Who Receives Their Complex Cancer Surgery at Low-Volume Hospitals?
ABSTRACT Previous literature has consistently shown worse operative outcomes at low-volume hospitals (LVH) after complex cancer surgery. Whether patient-related factors impact this association remains unknown. We hypothesize that patient-related factors contribute to receipt of complex cancer surgery at LVH.
Using the 2003-2008 National Inpatient Sample, we identified 59,841 patients who underwent cancer operations for lung, esophagus, and pancreas tumors. Logistic regression models were used to examine the impact of sociodemographic factors on receipt of complex cancer surgery at LVH.
Overall, 38.4% received their cancer surgery at LVH. A higher proportion of esophagectomies were performed at LVH (70.3%), followed by pancreatectomy (38.2%) and lung resection (33.8%). Patients who were non-white, with non-private insurance, and had more comorbidities were all more likely to receive their cancer surgery at LVH (for all, p < 0.05). Multivariate analyses continued to demonstrate that non-white race, insurance status, increased comorbidities, region, and nonelective admission predicted receipt of cancer surgery at LVH across all 3 procedures.
In this large national study, non-white race and increased comorbidities contributed to receipt of cancer surgery at LVH. Patient selection and access to high-volume hospitals are likely reasons worthy of additional investigation. This study provides additional insight into the volume-outcomes relationship. Given the demonstrated outcomes disparity between high-volume hospitals and LVH, future policy and research should encourage mechanisms for referral of patients with cancer to high-volume hospitals for their surgical care.
- SourceAvailable from: Ching-Chieh Yang[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To investigate the association of basic demographic data, socioeconomic status, medical services, and hospital characteristics with end-of-life expenditure in patients with oral cancer in Taiwan who died between 2009 to 2011. This nationwide population-based, retrospective cohort study identified 5,386 patients who died from oral cancer. We evaluated medical cost in the last month of life by universal health insurance. The impact of each variable on the end-of-life expenditure was examined by hierarchical generalized linear model (HGLM) using a hospital-level random-intercept model. The mean medical cost in the last six months of life was $2,611±3,329 (U.S. dollars). In HGLM using a random-intercept model, we found that patients younger than 65 years had an additional cost of $819 over those aged ≥65 years. Patients who had a high Charlson Comorbidity Index Score (CCIS) had an additional $616 cost over those with a low CCIS. Those who survived post-diagnosis less than 6 months had an additional $659 in expenses over those who survived more than 24 months. Medical cost was $249 more for patients who had medium to high individual SES, and $319 more for those who were treated by non-oncologists. This study provides useful information for decision makers in understanding end-of-life expenditure in oral cancer. We found significantly increased end-of-life expenditure in patients if they were younger than 65 years or treated by non-oncologists, or had high CCIS, medium to high individual SES, and survival of less than 6 months after diagnosis.PLoS ONE 05/2015; 10(5):e0126482. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0126482 · 3.53 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There are no clinical guidelines on best practices for the use of bronchoscopy and esophagoscopy in diagnosing head and neck cancer. This retrospective cohort study examined variation in the use of bronchoscopy and esophagoscopy across hospitals in Michigan. A total of 17,828 patients were identified with head and neck cancer in the 2006 to 2010 Michigan State Ambulatory Surgery Databases. A hierarchical, mixed-effect logistic regression was used to examine whether a hospital's risk-adjusted rate of concurrent bronchoscopy or esophagoscopy was associated with its case volume (< 100, 100-999, or ≥ 1000 cases per hospital) for those undergoing diagnostic laryngoscopy. Of 9218 patients undergoing diagnostic laryngoscopy, 1191 (12.9%) received concurrent bronchoscopy and 1675 (18.2%) underwent concurrent esophagoscopy. The median hospital rate of bronchoscopy was 2.7% (range, 0%-61.1%), and low-volume (odds ratio [OR] = 27.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.9, 390.7) and medium-volume (OR = 28.1; 95% CI = 2.0, 399.0) hospitals were more likely to perform concurrent bronchoscopy compared to high-volume hospitals. The median hospital rate of esophagoscopy was 5.1% (range, 0%-47.1%), and low-volume (OR = 9.8; 95% CI = 1.5, 63.7) and medium-volume (OR = 8.5; 95% CI = 1.3, 55.0) hospitals were significantly more likely to perform concurrent esophagoscopy relative to high-volume hospitals. Patients with head and neck cancer who are undergoing diagnostic laryngoscopy are much more likely to undergo concurrent bronchoscopy and esophagoscopy at low- and medium-volume hospitals than at high-volume hospitals. Whether this represents overuse of concurrent procedures or appropriate care that leads to earlier diagnosis and better outcomes merits further investigation. Cancer 2013;. © 2013 American Cancer Society.Cancer 01/2014; 120(1). DOI:10.1002/cncr.28379 · 4.90 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: No large-scale study has explored the combined effect of patients' individual and neighborhood socioeconomic status (SES) on their access to a low-volume provider for breast cancer surgery. The purpose of this study was to explore under a nationwide universal health insurance system whether breast cancer patients from a lower individual and neighborhood SES are disproportionately receiving breast cancer surgery from low-volume providers. 5,750 patients who underwent breast cancer surgery in 2006 were identified from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to compare the access to a low-volume provider between the different individual and neighborhood SES groups after adjusting for possible confounding and risk factors. Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic was used to determine how well the model fit the data. Univariate analysis data shows that patients in disadvantaged neighborhood were more likely to receive breast cancer surgery at low-volume hospitals; and lower-SES patients were more likely to receive surgery from low-volume surgeons. In multivariate analysis, after adjusting for patient characteristics, the odds ratios of moderate- and low-SES patients in disadvantaged neighborhood receiving surgery at low-volume hospitals was 1.47 (95% confidence interval=1.19-1.81) and 1.31 (95% confidence interval=1.05-1.64) respectively compared with high-SES patients in advantaged neighborhood. Moderate- and low-SES patients from either advantaged or disadvantaged neighborhood had an odds ratios ranging from 1.51 to 1.80 (p<0.001) to receiving surgery from low-volume surgeons. In Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, p>0.05 that shows the model has a good fit. In this population-based cross-sectional study, even under a nationwide universal health insurance system, disparities in access to healthcare existed. Breast cancer patients from a lower individual and neighborhood SES are more likely to receive breast cancer surgery from low-volume providers. The authorities and public health policies should keep focusing on these vulnerable groups.PLoS ONE 12/2013; 8(12):e81801. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0081801 · 3.53 Impact Factor