BACKGROUND:Children with complex chronic conditions (CCCs) utilize a disproportionate share of hospital resources. OBJECTIVE:We asked whether some hospitals display a significantly different pattern of resource utilization than others when caring for similar children with CCCs admitted for medical diagnoses. RESEARCH DESIGN:Using Pediatric Health Information System data from 2009 to 2013, we constructed an inpatient Template of 300 children with CCCs, matching these to 300 patients at each hospital, thereby performing a type of direct standardization. SUBJECTS:Children with CCCs were drawn from a list of the 40 most common medical principal diagnoses, then matched to patients across 40 Children's Hospitals. MEASURES:Rate of intensive care unit admission, length of stay, resource cost. RESULTS:For the Template-matched patients, when comparing resource use at the lower 12.5-percentile and upper 87.5-percentile of hospitals, we found: intensive care unit utilization was 111% higher (6.6% vs. 13.9%, P<0.001); hospital length of stay was 25% higher (2.4 vs. 3.0 d/admission, P<0.001); and finally, total cost per patient varied by 47% ($6856 vs. $10,047, P<0.001). Furthermore, some hospitals, compared with their peers, were more efficient with low-risk patients and less efficient with high-risk patients, whereas other hospitals displayed the opposite pattern. CONCLUSIONS:Hospitals treating similar patients with CCCs admitted for similar medical diagnoses, varied greatly in resource utilization. Template Matching can aid chief quality officers benchmarking their hospitals to peer institutions and can help determine types of their patients having the most aberrant outcomes, facilitating quality initiatives to target these patients.

Purpose

The 2010 Dependent Coverage Provision (DCP) of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) allowed enrollees to remain on their parents' health insurance until 26 years of age. We compared rates of insurance disenrollment among patients with cancer who were DCP-eligible at age 19 to those who were not eligible at age 19.

Methods

Using OptumLabs Data Warehouse, which contains longitudinal, real-world, de-identified administrative claims for commercial enrollees, we examined patients born between 1982 and 1993 and diagnosed with cancer between 2000 and 2015. In the recent cohort, patients who turned 19 in 2010-2012 (DCP-eligible to stay on parents' insurance) were matched to patients who turned 19 in 2007-2009 (not DCP-eligible when turning 19). In an earlier control cohort, patients who turned 19 between 2004 and 2006 (not DCP-eligible) were matched to patients who turned 19 between 2001 and 2003 (not DCP-eligible). Patients were matched on cancer type, diagnosis date, demographics, and treatment characteristics. The time to loss of coverage was estimated using Cox models. Difference-in-difference between the recent and earlier cohorts was also evaluated.

Results

A total of 2,829 patients who turned 19 years of age in 2010-2012 were matched to patients who turned 19 in 2007-2009. Median time to disenrollment was 26 months for younger patients versus 22 months for older patients (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.90; P = .001). In 8,978 patients who turned 19 between 2001 and 2006, median time to disenrollment was 20 months among both younger and older patients (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.03; P = .59). The difference between the recent cohort and the earlier control cohort was a 15% greater reduction in coverage loss (P < .0001), favoring those turning 19 after the DCP went into effect.

Conclusion

In the vulnerable population of adolescent and young adult cancer survivors, the ACA may have lowered the insurance dropout rate.

Objective

To determine whether outcomes achieved by new surgeons are attributable to inexperience or to differences in the context in which care is delivered and patient complexity.

Background

Although prior studies suggest that new surgeon outcomes are worse than those of experienced surgeons, factors that underlie these phenomena are poorly understood.

Methods

A nationwide observational tapered matching study of outcomes of Medicare patients treated by new and experienced surgeons in 1221 US hospitals (2009-2013). The primary outcome studied is 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were examined.

Results

In total, 694,165 patients treated by 8503 experienced surgeons were matched to 68,036 patients treated by 2119 new surgeons working in the same hospitals. New surgeons' patients were older (25.8% aged ≥85 vs 16.3%,P<0.0001) with more emergency admissions (53.9% vs 25.8%,P<0.0001) than experienced surgeons' patients. Patients of new surgeons had a significantly higher baseline 30-day mortality rate compared with patients of experienced surgeons (6.2% vs 4.5%,P<0.0001;OR 1.42 (1.33, 1.52)). The difference remained significant after matching the types of operations performed (6.2% vs 5.1%, P<0.0001; OR 1.24 (1.16, 1.32)) and after further matching on a combination of operation type and emergency admission status (6.2% vs 5.6%, P=0.0007; OR 1.12 (1.05, 1.19)). After matching on operation type, emergency admission status, and patient complexity, the difference between new and experienced surgeons' patients' 30-day mortality became indistinguishable (6.2% vs 5.9%,P=0.2391;OR 1.06 (0.97, 1.16)).

Conclusions

Among Medicare beneficiaries, the majority of the differences in outcomes between new and experienced surgeons are related to the context in which care is delivered and patient complexity rather than new surgeon inexperience.

Objective

The aim of the study was to address the controversy surrounding the effects of duty hour reform on new surgeon performance, we analyzed patients treated by new surgeons following the transition to independent practice.

Summary background data

In 2003, duty hour reform affected all US surgical training programs. Its impact on the performance of new surgeons remains unstudied.

Methods

We studied 30-day mortality among 1,483,074 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing general and orthopedic operations between 1999 and 2003 ("traditional" era) and 2009 and 2013 ("modern" era). The operations were performed by 2762 new surgeons trained before the reform, 2119 new surgeons trained following reform and 15,041 experienced surgeons. We used a difference-in-differences analysis comparing outcomes in matched patients treated by new versus experienced surgeons within each era, controlling for the hospital, operation, and patient risk factors.

Results

Traditional era odds of 30-day mortality among matched patients treated by new versus experienced surgeons were significantly elevated [odds ratio (OR) 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.05, 1.22), P < 0.001). The modern era elevated odds of mortality were not significant [OR 1.06; 95% CI (0.97-1.16), P = 0.239]. Relative performance of new and experienced surgeons with respect to 30-day mortality did not appear to change from the traditional era to the modern era [OR 0.93; 95% CI (0.83-1.05), P = 0.233]. There were statistically significant adverse changes over time in relative performance to experienced surgeons in prolonged length of stay [OR 1.08; 95% CI (1.02-1.15), P = 0.015], anesthesia time [9 min; 95% CI (8-10), P < 0.001], and costs [255USD; 95% CI (2-508), P = 0.049].

Conclusions

Duty hour reform showed no significant effect on 30-day mortality achieved by new surgeons compared to their more experienced colleagues. Patients of new surgeons, however, trained after duty hour reform displayed some increases in the resources needed for their care.