations for adult inpatient outliers. For adult outpatients, several subspecialties had lower odds than head and neck (OR ≤0.44). Increased comorbidities predicted outliers for adult inpatient care (OR = 1.5); sex, age, race, and ethnicity did not. Cochlear implant was the most common primary operation among adult and pediatric outpatient outliers. Greater subspecialty involvement and increasing age predicted pediatric outpatient outliers (OR = 8.0 and 1.1); younger age and female sex predicted pediatric inpatient outliers (OR = 0.8 and 3.5). Airway procedures dominated pediatric inpatient outliers.ConclusionThis is the first large‐scale study of high‐cost otolaryngology care across multiple subspecialties. Specific procedures and subspecialties and increased comorbidities predicted high‐cost care. Contrary to previous studies, patient sex, race, and ethnicity did not.

ObjectivesTo evaluate the ability of claims‐based risk adjustment and incremental components of clinical data to identify 90‐day episode costs among lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) patients according to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program provisions.Data SourcesMedicare fee‐for‐service (FFS) data for qualifying CJR episodes in the United States, and FFS data linked with clinical data from CJR‐qualifying LEJR episodes performed at High Value Healthcare Collaborative (HVHC) and Mayo Clinic in 2013. HVHC and Mayo Clinic populations are subsets of the total FFS population to assess the additive value of additional pieces of clinical data in correctly assigning patients to cost groups.Study DesignMultivariable logistic models identified high‐cost episodes.Data Collection/Extraction MethodsClinical data from participating health care systems merged with Medicare FFS data.Principal FindingsOur three populations consisted of 363 621 patients in the CMS population, 4881 in the HVHC population, and 918 in the Mayo population. When modeling per CJR specifications, we observed low to moderate model performance (CMS C‐Stat = 0.714; HVHC C‐Stat = 0.628; Mayo C‐Stat = 0.587). Adding CMS‐HCC categories improved identification of patients in the top 20% of episode costs (CMS C‐Stat = 0.758, HVHC C‐Stat = 0.692, Mayo C‐Stat = 0.677). Clinical variables, particularly functional status in the population for which this was available (Mayo C‐Stat = 0.783), improved ability to identify patients within cost groups.ConclusionsPolicy makers could use these findings to improve payment adjustments for bundled LEJR procedures and in consideration of new data elements for reimbursement.

See reply on pages 3267‐70, this issue

We examined risks for first hospitalization and the rate, risk factors, costs, and 1‐year outcome of 30‐day readmission among patients admitted for complications of cirrhosis. Data were retrospectively analyzed for adult patients with cirrhosis residing in Minnesota, Iowa, or Wisconsin and admitted from 2010 through 2013 at both campuses of the Mayo Clinic Hospital in Rochester, MN. Readmission was captured at the two hospitals as well as at community hospitals in the tristate area within the Mayo Clinic Health System. The incidence of hospitalization for complications of cirrhosis was 100/100,000 population, with increasing age and male sex being the strongest risks for hospitalization. For the 2,048 hospitalized study patients, the overall 30‐day readmission rate was 32%; 498 (24.3%) patients were readmitted to Mayo Clinic hospitals and 157 (7.7%) to community hospitals, mainly for complications of portal hypertension (52%) and infections (30%). Readmission could not be predicted accurately. There were 146 deaths during readmission and an additional 105 deaths up to 1 year of follow‐up (50.4% total mortality). Annual postindex hospitalization costs for those with a 30‐day readmission were substantially higher ($73,252) than those readmitted beyond 30 days ($62,053) or those not readmitted ($5,719). At 1‐year follow‐up, only 20.4% of patients readmitted within 30 days were at home. In conclusion, patients with cirrhosis have high rates of hospitalization, especially among men over 65 years, and of unscheduled 30‐day readmission. Readmission cannot be accurately predicted. Postindex hospitalization costs are high; nationally, the annual costs are estimated to be more than $4.45 billion. Only 20% of patients readmitted within 30 days are home at 1 year. (Hepatology Communications 2018;2:188–198)

Background/Objectives Facing penalties for preventable 30‐day hospital readmissions, many provider groups have implemented programs to remedy this problem, but the cost efficacy and value of such programs are not well delineated. The objective was to compare total cost of care over 30 days of individuals enrolled in the Mayo Clinic Care Transitions ( MCCT ) program and individuals not enrolled. Design Retrospective cohort study using secondary data analysis of a previously published cohort study. Setting Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. Participants MCCT participants (n = 363) and individuals in a propensity‐matched referent cohort (n = 365). Intervention MCCT program enrollment. Measurements The primary outcome was total cost of care over 30 days after hospital discharge. A 2‐part modeling strategy was used to analyze 30‐day costs: whether individuals had non‐zero costs during the 30 days after discharge and a generalized linear model for individuals who incurred costs. Potential heterogeneous effects of the MCCT program were examined according to decile of 30‐day costs using quantile regression. Results Mean age was 83 in both groups. Adjusted mean 30‐day cost after hospitalization was $3,363 (95% confidence interval ( CI ) = $2,512−4,213) in the MCCT group and $4,161 (95% CI = $3,096−5,226) in the control group ( P = .25). Cost savings of $2,744 ( P = .008) at the eighth decile and $3,388 ( P = .20) at the ninth decile were demonstrated. Thus, the only statistically significant differences were in the post hoc subgroup analysis in the highest‐cost subgroups. Conclusion We did not find a difference in overall mean costs between the MCCT group and the control group, although intervention participants in the upper deciles of costs appeared to experience lower costs than controls. A larger study cohort might better determine the value of the intervention.

Purpose Skeletal-related events (SREs) such as pathologic fracture, spinal cord compression, or the necessity for radiation or surgery to bone metastasis cause considerable morbidity, decrements in quality of life, and costs to the health care system. The results of a recent large randomized trial (Cancer and Leukemia Group B/Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology [CALGB/Alliance 70604]) showed that zoledronic acid (ZA) every 3 months was noninferior to monthly ZA in reducing the risks of SREs. We sought to determine the cost-effectiveness (CE) of monthly ZA, ZA every 3 months, and monthly denosumab in women with breast cancer and skeletal metastases. Methods Using a Markov model, costs per SRE avoided were calculated for the three treatments. Sensitivity analyses were performed where denosumab SRE probabilities were assumed to be 50%, 75%, and 90% lower than the ZA SRE probabilities. Quality-adjusted life-years were also calculated. The analysis was from the US payer perspective. Results The mean costs of the denosumab treatment strategy are nine-fold higher than generic ZA every 3 months. Quality-adjusted life-years were virtually identical in all the three treatment arms; hence, the optimal treatment would be ZA every 3 months because it was the least costly treatment. The sensitivity analyses showed that relative to ZA every 3 months, the incremental costs per mean SRE avoided for denosumab ranged from $162,918 to $347,655. Conclusion ZA every 3 months was more CE in reducing the risks of SRE than monthly denosumab. This analysis was one of the first to incorporate the costs of generic ZA and one of the first independent CE analyses not sponsored by either Novartis or Amgen, the makers of ZA and denosumab, respectively. ZA every 3 months is the more CE option and more reasonable alternative to monthly denosumab.

Objectives To determine the rate of perioperative complications and cost associated with Mayo-McCall culdoplasty (MMC), open abdominal sacrocolpopexy (ASC), and robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) for posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse. Methods We retrospectively searched for the records of patients undergoing posthysterectomy apical vaginal prolapse surgery (MMC, ASC, or RSC) between January 1, 2000, and June 30, 2012, at our institution. For all patients identified, perioperative complications, length of hospital stay, and inpatient costs to patients were abstracted from the medical records and compared by procedure. Inverse–probability-of-procedure weighting using propensity scores was used to obtain less-biased comparisons of outcomes between procedures. Results A total of 512 patients met the inclusion criteria (174 MMC, 237 ASC, and 101 RSC). Using inverse-probability weighting, the MMC group had a significantly lower intraoperative complication rate (3.3% vs 11.6% for ASC, 3.4% vs 24.1% for RSC), median operative time (94 vs 217 min for ASC, 100 vs 228 min for RSC), and median cost (US $8,776 vs $12,695 for ASC, US $8,773 vs $13,107 for RSC) than the ASC and RSC groups (all P < 0.01). In addition, the MMC group had significantly fewer postoperative grade 3+ complications than the RSC group (1.1% vs 9.4%, P < 0.01). Conclusions In the treatment of posthysterectomy vaginal vault prolapse, MMC is associated with decreased non–urinary tract infection, less perioperative morbidity, and lower cost to patients compared with sacrocolpopexy.