[Cost-revenue aspects of endovascular treatment of distal aortic arch pathologies with respect to the introduction of a new thoracic side-branch prosthesis].
Moritz S Bischoff, Denis Skrypnik, Wolfgang Fiori, Oliver Schöffski, Dittmar Böckler
{"title":"[Cost-revenue aspects of endovascular treatment of distal aortic arch pathologies with respect to the introduction of a new thoracic side-branch prosthesis].","authors":"Moritz S Bischoff, Denis Skrypnik, Wolfgang Fiori, Oliver Schöffski, Dittmar Böckler","doi":"10.1007/s00104-024-02072-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The standard vascular surgical procedure (SV) for the treatment of distal aortic arch pathologies involves a hybrid approach using a left carotid-subclavian bypass and thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Considering the introduction of a thoracic side branch prosthesis (TBE), the aim of this study was to analyze the cost-revenue aspects of both procedures.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on cases treated by SV from 2017 to 2022. To draw conclusions regarding the use of TBE, the main diagnoses and procedures of SV were recoded based on current classifications (ICD/OPS 2023) for revenue calculations and regrouped according to aG-DRG 2023. An OPS modification and regrouping were performed for modeling TBE revenues.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 13 cases were identified (mean age 62.5 ± 13.8 years; 10 males). After regrouping, the following DRGs were obtained: F42Z in N = 5, F51A in N = 4, F08B in N = 2, and F07A and F36B each in N = 1. The total revenue after regrouping was € 666,514.13, including an additional payment (ZE) of € 132,729.14. With the modeled application of TBE, a total revenue of € 659,212.19 was achieved. Compared to SV, this represents a revenue decrease of € 16,886.71 (changed DRG), but with an increase in ZE revenue by € 65,559.78 (different ZE). The use of TBE resulted in a saving of 74 occupancy days, including 13.5 days in intensive care.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A cost coverage seems probable with a change in the procedure, despite the yet to be determined pricing of TBE. This is highly dependent on the coding quality and the future development of ZE, given the annually changing DRG relative weights. Precise and transparent performance and cost documentation are essential for determining the pricing.</p>","PeriodicalId":72588,"journal":{"name":"Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)","volume":" ","pages":"473-479"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11096206/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-024-02072-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The standard vascular surgical procedure (SV) for the treatment of distal aortic arch pathologies involves a hybrid approach using a left carotid-subclavian bypass and thoracic endovascular aortic repair. Considering the introduction of a thoracic side branch prosthesis (TBE), the aim of this study was to analyze the cost-revenue aspects of both procedures.
Material and methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on cases treated by SV from 2017 to 2022. To draw conclusions regarding the use of TBE, the main diagnoses and procedures of SV were recoded based on current classifications (ICD/OPS 2023) for revenue calculations and regrouped according to aG-DRG 2023. An OPS modification and regrouping were performed for modeling TBE revenues.
Results: A total of 13 cases were identified (mean age 62.5 ± 13.8 years; 10 males). After regrouping, the following DRGs were obtained: F42Z in N = 5, F51A in N = 4, F08B in N = 2, and F07A and F36B each in N = 1. The total revenue after regrouping was € 666,514.13, including an additional payment (ZE) of € 132,729.14. With the modeled application of TBE, a total revenue of € 659,212.19 was achieved. Compared to SV, this represents a revenue decrease of € 16,886.71 (changed DRG), but with an increase in ZE revenue by € 65,559.78 (different ZE). The use of TBE resulted in a saving of 74 occupancy days, including 13.5 days in intensive care.
Conclusion: A cost coverage seems probable with a change in the procedure, despite the yet to be determined pricing of TBE. This is highly dependent on the coding quality and the future development of ZE, given the annually changing DRG relative weights. Precise and transparent performance and cost documentation are essential for determining the pricing.