Impact of US state government regulation on patient access to elective surgical care

Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University, 201 Science Drive, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA.
Clinical and investigative medicine. Medecine clinique et experimentale (Impact Factor: 1.23). 10/2008; 31(5):E236-41.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Rising health care costs in the United States have led to government regulation of services via a Certificate of Need (CON) law in many states. Such regulation may decrease access to elective surgical procedures. This study describes the impact of CON laws on elective surgical care.
This retrospective cohort trial used data from the Health Care Utilization Project, a publicly available, inpatient database. Rates of six elective procedures were compared between 21 CON states and 5 non-CON states (2004-2005). Further, facility type (non-profit versus for-profit), facility teaching status, and median charges were also compared as a function of CON status. Statistical analysis was performed by Student's t-tests (?=0.05).
CON laws did not affect procedure rates (P = 0.11-0.97), but lower charges were found for lumbar discectomy ($16,819 versus $13,493 p=0.04), acoustic neuroma resection ($60,993 versus $46,353, P < 0.001), and microvascular decompression (MVD) for trigeminal neuralgia ($37,741 versus $27,729, P < 0.001) in CON states. Various procedures exhibited a shift from for-profit to non-profit facilities including lumbar disectomy (20% versus 9%, P=0.01), acoustic neuroma resection (5.5% versus 0.2%, P=0.03), MVD (20% versus 3%, P=0.02), and rotator cuff repair (23% versus 10%, P=0.01). CON status had no effect on proportion of cases occurring at teaching facilities.
CON laws appear to maintain patient access to elective surgical care while successfully reducing hospital charges. The location of surgery may shift to non-profit centers suggesting preferential certificate distribution, though this only partly explains the decreased charges in states with CON regulation.

Download full-text


Available from: Mohammed F Shamji, Sep 27, 2015
34 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Government regulation of health care services helps prevent costs associated with expansion and duplication of services in the United States. Certificate of Need (CON) helps restrict construction of ambulatory surgery facilities and hence controls delivery of surgical intervention, but concern exists about whether this affects resident exposure to an appropriate caseload. This study investigated how CON laws impact on surgical caseload as an index of resident surgical training. This retrospective study used State Inpatient Data compiled by the Health Care Utilization Project. Mean per capita rates of 26 diverse surgical procedures were evaluated in 21 states with CON laws and 5 states without between 2004 and 2006. The proportion of procedures performed in teaching facilities was also assessed. Student's t-tests were used to evaluate differences in these parameters between regulated and non-regulated states (a = 0.05). Multivariate analysis of variance permitted evaluation of the types of procedures that underwent shift in location performed. States with CON laws did not differ significantly in procedural rates for any of the investigated surgical procedures; however, such regulation was associated with different trends in teaching center caseload, depending on the type of procedure. Complex procedures, such as Whipple operations (p = 0.14) or resection of acoustic neuroma (p = 0.37), underwent no redistribution. Conversely, common procedures that might have previously been performed in private settings, such as total hip replacement (p = 0.003) or mastectomy (p = 0.01), did occur more commonly in teaching facilities under CON regulation. CON law did not result in relocation of surgical procedures away from teaching institutions. These results suggest that government regulations do not discriminate against teaching facilities. Surgical residents in states with such regulation gain similar or superior exposure to procedures as residents in states without such laws.
    Clinical and investigative medicine. Medecine clinique et experimentale 01/2010; 33(2):E78. · 1.23 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Object: Care providers have put significant effort into optimizing patient safety and quality of care. Value, defined as meaningful outcomes achieved per dollar spent, is emerging as a promising framework to redesign health care. Scarce data exist regarding cost measurement and containment for episodes of neurosurgical care. The authors assessed how cost measurement and strategic containment could be used to optimize the value of delivered care after the implementation and maturation of quality improvement initiatives. Methods: A retrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing microvascular decompression was performed. Group 1 comprised patients treated prior to the implementation of quality improvement interventions, and Group 2 consisted of those treated after the implementation and maturation of quality improvement processes. A third group, Group 3, represented a contemporary group studied after the implementation of cost containment interventions targeting the three most expensive activities: pre-incision time in the operating room (OR) and total OR time, intraoperative neuromonitoring (IOM), and bed assignment (and overall length of stay [LOS]). The value of care was assessed for all three groups. Results: Forty-four patients were included in the study. Average preparation time pre-incision decreased from 73 to 65 to 45 minutes in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The average total OR time and OR cost were 434 minutes and $8513 in Group 1; 348 minutes and $7592 in Group 2; and 407 minutes and $8333 in Group 3. The average cost for IOM, excluding electrode needles, was $1557, $1585, and $1263, respectively, in Groups 1, 2, and 3. Average total cost for bed assignment was $5747, $5198, and $4535, respectively, in Groups 1, 2, and 3. The average total LOS decreased from 3.16 days in Group 1 to 2.14 days in Group 3. Complete relief of or a significant decrease in preoperative symptomatology was achieved in 42 of the 44 patients, respectively. Overall, the average cost of a surgical care episode (index hospitalization + readmission/reoperation) decreased 25% from Group 1 to 3. Conclusions: Linking cost-containment and cost-reduction strategies to ongoing outcome improvement measures is an important step toward the optimization of value-based delivery of care.
    Journal of Neurosurgery 07/2014; 121(3):1-9. DOI:10.3171/2014.5.JNS131996 · 3.74 Impact Factor