Skip to main content
Log in

Cost comparison between medicare and private insurance for robotic transhiatal esophagectomy

  • Research
  • Published:
Journal of Robotic Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Esophageal cancer is a significant health concern, with the robotic platform being increasingly adopted for transhiatal esophagectomy (THE). While literature exists regarding the cost of robotic THE and its benefits, there is limited data analyzing cost and concurrent hospital reimbursement based on payor or provider. This study aimed to compare hospital reimbursement after robotic THE for patients with Medicare versus private insurance. With IRB approval, a prospective study of 85 patients from 2012 to 2022 who underwent robotic THE was conducted. Private insurance was defined as coverage excluding Medicare, Medicaid, or self-pay. Statistical analyses involved Student’s t test, Chi-square test, and Fisher’s exact test, with p ≤ 0.05 considered statistically significant. Data are presented as median (mean ± standard deviation). Among the 85 patients, 64 had Medicare, and 21 had private insurance. Medicare patients exhibited more frequent history of prior abdominal or thoracic surgeries (41% vs 10%, p < 0.01). Both groups showed no differences in factors like sex, body mass index, ASA classification, operative duration, estimated blood loss, conversions to ‘open’, tumor size, and major postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo ≥ III). Similarly, metrics such as hospital stay duration, in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission, and various financial components including total and variable costs, hospital reimbursement, and net margin were consistent across both. Despite Medicare patients being older and often having a broader operative history, hospital costs and reimbursements did not differ from patients with private insurance post-robotic THE. The robotic platform appears to mitigate potential disparities in hospitalization costs and hospital reimbursement for THE between Medicare and private insurance.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society (2022). Key statistics for esophageal cancer. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/esophagus-cancer/about/key-statistics.html. Accessed 19 Dec 2022

  2. Rajaram R, Spicer JD, Dhupar R et al (2022) Esophageal cancer. Sabiston textbook of surgery: the biological basis of modern surgical practice, 21st edn. Elsevier, St. Louis, Missouri, pp 1014–1055

    Google Scholar 

  3. Katz MH, Hunt KK, Nelson HD et al (2018) Esophagectomy. Operative standards for cancer surgery: volume 2: esophagus, melanoma, rectum, stomach, thyroid, 1st edn. Wolters Kluwer, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, pp 261–273

    Google Scholar 

  4. Filicori F, Swanstrom LL (2020) Management of esophageal cancer. Current surgical therapy, 13th edn. Elsevier, St. Louis, Missouri, pp 53–69

    Google Scholar 

  5. Haisley KR, Abdelmoaty WF, Dunst CM (2021) Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy for invasive esophageal adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 25:9–15

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ross SB, Giovannetti A, Sucandy I et al (2021) Robotic transhiatal esophagectomy. Atlas of robotic general surgery, 1st edn. Elsevier, St. Louis, Missouri, pp 198–208

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wei MT, Zhang YC, Deng XB et al (2014) Transthoracic vs transhiatal surgery for cancer of the esophagogastric junction: a meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 20:10183–10192

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Orringer MB, Marshall B, Chang AC et al (2007) Two thousand transhiatal esophagectomies: changing trends, lessons learned. Ann Surg 246:363–372

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Orringer MB, Marshall B, Iannettoni MD (1999) Transhiatal esophagectomy: clinical experience and refinements. Ann Surg 230:392–400

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Mariette C, Markar SR, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS et al (2019) Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 380:152–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Broderick RC, Horgan S, Fuchs HF (2020) Robotic transhiatal esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus 33(Supplement_2):doaa037. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doaa037

  12. Gurusamy KS, Pallari E, Midya S et al (2016) Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:1–40

    Google Scholar 

  13. Horgan S, Berger RA, Elli EF et al (2003) Robotic-assisted minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy. Am Surg 69:624–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. DeLong JC, Kelly KJ, Jacobsen GR et al (2016) The benefits and limitations of robotic assisted transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. J Vis Surg 2(156):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wecowski J, Ross SB, Jadick MF et al (2019) THE big deal: an institution’s experience with robotic transhiatal esophagectomy. Am Surg 85:1061–1065

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ross SB, Rayman S, Thomas J et al (2022) Evaluating the cost for robotic vs “non-robotic” transhiatal esophagectomy. Am Surg 88:389–393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jacoby H, Ross S, Sucandy I et al (2022) The effect of body mass index on robotic transhiatal esophagectomy for esophageal adenocarcinoma. Am Surg 88:2204–2209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Turner KM, Delman AM, Johnson K et al (2022) Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy: postoperative outcomes in a nationwide cohort. J Surg Res 283:152–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Clemens J, Gottlieb JD (2017) In the shadow of a giant: medicare’s influence on private physician payments. J Polit Econ 125:1–39

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Morrisey MA (1996) Hospital cost shifting, a continuing debate. EBRI Issue Brief 180:1–13

    Google Scholar 

  21. Dindo D, Demartines N, Clavien PA (2004) Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey. Ann Surg 240:205–213

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Bonner SN, Thumma JR, Dimick JB et al (2023) Trends in use of robotic surgery for privately insured patients and medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries. JAMA Netw Open 6(5):e2315052

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Kachare SD, Liner KR, Vohra NA et al (2015) Assessment of health care cost for complex surgical patients: review of cost, re-imbursement and revenue involved in pancreatic surgery at a high-volume academic medical centre. HPB 17:311–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA (2009) Rehospitalizations among patients in the medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med 360:1418–1428

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Turrentine FE, Wang H, Simpson VB et al (2006) Surgical risk factors, morbidity, and mortality in elderly patients. J Am Coll Surg 203:865–877

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding sources was received specific to this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Conceptualization: M.M.D., S.B.R., I.S., M.S., T.M.P., M.C., A.R.; Methodology: M.M.D., S.B.R., I.S., M.S., T.M.P., M.C., A.R.; Formal analysis and investigation: M.M.D., S.B.R., I.S., M.S., T.M.P., M.C., A.R.; Writing - original draft preparation: M.M.D., S.B.R., I.S., M.S., T.M.P., M.C., A.R.; Writing - review and editing: M.M.D., S.B.R., I.S., M.S., T.M.P., M.C., A.R.; Resources: M.M.D., S.B.R., I.S., M.S., T.M.P., M.C., A.R.; Supervision: M.M.D., S.B.R., I.S., M.S., T.M.P., M.C., A.R.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sharona B. Ross.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Michelle M. Dugan, Moran Slavin, Iswanto Sucandy, Tara M. Pattilachan, Maria Christodoulou, and Alexander Rosemurgy have no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose. Dr. Sharona B. Ross is a consultant for Intuitive Surgical (Sunnyvale, CA) and Ethicon (Cincinnati, OH). Dr. Sharona B. Ross receives educational grants for her Women in Surgery Career Symposium from Intuitive Surgical and Medtronic (Minneapolis, MN).

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dugan, M.M., Ross, S.B., Sucandy, I. et al. Cost comparison between medicare and private insurance for robotic transhiatal esophagectomy. J Robotic Surg 18, 30 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01762-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11701-023-01762-0

Keywords

Navigation