Michael Le, Geoffrey T Murphy, Annamaria Frangos Young, Nanette Chan, Harry Constantin, Michael Symes, Sam Adie, Maurice Guzman
{"title":"保险类型对温哥华 B 型假体周围骨折管理的影响:住院时间、出院目的地和成本影响。","authors":"Michael Le, Geoffrey T Murphy, Annamaria Frangos Young, Nanette Chan, Harry Constantin, Michael Symes, Sam Adie, Maurice Guzman","doi":"10.1111/ans.19290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To assess the effect of private versus public insurance on hospital length of stay, discharge destination, and costs in managing Vancouver B periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study of PFF patients operatively managed at five public trauma centers. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes included discharge destination and costs related to implants and hospital beds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 195 PFF cases (133 public, 62 private). Private patients had lower ASA scores (2.8 versus 3.1, P = 0.006) and were more likely to come from independent residences (87% versus 74%, P = 0.045). Private patients spent 8 fewer days in the hospital (12 ± 8 versus 20 ± 19 days, P < 0.001) and were more often discharged to rehabilitation (74% versus 48%, P = 0.003). Public hospital costs were higher for public patients ($37 456 versus $25 324, P = 0.005), largely due to longer stays. Implant costs were similar between private and public patients, but patients that underwent revision surgeries increased costs significantly compared to patients that underwent open reduction and internal fixation alone ($6257 versus $3511, P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Private insurance was linked to shorter hospital stays and increased discharge to rehabilitation. Public PPF patients incur an average cost of $37 456 for public hospitals, compared to $25 324 for private patients. Delays in public patient rehabilitation access may prolong hospital stays, suggesting a need for alternative care pathways, such as PPF tailored home-based rehabilitation and support programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":8158,"journal":{"name":"ANZ Journal of Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of insurance type on Management of Vancouver B Periprosthetic Fractures: length of stay, discharge destination and cost implications.\",\"authors\":\"Michael Le, Geoffrey T Murphy, Annamaria Frangos Young, Nanette Chan, Harry Constantin, Michael Symes, Sam Adie, Maurice Guzman\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ans.19290\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To assess the effect of private versus public insurance on hospital length of stay, discharge destination, and costs in managing Vancouver B periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study of PFF patients operatively managed at five public trauma centers. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes included discharge destination and costs related to implants and hospital beds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 195 PFF cases (133 public, 62 private). Private patients had lower ASA scores (2.8 versus 3.1, P = 0.006) and were more likely to come from independent residences (87% versus 74%, P = 0.045). Private patients spent 8 fewer days in the hospital (12 ± 8 versus 20 ± 19 days, P < 0.001) and were more often discharged to rehabilitation (74% versus 48%, P = 0.003). Public hospital costs were higher for public patients ($37 456 versus $25 324, P = 0.005), largely due to longer stays. Implant costs were similar between private and public patients, but patients that underwent revision surgeries increased costs significantly compared to patients that underwent open reduction and internal fixation alone ($6257 versus $3511, P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Private insurance was linked to shorter hospital stays and increased discharge to rehabilitation. Public PPF patients incur an average cost of $37 456 for public hospitals, compared to $25 324 for private patients. Delays in public patient rehabilitation access may prolong hospital stays, suggesting a need for alternative care pathways, such as PPF tailored home-based rehabilitation and support programs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8158,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ANZ Journal of Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ANZ Journal of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.19290\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ANZ Journal of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.19290","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effect of insurance type on Management of Vancouver B Periprosthetic Fractures: length of stay, discharge destination and cost implications.
Background: To assess the effect of private versus public insurance on hospital length of stay, discharge destination, and costs in managing Vancouver B periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFF).
Methods: A retrospective cohort study of PFF patients operatively managed at five public trauma centers. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay. Secondary outcomes included discharge destination and costs related to implants and hospital beds.
Results: The study included 195 PFF cases (133 public, 62 private). Private patients had lower ASA scores (2.8 versus 3.1, P = 0.006) and were more likely to come from independent residences (87% versus 74%, P = 0.045). Private patients spent 8 fewer days in the hospital (12 ± 8 versus 20 ± 19 days, P < 0.001) and were more often discharged to rehabilitation (74% versus 48%, P = 0.003). Public hospital costs were higher for public patients ($37 456 versus $25 324, P = 0.005), largely due to longer stays. Implant costs were similar between private and public patients, but patients that underwent revision surgeries increased costs significantly compared to patients that underwent open reduction and internal fixation alone ($6257 versus $3511, P < 0.001).
Conclusion: Private insurance was linked to shorter hospital stays and increased discharge to rehabilitation. Public PPF patients incur an average cost of $37 456 for public hospitals, compared to $25 324 for private patients. Delays in public patient rehabilitation access may prolong hospital stays, suggesting a need for alternative care pathways, such as PPF tailored home-based rehabilitation and support programs.
期刊介绍:
ANZ Journal of Surgery is published by Wiley on behalf of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons to provide a medium for the publication of peer-reviewed original contributions related to clinical practice and/or research in all fields of surgery and related disciplines. It also provides a programme of continuing education for surgeons. All articles are peer-reviewed by at least two researchers expert in the field of the submitted paper.