Bela Bapat

BACKGROUND: Adhesions are fibrous bands of scar tissue, often a result of surgery, that form between internal organs and tissues, joining them together abnormally. Postoperative adhesions frequently occur following abdominal surgery, and are associated with a large economic burden. This study examines the inpatient burden of adhesiolysis in the United States (i.e., number and rate of events, cost, length of stay [LOS]). METHODS: Hospital discharge data for patients with primary and secondary adhesiolysis were analyzed using the 2005 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Procedures were aggregated by body system. RESULTS: We identified 351,777 adhesiolysis-related hospitalizations: 23.2% for primary and 76.8% for secondary adhesiolysis. The average LOS was 7.8 days for primary adhesiolysis. We found that 967,332 days of care were attributed to adhesiolysis-related procedures, with inpatient expenditures totaling $2.3 billion ($1.4 billion for primary adhesiolysis; $926 million for secondary adhesiolysis). Hospitalizations for adhesiolysis increased steadily by age and were higher for women. Of secondary adhesiolysis procedures, 46.3% involved the female reproductive tract, resulting in 57,005 additional days of care and $220 million in attributable costs. CONCLUSIONS: Adhesiolysis remain an important surgical problem in the United States. Hospitalization for this condition leads to high direct surgical costs, which should be of interest to providers and payers.

SUMMARY Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) is the third most common cause of hospital-acquired acute renal failure. There is increasing evidence that CIN has a significant adverse impact on patient morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study was to estimate the in-hospital and 1-year direct healthcare costs related to CIN. Using the values obtained from the literature review, a decision analytic model was developed to estimate the in-hospital and 1-year costs of CIN. Patients who develop CIN are more likely to experience adverse events, to undergo prolonged dialysis, to have longer hospital and intensive care unit stays and to have higher mortality rates. The average in-hospital cost of CIN is $10,345. The 1-year cost of treating a patient with CIN is $11,812. Overall, the economic burden associated with CIN is high. Adopting targeted interventions will reduce the incidence of CIN and its overall economic burden.

BACKGROUND: The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) was established by the U.S. Congress in 1990. In recent years, there has been an emphasis on ascertaining the NBCCEDP's costs of delivering screening and diagnostic services to medically underserved, low-income women. The objective of this report was to address 3 economic questions: What is the cost per woman served in the program, what is the cost per woman served by program component, and what is the cost per cancer detected through the program? METHODS: The authors developed a questionnaire to systematically collect activity-based costs on screening for breast and cervical cancer from 9 participating programs. The questionnaire was developed based on well established methods of collecting cost data for program evaluation. Data were collected from July 2003 through June 2004. RESULTS: With in-kind contributions, the cost of screening services to women in 9 programs was estimated at $555 per woman served. Without in-kind contributions, this cost was $519. Among the program components, screening and coalitions/partnerships accounted for the highest and lowest cost per woman served, respectively. The median cost of screening a woman for breast cancer was $94, and the cost per breast cancer detected was $10,566. For cervical cancer, these costs were $56 and $13,340, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Costs per woman served, screened, and cancers detected are needed for programs to accurately determine the resources required to reach and screen eligible women. With limited program resources, these cost estimates can provide useful information to assist programs in planning and implementing cost-effective activities that could maximize the allocation of program resources.

INTRODUCTION: In 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) started a 3-year colorectal cancer screening demonstration project and funded five programs to explore the feasibility of a colorectal cancer program for the underserved U.S. population. CDC is evaluating the five programs to estimate implementation cost, identify best practices, and determine the most cost-effective approach. The objectives are to calculate start-up costs and estimate funding requirements for widespread implementation of colorectal cancer screening programs. METHODS: An instrument was developed to collect data on resource use and related costs. Costs were estimated for start-up activities, including program management, database development, creation of partnerships, public education and outreach, quality assurance and professional development, and patient support. Monetary value of in-kind contributions to start-up programs was also estimated. RESULTS: Start-up time ranged from 9 to 11 months for the five programs; costs ranged from $60,602 to $337,715. CDC funding and in-kind contributions were key resources for the program start-up activities. The budget category with the largest expenditure was labor, which on average accounted for 67% of start-up costs. The largest cost categories by activities were management (28%), database development (17%), administrative (17%), and quality assurance (12%). Other significant expenditures included public education and outreach (9%) and patient support (8%). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, no previous reports detail the costs to begin a colorectal cancer screening program for the underserved population. Start-up costs were significant, an important consideration in planning and budgeting. In-kind contributions were also critical in overall program funding. Start-up costs varied by the infrastructure available and the unique design of programs. These findings can inform development of organized colorectal cancer programs.

BACKGROUND: Physician burnout, characterized by exhaustion of physical or emotional strength, cynicism, and lack of achievement, has become a worsening phenomenon in medicine, contributing to higher health care costs and patient/physician dissatisfaction. How burnout has affected hematologists and oncologists is not well studied. METHODS: US community oncologists/hematologists were queried via a Web-based survey from September-November 2018. Physicians were asked about frequency of burnout symptoms, drivers of work-related stress, and their perceptions on management of workload. RESULTS: Among the 163 physicians surveyed, 46% felt a substantial amount of stress at work. Most physicians felt emotionally (85%) and physically (87%) exhausted. A majority of physicians felt lethargic (67%), ineffective (64%), and/or detached (63%). In a typical workweek, 93% needed time beyond time allocated to clinical care to complete work responsibilities. Electronic health record (EHR) responsibilities caused moderate to excessive stress at work for 67% of physicians; 79% of physicians worked on EHRs outside of clinic hours. Other sources of excessive stress were changing reimbursement models (33%), interactions with payers (31%), and increasing patient and caregiver demands (31%). A third of physicians have considered retiring early or changing their career path to cope. To combat burnout, physicians' practices have used advanced practice providers, invested in information technology, and/or hired additional administrative staff. However, the majority of physicians stated they had optimal or good control over their workload. CONCLUSION: Most oncologists experience burnout symptoms and require additional time beyond that allocated to clinical care to complete their workload. The discordance between oncologists' admission of stress and exhaustion while claiming good control over those same burdens warrants exploration in future research.