Efficiency and productivity gains of robotic surgery: The case of the English National Health Service

IF 2 3区 医学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Health economics Pub Date : 2024-05-11 DOI:10.1002/hec.4838
Laia Maynou, Alistair McGuire, Victoria Serra-Sastre
{"title":"Efficiency and productivity gains of robotic surgery: The case of the English National Health Service","authors":"Laia Maynou,&nbsp;Alistair McGuire,&nbsp;Victoria Serra-Sastre","doi":"10.1002/hec.4838","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper examines the effect of new medical technology (robotic surgery) on efficiency gains and productivity changes for surgical treatment in patients with prostate cancer from the perspective of a public health sector organization. In particular, we consider three interrelated surgical technologies within the English National Health System: robotic, laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy. Robotic and laparoscopic techniques are minimally invasive procedures with similar clinical benefits. While the clinical benefits in adopting robotic surgery over laparoscopic intervention are unproven, it requires a high initial investment cost and carries high on-going maintenance costs. Using data from Hospital Episode Statistics for the period 2000–2018, we observe growing volumes of prostatectomies over time, mostly driven by an increase in robotic-assisted surgeries, and further analyze whether hospital providers that adopted a robot see improved measures of throughput. We then quantify changes in total factor and labor productivity arising from the use of this technology. We examine the impact of robotic adoption on efficiency gains employing a staggered difference-in-difference estimator and find evidence of a 50% reduction in length of stay (LoS), 49% decrease in post-LoS and 44% and 46% decrease in postoperative visits after 1 year and 2 years, respectively. Productivity analysis shows the growth in radical prostatectomy volume is sustained with a relatively stable number of urology surgeons. The robotic technique increases total production at the hospital level between 21% and 26%, coupled with a 29% improvement in labor productivity. These benefits lend some, but not overwhelming support for the large-scale hospital investments in such costly technology.</p>","PeriodicalId":12847,"journal":{"name":"Health economics","volume":"33 8","pages":"1831-1856"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hec.4838","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health economics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hec.4838","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper examines the effect of new medical technology (robotic surgery) on efficiency gains and productivity changes for surgical treatment in patients with prostate cancer from the perspective of a public health sector organization. In particular, we consider three interrelated surgical technologies within the English National Health System: robotic, laparoscopic and open radical prostatectomy. Robotic and laparoscopic techniques are minimally invasive procedures with similar clinical benefits. While the clinical benefits in adopting robotic surgery over laparoscopic intervention are unproven, it requires a high initial investment cost and carries high on-going maintenance costs. Using data from Hospital Episode Statistics for the period 2000–2018, we observe growing volumes of prostatectomies over time, mostly driven by an increase in robotic-assisted surgeries, and further analyze whether hospital providers that adopted a robot see improved measures of throughput. We then quantify changes in total factor and labor productivity arising from the use of this technology. We examine the impact of robotic adoption on efficiency gains employing a staggered difference-in-difference estimator and find evidence of a 50% reduction in length of stay (LoS), 49% decrease in post-LoS and 44% and 46% decrease in postoperative visits after 1 year and 2 years, respectively. Productivity analysis shows the growth in radical prostatectomy volume is sustained with a relatively stable number of urology surgeons. The robotic technique increases total production at the hospital level between 21% and 26%, coupled with a 29% improvement in labor productivity. These benefits lend some, but not overwhelming support for the large-scale hospital investments in such costly technology.

Abstract Image

机器人手术的效率和生产力收益:英国国家医疗服务机构的案例。
本文从公共医疗机构的角度出发,研究了新医疗技术(机器人手术)对前列腺癌患者手术治疗的效率提升和生产率变化的影响。我们特别考虑了英国国家卫生系统中三种相互关联的手术技术:机器人、腹腔镜和开放式前列腺癌根治术。机器人和腹腔镜技术都是微创手术,具有类似的临床优势。与腹腔镜手术相比,机器人手术的临床优势尚未得到证实,但它需要高昂的初始投资成本和持续维护成本。利用 2000-2018 年期间的医院病例统计数据,我们观察到前列腺切除术的数量随着时间的推移不断增长,这主要是由机器人辅助手术的增加所驱动的,我们还进一步分析了采用机器人的医院是否提高了吞吐量。然后,我们量化了使用这项技术所带来的全要素生产率和劳动生产率的变化。我们采用交错差分估计法研究了采用机器人对效率提高的影响,发现有证据表明,1 年和 2 年后,住院时间(LoS)缩短了 50%,术后住院时间缩短了 49%,术后就诊次数分别减少了 44% 和 46% 。生产率分析表明,在泌尿外科外科医生数量相对稳定的情况下,根治性前列腺切除术的数量仍能保持增长。机器人技术使医院的总产量提高了 21% 到 26%,劳动生产率提高了 29%。这些优势为医院大规模投资这种昂贵的技术提供了一定的支持,但并非压倒性的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health economics
Health economics 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.80%
发文量
177
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: This Journal publishes articles on all aspects of health economics: theoretical contributions, empirical studies and analyses of health policy from the economic perspective. Its scope includes the determinants of health and its definition and valuation, as well as the demand for and supply of health care; planning and market mechanisms; micro-economic evaluation of individual procedures and treatments; and evaluation of the performance of health care systems. Contributions should typically be original and innovative. As a rule, the Journal does not include routine applications of cost-effectiveness analysis, discrete choice experiments and costing analyses. Editorials are regular features, these should be concise and topical. Occasionally commissioned reviews are published and special issues bring together contributions on a single topic. Health Economics Letters facilitate rapid exchange of views on topical issues. Contributions related to problems in both developed and developing countries are welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信