Surgeons and Surgical Trainees Underestimate the Total Charges and Reimbursements Associated With Commonly Performed General Surgery Procedures✰.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical care contributes significantly to the fiscal challenges facing the US health care system. Multiple studies have demonstrated surgeons' lack of awareness of the costs associated with individual portions of surgical care, namely operating room supplies. We sought to assess surgeon and trainee awareness of the comprehensive charges and reimbursements associated with procedures they perform. METHODS: We administered a voluntary anonymous survey to attending surgeons, general surgery residents, and fourth-year medical students who applied to general surgery residencies. We compared charge and reimbursement estimates for laparoscopic cholecystectomy and open inguinal hernia repair to the actual values. Additionally, we assessed the importance placed on the financial aspects of surgical care. RESULTS: We had an overall response rate of 94% (n = 45). A majority of attendings, residents, and medical students underestimated charges and reimbursements for open inguinal hernia repair and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. There was no significant difference in the accuracy of charge or reimbursement estimates between attendings, residents, and students for herniorrhaphy or cholecystectomy (Charge: hernia p = 0.08, cholecystectomy p = 0.30; Reimbursement: hernia p = 0.47, cholecystectomy p = 0.89). Years of training as an attending or resident did not predict accuracy of charge or reimbursement estimates for hernia repair or cholecystectomy (p > 0.3 for all regressions). The median (interquartile range) charge estimate for inguinal hernia repair was -$5914 (-$7914 to -$2914) from the actual charge, 45.8% of the true value, and the median reimbursement estimate was -$4519 (-$5369 to -$1218) from actual reimbursement, 27.3% of the true value. The median charge estimate for cholecystectomy was -$5734 (-$8733 to +$1266) from the actual charge, 58.3% of the true value, and the median reimbursement estimate was -$4847 (-$6847 to +$153) from actual reimbursement, 38.2% of the true value. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons and their trainees underestimate the charges and reimbursements associated with commonly performed procedures.

The Impact of an Acute Care Surgery Model on General Surgery Service Productivity.

BACKGROUND: The Acute Care Surgery (ACS) model has been widely adopted by hospitals across the United States, with ACS services managing emergency general surgery (EGS) patients previously treated by general surgery (GS) services. We evaluated the operational and financial impact of an ACS service model on general surgeons at an academic medical center. METHODS: Using WiseOR® (Palo Alto, CA), we compared surgical case volumes for the GS service two years before (October, 2013 - September, 2015) and two years after (October, 2015 - September, 2017) implementation of an ACS service at the University of Vermont Medical Center. From financial reports, we obtained monthly wRVUs, clinical FTEs, net patient revenue, and payer mix for the GS service and compared the two years before and after ACS model implementation. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in the average number of cases performed by the GS service following ACS service implementation (monthly mean ± SD, 139.1 ± 16.0 vs. 116.7 ± 14.0, p < 0.001). The normal-hours caseload remained stable, while a significant decrease in after-hours cases accounted for the reduction in overall volume. Despite the reduction in operative volume, the decrease in mean monthly wRVU/FTE for the GS service when comparing the pre- and post- ACS periods did not reach statistical significance (614.9 ± 82.9 vs. 576.3 ± 62.1, p = 0.08).There was a significant increase in average monthly clinic-derived wRVU/FTE for the GS service (106.3 ± 13.5 vs. 120.5 ± 16.4, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Shifting EGS patient management from the GS to ACS service did not negatively impact the productivity of the GS service.