Effect of insurance type on Management of Vancouver B Periprosthetic Fractures: length of stay, discharge destination and cost implications.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Michael Le, Geoffrey T Murphy, Annamaria Frangos Young, Nanette Chan, Harry Constantin, Michael Symes, Sam Adie, Maurice Guzman
{"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}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

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。
背景:目的:评估在治疗温哥华B型股骨假体周围骨折(PFF)时,私人保险与公共保险对住院时间、出院目的地和费用的影响:目的:评估在治疗温哥华B型股骨假体周围骨折(PFF)时,私人保险与公共保险对住院时间、出院目的地和费用的影响:方法:对在五家公立创伤中心接受手术治疗的股骨假体周围骨折患者进行回顾性队列研究。主要结果是住院时间。次要结果包括出院目的地以及与植入物和病床相关的费用:研究包括 195 例 PFF(133 例公立,62 例私立)。私立医院患者的 ASA 评分较低(2.8 对 3.1,P = 0.006),更有可能来自独立住所(87% 对 74%,P = 0.045)。私立医院的患者住院天数比私立医院少 8 天(12 ± 8 天对 20 ± 19 天,P 结论:私立医院的患者住院天数比私立医院少 8 天:私人保险与缩短住院时间和增加康复出院率有关。公立 PPF 患者在公立医院的平均费用为 37 456 美元,而私立医院的平均费用为 25 324 美元。公立医院患者康复治疗的延迟可能会延长住院时间,这表明有必要采取其他护理途径,例如为保障基金量身定制的家庭康复和支持计划。
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
ANZ Journal of Surgery
ANZ Journal of Surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
11.80%
发文量
720
审稿时长
2 months
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.
×
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