Value Analysis of Methods of Inguinal Hernia Repair.
Journal
Annals of surgery
ISSN: 1528-1140
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0372354
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 10 2021
01 10 2021
Historique:
entrez:
10
9
2021
pubmed:
11
9
2021
medline:
6
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Value is defined as health outcomes important to patients relative to cost of achieving those outcomes: Value = Quality/Cost. For inguinal hernia repair, Level 1 evidence shows no differences in long-term functional status or recurrence rates when comparing surgical approaches. Differences in value reside within differences in cost. The aim of this study is to compare the value of different surgical approaches to inguinal hernia repair: Open (Open-IH), Laparoscopic (Lap-IH), and Robotic (R-TAPP). Variable and fixed hospital costs were compared among consecutive Open-IH, Lap-IH, and R-TAPP repairs (100 each) performed in a university hospital. Variable costs (VC) including direct materials, labor, and variable overhead ($/min operating room [OR] time) were evaluated using Value Driven Outcomes, an internal activity-based costing methodology. Variable and fixed costs were allocated using full absorption costing to evaluate the impact of surgical approach on value. As cost data is proprietary, differences in cost were normalized to Open-IH cost. Compared to Open-IH, VC for Lap-IH were 1.02X higher (including a 0.81X reduction in cost for operating room [OR] time). For R-TAPP, VC were 2.11X higher (including 1.36X increased costs for OR time). With allocation of fixed cost, a Lap-IH was 1.03X more costly, whereas R-TAPP was 3.18X more costly than Open-IH. Using equivalent recurrence as the quality metric in the value equation, Lap-IH decreases value by 3% and R-TAPP by 69% compared to Open-IH. Use of higher cost technology to repair inguinal hernias reduces value. Incremental health benefits must be realized to justify increased costs. We expect payors and patients will incorporate value into payment decisions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34506312
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000005063
pii: 00000658-202110000-00006
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
572-580Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
Kamal R, Ramirez G, Cox C. How does health spending in the U.S. compare to other countries? (Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker web site). December 23, 2020. Available at: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-since-1980-the-gap-has-widened-between-u-s-health-spending-and-that-of-other-countries___2018 . Accessed March 1, 2021
Papanicolas I, Woskie LR, Jha AK. Health care spending in the United States and other high-income countries. JAMA 2018; 319:
What are value-based programs? (CMS.gov web site). January 6, 2020. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/Value-Based-Programs/Value-Based-Programs . Accessed March 1, 2021
Porter ME. What is value in health care? N Engl J Med 2010; 363:2477–2481.
University of Utah Health. In health care, it's time to get a second opinion on what ‘value’ stands for. (STATNews.Com web site). August 15, 2018. Available at: https://www.statnews.com/sponsor/2018/08/15/health-care-value-u-of-utah/ . Accessed March 1, 2021
Marzorati C, Pravettoni G. Value as the key concept in the health care system: how it has influenced medical practice and clinical decision-making processes. J Multidiscip Health 2017; 10:101–106.
Porter ME, Teisberg EO. How physicians can change the future of health care. JAMA 2007; 297:1103–1111.
University of Utah Health. Buzz Survey Report: Cost of care and physician responsibility. (NEJM Catalyst web site). July 10, 2018. Available at: https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.18.0138 . Accessed March 1, 2021
Kawamoto K, Martin CJ, Williams K, et al. Value driven outcomes (VDO): a pragmatic, modular, and extensible software framework for understanding and improving health care costs and outcomes. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22:223–235.
Malehi AS, Pourmotahari F, Angali KA. Statistical models for the analysis of skewed healthcare cost data: a simulation study. Health Econ Rev 2015; 5:11.
Lee VS, Kawamoto K, Hess R, et al. Implementation of a value-driven outcomes program to identify high variability in clinical costs and outcomes and association with reduced cost and improved quality. JAMA 2016; 316:1061–1072.
Glasgow RE, Ray DM, Finlayson SRG. To Enlist Physicians in Reducing Costs, Show Them the Costs. (Harvard Business Review web site) March 3, 2018. Available at: https://hbr.org/2018/05/to-enlist-physicians-in-reducing-costs-show-them-the-costs . Accessed March 1, 2021
Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128:305–310.
Bullen NL, Massey LH, Antoniou SA, et al. Open versus laparoscopic mesh repair of primary unilateral uncomplicated inguinal hernia: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Hernia 2019; 23:461–472.
Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Micheletto G, et al. Primary inguinal hernia: systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing open, laparoscopic transabdominal preperitoneal, totally extraperitoneal, and robotic preperitoneal repair. Hernia 2019; 23:473–484.
Scheuermann U, Niebisch S, Lyros O, et al. Transabdominal preperitoneal (TAPP) versus Lichtenstein operation for primary inguinal hernia repair – a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Surg 2017; 17:55.
Aiolfi A, Cavalli M, Del Ferraro S, et al. Treatment of inguinal hernia: systematic review and updated network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Surg 2021; doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004735. Online ahead of print.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000004735.
Prabhu AS, Carbonell A, Hope W, et al. Robotic inguinal vs transabdominal laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: the RIVAL randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 2020; 155:380–387.
Qabbani A, Aboumarzouk OM, ElBakry T, et al. Robotic inguinal hernia repair: systematic review and meta-analysis. ANZ J Surg 2021; doi: 10.1111/ans.16505. Online ahead of print.
doi: 10.1111/ans.16505.
Sorenson C, Drummond M, Khan BB. Medical technology as a key driver of rising health expenditure: disentangling the relationship. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res 2013; 5:223–234.
Treadwell J, Tipton K, Oyesanmi O, Sun F, Schoelles K. Surgical Options for Inguinal Hernia: Comparative Effectiveness Review. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 70. (Prepared by the ECRI Institute Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10063.) AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC091-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. August 2012.
Aguayo E, Dobaria V, Nakhla M, et al. National trends and outcomes of inpatient robotic-assisted versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. J Surg Res 2020; 255:517–524.
Park JS, Kang H, Park SY, et al. Long-term oncologic after robotic versus laparoscopic right colectomy: a prospective randomized study. Surg Endosc 2019; 33:2975–2981.
Ruh HF, Nam SH, Kim JM. Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery versus conventional laparoscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2018; 13:e0191628.
Chandra V, Nehra D, Parent R, et al. A comparison of laparoscopic and robotic assisted suturing performance by experts and novices. Surgery 2010; 147:830–839.
Sheetz K, Claflin J, Dimick JB. Trends in the adoption of robotic surgery for common surgical procedures. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3:e1918911.
Kadakia K, Fleisher LA, Stimson CJ, et al. Charting a roadmap for value-based surgery in the post-pandemic era. Ann Surg 2020; 272:e43–e44.
Nash Equilibrium. (Wikipedia web site). March 1, 2021. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nash_equilibrium . Accessed March 1, 2021