Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To examine the associations between patient out-of-pocket (OOP) costs and nonadherence to glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1a), and the consequent impact on adverse outcomes, including hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS/METHODS:This retrospective cohort study used MarketScan Commercial data (2016-2021). The cohort included nonpregnant adults aged 18-64 years with type 2 diabetes who initiated GLP-1a therapy. Participants were continuously enrolled in the same private insurance plan for 6 months before the prescription date and 1 year thereafter. Exposures included average first 30-day OOP costs for GLP-1a, categorized into quartiles (lowest [Q1] to highest [Q4]). Primary outcomes were the annual proportion of days covered (PDC) for GLP-1a and nonadherence, defined as PDC <0.8. Secondary outcomes included diabetes-related and all-cause hospitalizations and ED visits 1 year post-GLP-1a initiation. RESULTS:Among 61,907 adults who initiated GLP-1a, higher 30-day OOP costs were associated with decreased adherence. Patients in the highest OOP cost quartile (Q4: $80-$3,375) had significantly higher odds of nonadherence (odds ratio [OR]1.25; 95% CI 1.19-1.31) compared with those in Q1 ($0-$21). Nonadherence was linked to increased incidence rates of diabetes-related hospitalizations or ED visits (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.86; 95% CI 1.43-2.42), cumulative length of hospitalization (IRR 1.56; 95% CI 1.41-1.72), all-cause ED visits (IRR 1.38; 95% CI 1.32-1.45), and increased ED-related costs ($69.81, 95% CI $53.54-$86.08). CONCLUSIONS:Higher OOP costs for GLP-1a were associated with reduced adherence and increased rates of adverse outcomes among type 2 diabetes patients.

OBJECTIVE:To characterize the extent of private equity (PE) investment affecting surgical care. BACKGROUND:Over the last decade, investor-backed, for-profit PE groups have invested in health care at an unprecedented rate, but the breadth of these investments affecting surgical practice remains largely unknown. METHODS:Four nationally representative databases were used to identify all merger/acquisitions involving surgical practices between 2015 and 2019, determine PE investment in those transactions, and link the acquisitions with a physician data set. RESULTS:A total of 1542 unique transactions were identified, of which 539 were financed by PE. Fifty-eight transactions were then classified into their respective categories within surgical care: digestive disease, orthopedics, urology, vascular surgery, and plastic/cosmetic surgery. These transactions accounted for 199 practice sites and 1405 physicians, averaging 24.2 physicians per transaction. Acquisition activity peaked in 2017, with a total of 63 practices involved. Digestive disease, urology, and orthopedic surgery accounted for the most activity. General surgeons were involved in a small share of the digestive disease practice acquisitions. Three "surgery-adjacent" categories were also identified: anesthesiology, ambulatory surgery centers, and surgical staffing firms. Among these, anesthesia was the largest category in terms of practices (194) and physicians (2660) involved in transactions across the study period. Medical Service Organizations were a key mechanism through which PE firms invested in surgical care. CONCLUSIONS:PE has engaged in substantial investment within surgical specialties, creating increased practice consolidation. These investments affect all levels of medical care and have notable implications for patients, practitioners, and policymakers.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:In response to intense market pressures, many hospitals have consolidated into systems. However, evidence suggests that consolidation has not led to the improvements in clinical quality promised by proponents of mergers. The challenges to delivering care within expanding health systems and the opportunities posed to surgical leaders remains largely unexplored. METHODS:Semistructured interviews with 30 surgical leaders at teaching hospitals affiliated with health systems from August-December 2019. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded in an iterative process using MaxQDA software. Attitudes and strategies toward redesigning health care delivery across expanding systems were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS:Leaders reported challenges to redesigning care delivery across the system ranging from resource constraints (e.g. hospital beds and operating rooms) to evolving market demands (e.g., patient preferences to receive care close to home). However, participants also highlighted that system expansion provided multiple opportunities to increase access (e.g. decant low-complexity care to affiliated centers) and improve quality of care (e.g. standardize best practices) for diverse populations including the potential to leverage their health system to expand access and improve quality. CONCLUSIONS:Though evidence suggests that hospital consolidation has not led to redesigned care delivery or improved clinical quality at a national level, leaders are pursuing varying sets of strategies aimed at leveraging system expansion in order to improve access and quality of care.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Today, many hospitals are part of a multihospital network, which changes the context in which surgeons are asked to lead. This study explores key leadership competencies that surgical leaders use to navigate this hospital network expansion. METHODS:In this qualitative study, 30 surgical leaders were interviewed. Interviews were coded and analyzed via thematic analysis. RESULTS:We identified three key competencies that leaders felt were important leadership skills to successfully navigate expanding hospital networks. First, leaders must steer the departmental vision within the evolving hospital network landscape. Second, leaders must align the visions of the department and of the hospital network. Third, leaders must build a network-oriented culture within their department. CONCLUSIONS:As networks expand, leaders are tasked with unifying vision in their department. Leaders identified a unique opportunity to leverage their growing influence across the hospital network and invested in the people and culture of their department.

OBJECTIVE:To compare out-of-pocket (OOP) costs for patients up to 3 years after bariatric surgery in a large, commercially-insured population. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA:More information on OOP costs following bariatric surgery may affect patients' procedure choice. METHODS:Retrospective study using the IBM MarketScan commercial claims database, representing patients nationally who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2017. We compared total OOP costs after the surgical episode between the 2 procedures using difference-in-differences analysis adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, operative year, and insurance type. RESULTS:Of 63,674 patients, 64% underwent SG and 36% underwent RYGB. Adjusted OOP costs after SG were $1083, $1236, and $1266 postoperative years 1, 2, and 3. For RYGB, adjusted OOP costs were $1228, $1377, and $1369. In our primary analysis, SG OOP costs were $122 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -$155 to -$90) less than RYGB year 1. This difference remained consistent at -$119 (95%CI: -$158 to -$79) year 2 and -$80 (95%CI: -$127 to -$35) year 3. These amounts were equivalent to relative differences of -7%, -7%, and -5% years 1, 2, and 3. Plan features contributing the most to differences were co-insurance years 1, 2, and 3.The largest clinical contributors to differences were endoscopy and outpatient care year 1, outpatient care year 2, and emergency department use year 3. CONCLUSIONS:Our study is the first to examine the association between bariatric surgery procedure and OOP costs. Differences between procedures were approximately $100 per year which may be an important factor for some patients deciding whether to pursue SG or gastric bypass.

OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to evaluate associations between hospital participation in Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) and 30-day total episode and post-acute care spending for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), and colec-tomy. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:BPCI has been shown to reduce spending for LEJR episodes largely from reductions in post-acute care. However, BPCI efficacy in other common elective procedures, including CABG and colec-tomy, remains unclear. It is also unknown whether post-acute care spending reductions drive total spending reductions outside of LEJR. METHODS:Retrospective cohort study using 100% Medicare claims data to identify BPCI (312 total) and non-BPCI (1,977 total) acute care hospitals from January 1, 2010 to November 30, 2016 with Medicare-enrolled patient discharges for at least one of the following BPCI episodes: LEJR (454,369 episodes), CABG (107,307 episodes), or colectomy (73,717 episodes). Along with difference-in-differences (DiD) analysis, we constructed generalized synthetic controls in the presence of nonparallel trends to estimate associations between BPCI participation and 30-day total and post-acute care spending. RESULTS:DiD estimates indicated reduced spending for LEJR (-$541.6 [95% confidence interval (CI): -718.0 to -365.3]) and colectomy (-$582.1 [95% CI: -927.3 to -236.8]) but not CABG (-$268.9 [95% CI: -831.5 to 293.7]). Generalized synthetic control estimates indicated reduced spending for LEJR (-$795.3 [95% CI: -10,22.1 to -582.2]) but not colectomy (-$251.3 [95% CI: -997.9 to 335.2]) or CABG (-$257.8 [95% CI: -10,24.6 to 414.8]).Post-acute care comprised 42.6% of LEJR spending reductions and 53.0% of colectomy spending reductions. CONCLUSIONS:BPCI participation was associated with significant spending reductions for LEJR and colectomy but not CABG. We conclude that BPCI has episode-dependent efficacy, largely determined by post-acute care.

BACKGROUND:For patients who wish to undergo bariatric surgery, variation in pre-operative insurance requirements may represent inequity across insurance plan types. We conducted a cross-sectional assessment of the variation in pre-operative insurance requirements. METHODS:Original insurance policy documents for pre-operative requirements were obtained from bariatric surgery programs across the entire USA and online insurance portals. Insurance programs analyzed include commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare/TriCare plans. Poisson regression adjusting for U.S. Census region was used to evaluate variation in pre-operative requirements. Analyses were done at the insurance plan level. Our primary outcome was number of requirements required by each plan by insurance type. Our secondary outcome was number of months required to participate in medically supervised weight loss (MSWL). RESULTS:Among 43 insurance plans reviewed, representing commercial (60.5%), Medicaid (25.6%), and Medicare/TriCare (14.0%) plans, the number of pre-operative requirements ranged from 1 to 8. Adjusted Poisson regression showed significant variation in pre-operative requirements across plan types with Medicaid-insured patients required to fulfill the greatest number (4.1, 95%CI 2.7 to 5.4) compared to 2.7 (95%CI 2.2 to 3.2, P = 0.028) for commercially insured patients and 2.1 (95%CI 1.1 to 3.1, P = 0.047) for Medicare/TriCare-insured patients. Medicaid-insured patients were also required to complete a greater number of months in MSWL (6.6, 95%CI 5.5 to 7.6) compared to commercially (3.8, 95%CI 2.9 to 4.8, P < .001) and Medicare/TriCare-insured patients (1.7, 95%CI 0.3 to 3.0, P = .001). CONCLUSION:The greater frequency of pre-operative requirements in Medicaid plans compared to Medicare/TriCare and commercial plans demonstrates inequity across insurance types which may negatively impact access to bariatric surgery. Pre-operative insurance requirements must be reevaluated and standardized using established evidence to ensure all individuals have access to this life-saving intervention.