Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for gastric cancer: big data analysis based on nationwide administrative claims data

Purpose@#Accumulated evidence indicates laparoscopic surgery (LS) has the advantages of less wound pain, less blood loss, shorter hospitalization, and faster functional recovery than open surgery (OS). Previous studies have analyzed the advantages of LS based on hospital data. This study is the first to compare surgical outcomes and health economic data using nationwide administrative claims datasets for gastric cancer. @*Methods@#The claims datasets of the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service for patients that underwent gastrectomy from May 2012 to April 2017 were analyzed. A total of 76,445 cases (LS, 42,395 and OS, 34,050) were included.Postoperative complications and medical costs were included in the analysis. @*Results@#We analyzed 76,445 cases of gastrectomy. Analysis showed LS was associated with fewer surgical wound infections (2,114 [6.21%] vs. 1,057 [2.49%], p < 0.001), minor abdominal infections and abscesses (826 [2.43%] vs. 390 [0.92%], p < 0.001), cases of surgery-related peritonitis (50 [0.15%] vs. 31 [0.07%], p = 0.0019), repair surgeries (28 [0.08%] vs. 3 [0.01%], p < 0.001), reoperations (504 [1.48%] vs. 343 [0.81%], p < 0.001), less antibiotic use (1,717 [5.04%] vs. 1,268 [2.99%], p < 0.001), and shorter hospital stays (13.61 days vs. 9.97 days, p < 0.001). However, average medical cost was 510,734 Korean Won (444 US dollar) higher for LS than OS. @*Conclusion@#The study confirms the clinical benefits of LS over OS for gastrectomy in terms of fewer postoperative complications and shorter hospital stays. However, the average medical cost of LS was higher than that of OS.

Securing patient access to new medical technology under the diagnosis-related group system in South Korea: a review of foreign policies and selective reimbursement coverage programs for 4 major conditions

The Korean government operates a fee-for-service system, as well as a diagnosis-related group (DRG) payment system that only applies to 7 different specific disease groups. To control rapidly increasing health expenditures, the Korean government adopted a compulsory DRG payment system for 7 disease groups in 2013. However, the current Korean DRG (K-DRG) system does not address the cost of new medical technologies and accompanying services, whereas the United States and European countries have implemented incentive systems within the DRG payment system to promote technological innovations. The Korean government is expanding the accessibility of new medical technologies to strengthen the coverage of 4 major conditions with a selective reimbursement system, but the K-DRG system is inconsistent with the selective reimbursement system in terms of adopting new medical technology. Such inconsistency is clearly shown in the case of advanced energy devices that are essential for surgical procedures. Despite their clinical usefulness and the high demand for such instruments, there is little space for compensation for advanced energy devices in DRG groups. Neither healthcare providers nor patients can choose selectively reimbursed medical devices under the current DRG system, leading to unequal healthcare benefits among patient groups. This paper proposes additional payments for new medical technology that is costly but clinically effective to ensure patient access to new medical technology under the K-DRG system, and suggests that a fair and consistent policy would be to apply the selective reimbursement of medical services in K-DRG.

Securing patient access to new medical technology under the diagnosis-related group system in South Korea: a review of foreign policies and selective reimbursement coverage programs for 4 major conditions

The Korean government operates a fee-for-service system, as well as a diagnosis-related group (DRG) payment system that only applies to 7 different specific disease groups. To control rapidly increasing health expenditures, the Korean government adopted a compulsory DRG payment system for 7 disease groups in 2013. However, the current Korean DRG (K-DRG) system does not address the cost of new medical technologies and accompanying services, whereas the United States and European countries have implemented incentive systems within the DRG payment system to promote technological innovations. The Korean government is expanding the accessibility of new medical technologies to strengthen the coverage of 4 major conditions with a selective reimbursement system, but the K-DRG system is inconsistent with the selective reimbursement system in terms of adopting new medical technology. Such inconsistency is clearly shown in the case of advanced energy devices that are essential for surgical procedures. Despite their clinical usefulness and the high demand for such instruments, there is little space for compensation for advanced energy devices in DRG groups. Neither healthcare providers nor patients can choose selectively reimbursed medical devices under the current DRG system, leading to unequal healthcare benefits among patient groups. This paper proposes additional payments for new medical technology that is costly but clinically effective to ensure patient access to new medical technology under the K-DRG system, and suggests that a fair and consistent policy would be to apply the selective reimbursement of medical services in K-DRG.