Skip to main content
Log in

Are we ready for bundled payments for major bowel surgery?

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently announced a new voluntary episode payment model for major bowel surgery. The purpose of this study was to examine the financial impact of bundled payments for major bowel surgery.

Methods

An institutional database was retrospectively queried for all patients who underwent major bowel surgery between July 2016 and June 2018. Procedures were categorized using MS-DRG coding: MS-DRG 329 (with MCC, major complications and comorbidity), MS-DRG 330 (with CC, complications and comorbidity), and MS-DRG 331 (without CC/MCC).

Results

A total of 745 patients underwent 798 procedures, with mean age 62.1 years and BMI 29.2 kg/m2. The median LOS was 4.0 days, with 12.5% of patients being discharged to a post-acute care facility for an average of 38.5 days. The mean hospital cost was $18,525. The mean payment to a post-acute care facility was $423 per day. The 90-day readmission rate was 8.6% at an average cost of $12,859 per readmission. Patients with major complications and comorbidity (MS-DRG 329) had higher CMS Hierarchical Condition Categories scores, longer LOS, higher costs, more required home health services or post-acute care facilities, and had higher 90-day readmissions. In a fee-for-service model, hospital reimbursements resulted in a negative margin of − 8.2% for MS-DRG 329, − 2.6% for MS-DRG 330, but a positive margin of 2.8% for MS-DRG 331. In a bundled payment model, the hospital would incur a loss of − 13.1%, − 11.1%, and − 1.9% for MS-DRG 329, 330, and 331, respectively.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing major bowel surgery are often a heterogeneous population with varied pre-existing comorbid conditions who require a high level of complex care and utilize greater hospital resources. Further study is needed to identify areas of cost containment without compromising the overall quality of care.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services. National health expenditure fact sheet. https://www.cms.gov/research-statistics-data-and-systems/statistics-trends-and-reports/nationalhealthexpenddata/nhe-fact-sheet.html. Accessed 31 Jan 2019

  2. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services. Bundled payments for care improvement (BPCI) initiative: general information. https://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/bundled-payments/. Accessed 31 Jan 2019

  3. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services. Bundled payments for care improvement initiative (BPCI). https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/bundled-payments-care-improvement-initiative-bpci. Accessed 31 Jan 2019

  4. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. CC/MCC Codes. https://www.cms.gov/icd10manual/fullcode_cms/P0370.html Accessed 31 Jan 2019

  5. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Diseases & disorders of the digestive system. Major small and large bowel procedures. https://www.cms.gov/icd10manual/fullcode_cms/P0150.html Accessed 31 Jan 2019

  6. Kaplan RS, Anderson SR (2004) Time-driven activity-based costing. Harv Bus Rev 82(50):131–138

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Keel G, Savage C, Rafig M, Mazzocato (2017) Time-driven activity-based costing in health care: a systematic review of the literature. Health Pol 121(7):755–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Maryland All-Payer Model. https://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/Maryland-All-Payer-Model/. Accessed 31 Jan 2019

  9. Gani F, Makary MA, Wick EC, Efron JE, Fang SH, Safar B, Hundt J, Pawlik TM (2016) Bundled payments for surgical colectomy among medicare enrollees: potential savings vs the need for further reform. JAMA Surg 151(5):e160202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mehta HB, Hughes BD, Sieloff E, Sura SO, Shan Y, Adhikari D, Senagore A (2018) Outcomes of laparoscopic colectomy in younger and older patients: an analysis of nationwide readmission database. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 28(4):370–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Keller DS, Pedraza R, Flores-Gonzalez JR, LeFave JP, Mahmood A, Haas EM (2016) The current status of emergent laparoscopic colectomy: a population-based study of clinical and financial outcomes. Surg Endosc 30(8):3321–3326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Wakeam E, Molina G, Shah N, Lipsitz SR, Chang DC, Gawande AA, Haynes AB (2017) Variation in the cost of 5 common operations in the United States. Surgery 162(3):592–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sarda S, Short HL, Hockenberry JM, McCarthy I, Raval MV (2017) Regional variation in rates of pediatric perforated appendicitis. J Pediatr Surg 52(9):1488–1491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Abdelsattar ZA, Birkmeyer JD, Wong SL (2015) Variation in Medicare payments for colorectal cancer surgery. J Oncol Pract 11(5):391–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jubelt LE, Goldfeld KS, Blecker SB, Chung WY, Bendo JA, Bosco JA, Errico TJ, Frempong-Boadu AK, Iorio R, Slover JD, Horwitz LI (2017) Early lessons on bundled payment at an Academic Medical Center. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 25(9):654–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lewis ZH, Hay CC, Graham JE, Lin YL, Karmarkar AM, Ottenbacher KJ (2016) Social support and actual versus expected length of stay in inpatient rehabilitation facilities. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 97(12):2068–2075

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Walter CJ, Collin J, Dumville JC, Drew PJ, Monson JR (2009) Enhanced recovery in colorectal resections: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Colorectal Dis 11(4):344–350

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Eskicioglu C, Forbes SS, Aarts MA, Okrainec A, McLeod RS (2009) Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programs for patients having colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Gastrointest Surg 13(12):2321–2329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Spanjersberg WR, Reurings J, Keus F, van Laarhoven CJ (2011) Fast track surgery versus conventional recovery strategies for colorectal surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD007635

  20. Lv L, Shao YF, Zhou YB (2012) The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathway for patients undergoing colorectal surgery: an update of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Colorectal Dis 27(12):1549–1554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Zhuang CL, Ye XZ, Zhang XD, Chen BC, Yu Z (2013) Enhanced recovery after surgery programs versus traditional care for colorectal surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Dis Colon Rectum 56(5):667–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Adamina M, Kehlet H, Tomlinson GA, Senagore AJ, Delaney CP (2011) Enhanced recovery pathways optimize health outcomes and resource utilization: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in colorectal surgery. Surgery 149(6):830–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Vlug MS, Wind J, Hollmann MW, Ubbink DT, Cense HA, Engel AF, Gerhards MF, van Wagensveld BA, van der Zaag ES, van Geloven AA, Sprangers MA, Cuesta MA, Bemelman WA (2011) Laparoscopy in combination with fast track multimodal management is the best perioperative strategy in patients undergoing colonic surgery: a randomized clinical trial (LAFA-study). Ann Surg 254(6):868–875

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lawrence JK, Keller DS, Samia H, Ermlich B, Brady KM, Nobel T, Stein SL, Delaney CP (2013) Discharge within 24 to 72 hours of colorectal surgery is associated with low readmission rates when using Enhanced Recovery Pathways. J Am Coll Surg 216(3):390–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Keller DS, Champagne BJ, Reynolds HL Jr, Stein SL, Delaney CP (2014) Cost-effectiveness of laparoscopy in rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 57(5):564–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Keller DS, Delaney CP, Hashemi L, Haas EM (2016) A national evaluation of clinical and economic outcomes in open versus laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 30:4220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Keller DS, Lawrence JK, Nobel T, Delaney CP (2013) Optimizing cost and short-term outcomes for elderly patients in laparoscopic colonic surgery. Surg Endosc 27(12):4463–4468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Messenger DE, Curtis NJ, Jones A, Jones EL, Smart NJ, Francis NK (2017) Factors predicting outcome from enhanced recovery programs in laparoscopic colorectal surgery: a systematic review. Surg Endosc 31(5):2050–2071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wick EC, Shore AD, Hirose K, Ibrahim AM, Gearhart SL, Efron J, Weiner JP, Makary MA (2011) Readmission rates and cost following colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum 54:1475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kulaylat AN, Dillon PW, Hollenbeak CS, Stewart DB (2015) Determinants of 30-d readmission after colectomy. J Surg Res 193(2):528–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Curtin BM, Russell RD, Odum SM (2017) Bundled payments for care improvement: boom or bust? J Arhtroplasty 32(10):2931–2934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lott A, Haglin JM, Belayneh R, Konda S, Egol KA (2019) Bundled payment initiative for hip fracture arthroplasty patients: one institution’s experience. J Orthop Trauma 33(3):e89–e92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Joynt Maddox KE, Orav EJ, Zheng J, Epstein AM (2018) Evaluation of medicare’s bundled payments initiative for medical conditions. N Engl J Med 379(3):260–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

There was no source of funding for this project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Udai S. Sibia.

Ethics declarations

Disclosures

Udai S. Sibia, Justin J. Turcotte, John R. Klune, and Glen R. Gibson have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sibia, U.S., Turcotte, J.J., Klune, J.R. et al. Are we ready for bundled payments for major bowel surgery?. Surg Endosc 34, 4950–4956 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07287-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-019-07287-8

Keywords

Navigation