Who Pays for Biliary Complications Following Liver Transplant? A Business Case for Quality Improvement

We use biliary complication following liver transplantation to quantify the financial implications of surgical complications and make a case for surgical improvement initiatives as a sound financial investment. We reviewed the medical and financial records of all liver transplant patients at the UMHS between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2005 (N = 256). The association of donor, transplant, recipient and financial data points was assessed using both univariable (Student's t-test, a chi-square and logistic regression) and multivariable (logistic regression) methods. UMHS made a profit of $6822 +/- 39087 on patients without a biliary complication while taking a loss of $5742 +/- 58242 on patients with a biliary complication (p = 0.04). Reimbursement by the payer was $5562 higher in patients with a biliary complication compared to patients without a biliary complication (p = 0.001). Using multivariable logistic regression analysis, the two independent risk factors for a negative margin included private insurance (compared to public) (OR 1.88, CI 1.10-3.24, p = 0.022) and biliary leak (OR = 2.09, CI 1.06-4.13, p = 0.034). These findings underscore the important impact of surgical complications on transplant finances. Medical centers have a financial interest in transplant surgical quality improvement, but payers have the most to gain with improved surgical outcomes.     

Surgical complications requiring early relaparotomy after pancreas transplantation: a multivariate risk factor and economic impact analysis of the cyclosporine era.

OBJECTIVES: To study significant surgical complications requiring early (< or = 3 months posttransplant) relaparotomy (relap) after pancreas transplants, and to develop clinically relevant surgical and peritransplant decision-making guidelines for preventing and managing such complications. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Pancreas grafts are still associated with the highest surgical complication rate of all routinely transplanted solid organs. However, the impact of surgical complications on morbidity, hospital costs, and graft and patient survival rates has not been analyzed in detail to date. METHODS: We retrospectively studied surgical complications requiring relap in 441 consecutive cadaver, bladder-drained pancreas transplants (54% simultaneous pancreas and kidney [SPK]; 22% pancreas after kidney [PAK]; 24% pancreas transplant alone [PTA]; 37% retransplant). Outcome and hospital charges were analyzed separately for recipients with versus without reoperation. RESULTS: The overall relap rate was 32% (SPK, 36%; PAK, 25%; PTA, 16%; p = 0.04). The most common causes were intraabdominal infection and graft pancreatitis (38%), pancreas graft thrombosis (27%), and anastomotic leak (15%). Perioperative relap mortality was 9%; transplant pancreatectomy was necessary in 57% of all recipients with one or more relaps. The pancreas graft was lost in 80% of recipients with versus 41% without relap (p < 0.0001). Patient survival rates were significantly lower (p < 0.05) for recipients with versus without relap. By multivariate analysis, significant risk factors for graft loss included older donor age (SPK, PAK), retransplant (PAK), relap for infection (SPK, PAK), and relap for leak or bleeding (PAK). For death, risk factors included older recipient age (SPK, PAK),retransplant (SPK, PAK), relap for thrombosis (PAK), relap for infection or leak (SPK), and relap for bleeding (PTA). CONCLUSIONS: Posttransplant surgical complications requiring relap were frequent, resulted in a high rate of pancreas (SPK, PAK, PTA) and kidney (SPK, PAK) graft loss, and had a major economic impact (p = 0.0001). Complications were associated with substantial perioperative mortality and decreased patient survival rates. The focus must therefore shift from graft salvage to preservation of the recipient's life once a pancreas graft-related complication requiring relap occurs. Thus, the threshold for pancreatectomy should be low. In this context, acceptance of older donors and recipients must be reconsidered.     

Incremental costs of post-liver transplantation complications

BACKGROUND: Complications after liver transplantation are common and expensive. The incremental costs of adult posttransplantation liver transplantation complications and who pays for these complications (center or payor) is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: We reviewed the medical and financial records (first 90 postoperative days) of all adult liver transplant recipients at our center between July 1, 2002, and October 30, 2005 (N = 214). The association of donor, recipient, and financial data points (total costs, reimbursements, and profits) was assessed using standard univariable analyses. The incremental costs of complications were determined with multiple linear regression models to control for the costs inherent to donor and recipient characteristics. RESULTS: Univariate analyses demonstrated that both total hospital costs and reimbursements were substantially increased in patients with several different complications. Multiple linear regression analysis, controlling for recipient (age, gender, race, and laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease [MELD]) and donor factors (donor risk index), noted that increased hospital costs and hospital reimbursements were independently associated with laboratory MELD (incremental costs of $3,368 and $2,787, respectively, per MELD point) and pneumonia ($83,718 and $68,214, respectively). A negative profit margin for the medical center was independently associated with peritonitis ($21,760). Commercial insurance was associated with no changes in total costs when compared with public insurer, but it was associated with decreased reimbursement and profit. CONCLUSIONS: The incremental costs of complications in liver transplantation are high for both the medical center and payor, but medical center profits are not affected substantially. The payor bears the financial burden for post-liver transplantation complications.     

Same quality – higher price? The paradox of allocation: the first national single center analysis after the implementation of the new Swiss transplantation law: the ICU view

This study was undertaken as the first national single-center analysis to assess the impact of the new Swiss transplantation law on patient selection, intensive care unit (ICU) complications, outcome, and, in particular, costs in liver transplant recipients treated in our surgical ICU. The first 35 consecutive liver transplant recipients following the new act were compared with the last 35 liver transplant recipients preceding July 1, 2007. Following execution of the new law, recipients were in poorer condition, reflected by significant higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores (12 vs. 22; p = 0.006). Furthermore, the MELD group obtained more renal replacement therapies (40.0% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.015). Cumulative one-yr patient survival was comparable in both groups (91.4% vs. 80.1%, p = 0.22). Finally, the additional costs per single case increased 27 000 Euros after the adoption of the new law. Our data serve as an example that political decisions influence patient's selection, and, in turn, complications, finally leading to higher costs of medical treatment. Liver graft allocation according to the MELD system may save lives at the price of increased intensive care efforts.     

Impact of hepatitis C virus status in pancreas transplantation: a case controlled study

Available data suggest that hepatitis C virus positive (HCV+) renal transplant patients may be at an increased risk of morbidity and mortality compared with HCV- patients. Limited data are available regarding the impact of HCV status in pancreas transplant patients. We compared the outcomes of 10 HCV+ patients undergoing pancreas transplantation (seven simultaneous kidney-pancreas, one pancreas after kidney, two pancreas alone) between 1/96 and 10/99 with 20 HCV- recipients that were matched for age, race, gender, timing of transplant, type of pancreas transplant, and surgical technique. Length of follow-up was not significantly different between the HCV+ group compared with the HCV- group (24 +/- 14 vs. 20 +/- 13 months; p=0.45). There was a trend toward a higher incidence of all cause mortality in HCV+ recipients compared with HCV- recipients, 30 vs. 10%, respectively (p=0.17). Additionally, the HCV+ recipients had a trend toward a higher incidence of sepsis-related mortality compared with HCV- recipients, 20 vs. 5%, respectively (p=0.19). Renal allograft survival was 50% in the HCV+ group compared with 94% in the HCV- group (p=0.02). Pancreas allograft survival was not significantly different between the groups, 60 vs. 80%, respectively (p=0.24). At 3, 6, 12 months, and end of follow-up, there were no differences in serum creatinine, amylase, C-peptide, or fasting glucose levels. However, there was a significantly higher incidence of proteinuria at last follow-up in the HCV+ recipients with a renal allograft when compared with HCV- recipients, 50 vs. 12.5%, respectively (p=0.05). In order to maintain comparable glycemic control between the groups, there was a significant increase in oral hypoglycemic requirement in HCV+ recipients compared with HCV- recipients, 33 vs. 0%, respectively (p=0.01). These data suggest that HCV+ pancreas transplant patients may be at an increased risk of graft dysfunction and morbidity. Further studies with more patients and longer follow-up are needed to fully define the impact of HCV status on pancreas graft survival and function.     

Pancreas after kidney transplants

BACKGROUND: For certain uremic diabetic patients, a sequential transplant of a kidney (usually from a living donor) followed by a cadaver pancreas has become an attractive alternative to a simultaneous transplant of both organs. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes with simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) versus pancreas after kidney (PAK) transplants to determine advantages and disadvantages of the two procedures. METHODS: Between January 1, 1994, and June 30, 2000, we performed 398 cadaver pancreas transplants at our center. Of these, 193 were SPK transplants and 205 were PAK transplants. We compared these two groups with regard to several endpoints, including patient and graft survival rates, surgical complications, acute rejection rates, waiting times, length of hospital stay, and quality of life. RESULTS: Overall, surgical complications were more common for SPK recipients. The total relaparotomy rate was 25.9% for SPK recipients versus 15.1% for PAK recipients (P = 0.006). Leaks, intraabdominal infections, and wound infections were all significantly more common in SPK recipients (P = 0.009, P = 0.05, and P = 0.01, respectively, versus PAK recipients). Short-term pancreas graft survival rates were similar between the two groups: at 1 year posttransplant, 78.0% for SPK recipients and 77.9% for PAK recipients (P = not significant). By 3 years, however, pancreas graft survival differed between the two groups (74.1% for SPK and 61.7% for PAK recipients), although this did not quite reach statistical significance (P = 0.15). This difference in graft survival seemed to be due to increased immunologic losses for PAK recipients: at 3 years posttransplant, the incidence of immunologic graft loss was 16.2% for PAK versus 5.2% for SPK recipients (P = 0.01). Kidney graft survival rates were, however, better for PAK recipients. At 3 years after their kidney transplant, kidney graft survival rates were 83.6% for SPK and 94.6% for PAK recipients (P = 0.001). The mean waiting time to receive the pancreas transplant was 244 days for SPK and 167 days for PAK recipients (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PAK transplants are a viable option for uremic diabetics. While long-term pancreas graft results are slightly inferior to SPK transplants, the advantages of PAK transplants include the possibility of a preemptive living donor kidney transplant, better long-term kidney graft survival, significantly decreased waiting times, and decreased surgical complication rates. Use of a living donor for the kidney transplant expands the donor pool. Improvements in immunosuppressive regimens will hopefully eliminate some of the difference in long-term pancreas graft survival between SPK and PAK transplants.     

Treatment strategies for insulin-dependent diabetics with ESRD: a cost-effectiveness decision analysis model

Clinical decision analysis has become an important tool for evaluating specific clinical scenarios and exploring public health policy issues. A decision analysis model that incorporates patient preferences regarding various outcomes, as well as cost, may be particularly informative in patients with type I diabetes and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Such a model that includes pancreas transplantation as a treatment choice has not been performed and is presented in this study. The decision tree consisted of a choice between four possible treatment strategies: dialysis, kidney-alone transplant from a cadaver (KA-CAD) or living donor (KA-LD), and simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplant. The analysis was based on a 5-year model, and the measures of outcome used in the model were cost and cost adjusted for quality of life. The measure of preference for quality of life was obtained using the "Standard Reference Gamble" method in 17 SPK transplant recipients who underwent transplantation between January, 1992 and June, 1996 at our center. The measures for various outcome states (mean +/- 1 SD) were dialysis-free/insulin-free = 1, dialysis-free/insulin-dependent = 0.6 (0.4 to 0.8), dialysis-dependent/insulin-free = 0.5 (0.36 to 0.64), dialysis-dependent/insulin-dependent = 0.4 (0.21 to 0.59), and death = 0. The expected 5-year costs for each of the treatment strategies in the model were dialysis, $216,068; KA-CAD transplant, $214,678; KA-LD transplant, $210,872; and SPK transplant, $241,207. The expected cost per quality-adjusted year for each of the treatment strategies in the model were dialysis, $317,746; KA-CAD transplant, $156,042; KA-LD transplant, $123,923; and SPK transplant, $102,422. SPK transplantation remained the optimal strategy after varying survival probabilities, costs, and utilities over plausible ranges by means of one-way sensitivity analysis. In conclusion, according to the 5-year cost-utility model presented in this study, SPK transplantation is the most cost-effective treatment strategy for a patient with type I diabetes and ESRD. From a policy standpoint, looking at the cost alone of pancreas transplantation is deceiving. In these patients, who may view various outcome states differently, it would be important to take into account cost adjusted for quality of life when evaluating this procedure.     

The Michigan surgical quality collaborative: will a statewide quality improvement initiative pay for itself?

OBJECTIVE: In this article, we detail a unique collaboration between hospitals in Michigan and a major third party payer, using a "pay for participation model." The payer has made a significant investment in this regional surgical quality improvement (QI) program and funds each center's participation. RESULTS: Based on the documented costs and incidence of surgical complications at our center, we estimate that a 1.8% annual reduction in complication rates is required for the payer to recoup its investment in this regional QI program. If we achieve our goal of a 3% reduction in complications per year over the 3-year program, the payer will save $2.5 million in payments. Our findings suggest that only a very modest improvement in surgical results, of a magnitude that seems realistically achievable based on similar QI initiatives, is necessary to financially justify payer involvement in a statewide quality improvement initiative. CONCLUSION: The framework of this program should be used by surgeons to attract private payers into QI collaboratives, facilitating improved patient outcomes and decreased health care expenditures.     

A Description of the Costs of Living and Standard Criteria Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation

Kidney transplantation improves quality of life and survival and is associated with lower health care costs compared with dialysis. We described and compared the costs of living and standard criteria for deceased donor kidney transplantation. Patients included adult recipients of a first kidney‐only transplant between April 1, 1998, and March 31, 2006, as well as their donor information. All costs (outpatient care, diagnostic imaging, inpatient care, physician claims, laboratory tests and transplant medications) for 2 years after transplant for recipients and transplant‐related costs prior to transplant (donor workup and management) were included. Complete cost information was available for 357 recipients. The mean total 2‐year cost of transplantation, including donor costs, for recipients of living and deceased donors was $118 347 (95% confidence interval [CI], 110 395–126 299) and $121 121 (95% CI 114 287–127 956), respectively (p = 0.7). The mean cost for a living donor was $18 129 (95% CI 16 845–19 414) and for a deceased donor was $36 989 (95% CI 34 421–39 558). Living donor kidney transplantation has similar costs at 2 years compared with deceased donor transplantation. These results can be used by health care decision makers to inform strategies to increase donation.     

Hospital‐Onset Clostridium difficile Infection Among Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is a considerable health issue in the United States and represents the most common healthcare‐associated infection. Solid organ transplant recipients are at increased risk of CDI, which can affect both graft and patient survival. However, little is known about the impact of CDI on health services utilization posttransplantation. We examined hospital‐onset CDI from 2012 to 2014 among transplant recipients in the University HealthSystem Consortium, which includes academic medical center–affiliated hospitals in the United States. Infection was five times more common among transplant recipients than among general medicine inpatients (209 vs 40 per 10 000 discharges), and factors associated with CDI among transplant recipients included transplant type, risk of mortality, comorbidities, and inpatient complications. Institutional risk‐standardized CDI varied more than 3‐fold across high‐volume hospitals (infection ratio 0.54–1.82, median 1.04, interquartile range 0.78–1.28). CDI was associated with increased 30‐day readmission, transplant organ complications, cytomegalovirus infection, inpatient costs, and lengths of stay. Total observed inpatient days and direct costs for those with CDI were substantially higher than risk‐standardized expected values (40 094 vs 22 843 days, costs $198 728 368 vs $154 020 528). Further efforts to detect, prevent, and manage CDI among solid organ transplant recipients are warranted.     

Economic Impacts of ABO‐Incompatible Live Donor Kidney Transplantation: A National Study of Medicare‐Insured Recipients

The infrequent use of ABO‐incompatible (ABOi) kidney transplantation in the United States may reflect concern about the costs of necessary preconditioning and posttransplant care. Medicare data for 26 500 live donor kidney transplant recipients (2000 to March 2011), including 271 ABOi and 62 A2‐incompatible (A2i) recipients, were analyzed to assess the impact of pretransplant, transplant episode and 3‐year posttransplant costs. The marginal costs of ABOi and A2i versus ABO‐compatible (ABOc) transplants were quantified by multivariate linear regression including adjustment for recipient, donor and transplant factors. Compared with ABOc transplantation, patient survival (93.2% vs. 88.15%, p = 0.0009) and death‐censored graft survival (85.4% vs. 76.1%, p < 0.05) at 3 years were lower after ABOi transplant. The average overall cost of the transplant episode was significantly higher for ABOi ($65 080) compared with A2i ($36 752) and ABOc ($32 039) transplantation (p < 0.001), excluding organ acquisition. ABOi transplant was associated with high adjusted posttransplant spending (marginal costs compared to ABOc ‐ year 1: $25 044; year 2: $10 496; year 3: $7307; p < 0.01). ABOi transplantation provides a clinically effective method to expand access to transplantation. Although more expensive, the modest increases in total spending are easily justified by avoiding long‐term dialysis and its associated morbidity and cost.     

Financial Burden of Liver Transplant vs Resection for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BackgroundLiver transplant and liver resection are surgical treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) performed with curative intent. While liver transplant provides longer survival when compared to resection, the financial burden on patients and payors is significantly greater. With the increase in health care costs and the emergence of high deductible insurance policies that increase out of pocket deductibles for patients, assessment of value-based treatment is warranted.MethodsWe compiled total billable events from diagnosis of HCC through resection (N = 20) or transplant (N = 24) to death or last reported encounter from January 2011 to December 2012.ResultsPatients with HCC receiving resection had a model of end stage liver disease of 10.2 ± 1.2, survival 652 days (3–1, 167 days), and billable encounters of $316,873 ($2904/day). HCC patients receiving a liver transplant had a greater liver injury (model of end stage liver disease of 19.2 ± 3.7), longer survival (1579 days), and higher billable encounters, $740,714 ($2889/day). The surgical procedure represented the largest cost category (28% and 26% resection vs transplant, respectively). The cost effectiveness of treatment was directly proportional to length of survival. In resection, patients who survived >30 days (85%) cost per day dropped to $432. Transplant patients who survived >2 years (75%) saw the cost per day drop to $462.ConclusionThe relative financial burdens of liver resection vs liver transplant for treating HCC are comparable in patients who survive beyond a certain threshold. Transplant patients survived longer, and survival beyond 2 years makes this approach cost effective. In a health care climate aiming to contain costs and evaluate value-based treatment paradigms, expected survival and financial burden should be included in the treatment decision analysis.     

Consequences of vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus in liver transplant recipients: a matched control study

BACKGROUND: Liver transplant recipients are at high risk for multi-drug resistant infections because of broad-spectrum antibiotic and immunosuppression. This study evaluates the clinical and financial impact of vancomycin resistant Enterococcus (VRE) in liver transplant recipients. METHODS: Liver transplant recipients with VRE from 1995 to 2002 were identified and matched (age, gender, UNOS status, liver disease and transplant date) to controls. Demographics, clinical factors, co-infections, antibiotic use, length of stay, abdominal surgeries, biliary complications, survival and resource utilization were compared with matched controls. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were found to have 28 VRE infections via evaluation of microbiologic culture results of all liver transplant patients in the transplant registry. Thirty-eight non-VRE patients served as matched controls. The four most common sites VRE was cultured from included blood (35%), peritoneal fluid (35%), bile (20%), and urine (12%). Median time from transplant to infection was 48 d (range of 4-348). No significant differences in demographics were observed. The VRE group had a higher incidence of prior antibiotic use than the non-VRE group (95% vs. 34%; p < 0.05). The VRE group also experienced more abdominal surgery (20/19 vs. 3/38; p = 0.029), biliary complications (9/19 vs. 9/38; p = 0.018) and a longer length of stay (42.5 vs. 21.7 d; p = .005). Survival in the VRE group was lower (52% vs. 82%; p = 0.048). Six of the 19 VRE patients were treated with linezolid for eight infection episodes, and four of six patients survived. Eight patients were treated with quinupristin/dalfopristin for nine infections, and two of eight survived. Increased cost of care was observed in the VRE group. Laboratory costs were higher in the VRE group (6500 dollars vs. 1750; p = 0.02) as well. CONCLUSION: VRE was associated with prior antibiotic use, multiple abdominal surgeries, biliary complications and resulted in decreased survival compared to non-VRE control patients. VRE patients also utilized more hospital resources. Linezolid showed a trend toward improved survival.     

Increased mid‐abdominal circumference is a predictor for surgical wound complications in kidney transplant recipients: A prospective cohort study

Kidney transplant recipients are at an increased risk of developing surgical site wound complications due to their immunosuppressed status. We aimed to determine whether increased mid‐abdominal circumference (MAC) is predictive for wound complications in transplant recipients. A prospective study was performed on all kidney transplant recipients from October 2014 to October 2015. “Controls” consisted of kidney transplant recipients without a surgical site wound complication and “cases” consisted of recipients that developed a wound complication. In total, 144 patients underwent kidney transplantation and 107 patients met inclusion criteria. Postoperative wound complications were documented in 28 (26%) patients. Patients that developed a wound complication had a significantly greater MAC, body mass index (BMI), and body weight upon renal transplantation (P<.001, P=.011, and P=.011, respectively). On single and multiple logistic regression analyses, MAC was a significant predictor for developing a surgical wound complication (P=.02). Delayed graft function and a history of preformed anti‐HLA antibodies were also predictive for surgical wound complications (P=.003 and P=.014, respectively). Increased MAC is a significant predictor for surgical wound complications in kidney transplant recipients. Integrating clinical methods for measuring visceral adiposity may be useful for stratifying kidney transplant recipients with an increased risk of a surgical wound complication.     

The influence of clinical variables on hospital costs after orthotopic liver transplantation

BACKGROUND: The burgeoning influence of managed care in transplantation, coupled with a shrinking health-care dollar, has placed most transplant programs under intense pressure to cut costs. We undertook a retrospective cost-identification analysis to determine what clinical variables influenced financial outcomes after orthotopic cadaver liver transplants (OLTx). METHODS: Fifty patients receiving 53 transplants between April 1995 and November 1996 were reviewed. Clinical data were obtained from our institution's transplant database, and total costs (not charges) for the transplant admission and the 6 months after transplant were obtained with use of an activity-based cost accounting system (HBOC Trendstar, Atlanta, Ga). RESULTS: The average total cost of second transplants (n = 5) was $97,262 greater than for first transplants (n = 48, P < .05). Patients transplanted initially as United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) status 2 (n = 20) incurred average costs that were $51,762 higher than for patients transplanted as UNOS status 3 (n = 28, P = .008). Patients with a major bacterial or fungal infection (n = 28) incurred average costs $46,282 higher than recipients who were infection free (n = 22, P = .02). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that only length of stay, retransplantation, and postoperative dialysis were significantly and independently correlated with costs (r2 = .605). When the model was repeated with preoperative variables alone, only UNOS status was significantly correlated with 6-month total costs (P = .006, r2 = .16). CONCLUSIONS: Length of stay is the most important determinant of costs after OLTx. Rational strategies to design cost-effective protocols after OLTx will require further studies to truly define the cost of various morbidities and outcomes after OLTx.     

Long-term metabolic and quality of life results with pancreatic/renal transplantation in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.

Evaluation of whole-organ pancreas transplantation in the therapy of IDDM has been difficult because of generally poor graft survival and significant complications in past experience. We report a technically successful simultaneous pancreas/kidney transplant program with patient and graft survival of 85% over 3 years of follow-up (mean 21 months) in 33 subjects with IDDM. Glucose metabolism was normalized without need for exogenous insulin immediately posttransplant in all but one recipient and remained normal in 85% of recipients. The outcome in pancreas/kidney recipients was compared with that in 18 insulin-dependent diabetic recipients of kidney transplant only performed in the same period. Quality of life was assessed with one general and one diabetes-specific questionnaire. General quality of life issues improved significantly in both pancreas/kidney and kidney recipients, but diabetes specific quality of life improved only in the pancreas/kidney recipients. Pancreas/kidney recipients required twice as long a period of hospitalization for the transplant and two times as many readmissions for a variety of complications. Only a minority of hospital admissions was strictly attributable to the pancreas graft. Of the five deaths in the pancreas/kidney recipients, two were attributable to the pancreas transplant. Pancreas transplantation in IDDM can now be accomplished with a high degree of success, resulting in normalized glucose metabolism and with overall mortality similar to kidney transplantation alone. Successful pancreas transplantation improves quality of life with respect to diabetes but this benefit is accomplished at a cost of increased hospital admissions and complications related to the transplanted pancreas. The effects of pancreas transplantation on the long-term complications of insulin-dependent diabetes remain unknown.     

Financial impact of emergency hand trauma on the health care system

BACKGROUND: The US has a crisis of insufficient emergency coverage for hand trauma. One of the problems is the perceived financial loss associated with caring for this population. We evaluated the financial impact of treating emergency hand trauma patients on an academic medical practice and health care system. STUDY DESIGN: We examined billing records for 2,632 hand patients seen in the emergency department in 2005 at the University of Michigan. Financial data were separated into inpatient professional and facility revenues and costs. Professional net revenue was calculated by applying actual collection rates to procedural charges. Facility revenue was calculated by applying actual collection rates to the following downstream charge categories: inpatient/operating room (including nursing, anesthesia, and pharmacy), clinic facility, radiology, and occupational therapy. RESULTS: The payer mix for this analysis was 60.7% private insurance, 15.3% Medicare, 4.2% uninsured, 8.3% Medicaid, and 11.5% other. The net professional revenue and total costs for physician salary, malpractice, and benefits allocated to hand patients were $698,578 and $574,880, respectively, for a net profit margin of $123,698 (18%). Net health system facility revenue and total costs were $2,420,899 and $2,389,901, respectively, for a net profit margin of $30,998 (1%). CONCLUSIONS: Hand trauma at this academic medical center is fiscally advantageous for the surgical department and marginally advantageous for the health care system. Providing access to hand trauma patients may be fiscally advantageous in certain settings when the proportion of nonreimbursed care can be controlled.     

Resource Utilization of Living Donor Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation Is Similar at an Experienced Transplant Center

Although living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) has been shown to decrease waiting-list mortality, little is known of its financial impact relative to deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT). We performed a retrospective cohort study of the comprehensive resource utilization, using financial charges as a surrogate measure—from the pretransplant through the posttransplant periods—of 489 adult liver transplants (LDLT n = 86; DDLT n = 403) between January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2006, at a single center with substantial experience in LDLT. Baseline characteristics differed between LDLT versus DDLT with regards to age at transplantation (p = 0.02), male gender (p < 0.01), percentage Caucasians (p < 0.01) and transplant model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (p < 0.01). In univariate analysis, there was a trend toward decreased total transplant charges with LDLT (p = 0.06), despite increased surgical charges associated with LDLT (p < 0.01). After adjustment for the covariates that were associated with financial charges, there was no significant difference in total transplant charges (p = 0.82). MELD score at transplant was the strongest driver of resource utilization. We conclude that at an experienced transplant center, LDLT imposes a similar overall financial burden than DDLT, despite the increased complexity of living donor surgery and the addition of the costs of the living donor. We speculate that LDLT optimizes transplantation by transplanting healthier and younger recipients.     

The Pancreas Can Take the Cold: Lower Waitlist Times Through Importation

Background

Our center has used a strategy of pancreas importation owing to long regional waitlist times. Here we assess the clinical outcomes and financial considerations of this strategy.

Assessing Variation in the Costs of Care Among Patients Awaiting Liver Transplantation

Previous economic analyses of liver transplantation have focused on the cost of the transplant and subsequent care. Accurate characterization of the pretransplant costs, indexed to severity of illness, is needed to assess the economic burden of liver disease. A novel data set linking Medicare claims with transplant registry data for 15 710 liver transplant recipients was used to determine average monthly waitlist spending (N = 249 434 waitlist months) using multivariable linear regression models to adjust for recipient characteristics including Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. Characteristics associated with higher spending included older age, female gender, hepatocellular carcinoma, diabetes, hypertension and increasing MELD score (p < 0.05 for all). Spending increased exponentially with severity of illness: expected monthly spending at a MELD score of 30 was 10 times higher than at MELD of 20 ($22 685 vs. $2030). Monthly spending within MELD strata also varied geographically. For candidates with a MELD score of 35, spending varied from $19 548 (region 10) to $36 099 (region 7). Regional variation in waitlist costs may reflect the impact of longer waiting times on greater pretransplant hospitalization rates among high MELD score patients. Reducing the number of high MELD waitlist patients through improved medical management and novel organ allocation systems could decrease total spending for end‐stage liver care.