Factors Associated With Hospitalization Charges for Cleft Palate Repairs and Revisions

Predoctoral Orthodontics, Department of Developmental Biology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Journal of oral and maxillofacial surgery: official journal of the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (Impact Factor: 1.43). 10/2011; 70(8):1968-77. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2011.07.026
Source: PubMed


The objective of this study is to provide nationally representative estimates of cleft palate correction and revision procedures performed in hospitalized patients, as well as to examine patient- and hospital-level factors associated with hospitalization charges.
The Nationwide Inpatient Sample for the year 2007 was used. All hospitalizations that had a cleft palate correction or revision of cleft palate repair were selected. Estimates of concomitant procedures performed during the index hospitalization were obtained. The roles of different patient- and hospital-level variables on hospitalization charges were examined by use of multivariable linear regression analysis.
A total of 5,969 repairs and/or revisions of cleft palate procedures were performed in hospitals in the entire United States. The mean age per hospitalization was 3.2 years. Whites accounted for 51.3% of procedures, whereas blacks, Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Native Americans, and other races accounted for 4.9%, 26.4%, 9.2%, 3.2%, and 5%, respectively. The mean charge per each hospitalization was $19,227, and the total hospitalization charge for the entire United States was $112.96 million. Patients aged less than 1 year (P = .02) and those aged between 8 and 12 years (P = .03) had significantly lower charges compared with those aged 18 years or older. Use of bone morphogenetic protein was associated with higher hospital charges (P = .0006). Compared with the uninsured, those covered by Medicaid (P = .04), private insurance plans (P = .02), and other insurance plans (P = .0005) were associated with higher charges.
This study identified an association between hospital charges and insurance payer, race, treatments performed, and age. Our results provide insights into nationally representative estimates on management of cleft palate corrections and revisions.

1 Follower
8 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: To estimate fibromyalgia (FM) hospitalisation costs (i.e. charges) for patients in the United States from 1999 to 2007; to determine factors associated with variation in costs of FM and non-FM hospitalisations; and to investigate hospital procedures associated with FM hospitalisations. Methods: Data were from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a large database of hospitalisations in the U.S. Over the study period, an estimated 63,772 patients - two-thirds women, one-third men - had been hospitalised for FM (FM criterion was the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code 729.1, Myositis and Myalgia, unspecified). Demographics and hospital characteristics were described with frequencies and mean inflation-adjusted charges. Two multivariable linear regressions (one for FM and a second for non-FM patients), with Consumer Price Index (CPI)-adjusted charges (hospital and related services category) in thousands of dollars as the dependent variable, were performed, excluding cases with masked or missing data. Procedures were categorised with a standard classification scheme. Results: Survey-adjusted total CPI-adjusted charges over the study period were estimated to be approximately $1.0 billion. Hospital procedures and Charlson-Deyo Index (co-morbidity severity) scores were the strongest predictors of charges in bivariate and multivariate analyses (for both FM and non-FM patients). The majority of procedures for FM patients were related to musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, or cardiovascular systems. Most FM patients, however, did not have any procedure or a life-threatening co-morbid illness. Conclusions: Over the nine-year period, hospital charges for FM were substantial. Studies of how to reduce or avoid these costs in the treatment of FM need to be undertaken.
    Clinical and experimental rheumatology 12/2012; 30(6 Suppl 74):129-35. · 2.72 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Routine admission following primary cleft palate repair is the standard of care at most institutions. Insurance companies have demonstrated increasing resistance to hospitalization longer than a "short stay"(23 hour) observation period following palatoplasty. The purpose of this study was to identify factors related to length of stay following palate repair. Methods: Retrospective chart review was conducted for 100 consecutive patients undergoing primary cleft palate repair from May 2009 to February 2013. Demographic and perioperative data were collected and two-sample Student t-test, univariate and multivariable linear regression models were performed to assess for correlation with longer length of stay. Results: Mean age at the time of surgery was 12.6 months. Median length of stay was 39 hours; all 100 patients had >23 hours length of stay. Seventy-three percent of patients required intravenous fluids greater than 23 hours after admission. Postoperative intravenous narcotics were required in 92 percent of patients after transfer to the post-surgical floor, and the last dose was given on average 19.8 hours after completion of surgery. There were 13 patients who required postoperative supplemental oxygen for greater than 23 hours following admission. Multivariable predictors of increased length of stay included female gender, syndromic diagnosis, longer operative and anesthetic durations, longer time to postoperative oral intake, and lower dose of postoperative intravenous narcotic. Conclusions: Factors identified in association with increased length of stay may guide opportunities for reducing postoperative hospitalization; however, these findings would oppose the safety of routine ambulatory surgery or short-stay observation following primary cleft palate repair. Clinical question/level of evidence: Risk, III.
    Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 09/2015; 136(4):502e-510e. DOI:10.1097/PRS.0000000000001583 · 2.99 Impact Factor