Cost comparison between medicare and private insurance for robotic transhiatal esophagectomy
Tóm tắt
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.
Tài liệu tham khảo
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
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
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
Filicori F, Swanstrom LL (2020) Management of esophageal cancer. Current surgical therapy, 13th edn. Elsevier, St. Louis, Missouri, pp 53–69
Haisley KR, Abdelmoaty WF, Dunst CM (2021) Laparoscopic transhiatal esophagectomy for invasive esophageal adenocarcinoma. J Gastrointest Surg 25:9–15
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
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
Orringer MB, Marshall B, Chang AC et al (2007) Two thousand transhiatal esophagectomies: changing trends, lessons learned. Ann Surg 246:363–372
Orringer MB, Marshall B, Iannettoni MD (1999) Transhiatal esophagectomy: clinical experience and refinements. Ann Surg 230:392–400
Mariette C, Markar SR, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS et al (2019) Hybrid minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer. N Engl J Med 380:152–162
Broderick RC, Horgan S, Fuchs HF (2020) Robotic transhiatal esophagectomy. Dis Esophagus 33(Supplement_2):doaa037. https://doi.org/10.1093/dote/doaa037
Gurusamy KS, Pallari E, Midya S et al (2016) Laparoscopic versus open transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:1–40
Horgan S, Berger RA, Elli EF et al (2003) Robotic-assisted minimally invasive transhiatal esophagectomy. Am Surg 69:624–626
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
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
Ross SB, Rayman S, Thomas J et al (2022) Evaluating the cost for robotic vs “non-robotic” transhiatal esophagectomy. Am Surg 88:389–393
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
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
Clemens J, Gottlieb JD (2017) In the shadow of a giant: medicare’s influence on private physician payments. J Polit Econ 125:1–39
Morrisey MA (1996) Hospital cost shifting, a continuing debate. EBRI Issue Brief 180:1–13
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
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
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
Jencks SF, Williams MV, Coleman EA (2009) Rehospitalizations among patients in the medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med 360:1418–1428
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