Abstract
Expensive technologies-including robotic surgery-experience rapid adoption without evidence of superior outcomes. Although previous studies have examined perioperative outcomes and costs, differences in out-of-pocket costs for patients undergoing robotic surgery are not well understood. To assess out-of-pocket costs and total payments for 5 types of common oncologic procedures that can be performed using an open or robotic approach. A retrospective, cross-sectional, propensity score-weighted analysis was performed using deidentified insurance claims for 1.9 million enrollees from the MarketScan database from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017. The final study sample comprised 15 893 US adults aged 18 to 64 years who were enrolled in an employer-sponsored health plan. Patients underwent either an open or robotic radical prostatectomy, hysterectomy, partial colectomy, radical nephrectomy, or partial nephrectomy for a solid-organ malignant neoplasm. Statistical analysis was performed from December 18, 2018, to June 5, 2019. Type of surgical procedure-robotic vs open. The primary outcome of interest was out-of-pocket costs associated with robotic and open surgery. The secondary outcome of interest was associated total payments. Among 15 893 patients (11 102 men; mean [SD] age, 55.4 [6.6] years), 8260 underwent robotic and 7633 underwent open procedures; patients undergoing robotic hysterectomy were older than those undergoing open hysterectomy (mean [SD] age, 55.7 [6.7] vs 54.6 [7.2] years), and patients undergoing open radical nephrectomy had more comorbidities than those undergoing robotic radical nephrectomy (≥2 comorbidities, 658 of 861 [76.4%] vs 244 of 347 [70.3%]). After adjustment for baseline characteristics, the robotic approach was associated with lower out-of-pocket costs for all procedures: -$137.75 (95% CI, -$240.24 to -$38.63) for radical prostatectomy (P = .006); -$640.63 (95% CI, -$933.62 to -$368.79) for hysterectomy (P < .001); -$1140.54 (95% CI, -$1397.79 to -$896.54) for partial colectomy (P < .001); -$728.32 (95% CI, -$1126.90 to -$366.08) for radical nephrectomy (P < .001); and -$302.74 (95% CI, -$523.14 to -$97.10) for partial nephrectomy (P = .003). The robotic approach was similarly associated with lower adjusted total payments: -$3872.62 (95% CI, -$5385.49 to -$2399.04) for radical prostatectomy (P < .001); -$29 640.69 (95% CI, -$36 243.82 to -$23 465.94) for hysterectomy (P < .001); -$38 151.74 (95% CI, -$46 386.16 to -$30 346.22) for partial colectomy; (P < .001); -$33 394.15 (95% CI, -$42 603.03 to -$24 955.20) for radical nephrectomy (P < .001); and -$9162.52 (95% CI, -$12 728.33 to -$5781.99) for partial nephrectomy (P < .001). This study found significant variation in perioperative costs according to surgical technique for both patients (out-of-pocket costs) and payers (total payments); the robotic approach was associated with lower out-of-pocket costs for all studied oncologic procedures.
Highlights
As of 2017, US national health expenditures stood at $3.5 trillion.[1]
After adjustment for baseline characteristics, the robotic approach was associated with lower out-ofpocket costs for all procedures: –$137.75 for radical prostatectomy (P = .006); −$640.63 for hysterectomy (P < .001); –$1140.54 for partial colectomy (P < .001); –$728.32 for radical nephrectomy (P < .001); and –$302.74 for partial nephrectomy (P = .003)
The robotic approach was associated with lower adjusted total payments: –$3872.62 for radical prostatectomy (P < .001); –$29 640.69 for hysterectomy (P < .001); –$38 151.74 for partial colectomy; (P < .001); –$33 394.15 for radical nephrectomy (P < .001); and –$9162.52 for partial nephrectomy (P < .001)
Summary
As of 2017, US national health expenditures stood at $3.5 trillion.[1] Despite recent reforms aimed at containing increasing US health care expenditures, overall US health care spending remains on an unsustainable course.[2,3,4] renewed focus has been placed on the value of medical services rendered. This change has occurred in the context of research demonstrating higher associated surgical costs and equivocal evidence of improved clinical outcomes.[10,11,12]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.