Dataset Information

Determinants, Costs, and Consequences of Common Bile Duct Injury Requiring Operative Repair Among Privately Insured Individuals in the United States, 2003–2020

ABSTRACT:

Objective:

Characterize the determinants, all-cause mortality risk, and healthcare costs associated with common bile duct injury (CBDI) following cholecystectomy in a contemporary patient population.

Background:

Retrospective cohort study using nationwide patient-level commercial and Medicare Advantage claims data, 2003–2019. Beneficiaries ≥18 years who underwent cholecystectomy were identified using Current Procedure Terminology (CPT) codes. CBDI was defined by a second surgical procedure for repair within one year of cholecystectomy.

Methods:

We estimated the association of common surgical indications and comorbidities with risk of CBDI using logistic regression; the association between CBDI and all-cause mortality using Cox proportional hazards regression; and calculated average healthcare costs associated with CBDI repair.

Results:

Among 769,782 individuals with cholecystectomy, we identified 894 with CBDI (0.1%). CBDI was inversely associated with biliary colic (odds ratio [OR] = 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71–0.94) and obesity (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.59–0.84), but positively associated with pancreas disease (OR = 2.16, 95% CI: 1.92–2.43) and chronic liver disease (OR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.05–1.49). In fully adjusted Cox models, CBDI was associated with increased all-cause mortality risk (hazard ratio = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.38–1.79). The same-day CBDI repair was associated with the lowest mean overall costs, with the highest mean overall costs for repair within 1 to 3 months.

Conclusions:

In this retrospective cohort study, calculated rates of CBDI are substantially lower than in prior large studies, perhaps reflecting quality-improvement initiatives over the past two decades. Yet, CBDI remains associated with increased all-cause mortality risks and significant healthcare costs. Patient-level characteristics may be important determinants of CBDI and warrant ongoing examination in future research. Mini-Abstract Common bile duct injury (CBDI) is a serious complication of cholecystectomy, necessitating technically demanding repair with associated reductions in survival and quality of life. This analysis examines potential determinants, all-cause mortality, and total healthcare costs associated with CBDI in a contemporary patient population.

SUBMITTER: Elser H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10431520 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe conducted this study to estimate the prevalence of pediatric lower urinary tract symptoms (pLUTS) in a US privately insured pediatric population who are 6-20 years old by age, sex, race/ethnicity from 2003-2014. This has not been previously described in the literature.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Data Mart Database between 2003-2014. A pLUTS patient was defined by the presence of ≥ 1 pLUTS-related ICD-9 diagnosis code between the age of 6-20 years. Neurogenic bladder, renal transplant and structural urologic disease diagnoses were excluded. Prevalence by year was calculated as a proportion of pLUTS patients among the total population at risk. Variables reviewed included age, sex, race, geographic region, household factors and clinical comorbidities including attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), constipation, and sleep apnea. Point of service (POS) was calculated as a proportion of pLUTS-related claims associated with a POS compared to the total claims at all POS in the time period.ResultsWe identified 282,427 unique patients with ≥ 1 claim for pLUTS between the ages of 6-20 years from 2003 to 2014. Average prevalence during this period was 0.92%, increasing from 0.63% in 2003 to 1.13% in 2014. The median age group of patients was 6-10 years. More patients were female (59.80%), white (65.97%), between 6 and 10 years old (52.18%) and resided in the Southern US (44.97%). Within a single household, 81.71% reported ≤ 2 children, and 65.53% reported ≥ 3 adults. 16.88% had a diagnosis of ADHD, 19.49% had a diagnosis of constipation and 3.04% had a diagnosis of sleep apnea. 75% of pLUTS-related claims were recorded in an outpatient setting.ConclusionsFamilies consistently seek medical care in the outpatient setting for pLUTS. The demographic and clinical characteristics of our cohort reflect prior literature. Future studies can help define temporal relationships between household factors and onset of disease as well as characterize pLUTS-related healthcare resource utilization. Additional work is required in publicly insured populations.

Project description:ImportancePatients may be unaware of which laboratory is processing their clinical tests, limiting their ability to choose an in-network laboratory. Out-of-network laboratory services could increase patients' out-of-pocket costs and their reluctance to obtain necessary tests.ObjectiveTo evaluate the frequency and cost of out-of-network bills for outpatient laboratory services compared with other services.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study of claims data from the Truven MarketScan Commercial Claims database evaluated claims from 3 946 210 individuals (30.5% of the total) in the MarketScan database who were continually enrolled in health maintenance organization plans, preferred provider organization plans, exclusive provider organization plans, or consumer-driven health plans/high-deductible health plans with at least 1 outpatient clinical laboratory service in 2018. Outpatient laboratory services occurred in independent laboratories, physician offices, and outpatient centers. Laboratory bills from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018, were studied.ExposuresReceipt and cost of outpatient laboratory service.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of outpatient laboratory services billed as out of network. The secondary outcome was the total potential out-of-pocket cost associated with the out-of-network bill, the sum of observed cost sharing, and the potential balance bill.ResultsOf the 12 958 130 in the total sample, 30.5% (3 946 210) had a laboratory test, of whom 5.9% received an out-of-network laboratory test. In comparison, 7.1% of the total sample had an emergency department visit, of whom 4.9% had a service billed as out of network, and 1.6% had an inpatient anesthesiology service, of whom 3.4% had an out-of-network service. Observed out-of-pocket spending was $24.59 higher for an out-of-network laboratory service than an in-network laboratory service. In addition, patients with an out-of-network laboratory service may receive an additional balance bill from the laboratory service; the estimated mean balance bill was $80.63. For the most common laboratory services, the total potential out-of-pocket cost associated with an out-of-network bill ranged from $15.68 for venipuncture to $88.09 for lipid panel but was as high as $303.18 for a drug screening test.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, out-of-network laboratory services were 5 times more common than out-of-network emergency department visits and 34 times more common than out-of-network anesthesiology services. It is important for patients that consumer protections against out-of-network bills apply to laboratory services.

Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to describe comorbidities, healthcare costs, and resource utilization among patients with chronic non-infectious uveitis initiating corticosteroid, immunosuppressants, or biologics.In this retrospective cohort study, patients with a non-infectious uveitis diagnosis and continuous insurance coverage during a 6-month baseline were selected from a privately insured claims database with 80.7 million enrollees. Index dates were defined as the first prescription/administration of a corticosteroid, immunosuppressant, or biologic between 2003 and 2009. Comorbidities, healthcare costs, and utilization were analyzed in a per-member-per-month (PMPM) framework to account for varying between-patient treatment periods, defined as continuous medication use within the same class. Wilcoxon rank-sum and chi-square tests were used for comparisons of costs and categorical outcomes.ResultsPatients on corticosteroids (N = 4,568), immunosuppressants (N = 5,466), and biologics (N = 1,694) formed the study population. Baseline PMPM inpatient admission rates were 0.029 for patients on corticosteroids, 0.044 for patients on immunosuppressants, and 0.045 for patients on biologics (p < 0.001 immunosuppressants or biologics versus corticosteroids); during treatment, PMPM inpatient admissions increased to 0.044 and 0.048 for patients taking corticosteroids and immunosuppressants, respectively, but decreased to 0.024 for patients taking biologics (p < 0.001 versus corticosteroids and p = 0.003 versus immunosuppressants). Baseline average PMPM costs for patients taking corticosteroids, immunosuppressants, and biologics were US$935, US$1,738, and US$1,439 (p < 0.001 between groups), while on-treatment PMPM costs excluding drug costs increased to US$1,129 for patients taking corticosteroids but lowered to US$1,592 for patients taking immunosuppressants, and US$918 for patients taking biologics (p < 0.001 versus corticosteroids or immunosuppressants).ConclusionsThere is significant economic burden associated with existing treatments of uveitis. Corticosteroids may be overused as a treatment for uveitis.

Project description:New anabolic medications (abaloparatide and romosozumab) were recently approved for osteoporosis, and data suggest that prescribing antiresorptive medications after a course of anabolic medications offers better outcomes. This study aimed to characterize prescription trends, demographics, geographical distributions, out-of-pocket costs, and treatment sequences for anabolic and antiresorptive osteoporosis medications. Using a commercial claims database (Clinformatics Data Mart), adult patients with osteoporosis from 2003 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed and stratified based on osteoporosis medication class. Patient demographics and socioeconomic variables, provider types, and out-of-pocket costs were collected. Multivariable regression analyses were used to identify independent predictors of receiving osteoporosis treatment. A total of 2,988,826 patients with osteoporosis were identified; 616,635 (20.6%) received treatment. Patients who were female, Hispanic or Asian, in the Western US, had higher net worth, or had greater comorbidity burden were more likely to receive osteoporosis medications. Among patients who received medication, 31,112 (5.0%) received anabolic medication; these were more likely to be younger, White patients with higher education level, net worth, and greater comorbidity burden. Providers who prescribed the most anabolic medications were rheumatologists (18.5%), endocrinologists (16.8%), and general internists (15.3%). Osteoporosis medication prescriptions increased fourfold from 2003 to 2020, whereas anabolic medication prescriptions did not increase at this rate. Median out-of-pocket costs were $17 higher for anabolic than antiresorptive medications, though costs for anabolic medications decreased significantly from 2003 to 2020 (compound annual growth rate: -0.6%). A total of 8388 (1.4%) patients tried two or more osteoporosis medications, and 0.6% followed the optimal treatment sequence. Prescription of anabolic osteoporosis medications has not kept pace with overall osteoporosis treatment, and there are socioeconomic disparities in anabolic medication prescription, potentially driven by higher median out-of-pocket costs. Although prescribing antiresorptive medications after a course of anabolic medications offers better outcomes, this treatment sequence occurred in only 0.6% of the study cohort. © 2023 The Authors. JBMR Plus published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Project description:ImportanceHealth care professionals have shown significant interest in nonoperative management for uncomplicated appendicitis, but long-term population-level data are lacking.ObjectiveTo compare the outcomes of nonoperatively managed appendicitis against appendectomy.Design, setting, and participantsThis national retrospective cohort study used claims data from a private insurance database to compare patients admitted with uncomplicated appendicitis from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2014, undergoing appendectomy vs nonoperative management. Coarsened exact matching was applied before multivariate analysis to reduce imbalance between groups. Data were analyzed from February 12 through May 1, 2018.ExposuresAppendectomy (control arm) or nonoperative management (treatment arm).Main outcomes and measuresShort-term primary clinical outcomes included emergency department visits, hospital readmission, abdominal abscess, and Clostridium difficile infections. Long-term primary clinical outcomes were small-bowel obstructions, incisional hernias, and appendiceal cancers. Nonoperative management failure was defined by hospital readmission with appendicitis diagnosis and an appendicitis-associated operation or procedure. Secondary outcomes included number of follow-up visits, length and cost of index hospitalization, and total cost of appendicitis-associated care. Covariates included age, sex, region, insurance plan type, admission year, and Charlson comorbidity index.ResultsOf 58 329 patients with uncomplicated appendicitis (52.7% men; mean [SD] age, 31.9 [16.5] years), 55 709 (95.5%) underwent appendectomy and 2620 (4.5%) underwent nonoperative management. Patients in the nonoperative management group were more likely to have appendicitis-associated readmissions (adjusted odds ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.63-2.77; P < .001) and to develop an abscess (adjusted odds ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.05-1.92; P = .02). Patients in the nonoperative management group required more follow-up visits in the year after index admission (unadjusted mean [SD], 1.6 [6.3] vs 0.3 [1.4] visits; adjusted +1.11 visits; P < .001) and had lower index hospitalization cost (unadjusted mean [SD], $11 502 [$9287] vs $13 551 [$10 160]; adjusted -$2117, P < .001), but total cost of appendicitis care was higher when follow-up care was considered (unadjusted, $14 934 [$31 122] vs $14 186 [$10 889]; adjusted +$785; P = .003). During a mean (SD) of 3.2 (1.7) years of follow-up, failure of nonoperative management occurred in 101 patients (3.9%); median time to recurrence was 42 days (interquartile range, 8-125 days). Among the patients who experienced treatment failure, 44 did so within 30 days.Conclusions and relevanceAccording to results of this study, nonoperative management failure rates were lower than previously reported. Nonoperative management was associated with higher rates of abscess, readmission, and higher overall cost of care. These data suggest that nonoperative management may not be the preferred first-line therapy for all patients with uncomplicated appendicitis.