Physician ownership of ambulatory surgery centers and practice patterns for urological surgery: evidence from the state of Florida.

Department of Urology, Division of Health Services Research, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Medical care (Impact Factor: 2.94). 05/2009; 47(4):403-10. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31818af92e
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the relationship between ownership and use of ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs).
From 1998 through 2002, ambulatory surgical discharges for procedures within the genitourinary system were abstracted from the Florida State Ambulatory Surgery Database. State-wide utilization rates for ambulatory surgery were calculated by physician-level ownership (using an empirically-derived, externally-validated method) and financial incentives. A surgeon-level Poisson regression model was fit to compare the rates of surgery by year, ownership, and their interaction.
Rates of ambulatory surgery increased from 607 per 100,000 in 1998 to 702 per 100,000 in 2002 (P < 0.01 for trend). Although rates at the hospital increased only slightly (0.9%), those at the ASC were up by 53% (P < 0.01). Physician ownership was associated with this greater utilization as new owners increased their use from 9 per 100,000 to 94 per 100,000 (P < 0.01) in the first full year as owners. In the first year of ownership, the proportion of a new owner's surgeries comprising of financially lucrative procedures increased to 61% compared with 50% in the year preceding ownership (P < 0.01).
Physician ownership is associated with the increasing use of ASCs, although the extent to which this is attributable to previously unmet demand is unclear. However, new owners seem to alter their procedure mix after establishing ownership to include a greater share of financially lucrative procedures.


Available from: Stephanie Daignault, Sep 11, 2014
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There has been a strong push to move outpatient surgery from hospital settings to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). Despite the efficiency advantages of ASCs, many are concerned that these facilities could increase overall utilization.
    Medical Care 09/2014; DOI:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000213 · 2.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The literature on organizational niche suggests that competition between firms that have overlapping niches tends to elevate mortality risks. However, the vast majority of this research considers only competition between firms with a similar organizational form. Ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) represent an emergent class of specialized organizational forms that are leaner versions of generalist forms. We apply niche overlap theory to the market for outpatient surgical procedures in order to explore whether ASCs and hospital compete with one another in fundamentally different ways. By manipulating patient-level datasets from the state of Florida, we were able to measure competition and firm entry/exit with a high level of precision. We broke down our explanatory variables by facility type (ASC vs. hospital) and utilized Cox proportional hazard models to evaluate the impact of competition from each on ASC and hospital exit. Although ASCs do tend to exit markets in which there are high levels of ASC competition, we found weak evidence to suggest that ASCs exit rates are lowest in markets with high hospital density. On the other hand, hospitals not only tend to exit markets with high levels of hospital competition but also experience high exit rates in markets with high ASC density. Our results suggest that specialized organizational forms representing "focused factories" are unaffected by generalist forms while generalists are hurt by the presence of competing specialists.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Multiple studies have investigated physician-owned specialized facilities (specialized hospitals and ambulatory surgery centres). However, the evidence is fragmented and the literature lacks cohesion. Objectives: To provide a comprehensive overview of the effects of physician-owned specialized facilities by synthesizing the findings of published empirical studies. Methods: Two reviewers independently researched relevant studies using a standardized search strategy. The Institute of Medicine's quality framework (safe, effective, equitable, efficient, patient-centred, and accessible care) was applied in order to evaluate the performance of such facilities. In addition, the impact on the performance of full-service general hospitals was assessed. Results: Forty-six studies were included in the systematic review. Overall, the quality of the included studies was satisfactory. Our results show that little evidence exists to confirm the advantages attributed to physician-owned specialized facilities, and their impact on full-service general hospitals remains limited. Conclusion: Although data is available on a wide variety of effects, the evidence base is surprisingly thin. There is no compelling evidence available demonstrating the added value of physician-owned specialized facilities in terms of quality or cost of the delivered care. More research is necessary on the relative merits of physician-owned specialized facilities. In addition, their corresponding impact on full-service general hospitals remains unclear. The development of physician-owned specialized facilities should thus be monitored carefully.
    Health Policy 09/2014; 118(3). DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.09.012 · 1.73 Impact Factor