Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 25, Issue 13, pp 3804–3811 | Cite as

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

  • Sarah B. Bateni
  • Jennifer L. Olson
  • Jeffrey S. Hoch
  • Robert J. Canter
  • Richard J. BoldEmail author
Health Services Research and Global Oncology



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.


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.


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).


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 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.

Supplementary material

10434_2018_6758_MOESM1_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)


  1. 1.
    Munoz E, Munoz W 3rd, Wise L. National and surgical health care expenditures, 2005–2025. Ann Surg. 2010;251(2):195–00.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36(1):8–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Manning WG, Mullahy J. Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform? J Health Econ. 2001;20(4):461–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Potential benefits of the new Leapfrog standards: effect of process and outcomes measures. Surgery. 2004;135(6):569–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Short MN, Aloia TA, Ho V. The influence of complications on the costs of complex cancer surgery. Cancer. 2014;120(7):1035–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Paul Olson TJ, Schwarze ML. Failure-to-pursue rescue: truly a failure? Ann Surg. 2015;262(2):e43–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wakeam E, Hyder JA, Lipsitz SR, et al. Hospital-level variation in secondary complications after surgery. Ann Surg. 2016;263(3):493–01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ho V, Aloia T. Hospital volume, surgeon volume, and patient costs for cancer surgery. Med Care. 2008;46(7):718–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah B. Bateni
    • 1
  • Jennifer L. Olson
    • 1
  • Jeffrey S. Hoch
    • 2
  • Robert J. Canter
    • 1
  • Richard J. Bold
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Divison of Surgical Oncology, Suite 3010, Department of SurgeryUniversity of California, Davis Medical CenterSacramentoUSA
  2. 2.Center for Healthcare Policy and ResearchUniversity of CaliforniaDavis, SacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations