Variable Hospital Costs Research Articles

Mixed integer linear programming problem for personnel multi-day shift scheduling: A case study in an Iran hospital

The application of mathematical and systematic models and approaches to health is on the rise. In this study, a mixed-integer linear programming problem with cost (staff payroll) objective function is proposed to determine homogeneous personnel shift scheduling so that the constraints of the number of personnel per shift are met. The purpose of this study is to optimize the scheduling of personnel with the same skills to minimize variable hospital costs. In a hospital, homogeneous personnel might be skilled nurses who can work in the same departments or service staff of the departments. First, a mathematical model is proposed for scheduling as a linear problem and solved using Lingo software. By analyzing the results for a personnel working time period in Pasargad Hospital in Tehran (Iran), it is found that while optimizing the utilization of the skilled staff within departments, the variable costs (payroll) related to the department for that specified period (month), which includes overtime, overnight and holidays, are reduced by around 10 percent.

A Surgeon Scorecard Is Associated with Improved Value in Elective Primary Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

Despite increasing interest in total joint arthroplasty registries, evidence of the impact of physician-level performance on the value of care provided to patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty is lacking. The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of an unblinded orthopaedic surgeon-specific value scorecard in improving patient outcomes and reducing hospital costs. We retrospectively analyzed patient outcomes and hospital costs associated with total joint arthroplasties before and 9 months after the introduction of a Surgeon Value Scorecard at an urban tertiary care center. From August 2016 to May 2017, orthopaedic surgeons received an unblinded monthly Surgeon Value Scorecard summarizing a rolling 6-month view of results by surgeon for patients attributed to Diagnosis Related Group 470 (major lower-extremity arthroplasty without comorbidity or complication). Prior to implementation, surgeons were educated on the scorecard and participated in the development of a document outlining the definition and calculation of included metrics. Scorecard metrics were grouped into 5 categories: patient demographic characteristics, patient outcomes (for example, length of stay, discharge disposition, readmissions), patient experience, financial, and operational (for example, operative times). Financial (cost) measures and patient outcomes were selected as the key performance indicators analyzed in this study. Continuous variables were analyzed using the t test when a normal distribution was assumed and using Mann-Whitney tests when a non-normal distribution was assumed. Categorical variables were compared using chi-square tests. Significance was defined as p < 0.05. After 9 months of unblinded Surgeon Value Scorecard distribution, the mean total costs for total joint arthroplasties decreased by 8.7%, from $17,996 to $16,426 (p < 0.001). The mean total direct variable costs decreased by 17.1% from $10,945 to $9,070 (p < 0.001), and implant costs decreased by 5.3% (p < 0.001). Length of stay also decreased by 0.2 day to 1.7 days (p < 0.001), and, although there was improvement in the home-discharge rate, 30-day readmission rate, and 90-day readmission rate, the differences were not significant (p > 0.05). The implementation of a surgeon-specific value scorecard for lower-extremity joint arthroplasties was associated with reduced total and direct variable hospital costs, reduced implant costs, decreased variation in costs, and reduced postoperative length of stay, without compromising clinical outcomes. Sharing unblinded clinical and financial outcomes with surgeons may promote a culture of shared accountability and may empower surgeons to improve value-based decision-making in care delivery.

A randomized clinical trial evaluating negative pressure therapy to decrease vascular groin incision complications

ObjectiveVascular groin incision complications contribute significantly to patients' morbidity and rising health care costs. Negative pressure therapy over the closed incision decreases the infection rate in cardiac and orthopedic procedures. This study prospectively evaluated negative pressure therapy as a means to decrease wound complications and associated health care costs. MethodsThis was a randomized, prospective, single-institution study of 119 femoral incisions closed primarily after elective vascular surgery including both inflow (eg, aortofemoral) and outflow (eg, femoral-popliteal bypass) procedures. Incisions were categorized as high risk for wound complications on the basis of body mass index >30 kg/m2, pannus, reoperation, prosthetic graft, poor nutrition, immunosuppression, or hemoglobin A1c >8% and randomized 1:1 to standard gauze (n = 60) dressing vs negative pressure therapy (Prevena [Acelity, San Antonio, Tex], n = 59). Wound complication rate, length of stay (LOS), reoperation, readmission, and variable hospital costs were determined during 30 days. Statistical analysis was performed using χ2 test along with a two-sample unpaired t-test for continuous variables. ResultsThere were no significant demographic differences (age, sex, risk factors for wound complication) between the two high-risk groups. In low-risk controls, the major wound complication rate was 4.8% (involving one infection in 21 incisions), resulting in a 3.8-day LOS, 4.8% reoperation, 4.8% readmission rate, and $17,599 in average variable cost. For high-risk controls, there was a significant increase in major wound complications to 25% (including all 12 infections in 60 incisions), LOS (10.6 days), reoperation (18.3%), readmission (16.7%), and costs ($36,537). Finally, negative pressure therapy significantly reduced major wound complications to 8.5% (including five of six infections in 59 incisions; P < .001), reoperation (8.5%; P < .05), and readmission (6.8%; P < .04) but not LOS (10.6 days). The average variable cost was reduced ($30,492), yielding an average savings of $6045 per patient (P = .11). ConclusionsThis study suggests that negative pressure therapy significantly reduces the major wound complication, reoperation, and readmission rates for patients at high risk for groin wound complications. Furthermore, this therapy may lead to a reduction in hospital costs. Negative pressure therapy for all groin incisions considered at high risk for wound complications is recommended.

Evaluation of fixed and variable hospital costs due to Clostridium difficile infection: institutional incentives and directions for future research

Economic analysis of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) should consider the incentives facing institutional decision-makers. To avoid overstating the financial benefits of infection prevention, fixed and variable costs should be distinguished. To quantify CDI fixed and variable costs in a tertiary referral hospital during August 2015. A micro-costing analysis estimated CDI costs per patient, including the additional costs of a CDI outbreak. Resource use was quantified after review of patient charts, pharmacy data, administrative resource input, and records of salary and cleaning/decontamination expenditure. The incremental cost of CDI was €75,680 (mean: €5,820 per patient) with key cost drivers being cleaning, pharmaceuticals, and length of stay (LOS). Additional LOS ranged from 1.75 to 22.55 days. For seven patients involved in a CDI outbreak, excluding the value of the 58 lost bed-days (€34,585); costs were 30% higher (€7,589 per patient). Therefore, total spending on CDI was €88,062 (mean: €6,773 across all patients). Potential savings from variable costs were €1,026 (17%) or €1,768 (26%) if outbreak costs were included. Investment in an antimicrobial pharmacist would require 47 CDI cases to be prevented annually. Prevention of 5%, 10% and 20% CDI would reduce attributable costs by €4,403, €8,806 and €17,612. Increasing the incremental LOS attributable to CDI to seven days per patient would have increased costs to €7,478 or €8,431 (if outbreak costs were included). As much CDI costs are fixed, potential savings from infection prevention are limited. Future analysis must consider more effectively this distinction and its impact on institutional decision-making.

Cost comparison of robotic, laparoscopic, and open partial nephrectomy.

394 Background: Laparoscopic and robotic partial nephrectomy (LPN and RPN) are increasingly common minimally invasive alternatives to open partial nephrectomy (OPN) for management of renal tumors. The cost discrepancies of these approaches warrants evaluation. We compared hospital costs associated with RPN, LPN, and OPN. Methods: Variable hospital costs including operating room (OR) time, supplies, anesthesia, inpatient care, radiology, pharmacy, and laboratory charges were captured for 25 patients who underwent OPN, LPN, and RPN at our institution between 11/2008 -9/2010. Fixed costs of acquisition of a laparoscopic suite and a robotic system (including maintenance) were amortized over 7 years. We considered alternative scenarios through one-way and multi-way sensitivity analysis. Results: We found similar overall variable costs for OPN, LPN, and RPN. Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that RPN and LPN are more cost effective than OPN (excluding fixed costs) if the average hospital stay is &lt; 2 days, or OR time less is than 204 and 196 mins, respectively. By including fixed costs of equipment, RPN and LPN are always more costly than OPN. Conclusions: There was no difference among variable hospital costs of OPN, LPN, and RPN. Minimizing OR time and hospital stay reduces RPN and LPN costs to levels comparable to OPN. Inclusion of fixed costs makes LPN and RPN more expensive than OPN, but increased utilization and efficiency can decrease cost per case. [Table: see text]

Improving severe sepsis outcomes, managing cholesterol in patients with diabetes, and pediatric adverse events

Improving severe sepsis outcomes “An empiric antimicrobial guide specific for severe sepsis was associated with a reduced length of stay, a significantly earlier time to first dose antibiotic, and significantly lower total and variable hospital costs,” reported Hutchison et al.1 Information was abstracted from charts of 119 patients treated at a large medical center. The control group consisted of 67 patients treated before implementation of the medication guide, and the intervention group included 52 patients treated after implementation. The guide provided recommendations of first and second antibiotic choice based on the origin (e.g., health care iatrogenesis, communityacquired or a patient with neutropenia) and the location of the severe sepsis (e.g., lung, skin, gastrointestinal). Postimplementation, the time to first antibiotic administration (9.8 ± 8.8 vs. 14.7 ± 11.5 hours) and the overall length of stay (1.77 ± 1.13 vs. 14.90 ± 45.07 days) were significantly shorter. Significant cost savings were realized in the total (30%) and variable costs ($2,831) of the patient stay. Implications. The two most important factors in successful sepsis treatment are time to treatment and antibiotic choice. Evidence-based recommendations contained on a single page were cost effective and improved care by getting the correct antibiotic to the patient more quickly.

Improving Severe Sepsis Outcomes

This study was conducted to determine the effect of an empiric antimicrobial guide on clinical and economic outcomes related to severe sepsis. As all critical care nurses know, severe sepsis is often life-threatening. The study found that an empiric antimicrobial guide specific for severe sepsis was associated with a reduced length of stay, a significantly earlier time to first dose antibiotic, and significantly lower total and variable hospital costs.

Cost analysis of robotic versus open radical cystectomy for bladder cancer

J Urol. 2010; 183: 505-9Purpose: Recently robotic approaches to cystectomy have been reported, and while clinical and oncological efficacy continues to be evaluated, potential financial costs have not been clearly evaluated. In this study we present a financial analysis using current cost structures and clinical outcomes for robotic and open cystectomy for bladder cancer. Materials and Methods: The financial costs of robotic and open radical cystectomy were categorized into oper-ating room and hospital components, and further divided into fixed and variable costs for each. Fixed operating room costs for open cases involved base cost as well as disposable equipment costs while robotic fixed costs included the amortized machine cost as well as equipment and maintenance. Variable operating room costs were directly related to length of surgery. Variable hospital costs were directly related to transfusion require-ment and length of stay. The means of the prior 20 cases of robotic and open cystectomy were used to perform a comparative cost analysis. Results: Mean fixed operating room costs for robotic cases were $1,634 higher than for open cases. Operat-ing room variable costs were also higher by a difference of $570, directly related to increased operating room time. Hospital costs were nearly identical for the fixed component while variable costs were $564 higher for the open approach secondary to higher transfusion costs and longer mean length of stay. Based on these find-ings robotic cystectomy is associated with an overall higher financial cost of $1,640 (robotic $16,248 vs open $14,608). Cost calculators were constructed based on these fixed and variable costs for each surgical approach to demonstrate the expected total costs based on varying operating room time and length of stay. Conclusions: Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy is associated with a higher financial cost (+$1,640) than the open approach in the perioperative setting. However, this analysis is limited by its single institution design and a multicenter followup study is required to provide a more comprehensive analysis.

Cost Analysis of Robotic Versus Open Radical Cystectomy for Bladder Cancer

Recently robotic approaches to cystectomy have been reported, and while clinical and oncological efficacy continues to be evaluated, potential financial costs have not been clearly evaluated. In this study we present a financial analysis using current cost structures and clinical outcomes for robotic and open cystectomy for bladder cancer. The financial costs of robotic and open radical cystectomy were categorized into operating room and hospital components, and further divided into fixed and variable costs for each. Fixed operating room costs for open cases involved base cost as well as disposable equipment costs while robotic fixed costs included the amortized machine cost as well as equipment and maintenance. Variable operating room costs were directly related to length of surgery. Variable hospital costs were directly related to transfusion requirement and length of stay. The means of the prior 20 cases of robotic and open cystectomy were used to perform a comparative cost analysis. Mean fixed operating room costs for robotic cases were $1,634 higher than for open cases. Operating room variable costs were also higher by a difference of $570, directly related to increased operating room time. Hospital costs were nearly identical for the fixed component while variable costs were $564 higher for the open approach secondary to higher transfusion costs and longer mean length of stay. Based on these findings robotic cystectomy is associated with an overall higher financial cost of $1,640 (robotic $16,248 vs open $14,608). Cost calculators were constructed based on these fixed and variable costs for each surgical approach to demonstrate the expected total costs based on varying operating room time and length of stay. Robotic assisted laparoscopic radical cystectomy is associated with a higher financial cost (+$1,640) than the open approach in the perioperative setting. However, this analysis is limited by its single institution design and a multicenter followup study is required to provide a more comprehensive analysis.

Therapeutic Principles of Antimicrobial Therapy and New Antimicrobial Agents

It is important that newly developed antibiotics be used so as to increase our ability to eradicate infection, rather than to complicate the treatment of infection by spawning the creation of organisms resistant to multiple antibiotics. One must peruse the literature with a very critical eye, as most new agents are touted as tremendous advances on past antibiotics. With rising medical costs becoming of ever-greater significance, proper choice of antimicrobial agent assumes more importance as well. The proper bacterial coverage in a given clinical setting, duration of treatment, and drug pharmacokinetics and the concept of the "total cost" of administering an antibiotic (taking into account fixed and variable hospital costs) all must be considered. Although it is virtually impossible to become experienced in using all of the currently available antibiotics, it is not necessary, either. Based on the literature and discussion with infectious disease colleagues, one can choose to use one or two antimicrobials in each broad class and gain the benefits of that class for his or her patients.