It's Not Just the Prices: Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing for Initiation of Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation at Three International Sites-A Case Review.
Journal
Anesthesia and analgesia
ISSN: 1526-7598
Titre abrégé: Anesth Analg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 1310650
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 10 2022
01 10 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
2
6
2022
medline:
20
9
2022
entrez:
1
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The United States spends more for intensive care units (ICUs) than do other high-income countries. We used time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) to analyze ICU costs for initiation of veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) for respiratory failure to estimate how much of the higher ICU costs at 1 US site can be attributed to the higher prices paid to ICU personnel, and how much is caused by the US site's use of a higher cost staffing model. We accompanied our TDABC approach with narrative review of the ECMO programs, at Cedars-Sinai (Los Angeles), Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière (Paris), and The Alfred Hospital (Melbourne) from 2017 to 2019. Our primary outcome was daily ECMO cost, and we hypothesized that cost differences among the hospitals could be explained by the efficiencies and skill mix of involved clinicians and prices paid for personnel, equipment, and consumables. Our results are presented relative to Los Angeles' total personnel cost per VV ECMO patient day, indexed at 100. Los Angeles' total indexed daily cost of care was 147 (personnel: 100, durables: 5, and disposables: 42). Paris' total cost was 39 (26% of Los Angeles) (personnel: 12, durables: 1, and disposables: 26). Melbourne's total cost was 53 (36% of Los Angeles) (personnel: 32, durables: 2, and disposables: 19) (rounded). The higher personnel prices at Los Angeles explained only 26% of its much higher personnel costs than Paris, and 21% relative to Melbourne. Los Angeles' higher staffing levels accounted for 49% (36%), and its costlier mix of personnel accounted for 12% (10%) of its higher personnel costs relative to Paris (Melbourne). Unadjusted discharge rates for ECMO patients were 46% in Los Angeles (46%), 56% in Paris, and 52% in Melbourne. We found that personnel salaries explained only 30% of the higher personnel costs at 1 Los Angeles hospital. Most of the cost differential was caused by personnel staffing intensity and mix. This study demonstrates how TDABC may be used in ICU administration to quantify the savings that 1 US hospital could achieve by delivering the same quality of care with fewer and less-costly mix of clinicians compared to a French and Australian site. Narrative reviews contextualized how the care models evolved at each site and helped identify potential barriers to change.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35648049
doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000006074
pii: 00000539-202210000-00011
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
711-718Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 International Anesthesia Research Society.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: See Disclosures at the end of the article.
Références
Gooch RA, Kahn JM. ICU bed supply, utilization, and health care spending: an example of demand elasticity. JAMA. 2014;311:567–568.
Luce JM, Rubenfeld GD. Can health care costs be reduced by limiting intensive care at the end of life? Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;165:750–754.
Kahn JM, Rubenfeld GD, Rohrbach J, Fuchs BD. Cost savings attributable to reductions in intensive care unit length of stay for mechanically ventilated patients. Med Care. 2008;46:1226–1233.
Papanicolas I, Woskie L, Jha A. Health care spending in the United States and other high-income countries. JAMA. 2018;319:1024–1039.
Anderson GF, Reinhardt UE, Hussey PS, Petrosyan V. It’s the prices, stupid: why the United States is so different from other countries. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22:89–105.
Goligher E, Tomlinson G, Hajage D, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and posterior probability of mortality benefit in a post hoc bayesian analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320:2251–2259.
Schmidt M, Bailey M, Sheldrake J, et al. Predicting survival after ECMO for severe acute respiratory failure: the respiratory ECMO survival prediction (RESP)-score. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;189:1374–1382.
Nurok M, Warsh J, Dong E, Lopez J, Kharabi M, Kaplan RS. Achieving value in highly complex acute care: lessons from the delivery of extra corporeal life support. NEJM Catalyst. October 31, 2019. Accessed April 24, 2022. https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.19.0694 .
Chapko MK, Liu CF, Perkins M, Li YF, Fortney JC, Maciejewski ML. Equivalence of two healthcare costing methods: bottom-up and top-down. Health Econ. 2009;18:1188–1201.
Kaplan RS, Porter ME. How to solve the cost crisis in health care. Harv Bus Rev. 2011;89:46–52.
Kaplan RS, Witkowski ML, Hohman JA. Boston Children’s Hospital: Measuring Patient Costs. Harvard Business School Case, 2012:112–186.
Combes A, Hajage D, Capellier G, et al.; EOLIA Trial Group, REVA, and ECMONet. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1965–1975.
Goligher EC, Tomlinson G, Hajage D, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and posterior probability of mortality benefit in a post hoc Bayesian analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320:2251–2259. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.14276. Erratum in: JAMA. 2019;321:2245. PMID: 30347031.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.14276.
Nurok M, Warsh J, Griner T, et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation appropriateness: an interdisciplinary consensus-based approach. Anesth Analg. 2019;128:e38–e41.
Holmgren AJ, Downing NL, Bates DW, et al. Assessment of electronic health record use between US and non-US health systems. JAMA Intern Med. Published online December 14, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.7071.
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.7071.