For many complex surgical operations, research concludes that patients who seek care from a surgeon who performs a high number of such procedures (high-volume surgeons) have lower mortality rates than patients operated on by low-volume surgeons. As a health economist, I was interested in learning whether health care costs differ between high- and low-volume surgeons. Are the costs of a hospital stay for an operation performed by a high-volume surgeon higher than that for a low-volume surgeon? After all, customers often assume that price is a signal of quality.
Several years ago, I and Thomas Aloia, a surgeon at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, analyzed hospital discharge records for patients who underwent six complex cancer operations (ranging from colon resection to pancreatic resection) in the states of Florida, New Jersey, and New York between 1989 and 2000. We found that the cost of hospital stays for patients who were operated on by a high-volume surgeon were significantly lower than for surgeons who performed a small number of cancer operations each year. However, we did not know the underlying reason why this relationship existed.
Dr. Aloia and I were awarded an NIH grant to find out why higher volume surgeons were able to achieve lower health care costs. We published three papers from this grant, with the final paper providing the most illuminating results. Analyzing Medicare data from 2005 through 2009, we found that higher surgeon volume was associated with lower-cost hospital stays for four cancer operations: colectomy, rectal resection, pulmonary lobectomy, and pancreatic resection.
The largest cost savings occurred for pancreatic resection, which is the most complicated operation. Patients operated on by a surgeon in the 95th percentile for procedure volume (14 operations per year) had costs that were on average $3,286 lower than a surgeon in the 5th percentile (1 pancreatic resection per year). For the operation that is considered more straightforward, a colectomy, costs for the highest volume surgeons were $1,089 lower than for the lowest volume physicians.
In this study, we were able to identify the source of the cost differential. Patients treated by high-volume surgeons had fewer instances of “processes of care” that are commonly used to address complications. These processes, including total parenteral nutrition, and critical care and inpatient consultations, raise the costs of a hospital stay between 14 and 34 percent. In fact, the higher need to deliver these processes of care to patients operated on by low-volume surgeons explained all of the volume-cost differential for colectomy and roughly half the difference for pancreatic resection.
Our analysis suggests that in the case of cancer surgery, higher price is not necessarily a signal of high quality. Instead, it may be an indicator of the need for costly care to address post-surgical complications. Patients may be better off seeking care from higher volume surgeons, not just because it’s better for their pocketbooks, but because they will receive better care.
What do these results suggest for health care policy? Most physicians are currently reimbursed under the fee-for-service system. Whether or not a surgeon performs an operation well or poorly, the fee the doctor receives from Medicare (or private insurers) remains the same. And if lower quality leads to more complications, then other physicians also receive additional compensation to address the resulting health care issues.
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services is gradually moving away from fee-for-service payments and towards value-based care. Providing a “bundled payment” to doctors and hospitals, where Medicare specifies a fixed reimbursement rate for all care associated with a treatment regardless of the actual costs of the hospital stay, will incentivize providers to deliver care with fewer costly complications.
However, efforts to make bundled payments mandatory for joint replacement and some cardiac care have been stalled by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. Nevertheless, CMS has been able to launch an Oncology Care Model, which introduces financial and performance accountability measures for many physician practices delivering chemotherapy to Medicare beneficiaries across the country. We are still awaiting to learn the results of this new model.
Our nation has spent the last few months in a tumultuous debate over who should and should not receive government-subsidized health insurance. Yet health insurance coverage has become so costly, because we have failed to focus on the factors that needlessly drive up costs in our health care system. We must change the way we reimburse and incentivize health care providers for the care that they deliver. Bundled payments and other types of value-based care are potentially powerful tools for simultaneously improving the quality of patient care and reducing healthcare spending. Only with such tools will we be able to achieve a sustainable health care system.
Dr. Vivian Ho is a member of the Texas Medical Center Health Policy Institute’s Executive Advisory Committee. Dr. Ho is the James A. Baker III Institute Chair in Health Economics at Rice University and the Director of the Center for Health and Biosciences at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.
If you think the market can fix health care, think again. Without perfect information & perfect competition, this will be a challenge. Learn more in our new book published by @RLPGBooks https://t.co/MRV3Ns7nwe #healthpolicy https://t.co/uDc2gqVNWM
How much of US health care spending is wasteful? 10 percent? 25 percent? Try nearly a THIRD. We’ll discuss why it's so much at a discussion of our new book in Houston Oct. 15 https://t.co/MRV3Ns7nwe https://t.co/PulyEJeeZz
“The best way to increase the physician supply is to decrease retirement,” says Tim Garson, director of the @TXMedCenter Health Policy Institute. Hear the rest of our discussion with @HoustonPubMedia about the looming doctor shortage: https://t.co/uEtgi1KokE #healthpolicy https://t.co/aYfvW7cwtt
If you think the uninsured get adequate health care through the ER, think again. We bust that myth — and many more — in our new book “Exposing the Twenty Medical Myths.” Join us Oct. 15 in Houston to learn more: https://t.co/MRV3Ns7nwe https://t.co/wGxkThYxxZ
This morning, our director Dr. Tim Garson discusses with @HoustonMatters what he's hoping to hear from the candidates about health care during tonight's debates in Houston. Listen live at 9 a.m. Central on @HoustonPubMedia https://t.co/liWgjOsRag #healthpolicy @TXMedCenter https://t.co/ERK6OuTaCV
Tomorrow night - just 2 miles from the largest medical center on Earth - presidential candidates will debate the future of health care. We spoke with @BenjaminEW of the @HoustonChron about what candidates and voters are saying https://t.co/tbnSp9b9CN #healthpolicy
When physicians integrate with hospitals, the cost of health care rises - even though there’s no evidence patients get better treatment, according to new research by experts at @BakerInstitute and @BCBSTX https://t.co/ijgnyw7Ac2 #healthpolicy
Exciting news: our team has published a new book that explores the answers to every question you’ve ever had about health policy! Learn more at our @TXMedCenter author talk on Oct. 15. More info at https://t.co/MRV3Ns7nwe https://t.co/vSQC5AaPQI
"How do we build on what’s working, cover everyone, simplify administration & find a path that limits cost increases? Maybe its 'Medicare Advantage for All.'" View the latest op-ed in @thehill from our friends @HealthEconTX Ho and @KenJanda https://t.co/gnmubEOJt4 #MedicareForAll https://t.co/1MHUFCLL9j
Join us Oct. 15 in Houston as we discuss our new book, "Exposing the Twenty Medical Myths: Why Everything You Know About Health Care Is Wrong and How to Make It Right." Free registration at: https://t.co/MRV3Ns7nwe #healthpolicy https://t.co/iXibD8qw7Z
Important new work from @KFF reveals that health costs for families covered by large employers have risen an astonishing 67 percent over the last decade. https://t.co/KSSSuCDmqr #healthpolicy
"'Medicare for all' is the wrong goal and we need a new system." Our director Dr. Arthur Garson offers his take in @thehill about the best way to provide health care for all Americans. https://t.co/8MSRMiaU2N https://t.co/LA7WXcmZ8K
As voters watch the debates this week, they should pay close attention to the candidates’ answers (and non-answers) to these three key health care questions -- our latest in @statnews #DemDebate https://t.co/0kXCP0EZW0 https://t.co/7mT1OMfV6B
During tomorrow's debates, you'll hear a lot of discussion about Medicare for All. But here are ways we can start reducing the cost of health care — right now. https://t.co/h4sLjTHzjl https://t.co/cOwZuWNxjp
In our latest @HoustonChron @ChronOpinion piece, we weigh in on proposals to increase transparency in medical pricing. "Transparency needs context. Just publishing the numbers isn’t good enough for patients." https://t.co/uifpiJvCCr https://t.co/WutNCQZ9fT