Disparities in selective referral for cancer surgeries: implications for the current healthcare delivery system

Objectives: Among considerable efforts to improve quality of surgical care, expedited measures such as a selective referral to high-volume institutions have been advocated. Our objective was to examine whether racial, insurance and/or socioeconomic disparities exist in the use of high-volume hospitals for complex surgical oncological procedures within the USA. Design, setting and participants Patients undergoing colectomy, cystectomy, oesophagectomy, gastrectomy, hysterectomy, lung resection, pancreatectomy or prostatectomy were identified retrospectively, using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, between years 1999 and 2009. This resulted in a weighted estimate of 2 508 916 patients. Primary outcome measures Distribution of patients according to race, insurance and income characteristics was examined according to low-volume and high-volume hospitals (highest 20% of patients according to the procedure-specific mean annual volume). Generalised linear regression models for prediction of access to high-volume hospitals were performed. Results: Insurance providers and county income levels varied differently according to patients’ race. Most Caucasians resided in wealthier counties, regardless of insurance types (private/Medicare), while most African Americans resided in less wealthy counties (≤$24 999), despite being privately insured. In general, Caucasians, privately insured, and those residing in wealthier counties (≥$45 000) were more likely to receive surgery at high-volume hospitals, even after adjustment for all other patient-specific characteristics. Depending on the procedure, some disparities were more prominent, but the overall trend suggests a collinear effect for race, insurance type and county income levels. Conclusions: Prevailing disparities exist according to several patient and sociodemographic characteristics for utilisation of high-volume hospitals. Efforts should be made to directly reduce such disparities and ensure equal healthcare delivery

National trends in hospital-acquired preventable adverse events after major cancer surgery in the USA

Objectives: While multiple studies have demonstrated variations in the quality of cancer care in the USA, payers are increasingly assessing structure-level and process-level measures to promote quality improvement. Hospital-acquired adverse events are one such measure and we examine their national trends after major cancer surgery. Design: Retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of a weighted-national estimate from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) undergoing major oncological procedures (colectomy, cystectomy, oesophagectomy, gastrectomy, hysterectomy, lung resection, pancreatectomy and prostatectomy). The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) were utilised to identify trends in hospital-acquired adverse events. Setting: Secondary and tertiary care, US hospitals in NIS Participants: A weighted-national estimate of 2 508 917 patients (>18 years, 1999–2009) from NIS. Primary outcome measures Hospital-acquired adverse events. Results: 324 852 patients experienced ≥1-PSI event (12.9%). Patients with ≥1-PSI experienced higher rates of in-hospital mortality (OR 19.38, 95% CI 18.44 to 20.37), prolonged length of stay (OR 4.43, 95% CI 4.31 to 4.54) and excessive hospital-charges (OR 5.21, 95% CI 5.10 to 5.32). Patients treated at lower volume hospitals experienced both higher PSI events and failure-to-rescue rates. While a steady increase in the frequency of PSI events after major cancer surgery has occurred over the last 10 years (estimated annual % change (EAPC): 3.5%, p<0.001), a concomitant decrease in failure-to-rescue rates (EAPC −3.01%) and overall mortality (EAPC −2.30%) was noted (all p<0.001). Conclusions: Over the past decade, there has been a substantial increase in the national frequency of potentially avoidable adverse events after major cancer surgery, with a detrimental effect on numerous outcome-level measures. However, there was a concomitant reduction in failure-to-rescue rates and overall mortality rates. Policy changes to improve the increasing burden of specific adverse events, such as postoperative sepsis, pressure ulcers and respiratory failure, are required

Morbidity and Mortality After Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia Surgery: Data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program

Background and Purpose: With the aging population, it is becoming increasingly important to identify patients at risk for postsurgical complications who might be more suited for conservative treatment. We sought to identify predictors of morbidity after surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) using a large national contemporary population-based cohort. Methods: Relying on the American College of Surgeons National Surgical-Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP; 2006?2011) database, we evaluated outcomes after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP), laser vaporization of the prostate (LVP), and laser enucleation of the prostate (LEP). Outcomes included blood-transfusion rates, length of stay, complications, reintervention rates, and perioperative mortality. Multivariable logistic-regression analysis evaluated the predictors of perioperative morbidity and mortality. Results: Overall, 4794 (65.2%), 2439 (33.1%), and 126 (1.7%) patients underwent TURP, LVP, and LEP, respectively. No significant difference in overall complications (P=0.3) or perioperative mortality (P=0.5) between the three surgical groups was found. LVP was found to be associated with decreased blood transfusions (odds ratio [OR]=0.21; P=0.001), length of stay (OR=0.12; P30%) levels were the only predictors of lower overall complications and perioperative mortality. Conclusions: All three surgical modalities for BPH management were found to be safe. Advanced age and non-Caucasian race were independent predictors of adverse outcomes after BPH surgery. In patients with these attributes, conservative treatment might be a reasonable alternative. Also, preoperative hematocrit and albumin levels represent reliable predictors of adverse outcomes, suggesting that these markers should be evaluated before BPH surgery.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/140378/1/end.2013.0805.pd

Data on Medicare eligibility and cancer screening utilization

Health insurance is associated with increased utilization of cancer screening services. Data on breast, prostate and colorectal cancer screening were abstracted from the 2012 Behavioral Risk Factor and Surveillance System. This data in brief includes two sets of analyses: (i) the use of cancer screening in individuals within the low-income bracket and (ii) determinants for each of the three approaches to colorectal cancer screening (fecal occult blood test, colonoscopy and sigmoidoscopy+fecal occult blood test). Covariates included education attainment, residency, and access to health care provider. The data supplement our original research article on the effect of Medicare eligibility on cancer screening utilization “The impact of Medicare eligibility on cancer screening behaviors” [1]

Healthcare policy and urologic practice.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Healthcare policy is currently a topic of national debate, with numerous implications for the practice of urology. RECENT FINDINGS: Healthcare policy has broad reaching effects, both predicted and unforeseen. The effects of healthcare policy are manifested through clinical practice guidelines, payment reform and the overall structure of the healthcare system. This review describes each of these topics and their impact on clinical practice, with a specific focus on urology and urologic practice. SUMMARY: Guidelines are useful for guiding and determining what is considered appropriate clinical practice, but there are drawbacks including poor implementation and overabundance. Payment reform is constantly evolving, with multiple efforts being implemented to move away from a fee-for-service model of reimbursement. The structure of healthcare delivery is moving toward more outpatient procedures, with varying amount of physician ownership of facilities and equipment, which is itself a controversial topic