Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Drivers of Cost for Pancreatic Surgery: It’s Not About Hospital Volume

  • Health Services Research and Global Oncology
  • Published:
Annals of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Outcomes for pancreatic resection have been studied extensively due to the high morbidity and mortality rates, with high-volume centers achieving superior outcomes. Ongoing investigations include healthcare costs, given the national focus on reducing expenditures. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the relationships between pancreatic surgery costs with perioperative outcomes and volume status.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of 27,653 patients who underwent elective pancreatic resections from October 2013 to June 2017 using the Vizient database. Costs were calculated from charges using cost–charge ratios and adjusted for geographic variation. Generalized linear modeling adjusting for demographic, clinical, and operation characteristics was performed to assess the relationships between cost and length of stay, complications, in-hospital mortality, readmissions, and hospital volume. High-volume centers were defined as hospitals performing ≥ 19 operations annually.

Results

The unadjusted mean cost for pancreatic resection and corresponding hospitalization was $20,352. There were no differences in mean costs for pancreatectomies performed at high- and low-volume centers [− $1175, 95% confidence interval (CI) − $3254 to $904, p = 0.27]. In subgroup analysis comparing adjusted mean costs at high- and low-volume centers, there was no difference among patients without an adverse outcome (− $99, 95% CI − $1612 to 1414, p = 0.90), one or more adverse outcomes (− $1586, 95% CI − $4771 to 1599, p = 0.33), or one or more complications (− $2835, 95% CI − $7588 to 1919, p = 0.24).

Conclusions

While high-volume hospitals have fewer adverse outcomes, there is no relationship between surgical volume and costs, which suggests that, in itself, surgical volume is not an indicator of improved healthcare efficiency reflected by lower costs. Patient referral to high-volume centers may not reduce overall healthcare expenditures for pancreatic operations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Munoz E, Munoz W 3rd, Wise L. National and surgical health care expenditures, 2005–2025. Ann Surg. 2010;251(2):195–00.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Moses DA, Mehaffey JH, Strider DV, Tracci MC, Kern JA, Upchurch GR Jr. Smoking cessation counseling improves quality of care and surgical outcomes with financial gain for a vascular practice. Ann Vasc Surg. 2017;42:214–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Gerber MH, Delitto D, Crippen CJ, et al. Analysis of the cost effectiveness of laparoscopic pancreatoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21(9):1404–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cunningham KE, Zenati MS, Petrie JR, et al. A policy of omitting an intensive care unit stay after robotic pancreaticoduodenectomy is safe and cost-effective. J Surg Res. 2016;204(1):8–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Teh SH, Diggs BS, Deveney CW, Sheppard BC. Patient and hospital characteristics on the variance of perioperative outcomes for pancreatic resection in the United States: a plea for outcome-based and not volume-based referral guidelines. Arch Surg. 2009;144(8):713–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Hata T, Motoi F, Ishida M, et al. Effect of hospital volume on surgical outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2016;263(4):664–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(15):1128–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Finks JF, Osborne NH, Birkmeyer JD. Trends in hospital volume and operative mortality for high-risk surgery. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(22):2128–37.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gooiker GA, van Gijn W, Wouters MW, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the volume-outcome relationship in pancreatic surgery. Br J Surg. 2011;98(4):485–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown EG, Yang A, Canter RJ, Bold RJ. Outcomes of pancreaticoduodenectomy: where should we focus our efforts on improving outcomes? JAMA Surg. 2014;149(7):694–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gani F, Johnston FM, Nelson-Williams H, et al. Hospital Volume and the Costs Associated with Surgery for Pancreatic Cancer. J Gastrointest Surg. 2017;21(9):1411–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Healy MA, Krell RW, Abdelsattar ZM, et al. Pancreatic resection results in a statewide surgical collaborative. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;22(8):2468–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Dudekula A, Munigala S, Zureikat AH, Yadav D. Operative trends for pancreatic diseases in the USA: analysis of the nationwide inpatient sample from 1998–2011. J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20(4):803–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sutton JM, Hayes AJ, Wilson GC, et al. Validation of the University HealthSystem Consortium administrative dataset: concordance and discordance with patient-level institutional data. J Surg Res. 2014;190(2):484–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chang AL, Kim Y, Ertel AE, et al. Case mix-adjusted cost of colectomy at low-, middle-, and high-volume academic centers. Surgery. 2017;161(5):1405–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ertel AE, Wima K, Hoehn RS, et al. Variability in postoperative resource utilization after pancreaticoduodenectomy: who is responsible. Surgery. 2016;160(6):1477–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Reddy S, Wolfgang CL, Cameron JL, et al. Total pancreatectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: evaluation of morbidity and long-term survival. Ann Surg. 2009;250(2):282–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Bhayani NH, Miller JL, Ortenzi G, et al. Perioperative outcomes of pancreaticoduodenectomy compared to total pancreatectomy for neoplasia. J Gastrointest Surg. 2014;18(3):549–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. van Walraven C, Austin PC, Jennings A, Quan H, Forster AJ. A modification of the Elixhauser comorbidity measures into a point system for hospital death using administrative data. Med Care. 2009;47(6):626–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Moore BJ, White S, Washington R, Coenen N, Elixhauser A. Identifying increased risk of readmission and in-hospital mortality using hospital administrative data: the AHRQ Elixhauser comorbidity index. Med Care. 2017;55(7):698–05.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36(1):8–27.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Meguid RA, Ahuja N, Chang DC. What constitutes a “high-volume” hospital for pancreatic resection? J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206(4):622 e621–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Weingart SN, Iezzoni LI, Davis RB, et al. Use of administrative data to find substandard care: validation of the complications screening program. Med Care. 2000;38(8):796–06.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Collins TC, Daley J, Henderson WH, Khuri SF. Risk factors for prolonged length of stay after major elective surgery. Ann Surg. 1999;230(2):251–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Manning WG, Mullahy J. Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform? J Health Econ. 2001;20(4):461–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Potential benefits of the new Leapfrog standards: effect of process and outcomes measures. Surgery. 2004;135(6):569–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sutton JM, Wilson GC, Paquette IM, et al. Cost effectiveness after a pancreaticoduodenectomy: bolstering the volume argument. HPB (Oxford). 2014;16(12):1056–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nathan H, Atoria CL, Bach PB, Elkin EB. Hospital volume, complications, and cost of cancer surgery in the elderly. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(1):107–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nelson-Williams H, Gani F, Kilic A, et al. Factors associated with interhospital variability in inpatient costs of liver and pancreatic resections. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(2):155–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Short MN, Aloia TA, Ho V. The influence of complications on the costs of complex cancer surgery. Cancer. 2014;120(7):1035–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wakeam E, Hyder JA. Raising the bar for failure to rescue: critical appraisal of current measurement and strategies to catalyze improvement. JAMA Surg. 2015;150(11):1023–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Paul Olson TJ, Schwarze ML. Failure-to-pursue rescue: truly a failure? Ann Surg. 2015;262(2):e43–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wakeam E, Hyder JA, Lipsitz SR, et al. Hospital-level variation in secondary complications after surgery. Ann Surg. 2016;263(3):493–01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Xiong J, Szatmary P, Huang W, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery program in patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(18):e3497.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ho V, Aloia T. Hospital volume, surgeon volume, and patient costs for cancer surgery. Med Care. 2008;46(7):718–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ho V, Short MN, Aloia TA. Can postoperative process of care utilization or complication rates explain the volume-cost relationship for cancer surgery? Surgery. 2017;162(2):418–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This project was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health (NIH; grant number UL1TR001860), and the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (Grant Number T32HS 022236). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Divison of Surgical Oncology, Suite 3010, Department of Surgery, University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, CA, USA

    Sarah B. Bateni MD, Jennifer L. Olson MD, Robert J. Canter MD & Richard J. Bold MD

  2. Center for Healthcare Policy and Research, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA

    Jeffrey S. Hoch PhD

Authors
  1. Sarah B. Bateni MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jennifer L. Olson MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeffrey S. Hoch PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert J. Canter MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Richard J. Bold MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard J. Bold MD.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bateni, S.B., Olson, J.L., Hoch, J.S. et al. Drivers of Cost for Pancreatic Surgery: It’s Not About Hospital Volume. Ann Surg Oncol 25, 3804–3811 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6758-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6758-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation