Download PDF
J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2022; 83(05): 515-525
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740395
Original Article

90-Day Bundled Payment Simulation, Health Care Utilization, and Complications following Craniopharyngioma Resection in Adult Patients

Nicholas Dietz   *
1   Department of Neurosurgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, United States
,
Mayur Sharma    *
1   Department of Neurosurgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, United States
,
Kevin John
1   Department of Neurosurgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, United States
,
Dengzhi Wang
1   Department of Neurosurgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, United States
,
Beatrice Ugiliweneza
1   Department of Neurosurgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, United States
,
Sriprakash Mokshagundam
2   Department of Endocrinology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, United States
,
Martin F. Bjurström
3   Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Skane University Hospital, Lund Sweden
,
Maxwell Boakye
1   Department of Neurosurgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, United States
,
Brian J. Williams
1   Department of Neurosurgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, United States
,
Norberto Andaluz
1   Department of Neurosurgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Context Bundled payment and health care utilization models inform cost optimization and surgical outcomes. Economic analysis of payment plans for craniopharyngioma resection is unknown.

Objective This study aimed to identify impact of endocrine and nonendocrine complications (EC and NEC, respectively) on health care utilization and bundled payments following craniopharyngioma resection.

Design This study is presented as a retrospective cohort analysis (2000–2016) with 2 years of follow-up.

Setting The study included national inpatient hospitalization and outpatient visits.

Patients Patients undergoing craniopharyngioma resection were divided into the following four groups: group 1, no complications (NC); group 2, only EC; group 3, NEC; and group 4, both endocrine and nonendocrine complications (ENEC).

Interventions This study investigated transphenoidal or subfrontal approach for tumor resection.

Main Outcome Hospital readmission, health care utilization up to 24 months following discharge, and 90-day bundled payment performances are primary outcomes of this study.

Results Median index hospitalization payments were significantly lower for patients in NC cohort ($28,672) compared with those in EC ($32,847), NEC ($36,259), and ENEC ($32,596; p < 0.0001). Patients in ENEC incurred higher outpatient services and overall median payments at 6 months (NC: 38,268; EC: 49,844; NEC: 68,237; and ENEC: 81,053), 1 year (NC: 46,878; EC: 58,210; NEC: 81,043; and ENEC: 94,768), and 2 years (NC: 58,391; EC: 70,418; NEC: 98,838; and ENEC: 1,11,841; p < 0.0001). The 90-day median bundled payment was significantly different among the cohorts with the highest in ENEC ($60,728) and lowest in the NC ($33,089; p < 0.0001).

Conclusion ENEC following surgery incurred almost two times the overall median payments at 90 days, 6 months, 1 year. and 2 years compared with those without complications. Bundled payment model may not be a feasible option in this patient population. Type of complications and readmission rates should be considered to optimize payment model prediction following craniopharyngioma resection.

Keywords

craniopharyngioma - bundle payments - complications - economics

* Authors share first authorship.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 12 September 2020

Accepted: 05 November 2021

Article published online:
16 December 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Müller HL. Craniopharyngioma. Endocr Rev 2014; 35 (03) 513-543
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Karavitaki N, Cudlip S, Adams CB, Wass JA. Craniopharyngiomas. Endocr Rev 2006; 27 (04) 371-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bunin GR, Surawicz TS, Witman PA, Preston-Martin S, Davis F, Bruner JM. The descriptive epidemiology of craniopharyngioma. J Neurosurg 1998; 89 (04) 547-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Nielsen EH, Feldt-Rasmussen U, Poulsgaard L. et al. Incidence of craniopharyngioma in Denmark (n = 189) and estimated world incidence of craniopharyngioma in children and adults. J Neurooncol 2011; 104 (03) 755-763
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Torres LF, Reis Filho JS, Netto MR. et al. Craniopharyngioma: clinical, epidemiological and pathological findings in 25 cases [in Portuguese]. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 1999; 57 (2A): 255-260
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Haupt R, Magnani C, Pavanello M, Caruso S, Dama E, Garrè ML. Epidemiological aspects of craniopharyngioma. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 2006; 19 (Suppl. 01) 289-293
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sughrue ME, Yang I, Kane AJ. et al. Endocrinologic, neurologic, and visual morbidity after treatment for craniopharyngioma. J Neurooncol 2011; 101 (03) 463-476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Flitsch J, Müller HL, Burkhardt T. Surgical strategies in childhood craniopharyngioma. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2011; 2: 96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Buchfelder M, Schlaffer SM, Lin F, Kleindienst A. Surgery for craniopharyngioma. Pituitary 2013; 16 (01) 18-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Kiliç M, Can SM, Özdemir B, Tanik C. Management of craniopharyngioma. J Craniofac Surg 2019; 30 (02) e178-e183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Müller HL, Gebhardt U, Pohl F. et al. Relapse pattern after complete resection and early progression after incomplete resection of childhood craniopharyngioma. Klin Padiatr 2006; 218 (06) 315-320
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kortmann RD. Different approaches in radiation therapy of craniopharyngioma. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2011; 2: 100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Fujio S, Juratli TA, Arita K. et al. A clinical rule for preoperative prediction of braf mutation status in craniopharyngiomas. Neurosurgery 2019; 85 (02) 204-210
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Zaidi HA, Chapple K, Little AS. National treatment trends, complications, and predictors of in-hospital charges for the surgical management of craniopharyngiomas in adults from 2007 to 2011. Neurosurg Focus 2014; 37 (05) E6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Bakhsheshian J, Jin DL, Chang KE. et al. Risk factors associated with the surgical management of craniopharyngiomas in pediatric patients: analysis of 1961 patients from a national registry database. Neurosurg Focus 2016; 41 (06) E8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 VanLare JM, Conway PH. Value-based purchasing–national programs to move from volume to value. N Engl J Med 2012; 367 (04) 292-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Damberg CL, Sorbero ME, Lovejoy SL, Martsolf GR, Raaen L, Mandel D. Measuring Success in Health Care Value-Based Purchasing Programs: Findings from an Environmental Scan, Literature Review, and Expert Panel Discussions. . Rand Health Q. 2014, 4:9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21942150/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Rule emphasizes quality and cost savings. Hospital case management: the monthly update on hospital-based care planning and critical paths. 2011; 19 (10) 148-149 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5161317/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Vertrees JC, Averill RF, Eisenhandler J, Quain A, Switalski J. Bundling post-acute care services into MS-DRG payments. Medicare Medicaid Res Rev 2013; 3 (03) x
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sharma M, Ugiliweneza B, Beswick J, Boakye M. Concurrent validity and comparative responsiveness of PROMIS-SF versus legacy measures in the cervical and lumbar spine population: longitudinal analysis from baseline to postsurgery. World Neurosurg 2018; 115: e664-e675
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Dietz N, Sharma M, Alhourani A. et al. Bundle payment model in spine surgery: Current challenges and opportunities, a systematic review. World Neurosurg 2019; 123: 177-183
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sullivan R, Jarvis LD, O'Gara T, Langfitt M, Emory C. Bundled payments in total joint arthroplasty and spine surgery. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2017; 10 (02) 218-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Dummit LA, Kahvecioglu D, Marrufo G. et al. Association between hospital participation in a medicare bundled payment initiative and payments and quality outcomes for lower extremity joint replacement episodes. JAMA 2016; 316 (12) 1267-1278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Alhourani A, Sharma M, Ugiliweneza B. et al. Ninety-day bundled payment reimbursement for patients undergoing anterior and posterior procedures for degenerative cervical radiculopathy. Neurosurgery 2019; 85 (05) E851-E859
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Rondon AJ, Phillips JLH, Fillingham YA, Gorica Z, Austin MS, Courtney PM. Bundled payments are effective in reducing costs following bilateral total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2019; 34 (07) 1317-1321.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Piccinin MA, Sayeed Z, Kozlowski R, Bobba V, Knesek D, Frush T. Bundle payment for musculoskeletal care: current evidence (part 1). Orthop Clin North Am 2018; 49 (02) 135-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Connolly ID, Johnson E, Lamsam L, Veeravagu A, Ratliff J, Li G. Microsurgical vs. endoscopic excision of colloid cysts: an analysis of complications and costs using a longitudinal administrative database. Front Neurol 2017; 8 (259) 259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Sharma M, Ugiliweneza B, Boakye M, Andaluz N, Williams BJ. Feasibility of bundled payments in anterior, middle, and posterior cranial fossa skull base meningioma surgery: marketscan analysis of health care utilization and outcomes. World Neurosurg 2019; 131: e116-e127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Medress Z, Ugiliweneza B, Parker J. et al. Simulating episode-based bundled payments for cranial neurosurgical procedures. Neurosurgery 2020; 87 (01) 86-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Dietz N, Sharma M, Alhourani A. et al. Outcomes of decompression and fusion for treatment of spinal infection. Neurosurg Focus 2019; 46 (01) E7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Sharma M, Dietz N, Alhourani A. et al. Insights into complication rates, reoperation rates, and healthcare utilization associated with use of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in patients with spine infections. Neurosurg Focus 2019; 46 (01) E8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Adamson D, Chang S, Hansen L. Health Research Data for the Real world: The MarketScan Databases (White papers). 2012 . http://patientprivacyrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Thomson-Medstat-white-paper.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 1998; 36 (01) 8-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P. et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care 2005; 43 (11) 1130-1139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Parikh AA, Robinson J, Zaydfudim VM, Penson D, Whiteside MA. The effect of health insurance status on the treatment and outcomes of patients with colorectal cancer. J Surg Oncol 2014; 110 (03) 227-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Stokes ME, Davis CS, Koch GG. Categorical data analysis using the SAS system. 2nd ed. Accessed November 23, 2021 at: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Categorical+Data+Analysis+Using+the+SAS+System%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9780471224242
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Dietz N, Sharma M, Alhourani A. et al. Bundled payment models in spine surgery: current challenges and opportunities, a systematic review. World Neurosurg 2019; 123: 177-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Pascual JM, Prieto R, Castro-Dufourny I, Carrasco R, Strauss S, Barrios L. Development of intracranial approaches for craniopharyngiomas: an analysis of the first 160 historical procedures. Neurosurg Focus 2014; 36 (04) E13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Lobo B, Heng A, Barkhoudarian G, Griffiths CF, Kelly DF. The expanding role of the endonasal endoscopic approach in pituitary and skull base surgery: A 2014 perspective. Surg Neurol Int 2015; 6: 82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Bidur KC, Prasad DU. Outcome following surgical resection of craniopharyngiomas: a case series. Asian J Neurosurg 2017; 12 (03) 514-518
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Koutourousiou M, Gardner PA, Fernandez-Miranda JC, Tyler-Kabara EC, Wang EW, Snyderman CH. Endoscopic endonasal surgery for craniopharyngiomas: surgical outcome in 64 patients. J Neurosurg 2013; 119 (05) 1194-1207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Šteňo J, Bízik I, Šteňo A, Matejčík V. Recurrent craniopharyngiomas in children and adults: long-term recurrence rate and management. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2014; 156 (01) 113-122 , discussion 122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Schoenfeld A, Pekmezci M, Barnes MJ. et al. The superiority of conservative resection and adjuvant radiation for craniopharyngiomas. J Neurooncol 2012; 108 (01) 133-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Brastianos PK, Santagata S. Endocrine tumors: BRAF V600E mutations in papillary craniopharyngioma. Eur J Endocrinol 2016; 174 (04) R139-R144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Juratli TA, Jones PS, Wang N. et al. Targeted treatment of papillary craniopharyngiomas harboring BRAF V600E mutations. Cancer 2019; 125 (17) 2910-2914
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Merchant TE, Kiehna EN, Sanford RA. et al. Craniopharyngioma: the St. Jude Children's Research Hospital experience 1984-2001. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2002; 53 (03) 533-542
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Lo AC, Howard AF, Nichol A. et al. Long-term outcomes and complications in patients with craniopharyngioma: the British Columbia Cancer Agency experience. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2014; 88 (05) 1011-1018
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar