ArticlePDF Available

Cost Analysis of an Office-based Surgical Suite


Abstract and Figures

Introduction: Operating costs are a significant part of delivering surgical care. Having a system to analyze these costs is imperative for decision making and efficiency. We present an analysis of surgical supply, labor and administrative costs, and remuneration of procedures as a means for a practice to analyze their cost effectiveness; this affects the quality of care based on the ability to provide services. The costs of surgical care cannot be estimated blindly as reconstructive and cosmetic procedures have different percentages of overhead. Methods: A detailed financial analysis of office-based surgical suite costs for surgical procedures was determined based on company contract prices and average use of supplies. The average time spent on scheduling, prepping, and doing the surgery was factored using employee rates. Results: The most expensive, minor procedure supplies are suture needles. The 4 most common procedures from the most expensive to the least are abdominoplasty, breast augmentation, facelift, and lipectomy. Conclusions: Reconstructive procedures require a greater portion of collection to cover costs. Without the adjustment of both patient and insurance remuneration in the practice, the ability to provide quality care will be increasingly difficult.
Content may be subject to copyright. 1
Because the reimbursements for surgical services
stagnate or decrease, the costs of doing business
continue to rise. These rising costs include space,
insurance, staffing, and supplies, all of which reduce the
margin of profit on services. A 1988 study that broke
down the percentage of physician income related to vari-
ous practice costs—labor, supplies, and rent—to a total of
15%, did not look at plastic surgery.1 After their systematic
review of plastic surgery, Ziolkowski et al2 concluded that
specific cost-effective analyses within the specialty are nec-
essary and advantageous to the plastic surgeon.
The old adage that “I lose money on every one, but I
make it up in volume” is becoming a reality. In its March
2013 report to Congress, Medicare estimated a 2% in-
crease in volume per beneficiary.3 This suggests that be-
cause of inadequate reimbursements, physicians are
taking on a larger patient load as compensation. An objec-
tive analysis of office-based surgical services for both mi-
nor clinical suite procedures and for office-based surgical
suite (OBSS) is overdue.
Dr. Janevicius4 did the first objective analysis of costs in
coding guidelines for minor procedures for Plastic Surgery
News. We employ this technique to evaluate current costs
and extrapolate it to an OBSS. We add in new expenses
that are now federally mandated (but unreimbursed),
such as the cost of maintenance of electronic medical re-
cords, meaningful use, and facility certification.5 It is an
important safety and quality standard to perform surgery
in a certified facility, but it too adds costs. Costs that are
specific to cosmetic surgery are complementary revision
rates and the discrepancy in profit margin when com-
pared with reconstructive surgery.
Costs can be defined as fixed, fixed variable, and vari-
able.6,7 Fixed costs are those that remain at the same price,
independent of the volume, for example, rent, space, and
insurance, which are the same each month. These ex-
penses do not change, no matter how much work is done.
Fixed variable costs require a basic minimum—a nurse or
a desk receptionist—but are dependent on volume. These
costs can increase in increments and are a per-case costs
(ie, adding another recovery nurse on busy days). Variable
costs depend directly on volume—supplies, medications,
Received for publication November 6, 2015; accepted May 27,
Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer
Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
All rights reserved. This is an open-access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No
Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to
download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work
cannot be changed in any way or used commercially.
DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000831
*DAVinci Plastic Surgery, Wash; and †Georgetown University
School of Medicine, Wash.
Introduction: Operating costs are a significant part of delivering surgical care.
Having a system to analyze these costs is imperative for decision making and ef-
ficiency. We present an analysis of surgical supply, labor and administrative costs,
and remuneration of procedures as a means for a practice to analyze their cost
effectiveness; this affects the quality of care based on the ability to provide services.
The costs of surgical care cannot be estimated blindly as reconstructive and cos-
metic procedures have different percentages of overhead.
Methods: A detailed financial analysis of office-based surgical suite costs for surgi-
cal procedures was determined based on company contract prices and average
use of supplies. The average time spent on scheduling, prepping, and doing the
surgery was factored using employee rates.
Results: The most expensive, minor procedure supplies are suture needles. The
4 most common procedures from the most expensive to the least are abdomino-
plasty, breast augmentation, facelift, and lipectomy.
Conclusions: Reconstructive procedures require a greater portion of collection
to cover costs. Without the adjustment of both patient and insurance remunera-
tion in the practice, the ability to provide quality care will be increasingly difficult.
(Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2016;4:e803; doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000000831;
Published online 19 July 2016.)
Cost Analysis of an Office-based Surgical Suite
Disclosures: The authors have no financial interest to
declare in relation to the content of this article. The authors
have no conflicts of interest. The Article Processing Charge
was paid for by the authors.
Special Topic
Gabrielle LaBove, BS*
Steven P. Davison, DDS, MD†
PRS Global Open 2016
and per-case contract labor. The amount of these costs var-
ies with demand. The sum of fixed and fixed variable costs
is also called overhead.6
The Institute of Medicine estimates 750 billion dollars
of wasted resources in the health care budget in 2009.8
Little information is available on individual practice costs
and their contribution to this. The purpose of this article
is a long overdue analysis of costs to assist practices in mak-
ing fiscal, rather than emotional, decisions in provision of
We based our analysis on the specific schedule of the
office. We calculated 700 office procedures (local anesthe-
sia) and 200 major procedures (general anesthesia) that
were performed in the OBSS in the past year. We analyzed
4 core cosmetic procedures most routinely performed in
our OBSS—abdominoplasty, facelift, breast augmenta-
tion, and liposuction.
For minor procedures, we evaluated costs that were
used in every case, or fixed, and those that were inciden-
tal, or variable. We estimated using these incidentals, like
special dressing supplies, about 25% of the time in the
office procedures. For surgical suite procedures, the ad-
ditional costs of packs, sutures, and consumables, such as
drains, were included. The number of sutures used per
case—a major consumable cost—was averaged from sup-
ply orders. Simple calculations were used to find the unit
cost for each supply based on contract prices with our sup-
pliers. The setting of the office also dictated the calcula-
tion of costs, based on square footage, quantity of rooms,
and time used for each surgery.
Minor kits were valued based on the costs and divided
by the estimated number of cases they last before having
to be repaired or replaced—300 cases. A similar deprecia-
tion for 1,000 cases was estimated for the higher quality
surgical trays; in addition, yearly sharpening costs were
computed. This calculation estimates the instrument cost
per case.
Staff costs were computed at an hourly rate. Pre/post-
operative tasks included patient intake, ordering supplies,
sterilizing, scheduling, etc. Perioperative tasks include the
cost based on hourly rates for a scrub tech and circulating
RN/MA. Indirect costs, like retirement, increase the staff
costs by 25%; this was added as an indirect surcharge. We
estimate initial training as dedicated 2 weeks followed by
40 hours maintenance per year. This reflects productivity
versus training of 97%:3% on an average.
The time spent supporting new office technologies—
Web site design and meaningful use—was factored. Soft-
ware support is a yearly fee; 20% of this cost was assigned
to the surgical procedures. Medical waste pickup occurs
weekly. The cost of the 3-year Accreditation Association for
Ambulatory Health Care certification cycle was calculated
based on 200 cases per year. Biomedical visits are required
for equipment maintenance. The malpractice insurance
cost was found based on its monthly cost and divided by
500 total surgeries per year. Weekly laundry delivery was
factored into cost based on unit price per quantity used.
A fixed variable cost not reflected in our practice is
hidden advertising. The practice growth is predominant-
ly by word-of-mouth; other than Web site optimization,
there was no direct advertising. A cost of Web site develop-
ment is appropriated as a percentage of site remunera-
tion versus total clinical income (see the below equation).
Indirect advertising costs were divided by the number of
annual cases; we approximate $1.65 a procedure for web
cost. Aesthetic surgery is singular in that revisions are
commonly at no cost to the patient. In our practice, any
major revisions incur additional facility fees (ie, implant
exchange for size). Therefore, some form of estimation
of this practice cost is necessary. A prospective analysis of
over 6 months to assess revision rates identified costs and
the most common procedures requiring touch-up.
Blogging,sitedevelopment,Web cost
totalrenumerattionof cases
Table 1 summarizes the most frequently used supplies
for a minor procedure by unit cost and quantity. Similar
costs per unit were generated for all supplies. A standout
price is that of sutures. It is one of the most expensive but
also frequently wasted surgical supplies.
Table 2 summarizes the abstract costs that were ex-
plained in the Methods section. These are costs that had
to factor in labor contributions and other fixed variables
that depend on the caseload and type. For example, pre-
and perioperative time and cost include the labor time
of the nurse and office staff who went into educating the
patient before surgery; the administration cost includes
the amount to insure the practice for that day. The results
shown here for major procedures are for fixed costs. The
average major procedure base cost of fixed and fixed vari-
able cost without variable supplies was $951. The total cost
of a minor procedure was $64.
The last table ranks the four most common major sur-
geries in our practice, from the most expensive to the least
expensive. The length of procedure and sutures affect the
Table 1. Sample Supply Costs
Procedure Supplies
Item Unit Price Amount Cost ($)
Table paper 0.56933 1/6 0.09
#15 blade 0.2463 1 0.25
18-G needle 0.0738 1 0.07
1 mL 1% lidocaine with epi-
0.06295 5 0.31
Disposable gloves 0.00708 6 0.04
4 × 4 gauze 0.0349 15 0.52
5-0 or 4-0 monocryl (average) 5.625 1 5.63
5-0 or 4-0 prolene (average) 8.625 1 8.63
Steri strips .5” 1.2938 1 1.29
Sterile gloves 1.88 2 3.76
Marking pen 1.0028 1 1.00
EZ-kill wipes 0.04375 3 0.13
instrument cleaning solution 0.1125 2 0.23
This outlines the average cost of sample supplies used in our office. Unit
amounts are based on contract prices.
LaBove and Davison Cost Analysis
cost. The cost of lipectomy ($1,075) is the least, whereas
that of abdominoplasty ($1,279) is the most, reflecting
the use of more supplies—specifically suture. The cost of
providing a breast augmentation is surprisingly high at
$1,256. The office-based facility charge for augmentation
was $1,000; this is used in each major procedure, irrele-
vant of what packs, supplies, or sutures are used.
When analyzing the practice’s revision rates and ex-
penditure, there was $5,915 in supplies, manpower, and
costs used for touch-ups of 30 minor procedures and four
operating room cases performed at no charge to the pa-
tient. The four most common surgeries requiring revision
are gynecomastia, rhinoplasty, blepharoplasty, and lipo-
This updated practice analysis offers compelling data.
These costs are raw costs to a practice with no mark-up
or physician fees. They have two implications—what can
you afford to do in an office and what should you charge
for facility fees. Discussion of cost and responsibility for
fees is a sensitive topic in medicine. A survey by Ginsburg
et al9 showed that on an average, 45% of patients got an-
gry if cost was mentioned but that 49% accepted the ex-
planation for costs once they understood the resources
In a cosmetic practice, revision as re-do surgery is
handled differently from reconstructive surgery. In re-
constructive surgery, it is a potential remuneration and
in cosmetic surgery, purely a cost item.10 Certain elective
procedures are at higher risk than others, with elevated
revision rates. We analyzed the practice over a 6-month pe-
riod creating a “dummy code” for no-cost revision surgery.
Preliminary analysis indicates higher risk operations in
descending order: (1) gynecomastia, as the patients gain
weight postoperatively; (2) rhinoplasty, particularly for
areas that were not a concern preoperatively (ie, ala po-
sition);11 (3) lower lid blepharoplasties for scar/flap thick-
ness/canthal position; and (4) liposuction irregularities.
Planning what these additional practice costs are, irrel-
evant of subsequent surgeon time, is an ongoing project.
The methodology used allows an OBSS to set a price
based on real costs, not just market costs from hospital
out-patient surgery centers. There will be cost variations
based on location,12 rent, salary, and insurance. The cost
of supplies should be universal, but these numbers repre-
sent central urban costs that can be extrapolated to other
areas. The ideal pricing of procedures should reflect, at
minimum, a 22.7% profit margin, an average value calcu-
lated from physician-owned freestanding ambulatory sur-
gical centers (ASCs) in California; this margin increased
to 31.2% after a law that stopped physician ownership of
ASCs was passed. Interestingly, this regulation increased
the cost of delivering care under corporate, rather than
physician, directorship.13
To isolate costs, we did not extrapolate multiple proce-
dure cases. As the initial case costs are greatest at opening
packs, gowns, etc., we would have expected greater profit
margin for multiple procedures. However, this may be off-
set by lower charged costs for subsequent minutes after
the first hour.
A 1997 study by Rosenblatt et al14 referred to wasted
supplies in hospitals that were opened, but not used, as
“overage” and estimated these costs to be on average $5–
$13 per case. In 2013, this would be $7–$19 of unused sup-
plies per case.15 Anecdotal experience would suggest this
as a significant underestimation—particularly if sutures
are opened. Just one extra gown and gloves or an unused
suture are approximately $15 in waste. This effect was
shown where reconstructive procedures at an ASC over a
hospital had more profitability based on lower variable di-
rect expenses alone.6 The goal of providing cost-efficient
care without sacrificing efficacy begins with not wasting
Sutures are a major consumable and greatly affect the
price of surgery, as seen in Table 1 and in the compari-
son of cost of the surgeries highlighted from the prac-
tice, as seen in Table 3. Abdominoplasty used the most
sutures, 10, and is the most expensive, whereas lipectomy
cost was the least, using one suture. Our suture usage is
conservative, as sutures are opened when they are needed
to ensure that there is no waste intraoperatively. Wasting
sutures can drive cost up and profit down. Breast aug-
mentation surgery is slightly more expensive than facelift
surgery, despite using half the number of sutures; this is
mainly due to the addition of a surgical bra and extra pre-
cautions for sterility when dealing with implants—extra
gloves, no touch technique with a Keller funnel, and an-
tibiotic irrigation.
An internal analysis of our facility pricing shows the
financial risk of setting costs on market norms for price-
sensitive procedures such as breast augmentation. At our
locality, the surgeon’s fees were fiscally subsidizing the
cost for breast augmentation. At the end of this analysis,
we raised the facility fee for this procedure by $250 to re-
flect the actual cost of quality care, taking into account the
Keller funnel for no-touch surgery.
Table 2. Summary of Additional Major and Minor
Procedure Costs
Cost per Case ($)
Minor procedure item and task break down
Minor procedure supplies 25.71
Variables 0.66
Staff 21.63
Room 5.83
Instrument depreciation 0.53
Blogging/Web site 9.50
Total 63.86
Major procedure item and task break down
Preoperative time 90.60
Perioperative time 265.80
Postoperative recovery supplies 2.88
Sterilization supplies 3.68
Anesthesia administration 312.22
Office administration 156.94
Laundry 11.35
Room cost 98.00
Blogging/Web site 9.50
Total 950.97
This table summarizes total office costs for minor and major procedures, taking
into account factors like administration time, Web site development, and rent
per square foot of the rooms used.
PRS Global Open 2016
This comprehensive cost analysis includes everything
from the depreciation of instruments over time down to
the saltines eaten in surgical recovery. Instrument cost and
value was determined based on the frequency in which
sharpening and maintenance is required. This is due to
use and wear over time and is factored into Table 2 with
“instrument depreciation.” Historically, insurance compa-
nies paid an A4550 surgical tray code to cover these instru-
ment supply costs16; this rarely happens in current times.
This practice billed A4550 code a total of 200 times in
5 years and have been paid 3–4% of the time.
The perception at a hospital is that plastic surgery loses
money. In a study entitled “surgeon contribution to hos-
pital bottom line,” Resnick et al7 identified plastic surgery
cases as the lowest hospital margin per case with negative
contribution. Contribution margin was case number inde-
pendent, so it is not, in fact, possible to make it up in vol-
ume. This study was hospital based, where the very large
fixed building costs were distributed evenly. In our OBSS,
fixed building costs constitute less than 10% of the case
cost. The total fixed cost per case was $950 per case. In re-
ality, plastic surgery cases by comparison with orthopedic
or spine cases are lean in direct consumables, averaging
$261. In addition, plastic surgery cases do not incur many
fixed variable costs, such as specialized nursing or radiol-
ogy costs.
Conversely, an analysis on hospital versus freestand-
ing facilities by Pacella et al6 found that it was statistically
significantly profitable to perform plastic surgery in an
ASC related to decreased fixed cost assignment. With the
exception of reconstructive laser cases, aesthetic surgery
cases had a greater profitability over reconstructive cases,
which was only magnified at the ASC.6
The average plastic surgery case cost in our practice is
$1,202.80. This case cost can be extrapolated to most plas-
tic surgery cases. If the facility receives remuneration above
$1,202.80 per case, it constitutes a profit margin. Surpris-
ingly, it costs more to underwrite a breast augmentation
versus a facelift, and abdominoplasty costs 20% more than
liposuction, despite similar site and position. Based on the
results, the surgical fees were subsidizing breast augmenta-
tion and our facility fees were raised. These estimates set a
price point that must be paid by insurance companies for
reconstructive/insurance cases in an OBSS and have set
fees accordingly. Unburdening case costs from high fixed
facility costs has an opportunity for profit margin.
The average minor procedure cost was $63.86. As the
remuneration for minor procedures decreases, the cost of
supplies and manpower may soon make provision of this of-
fice-based care impossible in a network or at Medicare rates.
This fails the goal of providing cost-effective quality care.
The area reimbursement for a single mole removal code
11402 for Blue Cross Blue Shield is $114.7617 and for Medi-
care is $71.83.18 As such, the cost of care without physician
cost now constitutes 75% of remuneration. Doing multiple
procedures at the same visit can reduce the high percent-
age ratio of costs to remuneration. The costs are fixed, yet
there is more remuneration, albeit reduced by multiple pro-
cedure discounts. The intersection point at which provision
of the service is too expensive is rapidly approaching.
To compensate for low reimbursement, we maximize
personnel efficiency. We have moved all minor procedures
to a dedicated 4-hour block. This afternoon block is suffi-
cient for 10–12 minor procedures and can be expanded to
add larger cases, such as a labiaplasty or umbilicoplasty. Ex-
perience has shown that although minor facial cutaneous
surgery is a loss leader, it can be offset by “down-feeding”
through facial rejuvenation consults. That is, the recon-
structive aspect of a patient’s mole removal may not be prof-
itable, but his/her curiosity about cosmetic injectable is. We
have a philosophy of “turning a mole into a mountain.”
The pivotal point in downgrading surgery to “minor”
procedures, which cost 10% to cover, is a success of regional
analgesia. Localized areas, such as upper-lid blepharoplas-
ties and local Mohs reconstruction, allow highly effective
local analgesia. The success of tumescent local anesthesia
has made procedures more cost effective.19 The single best
example in our practice is labiaplasty where a $500 facility
cost differential between local analgesia and sedation cou-
pled with no need for an accompanying adult has led to an
efficient low cost procedure with 9:1 local versus sedation
acceptance. This is an example of cost savings being passed
through to the patient while maintaining efficacy.
Facility fees should be based on cost, not anecdotal
norms, to avoid practice losses. Informed accounting,
combined with maximization of manpower and minimiza-
tion of supply costs, is important to provide cost-efficient
care. The minor procedures cost an average of $64, con-
stituting 75% of the remuneration for insurance-covered
care in our practice. A baseline rate of $1,204 per major
anesthesia case sets a cost structure for accurate costing of
procedures. We outline an effective formula so that proce-
dure and surgical suite costs can be accurately identified
and factored.
Table 3. Rank of Major Procedure by Cost
Cost of
Specific Supplies ($)
Added Fixed and Fixed
Variable Expenses ($) Total ($)
Abdominoplasty 327.53 950.97 1,278.50
Breast augmentation 304.67 950.97 1,255.64
Facelift 289.06 950.97 1240.03
Lipectomy 124.05 950.97 1074.82
This summarizes the 4 most common major surgeries in our practice, ranked from greatest-to-least expensive and resource intensive to coordinate and perform. A
multiple procedure saving in the realm of 50% that could be anticipated as the opening cost of a case is the greatest expense.
LaBove and Davison Cost Analysis
Steven P. Davison, DDS, MD
Georgetown University School of Medicine
DAVinci Plastic Surgery
3301 New Mexico Ave NW
Suite 236
Washington, DC 20016
1. Becker ER, Dunn D, Hsiao WC. Relative cost differenc-
es among physicians’ specialty practices. JAMA 1988;260:
2. Ziolkowski NI, Voineskos SH, Ignacy TA, et al. Systematic review
of economic evaluations in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg.
3. Medicare Payment Advisory Committee: Report to Congress:
Medicare Payment Policy. 2013.
ments/Mar13_entirereport.pdf. Accessed March 2013.
4. Janevicius R. Do you really know your practice costs? “CPT cor-
ner.” Plastic Surgery News. 2003;14(6): 20–22.
5. Steinbrook R. Health care and the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:1057–1060.
6. Pacella SJ, Comstock MC, Kuzon WM Jr. Facility cost analysis in
outpatient plastic surgery: implications for the academic health
center. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;121:1479–1488.
7. Resnick AS, Corrigan D, Mullen JL, et al. Surgeon contribu-
tion to hospital bottom line: not all are created equal. Ann Surg.
8. Institute of Medicine: Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to
Continuously Learning Health Carein America. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press; 2012. Accessed March 2013.
9. Ginsburg ME, Kravitz RL, Sandberg WA. A survey of physician
attitudes and practices concerning cost-effectiveness in patient
care. West J Med. 2000;173:390–394.
10. Davison SP, Clemens, M. “Making a living from reconstructive
surgery.” The business of plastic surgery: navigating a successful career.
11. Lee M, Zwiebel S, Guyuron B. Frequency of the preoperative
flaws and commonly required maneuvers to correct them: a
guide to reducing the revision rhinoplasty rate. Plast Reconstr Surg.
12. Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Dartmouth Medical
School: Dartmouth Atlas Project: Supply Sensitive Care (Topic brief).
Hanover, NH: Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences,
Dartmouth Medical School. Available at: http://www.dart-
Accessed March 2013.
13. California Healthcare Almanac: Ambulatory Surgical Centers:
Big Business, Little Data. 2013.
tions/2013/06/ambulatory-surgery-centers. Accessed March
14. Rosenblatt WH, Chavez A, Tenney D, et al. Assessment of the
economic impact of an overage reduction program in the oper-
ating room. J Clin Anesth. 1997; 9:478–481.
15. CPI Inflation Calculator. 2014. Available at:
data/inflation_calculator.htm. Accessed February 2014.
16. American Academy of Urgent Care Medicine: Reimbursement/
Collection Tips. 2014. Available at:
Accessed February 2014.
17. First Priority Health: Billable PCP Services. 2014. Available at:
Providers/providerrelations/BillableLists/billable.htm. Accessed
February 2016.
18. 2012 Physician Fee Schedule. Available at:
2012physicianfeeschedule.pdf. Accessed February 2014.
19. Marcus JR, Tyrone JW, Few JW, et al. Optimization of conscious
sedation in plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999:104(5):
... 16 Of note, breast cancer does not resemble its distant cousin, ovarian cancer, which has been known to seed and requires great precaution. 17 Breast cancer does not seed at clinically significant levels as far as current research has shown. 18 ...
... These estimates are for hospital-based breast reconstruction and come from previous literature published on cost-efficacy in surgical technique using national averages (Table 1). 17 These "precaution fees" add to a grand total of $1231.83 per surgery, a conservative estimate depending on the minimal staffing of the case, the cost associated with the specific surgeon's preference card, and the geographic location of the hospital ( Table 2). These costs have the potential to rapidly escalate with additions of co-surgeons or use of specialized instruments. ...
Full-text available
As healthcare costs continue to rise at unsustainable rates (at an average rate of 5.5% a year), expenses without measurable outcomes need review.1 In reconstructive surgery, empiric change of instruments between oncologic and reconstructive segments of surgery is one such practice. Breast surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), prophylaxis, and partial extirpation has little possible increase in seeding or implantation risk based on the literature. With undue extrapolation from higher risk cancers (such as ovarian), preventative practices of changing out trays, re-gloving, re-gowning, re-preparing, and re-draping between phases persist in operating rooms across the country. From real case costs, the additional expense of 2 surgical setups in the United States is conservatively estimated at $1232 per case, or over $125 million per year for this theoretical risk. Using implantation risk for core breast biopsies as a denominator, this cost is $1.65-$5.8 million per potential recurrence. This is an unacceptably high cost for hypothetical recurrence risk reduction, especially one that does not impact survival outcomes.
... It can also result in significant costs savings, as operating room time is estimated to cost $36-$37 per min [16]. Despite similar surgeon reimbursements, office-based procedures have demonstrated significantly lower costs compared to similar procedures in an operating room setting [16,17]. Our data suggest that MMS is a safe procedure to perform in the office with patients who require over 30 mL of locally injected anesthesia. ...
Full-text available
General guidelines for the maximum amounts of locally injected lidocaine exist; however, there is a paucity of data in the Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) literature. This study aimed to determine the safety and adverse effects seen in patients that receive larger amounts of locally injected lidocaine. A retrospective chart review of 563 patients from 1992 to 2016 who received over 30 mL of locally injected lidocaine was conducted. Patient records were reviewed within seven postoperative days for complications. The average amount of anesthesia received was 40 mL, and the average patient weight was 86.69 kg. 1.4% of patients had a complication on the day of surgery, and 4.4% of patients had a complication within 7 days of the surgery. The most common complications were excessive bleeding/hematoma formation and wound infection. Only two complications could be attributable to local anesthetics. Gender, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and smoking were not significant risk factors for the development of complications. MMS is a safe outpatient procedure for patients that require over 30 mL of locally injected anesthesia. The safety of high volumes of lidocaine extends to patients with risk factors such as heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, and smoking.
... For reference, LaBove et al implemented a cost analysis of a plastic and reconstructive office-based surgical suite, accounting for surgical supply, labor, and administrative costs. 64 Subsequently, the data suggested that the estimated cost of sterilization in this site, including sterilization supplies and labor, was an average of $94.28 per case. Specific procedures of abdominoplasty, facelift, breast augmentation, and liposuction were included in the average analysis. ...
Full-text available
Surgical performance in the operating room (OR) is supported by effective illumination, which mitigates the inherent environmental, operational, and visual challenges associated with surgery. Three critical components are essential to optimize operating light as illumination: (1) centering on the surgeon's immediate field, (2) illuminating a wide or narrow field with high-intensity light, and (3) penetrating into a cavity or under a flap. Furthermore, optimal surgical illumination reduces shadow, glare, and artifact in visualization of the surgical site. However, achieving these principles is more complex than at first glance, requiring a detailed examination of the variables that comprise surgical illumination. In brief, efficacious surgical illumination combines sufficient ambient light with the ability to apply focused light at specific operative stages and angles. But, brighter is not always merely better; rather, a nuanced approach, cognizant of the challenges inherent in the OR theater, can provide for a thoughtful exploration of how surgical illumination can be utilized to the best of its ability, ensuring a safe and smooth surgery for all.
... Decreasing expenses would certainly be beneficial; however, currently, the costs of performing routine OMS services are not known. One investigator has recommended the use of advanced practice providers as an alternative to decrease procedure costs. 2 Although objective analyses of costs associated with specific treatment codes have been developed in other specialties, 3,4 in the oral-maxillofacial surgery data, only analyses of the costs associated with third molar removal have been performed. 5 Therefore, a cost analysis based on procedure codes in office-based oral and maxillofacial surgery is overdue and likely of interest to practicing oral and maxillofacial surgeons. ...
Purpose: Although many oral and maxillofacial surgical (OMS) procedures might seem to be profitable, no current data have analyzed the costs versus benefits of performing office-based OMS procedures. The purpose of the present study was to analyze the costs of performing 6 common office-based OMS procedures compared with the reimbursement rates for those same procedures. Materials and methods: The present study was a cross-sectional, microcosting survey analyzing the costs of materials used in the outpatient Oral-Maxillofacial Surgery clinic at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. The costs incurred were based on dental procedure coding and national statistical databases and not on actual patient interactions. The primary predictor variable was the procedure costs for 6 commonly performed outpatient OMS procedures using 3 types of trays: a simple tray, a surgical tray, and an implant tray. The ancillary materials were listed for as-needed use for each tray. The primary outcome variable was the revenue after expenses per procedure. Descriptive statistics were computed. The net profit or net loss of performing 6 commonly performed outpatient OMS procedures was analyzed by subtracting the cost of performing the procedure from the insurance reimbursement for those procedures. Results: Without the addition of sedation to the procedures, routine extractions had a net loss of $230 to $261, surgical extractions had a net loss of $153 to $242, and incision and drainage procedures had a net loss of $212 to $311. Furthermore, preprosthetic procedures had a net loss to net profit of -$269 to +$140, and pathologic procedures had a net loss to net profit of -$269 to +$326. Only implant procedures yielded a net profit of $847. Conclusions: The results of the present study have demonstrated that not all routine OMS procedures are profitable when performed alone without the inclusion of additional procedures or sedation.
... With the rising costs of health care in the United States, the importance of implementing cost-saving measures is 6 It would follow that optimizing PRS procedures in the acute setting in the ED would also yield cost benefits. This study supports the hypothesis that custom and reusable PRS procedure trays available in the ED for PRS use would yield time and cost efficiencies for our institution. ...
Full-text available
Background:. We hypothesize that reusable, on-site specialty instrument trays available to plastic surgery residents in the emergency department (ED) for bedside procedures are more cost-effective than disposable on-site and remote re-usable operating room (OR) instruments at our institution. Methods:. We completed a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the use of disposable on-site kits and remote OR trays to a hypothetical, custom, reusable tray for ED procedures completed by PRS residents. Material costs of existing OR trays were used to estimate the purchasing and use-cost of a custom on-site tray for the same procedures. Cost of per procedure ‘consult time’ was estimated using procedure and resident salary. Results:. Sixteen bedside procedures were completed over a 4.5 month period. A mean of 2.14 disposable kits were used per-procedure. Mean consultation time was 1.66 hours. Procedures that used OR trays took 3 times as long as procedures that used on-site kits (4 vs. 1.1 hours). Necessary, additional instruments were unavailable for 75% of procedures. Mean cost of using disposable kits and OR trays was $115.03/procedure versus an estimated $26.67/procedure cost of using a custom tray, yielding $88.36/procedure cost-savings. Purchase of a single custom tray ($1,421.55) would be redeemed after 2.3 weeks at 1 procedure/day. Purchasing 4 trays has projected annual cost-savings of $26,565.20. Conclusion:. The purchase of specialized procedure trays will yield valuable time and cost-savings while providing quality patient care. Improving time efficiency will help achieve the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) goals of maintaining resident well-being and developing quality improvement competency.
... Especially when cost analysis is one of the most important problems today, liposuction brings an additional burden. LaBove and Davison reported that, minor plastic surgery, such as liposuction, costs an average of $1200 [17]. Requiring a plastic surgeon as well as an orthopedic surgeon is also a difficult problem. ...
Full-text available
Background: Stem cells, with their regeneration capacity, long-term viability, and differentiation characteristics, have indispensable biological properties. As described by Hauner and Grigoradis et al., mesenchymal stem cell originating from adipose or bone marrow can be differentiated into many tissues such as adipocyte, chondrocyte, myeloblast, and osteoblast. The aim of our study is to compare the use of adipose and tibial bone marrow derived stem cells for therapeutic purposes in orthopedic surgery, which has not been clearly evaluated in the literature to our knowledge and to also evaluate their use. Material and method: Our study was performed between May 2014 and December 2016 in our clinic (Istanbul Medipol University, Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology) in 40 patients. Twelve patients were excluded. The ages of the 28 included patients ranged from 19 to 61 years, with a mean of 41.18 ± 13.39 years. The stem cell samples of these patients were analyzed by flow cytometry. Results: Tibial bone marrow stem cells were used in 15 cases and the mean age was 49.33 ± 9.15. Adipose-derived stem cells were used in 13 patients and the mean age was 31.77 ± 11.25. None of the patients had any minor/major complication in the areas where stem cells were collected. Discussion: Tibial-derived bone marrow has better results with regard to the complications, economic burden, and surgery time. Tibial-derived bone marrow harvesting and stem cell preparation time are one-fourth of the stem cell treatment prepared from adipose tissue and the surgical duration is shortened by 45 min. Conclusion: If stem cell use is the preference of the surgeon, we have found that the tibial-derived stem cell system is more advantageous for ease of acquisition, cost analysis, and surgical time.
... Multiple studies have shown the cost-effectiveness of minor surgical procedures done in an ambulatory setting instead of the hospital. 3,9,11,14,16,17,19,24 A Canadian study showed the cost savings for CTR done in the ambulatory setting. CTR done in the hospital was almost 4 times as expensive and less than half as efficient when compared with the outpatient setting. ...
Background: Wide-awake local anesthesia and no tourniquet (WALANT) has become more popular in hand surgery. Without a tourniquet, there is no need for preoperative testing or sedation. The use of lidocaine with epinephrine has allowed a larger variety of cases to be done safely in an outpatient setting instead of the hospital. "Minor field sterility," which uses fewer drapes and tools to accomplish the same procedures, is a concept that is also gaining recognition. Methods: Investigation of hand surgeons performing a majority of cases using WALANT and minor field sterility was the beginning of seeing its potential at our institution. Administration was concerned about patient safety, cost-effectiveness, and patient satisfaction of the proposed changes. Analysis of our institution to determine location of these procedures was also imperative to using WALANT. Results: An in-office procedure room was built to allow for WALANT and minor field sterility. The requirements and logistics of developing an in-office procedure room for wide-awake surgery are reviewed in this article. Conclusions: The concurrent use of WALANT and minor field sterility has created a hand surgery practice that is cost-effective for the patient and the facility and resulted in excellent patient outcomes and satisfaction.
Full-text available
Purpose Wide-awake local anesthesia with no tourniquet has dramatically changed hand surgery practice. Using lidocaine with epinephrine and no tourniquet has allowed many procedures to be moved from the main operating room to an in-office procedure room. Previous studies have shown that using local anesthesia is safe and cost effective, with high patient satisfaction. This study evaluated patient satisfaction and complications for the first 1,011 elective hand surgeries performed using wide-awake anesthesia in an in-office procedure room. Methods The first 1,011 patients who underwent elective hand surgery in an in-office procedure room were surveyed regarding their satisfaction. The patients were monitored for postoperative complications. Patient survey results and complications were logged in a database and analyzed. Results Single-digit trigger finger release was the most common procedure performed (n = 582), followed by mass excision (n = 158), multiple-digit trigger finger releases (n = 109), and carpal tunnel release (n = 41). There were 43 (4.3%) superficial skin infections, with the majority seen in single-digit trigger finger releases (n = 27). There were no deep wound infections. All infections were managed nonsurgically with oral antibiotics and local wound care. Ninety-nine percent of the patients rated the in-office procedure room experience as the same as or better than a dental visit, would recommend wide-awake anesthesia to a friend or family member, and would undergo the procedure again. Using “lean and green” hand packs saved our institution more than $65,000 and saved 18.4 tons of waste during this study period. Conclusions Surgical procedures performed with wide-awake local anesthesia with no tourniquet in an in-office procedure room can be performed safely with a low infection rate, are cost effective, and have high patient satisfaction. Clinical relevance Minor hand surgery done in an in-office procedure room is safe, is cost effective, and has high patient satisfaction.
Full-text available
Practice costs, defined as those costs of medical practice that exclude the physician's own time and effort, represent a substantial portion of the resources necessary to perform a service. In this article we describe the development of the practice cost index used in constructing the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale (RBRVS). We derived the practice cost index value for each specialty, using specialty-specific practice costs and gross revenue data. The index values for all other specialties are standardized to the value for general surgery, and these are used to adjust the resource-based relative values for services performed by each specialty; in this way, the RBRVS incorporates practice cost variations. The data used in the construction of the practice cost index are the 1983 Physician Practice Cost and Income Survey data, adjusted to reflect the relative levels of 1986 professional liability insurance. Our findings show that, among most specialties, the range of relative difference in practice costs as a percentage of gross revenue is approximately 15%. Four specialties fall outside this range: pathology, psychiatry, rheumatology, and orthopedic surgery. We discuss problems with the available data on practice costs as these relate to their use in the RBRVS and conceptual issues in applying practice costs to the construction of the RBRVS. (JAMA 1988;260:2397-2402)
Full-text available
Objective: To identify physicians' views regarding cost-containment and cost-effectiveness and their attitudes and experience using cost-effectiveness in clinical decision making. Design: A close-ended 30-item written survey. Subjects: 1,000 randomly selected physicians whose practices currently encompass direct patient care and who work in the California counties of Sacramento, Yolo, Placer, Nevada, and El Dorado. Outcome measures: Physician attitudes about the role of cost and cost-effectiveness in treatment decisions, perceived barriers to cost-effective medical practice, and response of physicians and patients if there are conflicts about treatment that physicians consider either not indicated or not cost-effective. Results: Most physicians regard cost-effectiveness as an appropriate component of clinical decisions and think that only the treating physician and patient should decide what is cost-worthy. However, physicians are divided on whether they have a duty to offer medical interventions with remote chances of benefit regardless of cost, and they vary considerably in their interactions with patients when cost-effectiveness is an issue. Conclusion: Although physicians in the Sacramento region accept cost-effectiveness as important and appropriate in clinical practice, there is little uniformity in how cost-effectiveness decisions are implemented.
Objective To identify physicians' views regarding cost-containment and cost-effectiveness and their attitudes and experience using cost-effectiveness in clinical decision making. Design A close-ended 30-item written survey. Subjects 1,000 randomly selected physicians whose practices currently encompass direct patient care and who work in the California counties of Sacramento, Yolo, Placer, Nevada, and El Dorado. Outcome measures Physician attitudes about the role of cost and cost-effectiveness in treatment decisions, perceived barriers to cost-effective medical practice, and response of physicians and patients if there are conflicts about treatment that physicians consider either not indicated or not cost-effective. Results Most physicians regard cost-effectiveness as an appropriate component of clinical decisions and think that only the treating physician and patient should decide what is cost-worthy. However, physicians are divided on whether they have a duty to offer medical interventions with remote chances of benefit regardless of cost, and they vary considerably in their interactions with patients when cost-effectiveness is an issue. Conclusion Although physicians in the Sacramento region accept cost-effectiveness as important and appropriate in clinical practice, there is little uniformity in how cost-effectiveness decisions are implemented.
Objective: We hypothesized that surgeon productivity is directly related to hospital operating margin, but significant variation in margin contribution exists between specialties. Summary Background Data: As the independent practitioner becomes an endangered species, it is critical to better understand the surgeon's importance to a hospital's bottom line. An appreciation of surgeon contribution to hospital profitability may prove useful in negotiations relating to full-time employment or other models. Methods: Surgeon total relative value units (RVUs), a measure of productivity, were collected from operating room (OR) logs. Annual hospital margin per specialty was provided by hospital finance. Hospital margin data were normalized by dividing by a constant such that the highest relative hospital margin (REM) in fiscal year 2004 expressed as margin units (mu) was I million mu. For each specialty, data analyzed included RHM/OR HR, RHM/case, and RHM/RVU. Results: Thoracic (34.55 mu/RVU) and transplant (25.13 mu/RVU) were the biggest contributors to hospital margin. Plastics (-0.57 mu/RVU), maxillofacial (1.41 mu/RVU), and gynecology (1.66 mu/RVU) contributed least to hospital margin. Relative hospital margin per OR HR for transplant slightly exceeded thoracic (275.74 mu vs 233.94 mu) at the top and plastics and maxillofacial contributed the least (-3.83 mu/OR HR vs 9.36 mu/OR HR). Conclusions: Surgeons contribute significantly to hospital margin with certain specialties being more profitable than others. Payer mix, the penetration of managed care, and negotiated contracts as well as a number of other factors all have an impact on an individual hospital's margin. Surgeons should be fully cognizant of their significant influence in the marketplace.
Background: The purpose of this study was to identify the most common deformities seen preoperatively in secondary rhinoplasty patients and the required surgical maneuvers to correct them. Methods: A retrospective chart review of 100 consecutive secondary rhinoplasty patients was performed. Preoperative variables included demographics, prior rhinoplasty data, main aesthetic/functional concerns, and the senior author's physical examination of the nose. Details of the operative maneuvers were reviewed. Results: The average patient age was 39.2 years. All patients had previous rhinoplasties performed by other surgeons. The most common preoperative complaints were airway occlusion (65 percent), dorsum asymmetry (33 percent), nostril asymmetry (18 percent), and tip asymmetry (14 percent). The most common preoperative nasal deformities seen by the senior author (B.G.) were dorsal asymmetry (65 percent), wide dorsum (47 percent), nostril asymmetry (41 percent), wide alar base (38 percent), and dorsal hump (30 percent). The senior author saw significantly more nasal deformities than the patients themselves, especially in the following areas: dorsal asymmetry (65 percent versus 33 percent; p = 0.0002), wide dorsum (47 percent versus 13 percent; p < 0.0001), nostril asymmetry (41 percent versus 18 percent; p = 0.0003), wide alar base (38 percent versus 6 percent; p < 0.0001), dorsal hump (30 percent versus 9 percent; p < 0.0001), and columella protrusion (25 percent versus 6 percent; p = 0.0002). The most common revision rhinoplasty surgical maneuvers were septoplasty (71 percent), alar rim graft (67 percent), dorsal graft (63 percent), osteotomy (60 percent), and dorsal hump removal (46 percent). Conclusions: The high incidence of airway concerns among secondary rhinoplasty patients is alarming and emphasizes the urgent need to pay attention to the airway during primary rhinoplasty. There is often a disparity between what the patient sees and what the surgeon observes.
Background: Economic evaluations are quantitative methods comparing alternative interventions using cost data and expected outcomes. They are used to recommend/dissuade adoption of new surgical interventions and compare different clinical pathways, settings (inpatient/outpatient), or time horizons to determine which procedure may be more cost-effective. The objective of this systematic review was to describe all published English economic evaluations related to a plastic surgery domain. Methods: A comprehensive English literature review of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Health Economic Evaluations Database, Ovid Health Star, and Business Source Complete databases was conducted (January 1, 1986, to June 15, 2012). Articles were assessed by two independent reviewers using predefined data fields and selected using specific inclusion criteria. Extracted information included country of origin, journal, and date of publication. Domain of plastic surgery and type of economic evaluation were ascertained. Results: Ninety-five articles were included in the final analysis, with cost analysis being the most common economic evaluation (82 percent). Full economic evaluations represented 18 percent. General cutaneous disorders/burns (24 percent), breast surgery (20 percent), and "multiple" (15 percent) were the top domains studied. Authors were predominantly based in the United States (56 percent) and published in the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (22 percent), with a significant proportion (40 percent) published in the last 5 years. Conclusions: Partial economic assessments (cost analyses) with limited benefit represent the majority of economic evaluations in plastic surgery. This suggests an urgent need to alert plastic surgeons to the advantages of full economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness and cost utility analyses) and the need to perform such rigorous analyses.
Henry E.Rice, Brian R.Englum, JenniferRothman, SarahLeonard, AudraReiter, CourtneyThornburg, MaryBrindle, NicolaWright, Matthew M.Heeney, CharlesSmithers, Rebeccah L.Brown, TheodosiaKalfa, Jacob C.Langer, MichaelaCada, Keith T.Oldham, J. PaulScott, ShawnSt. Peter, MuktaSharma, Andrew M.Davidoff, KerriNottage, KathrynBernabe, David B.Wilson, SanjeevDutta, BertilGlader, Shelley E.Crary, Melvin S.Dassinger, LevetteDunbar, SaleemIslam, ManjushaKumar, FredRescorla, SteveBruch, AndrewCampbell, MaryAustin, RobertSidonio, Martin LBlakely, . (2015) Clinical outcomes of splenectomy in children: Report of the splenectomy in congenital hemolytic anemia registry. American Journal of Hematology 90:10.1002/ajh.v90.3, 187-192 CrossRef