What Are the Real Procedural Costs of Bariatric Surgery? A Systematic Literature Review of Published Cost Analyses

This review aims to evaluate the current literature on the procedural costs of bariatric surgery for the treatment of severe obesity. Using a published framework for the conduct of micro-costing studies for surgical interventions, existing cost estimates from the literature are assessed for their accuracy, reliability and comprehensiveness based on their consideration of seven ‘important’ cost components. MEDLINE, PubMed, key journals and reference lists of included studies were searched up to January 2017. Eligible studies had to report per-case, total procedural costs for any type of bariatric surgery broken down into two or more individual cost components. A total of 998 citations were screened, of which 13 studies were included for analysis. Included studies were mainly conducted from a US hospital perspective, assessed either gastric bypass or adjustable gastric banding procedures and considered a range of different cost components. The mean total procedural costs for all included studies was US$14,389 (range, US$7423 to US$33,541). No study considered all of the recommended ‘important’ cost components and estimation methods were poorly reported. The accuracy, reliability and comprehensiveness of the existing cost estimates are, therefore, questionable. There is a need for a comparative cost analysis of the different approaches to bariatric surgery, with the most appropriate costing approach identified to be micro-costing methods. Such an analysis will not only be useful in estimating the relative cost-effectiveness of different surgeries but will also ensure appropriate reimbursement and budgeting by healthcare payers to ensure barriers to access this effective treatment by severely obese patients are minimised

What are the real procedural costs of bariatric surgery? A systematic literature review of published cost analyses

This review aims to evaluate the current literature on the procedural costs of bariatric surgery for the treatment of severe obesity. Using a published framework for the conduct of micro-costing studies for surgical interventions, existing cost estimates from the literature are assessed for their accuracy, reliability and comprehensiveness based on their consideration of seven ‘important’ cost components. No study considered all of the recommended ‘important’ cost components and estimation methods were poorly reported. The accuracy, reliability and comprehensiveness of the existing cost estimates are, therefore, questionable. There is a need for a comparative cost analysis of the different approaches to bariatric surgery to enable appropriate reimbursement and budgeting by healthcare payers, ensuring barriers to access this effective treatment by severely obese patients are minimised

What are the real procedural costs of bariatric surgery? A systematic literature review of published cost analyses

This review aims to evaluate the current literature on the procedural costs of bariatric surgery for the treatment of severe obesity. Using a published framework for the conduct of micro-costing studies for surgical interventions, existing cost estimates from the literature are assessed for their accuracy, reliability and comprehensiveness based on their consideration of seven ‘important’ cost components. No study considered all of the recommended ‘important’ cost components and estimation methods were poorly reported. The accuracy, reliability and comprehensiveness of the existing cost estimates are, therefore, questionable. There is a need for a comparative cost analysis of the different approaches to bariatric surgery to enable appropriate reimbursement and budgeting by healthcare payers, ensuring barriers to access this effective treatment by severely obese patients are minimised

Multi-centre micro-costing of Roux-En-Y Gastric bypass, sleeve gastrectomy and adjustable gastric banding procedures for the treatment of severe, complex obesity

Background: There is a growing interest in comparing the effectiveness and costs of alternative forms of bariatric surgery. We aimed to examine the per-patient, procedural costs of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and adjustable gastric banding (AGB) in the United Kingdom.Methods: Multi-centre (two National Health Service; NHS and one private hospital) micro-costing, using a time-and-motion study. Prospective collection of surgery times, staff quantities, equipment, instruments and consumables for 12 patients (four RYGB, five SG, three AGB) from patients’ first surgeon interaction on the day of surgery to departure from the theatre recovery area. Costs were attached to quantities and mean costs compared. Sensitivity and scenario analyses assessed the impact of varying surgery inputs and consideration of additional plausible factors respectively on total costs.Results: Mean procedural costs were £5002 for RYGB, £4306 for SG and £2527 for AGB. Varying staff seniority or altering procedure times had small impacts on costs (± 4–6%). Reducing prices of consumables by 20% reduced costs by 10–13%. Accounting for differences in surgical technique by altering the number of staple reloads used impacted costs by ± 7–10%. Adjusted total costs from scenario analyses were similar to NHS tariffs for RYGB and SG (difference of £51 and -£119 respectively) but were much lower for AGB (difference of £1982).Conclusions: These detailed costs will allow for more precise reimbursement of bariatric surgery and support comprehensive assessments of cost-effectiveness. Additional work to investigate costs of post-surgical care, re-operations and life-long support received by patients following surgery is required

A comparison of health professionals’ and patients’ views of the importance of outcomes of bariatric surgery

Background A comprehensive evaluation of bariatric surgery is required to inform decision-making. This will include measures of benefit and risk. It is possible that stakeholders involved with surgery value these outcomes differently, although this has not previously been explored. This study aimed to investigate and compare how professionals and patients prioritise outcomes of bariatric surgery. Methods Systematic reviews and qualitative interviews created an exhaustive list of outcomes. This informed the development of a 130-item questionnaire, structured in four sections (complications of surgery; clinical effectiveness; signs, symptoms, and other measures; quality of life). Health professionals and patients rated the importance of each item on a 1–9 scale. Items rated 8–9 by at least 70 % of the participants were considered prioritised. Items prioritised in each section were compared between professionals and patients and interrater agreement assessed using kappa statistics (ĸ). Results One hundred sixty-eight out of four hundred fifty-nine professionals (36.6 %) and 90/465 patients (19.4 %) completed the questionnaire. Professionals and patients prioritised 18 and 25 items, respectively, with 10 overlapping items and 23 discordant items (ĸ 0.363). Examples of items prioritised by both included ‘diabetes’ and ‘leakage from bowel joins’. Examples of discordant items included ‘re-admission rates’ (professionals only) and ‘excess skin’ (patients only). Poor agreement was seen in the ‘quality of life’ section (0 overlapping items, 8 discordant, ĸ −0.036). Conclusions Although there was some overlap of outcomes prioritised by professionals and patients, there were important differences. We recommend that the views of all relevant health professionals and patients are considered when deciding on outcomes to evaluate bariatric surgery.</p

A comparison of health professionals’ and patients’ views of the importance of outcomes of bariatric surgery

Background A comprehensive evaluation of bariatric surgery is required to inform decision-making. This will include measures of benefit and risk. It is possible that stakeholders involved with surgery value these outcomes differently, although this has not previously been explored. This study aimed to investigate and compare how professionals and patients prioritise outcomes of bariatric surgery. Methods Systematic reviews and qualitative interviews created an exhaustive list of outcomes. This informed the development of a 130-item questionnaire, structured in four sections (complications of surgery; clinical effectiveness; signs, symptoms, and other measures; quality of life). Health professionals and patients rated the importance of each item on a 1–9 scale. Items rated 8–9 by at least 70 % of the participants were considered prioritised. Items prioritised in each section were compared between professionals and patients and interrater agreement assessed using kappa statistics (ĸ). Results One hundred sixty-eight out of four hundred fifty-nine professionals (36.6 %) and 90/465 patients (19.4 %) completed the questionnaire. Professionals and patients prioritised 18 and 25 items, respectively, with 10 overlapping items and 23 discordant items (ĸ 0.363). Examples of items prioritised by both included ‘diabetes’ and ‘leakage from bowel joins’. Examples of discordant items included ‘re-admission rates’ (professionals only) and ‘excess skin’ (patients only). Poor agreement was seen in the ‘quality of life’ section (0 overlapping items, 8 discordant, ĸ −0.036). Conclusions Although there was some overlap of outcomes prioritised by professionals and patients, there were important differences. We recommend that the views of all relevant health professionals and patients are considered when deciding on outcomes to evaluate bariatric surgery