Median Cost Of Care Research Articles

Triple Rule-out Computed Tomographic Angiography for Chest Pain: A Diagnostic Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The objective was to compare the image quality, diagnostic accuracy, radiation exposure, and contrast volume of "triple rule-out" (TRO) computed tomography (CT) to other diagnostic modalities commonly used to evaluate patients with nontraumatic chest pain (dedicated coronary, pulmonary embolism [PE], and aortic dissection CT; invasive coronary angiography; and nuclear stress testing). Four electronic databases were searched, along with reference lists and contacted content experts, for relevant studies from inception until October 2012. Eligible studies enrolled patients with nontraumatic chest pain, shortness of breath, suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS), PE, or aortic dissection; used at least 64-slice CT technology; and compared TRO CT to another diagnostic modality. Eleven studies enrolling 3,539 patients (791 TRO and 2,748 non-TRO) were included (one randomized controlled trial and 10 observational). There was no significant difference in image quality between TRO and dedicated CT scans. TRO CT had the following pooled diagnostic accuracy estimates for coronary artery disease: sensitivity of 94.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 89.1% to 97.5%), specificity of 97.4% (95% CI = 96.1% to 98.4%), positive likelihood ratio (LR+) of 17.71 (95% CI = 3.92 to 79.96), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of 0.08 (95% CI = 0.02 to 0.27). There were insufficient numbers of patients with PE or aortic dissection to generate diagnostic accuracy estimates for these conditions. Use of TRO CT involved greater radiation exposure (mean difference [MD] = 4.84 mSv, 95% CI = 1.65 to 8.04 mSv) and contrast exposure (MD = 38.0 mL, 95% CI = 28.1 to 48.0 mL) compared to non-TRO CT patients. Triple rule-out CT is highly accurate for detecting coronary artery disease. Given the low (<1%) prevalence of PE and aortic dissection in the included studies, and the increased radiation and contrast exposure, there are insufficient data to recommend use of TRO CT in the diagnosis of these conditions.

Is futile care in the injured elderly an important target for cost savings?

This study proposes a definition of futile care and quantifies its cost in injured elders. This was a retrospective study of Medicare patients with an International Classification of Diseases-9 injury diagnosis admitted to 171 Oregon and Washington facilities from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2002, who died within 6 months of admission. Futile care was defined as death within 7 days of discharge from a hospitalization of at least 14 days. We compared health care costs in the last 6 months of life with those who did and did not meet our definition of futility. To simulate predicting and preventing futility early in the hospital course, we examined the effect of reducing spending on the futile care cohort to the level of those who survived 7 to 10 days after injury. There were 6,832 elders who died within 6 months of injury, of whom 230 (3.4%) met our definition of futility. The median cost of care in the last 6 months of life was $33,373 for those not meeting our definition of futility and $87,391 for the futile care group (p < 0.001). The 3.4% receiving futile care incurred 8.9% of total costs. Reducing expenditures in the futile care group to the level of those who died from 7 to 10 days after injury (median, $25,633) would result in an overall cost savings of 6.5%. End-of-life health care costs were significantly higher for those who received futile care. However, even aggressive reductions in futile care would result in small savings overall. Economic analysis, level III.

Prospective assessment of cost, morbidity, and survival associated with lymphadenectomy in low-risk endometrial cancer.

5004 Background: Since 1999, patients with low-risk endometrial cancer (EC) as defined by the Mayo criteria have preferably not undergone lymphadenectomy (LND) at our institution. We assess survival, sites of recurrence, morbidity, and cost per up-staged case in this low-risk cohort. Methods: Consecutive patients with Mayo-defined low-risk EC managed without (non-LND) and with LND were compared. Cause-specific survival (CSS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. 30-day cost analyses were equated to 2010 Medicare dollars. Results: Among 1,393 consecutive surgically managed EC cases, 385 (27.6%) met the Mayo low-risk criteria, accounting for 34.1% of type I EC. The 5-year CSS of the low-risk cases was 98.6 %. There were 80 LND cases (median # nodes, 29) and 305 non-LND cases. Complications within 30 days occurred in 37.5% and 19.3% of LND and non-LND cases, respectively (P&lt;0.001). Nodal metastasis was identified in a single LND case (1.3%). There were 11 recurrences, 6 of which were vaginal. Not a single recurrence was detected in the pelvic or paraaortic nodal areas in these 385 patients, with a median follow-up of 5.4 years. The estimated prevalence (combining surgery and surveillance) of lymph node metastasis was 0.3%. The 5-year CSS in LND and non-LND cases was 97.3% and 99.0%, respectively (P=0.32). Patients were more than seven times as likely to die of co-morbidities than from EC. The 30-day median cost of care was $15,678 for LND cases compared to $11,028 for non-LND cases (P&lt;0.001). The estimated cost per up-staged low-risk case was $439,990 if performed via endoscopy and $327,866 via laparotomy. If the 305 non-LND cases had been subjected to LND, an estimated additional $1,418,189 would have been expended. Conclusions: For patients with low-risk EC as defined by the Mayo criteria, lymphadenectomy dramatically increases morbidity and 30-day cost of care without discernible short- or long-term benefits: CSS was 99% with a 0.3% rate of nodal metastasis. In these low-risk patients, hysterectomy with salpingo-oophorectomy alone is appropriate surgical management and should be standard of care.

Resource Commitment to Improve Outcomes and Increase Value at a Level I Trauma Center

Optimal care of trauma patients requires cost-effective organization and commitment of trauma center resources. We examined the impact of creating a dedicated trauma care unit (TCU) and adding advanced practice nurses on the quality and cost of care at an adult Level I trauma center. Patient demographic and injury data, length of stay, complications, outcomes, and total direct cost of care were evaluated for four 1-year intervals in the recent history of our trauma center: Year A, a trauma team of in-house trauma surgeons and resident physicians; Year B, the addition of nurse practitioners to the trauma team 5 days/week; Year C, the creation of a dedicated TCU for all non intensive care unit trauma patients; and Year D, the addition of a permanent clinical nurse specialist and an increase in nurse practitioner coverage to 7 days/week. For each year, value was determined by calculating the median cost of a survivor and the median cost of a survivor with no complications. Significance was attributed to p<0.05. Patient volume increased from 1,927 in year A to 2,546 by year D. Over the period of study, there was an increase in blunt trauma (87.1-89.9%; p<0.05), median Injury Severity Score (5-6; p<0.05), and patients aged ≥65 years (11.4-19.8%; p<0.05). However, risk-adjusted mortality was unchanged. There was a decrease in patients with a complication (20.8-14.9%; p < 0.05), median intensive care unit length of stay (39.5-23.4 hours; p < 0.05), and median cost of care ($4,306-$3,698; p<0.05). Value increased: both the median costs of a survivor and of a survivor with no complications decreased from $4,259 to $3,658 (p<0.05) and from $3,898 to $3,317 (p<0.05), respectively. The median cost of a survivor with severe injury (Injury Severity Score ≥15) decreased from $17,651 to $12,285 (p<0.05). The addition of a dedicated TCU and advanced practice nurses improved the quality and reduced the cost of care, resulting in increased value at an adult Level I trauma center.

Surgical-Office−Based Versus Radiology-Referral−Based Breast Ultrasonography: A Comparison of Efficiency, Cost, and Patient Satisfaction

The differences in efficiency, cost of care, and patient satisfaction between surgical-office-based (SB) breast ultrasonography by the surgeon and radiology-referral-based (RB) ultrasonography by the radiologist in the workup of lumps and imaging abnormalities have not been computed. Charts of 61 consecutive patients requiring breast ultrasonography at the Comprehensive Breast Center from October through December 2005 were evaluated. The SB ultrasonography approach was compared with the RB approach. Matching variables were patient age, presenting complaint, Gail risk score, ultrasonography findings, interventional procedure, and histopathology reports. Outcomes variables were efficiency (time from presentation and establishment of diagnosis), cost of care, and patient satisfaction. Twenty-nine patients had RB and 32 had SB breast ultrasonography. The RB and SB groups were similar in age, Gail risk, and ultrasonography findings. Median time to establish diagnosis in the RB group was 23 days, versus 1 day in the SB group (p < 0.0001). Median cost of care in the RB versus SB group was $659.00 versus $369.50 (p = 0.253), and net revenue generated was $85.00 versus $195.00 (p = 0.005), respectively. Forty-nine of 61 (80.3%) patients responded to the satisfaction survey. Forty-seven of 49 (96%) patients expect the diagnosis to be established within 48 hours. Twenty-eight of 28 (100%) patients in the SB group regarded their imaging study to be efficient, versus 5 of 21 patients in the RB group (p = 0.005); 16 of 21 in the RB group versus 26 of 28 in the SB group thought they adequately understood the ultrasonography findings at the time of study (p = 0.051). Twenty-four (86%) SB patients versus 14 (67%) RB patients rated overall experience as excellent (p = 0.055). SB breast ultrasonography is an efficient, cost-effective, and patient-friendly approach to breast problems.