Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery and Medical Insurance Payment in China.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This paper briefly introduces the status quo of bariatric and metabolic surgery and medical insurance payment in China. RECENT FINDINGS: Along with China's rapid economic growth, the prevalence of obesity and diabetes is increasing quickly. Because of their high body fat percentage and predominance of abdominal obesity, Chinese people experience metabolic disorders more frequently than Caucasians with the same BMI. Treatments are not medical because there is a lack of social understanding of obesity. Furthermore, obesity has not been accepted as a disease in China and so has not been included in the medical insurance payment system. Therefore, weight-loss medications are not covered by medical insurance. In China, bariatric and metabolic surgery have advanced for almost 20 years, and corresponding guidelines have been developed. However, there are regional and cognitive variations in whether medical insurance covers bariatric surgery or not. Recent research on the financial advantages of medical insurance coverage for weight-loss surgery showed that it conserves healthcare system resources. It will be important to raise public awareness regarding obesity in the future, present more evidence of the clinical efficacy of surgery, and work towards a higher percentage of medical insurance reimbursement for obesity treatment and bariatric surgery.

LAPAROSCOPIC AND LAPAROTOMY BARIATRIC SURGERY IN A PUBLIC HOSPITAL IN BRAZIL: ARE THERE DIFFERENCES IN COSTS AND COMPLICATIONS?

BACKGROUND: Despite its increasing popularity, laparoscopy is not the option for bariatric surgeries performed in the Brazilian public health system. AIMS: To compare laparotomy and laparoscopic access in bariatric surgery, considering aspects such as morbidity, mortality, costs, and length of stay. METHODS: The study included 80 patients who were randomly assigned to perform a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. They were equally divided in two groups, laparoscopic and laparotomy. The results obtained in the postoperative period were evaluated and compared according to the Ministry of Health protocol, and later, in their outpatient returns. RESULTS: The surgical time was similar in both groups (p=0.240). The costs of laparoscopic surgery proved to be higher, mainly due to staplers and staples. The patients included in the laparotomy group presented higher rates of severe complications, such as incisional hernia (p<0.001). Costs related to social security and management of postoperative complications were higher in the open surgery group (R$ 1,876.00 vs R$ 34,268.91). CONCLUSIONS: The costs related to social security and treatment of complications were substantially lower in laparoscopic access when compared to laparotomy. However, considering the operative procedure itself, the laparotomy remained cheaper. Finally, the length of stay, the rate of complications, and return to labor had more favorable results in the laparoscopic route.

Relationship Between Health Care Spending and Clinical Outcomes in Bariatric Surgery: Implications for Medicare Bundled Payments.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate sources of 90-day episode spending variation in Medicare patients undergoing bariatric surgery and whether spending variation was related to quality of care. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Medicare's bundled payments for care improvement-advanced program includes the first large-scale episodic bundling program for bariatric surgery. This voluntary program will pay bariatric programs a bonus if 90-day spending after surgery falls below a predetermined target. It is unclear what share of bariatric episode spending may be due to unnecessary variation and thus modifiable through care improvement. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of fee-for-service Medicare claims data from 761 acute care hospitals providing inpatient bariatric surgery between January 1, 2011 and September 30, 2016. We measured associations between patient and hospital factors, clinical outcomes, and total Medicare spending for the 90-day bariatric surgery episode using multivariable regression models. RESULTS: Of 64,537 patients, 46% underwent sleeve gastrectomy, 22% revisited the emergency department (ED) within 90 days, and 12.5% were readmitted. Average 90-day episode payments were $14,124, ranging from $12,220 at the lowest-spending quintile of hospitals to $16,887 at the highest-spending quintile. After risk adjustment, 90-day episode spending was $11,447 at the lowest quintile versus $15,380 at the highest quintile (difference $3932, P < 0.001). The largest components of spending variation were readmissions (44% of variation, or $2043 per episode), post-acute care (19% or $871), and index professional fees (15% or $450). The lowest spending hospitals had the lowest complication, ED visit, post-acute utilization, and readmission rates (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this retrospective analysis of Medicare patients undergoing bariatric surgery, the largest components of 90-day episode spending variation are readmissions, inpatient professional fees, and post-acute care utilization. Hospitals with lower spending were associated with lower rates of complications, ED visits, post-acute utilization, and readmissions. Incentives for improving outcomes and reducing spending seem to be well-aligned in Medicare's bundled payment initiative for bariatric surgery.

Análise custo-efetividade da cirurgia bariátrica para combate à obesidade moderada e severa no contexto do Sistema Único de Saúde / Cost-effectiveness analysis of bariatric surgery to tackle moderate and severe obesity in the context of the Brazilian Unified Health System

Introdução: O excesso de peso é um dos principais fatores de risco para mortalidade e carga global de doenças no mundo. No Brasil, o incremento na prevalência de sobrepeso e obesidade constitui um desafio em saúde pública ao longo das últimas três décadas, acarretando uma grande e crescente pressão nos custos em saúde para seu tratamento. Objetivos: O objetivo da tese foi conduzir uma revisão sistemática com meta-análise da literatura científica sobre avaliação econômica da cirurgia bariátrica em diferentes países, destacando custos e desfechos em saúde da intervenção em curto, médio e longo prazo; assim como investigar custo e efetividade de diferentes estratégias de abordagem da cirurgia bariátrica como intervenção para combate à obesidade moderada a severa em uma coorte de pacientes do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (HC-FMUSP). Metodologia: O estudo foi conduzido em duas etapas: revisão sistemática e meta-análise da literatura e avaliação dos custos e da efetividade do tratamento de obesidade moderada a severa por meio de cirurgia bariátrica. A revisão sistemática com meta-análise buscou estabelecer nível de qualidade das evidências científicas sobre associação entre custos do tratamento da obesidade por meio de cirurgia bariátrica e desfechos em saúde relacionados à prevalência de doenças crônicas não transmissíveis (DCNT). A avaliação dos custos e da efetividade da cirurgia bariátrica foi baseada em coleta de dados clínicos e sociodemográficos junto aos bancos de dados de prontuários eletrônicos dos pacientes do Departamento de Gastroenterologia do Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (HC-FMUSP). Foi utilizada análise de séries temporais para verificação de diferenças entre custos e desfechos em saúde pré- e pós-cirurgia bariátrica, assim como tendência ao longo do período de acompanhamento pré- e pós-cirurgia bariátrica. Resultados: A etapa de revisão sistemática e meta-análise identificou 697 artigos, sendo incluídos 50 estudos na extração e análise de dados, totalizando 15.548.697 pacientes. Dos estudos incluídos, 27 (54%) realizaram avaliação econômica completa, sendo 20 estudos de análise custo-efetividade (40%) e 7 estudos de análise custo-utilidade (14%), assim como 23 estudos de avaliações econômicas parciais com custos ou desfechos (46%). Somente 6 estudos avaliaram custo e efetividade da cirurgia bariátrica comparados ao tratamento tradicional de doenças relacionadas à obesidade e 3 estudos apresentaram comparação entre custo da cirurgia bariátrica e custo da obesidade. O custo da cirurgia bariátrica sem especificação da técnica foi apresentado em 19 estudos, correspondendo a US$ 49,419.63 ± 96,707.49 (mediana = US$ 12,661.96). O resultado da meta-análise de estudos que avaliaram custos pré- e pós-cirurgia bariátrica apontou redução de aproximadamente 70% nos custos pós-intervenção (diferença média padronizada, SMD = 1,691; p = 0,01). A análise do custo e da efetividade da cirurgia bariátrica na coorte do ICHC-FMUSP incluiu 318 pacientes que foram submetidos a cirurgia bariátrica entre 2017 e 2018 (267 mulheres = 83,9% e 51 homens = 16,1%), sendo incluídos indivíduos com dados completos de acompanhamento de 240 meses pré-cirurgia bariátrica e 24 meses pós-cirurgia bariátrica. O custo total antes da cirurgia bariátrica foi US$ 7,915.35 ± 15,426.70 e o custo total após a cirurgia bariátrica foi US$ 7,347.97 ± 23,105.05 (p = 0,326). O custo total dos procedimentos realizados por via aberta (laparotômica) foi de US$ 15,806.01 ± 17,167.89, US$ 8,477.10 ± 3,929.73 e US$ 10,054.58 ± 7,834.89 nas cirurgias gastrectomia vertical, BGA e BGYR, respectivamente (p = 0,0195 entre gastrectomia vertical e BGA). O custo total dos procedimentos realizados por via laparoscópica foi de US$ 5,589.11 ± 0.00, US$ 4,759.14 ± 0.00 e US$ 7,027.38 ± 7,719.15 nas cirurgias gastrectomia vertical, BGA e BGYR, respectivamente (p = 0,093). Após a cirurgia bariátrica, houve redução estatisticamente significativa no peso corporal e IMC (p<0,001). Conclusão: A cirurgia bariátrica apresenta elevada razão de custo-efetividade, com reversão da maioria dos marcadores de risco para doenças crônicas não transmissíveis relacionadas à obesidade no paciente adulto, contribuindo à diminuição dos custos do atendimento de pacientes no âmbito do sistema público de saúde em médio e longo prazos.

Introduction: Excess body weight comprises one of the main risk factors for mortality and global burden of disease worldwide. In Brazil, the increase in prevalence of overweight and obesity represents a challenge in public health throughout the last three decades, caucusing an increasing burden of cost on health services. Objectives: The objective of the dissertation was to conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis of scientific literature on economic assessment of bariatric surgery in diverse countries, highlighting health care costs and health outcomes of the intervention in short-, medium-, and long-term; and to investigate cost and effectiveness of diverse strategies of bariatric surgery to tackle moderate to severe obesity in a cohort of patients of the Clinics Hospital at the School of Medicine of the University of Sao Paulo (HC-FMUSP). Methodology: The study was conducted in two stages: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature, and assessment of costs and effectiveness of treatment of moderate to severe obesity through bariatric surgery. The systematic review with meta-analysis focused on the level of scientific evidence on the association between health care costs for treatment of obesity through bariatric surgery and health outcomes related to the prevalence of chronic non communicable diseases (NCD). The assessment of costs and effectiveness of bariatric surgery was based on data collection of clinical and sociodemographic information in electronic medical records of patients from the Department of Gastroenterology of the Clinics Hospital at the School of Medicine of the University of Sao Paulo (HC-FMUSP). A time-series analysis was performed to verify differences between health care costs and health outcomes pre- and post-bariatric surgery, and trends throughout follow-up before and after the surgery. Results: The systematic review and meta-analysis stage identified 697 studies, being 50 studies included in the data extraction and analysis, corresponding to 6,034,589 patients. Among the studies included, 27 (54%) conducted a complete economic assessment, being 20 cost-effectiveness studies (40%) and 7 cost-utility studies (14%), and 23 partial economic assessment studies with costs and outcomes (46%). Only 6 studies assessed cost and effectiveness of bariatric surgery compared to traditional treatment of diseases related to obesity and 3 studies presented comparison between costs of bariatric surgery and costs due to obesity. The cost of bariatric surgery without indication of the surgical technique was presented in 19 studies, corresponding to US$ 49,419.63 ± 96,707.49 (median = US$ 12.661,96). The meta-analysis of the studies assessing costs pre- and post-bariatric surgery indicated reduction of approximately 70% in post-intervention costs (standard mean difference, SMD = 1,691; p = 0,01). The analysis of costs and effectiveness of bariatric surgery in the ICHC_FMUSP cohort included 318 patients who underwent bariatric surgery between 2017 and 2018 (267 women = 83.9% and 51 men = 16.1%), being included individuals with complete data on follow-up of 240 months pre-surgery and 24 months post-surgery. The total cost before bariatric surgery was US$ 7,915.35 ± 15,426.70 and the total cost after bariatric surgery was US$ 7,347.97 ± 23,105.05 (p = 0.326). The total cost of open procedures (laparotomy) was US$ 15,806.01 ± 17,167.89, US$ 8,477.10 ± 3,929.73 and US$ 10,054.58 ± 7,834.89 in surgeries of vertical gastrectomy, BGA and BGYR, respectively (p = 0.0195 between vertical gastrectomy and BGA). The total cost of procedures conducted through laparoscopy was US$ 5,589.11 ± 0.00, US$ 4,759.14 ± 0.00 and US$ 7,027.38 ± 7,719.15 in vertical gastrectomy, BGA and BGYR, respectively (p = 0.093). After bariatric surgery, there was statistically significant reduction in body weight and BMI (p<0.001). Conclusion: The bariatric surgery presents high cost-effectiveness ratio, with reversion in trends of the majority of risk factors for chronic non communicable diseases related to obesity in adult patients, contributing to the decrease in health care costs of patients in the public health system in the medium and long run.

Análisis del impacto de la cirugía bariátrica en el gasto farmacológico a medio plazo / Analysis of the impact of bariatric surgery on medium-term pharmacological expenditure

Introducción: La obesidad y las enfermedades asociadas a ella suponen un importante problema, y no solo sanitario, sino también económico, ya que muchas de esas patologías son subsidiarias de tratamiento farmacológico de por vida. La cirugía bariátrica y metabólica, a priori, disminuye la demanda de medicamentos de estos pacientes, pero puede condicionar otro tipo de necesidades farmacológicas. El objetivo del estudio es demostrar si existe un descenso real del gasto farmacológico tras la cirugía bariátrica. Material y métodos: Análisis retrospectivo transversal de los pacientes intervenidos en nuestro centro entre 2012 y 2016, comparando las distintas comorbilidades y los gastos farmacológicos asociados a ellas un mes antes y a los 2años de la cirugía. Resultados: Fueron intervenidos 400 pacientes. Se presentaron los resultados mostrando para cada una de las técnicas quirúrgicas estudiadas las diferencias entre la resolución de las distintas comorbilidades y el ahorro farmacológico generado. La comorbilidad más coste-efectiva del estudio fue la diabetes mellitus tipo2 (DM2). La técnica quirúrgica con mejores resultados fue el bypass metabólico, presentando una diferencia de costes tras la cirugía de 507euros mensuales (p<0,001). Conclusiones: En un seguimiento de 2años tras la cirugía bariátrica se produce un descenso en la prevalencia de las enfermedades asociadas a la obesidad y del gasto farmacológico asociado a ellas, lo que demuestra que este tipo de intervención resulta eficiente a medio plazo. (AU)

Introduction: Obesity and associated diseases represent an important health and economic problem since pharmacological treatment for many of these pathologies needs lifelong subsidies. Theoretically, bariatric and metabolic surgery decreases the medication requirements of patients for these diseases but may result in other types of pharmacological needs. This study aims to demonstrate whether there is a real decrease in pharmacological expenditure after bariatric surgery. Material and methods: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of patients who were treated in our centre between 2012 and 2016, comparing different associated comorbidities and pharmacological expenses one month before and 2years after surgery. Results: 400 patients were operated. The results were presented, showing the differences between the resolution of the different comorbidities and the pharmacological savings generated for each of the surgical techniques studied. The most cost-effective comorbidity in the study was type2 diabetes mellitus (DM2). The surgical technique with the best results was metabolic bypass, presenting a cost difference after surgery of 507euros per month (P<.001). Conclusions: In a 2-year follow-up after bariatric surgery, a decreased prevalence of obesity-related diseases and associated pharmacological expenditure was observed, showing the efficiency of this intervention over the medium term. (AU)

Cost-effectiveness of procedure-less intragastric balloon therapy as substitute or complement to bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Procedure-less intragastric balloon (PIGB) eliminates costs and risks of endoscopic placement/removal and involves lower risk of serious complications compared with bariatric surgery, albeit with lower weight loss. Given the vast unmet need for obesity treatment, an important question is whether PIGB treatment is cost-effective-either stand-alone or as a bridge to bariatric surgery. METHODS: We developed a microsimulation model to compare the costs and effectiveness of six treatment strategies: PIGB, gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy as stand-alone treatments, PIGB as a bridge to gastric bypass or sleeve gastrectomy, and no treatment. RESULTS: PIGB as a bridge to bariatric surgery is less costly and more effective than bariatric surgery alone as it helps to achieve a lower post-operative BMI. Of the six strategies, PIGB as a bridge to sleeve gastrectomy is the most cost-effective with an ICER of $3,781 per QALY gained. While PIGB alone is not cost-effective compared with bariatric surgery, it is cost-effective compared with no treatment with an ICER of $21,711 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: PIGB can yield cost savings and improve health outcomes if used as a bridge to bariatric surgery and is cost-effective as a stand-alone treatment for patients lacking access or unwilling to undergo surgery.

Does bariatric surgery reduce future hospital costs? A propensity score-matched analysis using UK Biobank Study data.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the hospital costs among persons with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery compared with those without bariatric surgery. METHODS: We analysed the UK Biobank Cohort study linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, for all adults with obesity undergoing bariatric surgery at National Health Service hospitals in England, Scotland, or Wales from 2006 to 2017. Surgery patients were matched with controls who did not have bariatric surgery using propensity scores approach with a ratio of up to 1-to-5 by year. Inverse probability of censoring weighting was used to correct for potential informative censoring. Annual and cumulative hospital costs were assessed for the surgery and control groups. RESULTS: We identified 348 surgical patients (198 gastric bypass, 73 sleeve gastrectomy, 77 gastric banding) during the study period. In total, 324 surgical patients and 1506 matched control participants were included after propensity score matching. Mean 5-year cumulative hospital costs were €11,659 for 348 surgical patients. Compared with controls, surgical patients (n = 324) had significantly higher inpatient expenditures in the surgery year (€7289 vs. €2635, P < 0.001), but lower costs in the subsequent 4 years. The 5-year cumulative costs were €11,176 for surgical patients and €8759 for controls (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery significantly increased the inpatient costs in the surgery year, but was associated with decreased costs in the subsequent 4 years. However, any cost savings made up to 4 years were not enough to compensate for the initial surgical expenditure.

The real-world cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery for the treatment of severe obesity: a cost-utility analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe obesity is associated with adverse health outcomes and increased risk of death. This study evaluates the real-world cost-utility of therapy for severe obesity, from the publicly funded health care system and societal perspectives. METHODS: We conducted a cost-utility analysis using primary data from a prospective observational cohort of adults living with severe obesity (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2 and a major medical comorbidity or BMI ≥ 40 kg/m2) who were enrolled in a regional obesity program over 2 years. We extrapolated 10-year and lifetime Markov models, validated and supplemented with literature sources, to compare medical, surgical and standard care therapies. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The cohort included 500 adults living with severe obesity, 150 of whom received laparoscopic surgical therapy. From a publicly funded health system perspective, at 2 years, surgical therapy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $54 456 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with standard care therapy. Over a lifetime, it had an ICER of $14 056 per QALY. From the societal perspective, at 2 years, surgical therapy had an ICER of $340 per QALY; over a lifetime, it was the dominant option. The results were robust to sensitivity analysis. INTERPRETATION: From a public health care perspective, surgery for severe obesity is cost effective, and when approached from a societal perspective, it becomes cost saving. Real-world data support using surgical therapy for severe obesity, and our results contribute to the health economic and clinical literature with regard to a robust analysis from a societal perspective.

Cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery and non-surgical weight management programmes for adults with severe obesity: a decision analysis model.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the most cost-effective weight management programmes (WMPs) for adults, in England with severe obesity (BMI ≥ 35 kg/m2), who are more at risk of obesity related diseases. METHODS: An economic evaluation of five different WMPs: 1) low intensity (WMP1); 2) very low calorie diets (VLCD) added to WMP1; 3) moderate intensity (WMP2); 4) high intensity (Look AHEAD); and 5) Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery, all compared to a baseline scenario representing no WMP. We also compare a VLCD added to WMP1 vs. WMP1 alone. A microsimulation decision analysis model was used to extrapolate the impact of changes in BMI, obtained from a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of WMPs and bariatric surgery, on long-term risks of obesity related disease, costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) measured as incremental cost per QALY gained over a 30-year time horizon from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Sensitivity analyses explored the impact of long-term weight regain assumptions on results. RESULTS: RYGB was the most costly intervention but also generated the lowest incidence of obesity related disease and hence the highest QALY gains. Base case ICERs for WMP1, a VLCD added to WMP1, WMP2, Look AHEAD, and RYGB compared to no WMP were £557, £6628, £1540, £23,725 and £10,126 per QALY gained respectively. Adding a VLCD to WMP1 generated an ICER of over £121,000 per QALY compared to WMP1 alone. Sensitivity analysis found that all ICERs were sensitive to the modelled base case, five year post intervention cessation, weight regain assumption. CONCLUSIONS: RYGB surgery was the most effective and cost-effective use of scarce NHS funding resources. However, where fixed healthcare budgets or patient preferences exclude surgery as an option, a standard 12 week behavioural WMP (WMP1) was the next most cost-effective intervention.

Bariatric surgery is expensive but improves co-morbidity: 5-year assessment of patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery can be effective in weight reduction and diabetes remission in some patients, but is expensive. The costs of bariatric surgery in patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) were explored here. METHODS: Population-based retrospectively gathered data on patients with obesity and T2DM from the Hong Kong Hospital Authority (2006-2017) were evaluated. Direct medical costs from baseline up to 60 months were calculated based on the frequency of healthcare service utilization and dispensing of diabetes medication. Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI) scores and co-morbidity rates were measured to compare changes in co-morbidities between surgically treated and control groups over 5 years. One-to-five propensity score matching was applied. RESULTS: Overall, 401 eligible surgical patients were matched with 1894 non-surgical patients. Direct medical costs were much higher for surgical than non-surgical patients in the index year (€36 752 and €5788 respectively; P < 0·001) mainly owing to the bariatric procedure. The 5-year cumulative costs incurred by surgical patients were also higher (€54 135 versus €28 603; P < 0·001). Although patients who had bariatric surgery had more visits to outpatient and allied health professionals than those who did not across the 5-year period, surgical patients had shorter length of stay in hospitals than non-surgical patients in year 2-5. Surgical patients had significantly better CCI scores than controls after the baseline measurement (mean 3·82 versus 4·38 at 5 years; P = 0·016). Costs of glucose-lowering medications were similar between two groups, except that surgical patients had significantly lower costs of glucose-lowering medications in year 2 (€973 versus €1395; P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Bariatric surgery in obese patients with T2DM is expensive, but leads to an improved co-morbidity profile, and reduced length of hospitalization.

Pharmacoeconomics of obesity in China: a scoping review.

Background: With the growing rate of obesity and associated chronic conditions in China, there is a need to assess the health and economic burdens of obesity and examine the effectiveness of pharmaceutical, medical, and comprehensive weight-loss interventions.Areas covered: This article reviewed publications retrieved from PubMed and Google Scholar during 2010-2020 on pharmacoeconomic studies related to overweight and obesity in China. We identified five cost-of-illness studies and four cost-effectiveness analyses of weight-loss interventions, including bariatric surgeries and a comprehensive intervention program.Expert opinion: There is a lack of pharmacoeconomic analyses of obesity in China. Existing studies have often taken the health system perspective without accounting for productivity loss. Cohort studies and studies based on electronic health records or claims data are needed to provide the epidemiologic parameters required for homegrown economic evaluations of the health and economic burdens of obesity in China, as well as the cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce obesity and its sequela.

Cost-Effectiveness of Bariatric Surgery Prior to Posterior Lumbar Decompression and Fusion in an Obese Population with Degenerative Spondylolisthesis.

STUDY DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. OBJECTIVE: To determine if bariatric surgery prior to posterior lumbar decompression and fusion (PLDF) for degenerative spondylolisthesis (DS) is a cost-effective strategy. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Obesity poses significant perioperative challenges for DS. Treated operatively, obese patients achieve worse outcomes relative to non-obese peers. Concomitantly, they fare better with surgery than with nonoperative measures. These competing facts create uncertainty in determining optimal treatment algorithms for obese patients with DS. The role of bariatric surgery merits investigation as a potentially cost-effective optimization strategy prior to PLDF. METHODS: We simulated a Markov model with two cohorts of obese individuals with DS. 10,000 patients with body mass index (BMI) more than or equal to 30 in both arms were candidates for both bariatric surgery and PLDF. Subjects were assigned either to (1) no weight loss intervention with immediate operative or nonoperative management ("traditional arm") or (2) bariatric surgery 2 years prior to entering the same management options ("combined protocol").Published costs, utilities, and transition probabilities from the literature were applied. A willingness to pay threshold of $100,000/QALY was used. Sensitivity analyses were run for all variables to assess the robustness of the model. RESULTS: Over a 10-year horizon, the combined protocol was dominant ($13,500 cheaper, 1.15 QALY more effective). Changes in utilities of operative and nonoperative treatments in non-obese patients, the obesity cost-multiplier, cost of bariatric surgery, and the probability of success of nonoperative treatment in obese patients led to decision changes. However, all thresholds occurred outside published bounds for these variables. CONCLUSION: The combined protocol was less costly and more effective than the traditional protocol. Results were robust with thresholds occurring outside published ranges. Bariatric surgery is a viable, cost-effective preoperative strategy in obese patients considering elective PLDF for DS.Level of Evidence: 3.

The Role of Commercial Health Insurance Characteristics in Bariatric Surgery Utilization.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to understand relationships among insurance plan type, out-of-pocket cost sharing, and the utilization of bariatric surgery among commercially insured patients. BACKGROUND: Only 1% of eligible persons undergo bariatric operations, and this underutilization is often attributed to lack of insurance coverage. But even among the insured, underinsurance is now recognized as a major barrier to accessing medical care. The relationships among commercial insurance design, out-of-pocket cost sharing, and elective surgery utilization, particularly in bariatrics, are not well understood. METHODS: Retrospective review of 73,002 commercially insured members of the IBM MarketScan commercial claims database who underwent bariatric surgery from 2014 to 2017. The exposure variables were insurance plan type and out-of-pocket cost sharing. The outcome was utilization of bariatric surgery. We also examined seasonal trends in bariatric surgery utilization stratified by average levels of cost sharing. RESULTS: Utilization of bariatric surgery was higher in plans with lower cost sharing, such as PPOs (20 operations/100,000 enrollees) than in HDHPs (high-deductible health plans, 12.1 operations/100,000 enrollees). Overall, every $1000 increase in cost sharing was associated with 5 fewer bariatric operations per 100,000 insured lives; this association was strongest in plans with high cost sharing (high-deductible and consumer-directed health plans). Members of all plan types had higher surgical utilization in quarter 4 relative to quarter 1 of each year; these seasonal variations were also most pronounced in plans with high cost sharing. CONCLUSIONS: Insurance plan types with higher cost sharing have lower utilization of bariatric surgery. Underinsurance may represent a newly identified barrier to surgical care that should be addressed by advocates and policymakers.

Bariatric surgery for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus requiring insulin: Clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness analyses.

BACKGROUND: Although bariatric surgery is well established as an effective treatment for patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), there exists reluctance to increase its availability for patients with severe T2DM. The aims of this study were to examine the impact of bariatric surgery on T2DM resolution in patients with obesity and T2DM requiring insulin (T2DM-Ins) using data from a national database and to develop a health economic model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of surgery in this cohort when compared to best medical treatment (BMT). METHODS AND FINDINGS: Clinical data from the National Bariatric Surgical Registry (NBSR), a comprehensive database of bariatric surgery in the United Kingdom, were extracted to analyse outcomes of patients with obesity and T2DM-Ins who underwent primary bariatric surgery between 2009 and 2017. Outcomes for this group were combined with data sourced from a comprehensive literature review in order to develop a state-transition microsimulation model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of bariatric surgery versus BMT for patients over a 5-year time horizon. The main outcome measure for the clinical study was insulin cessation at 1-year post-surgery: relative risks (RR) summarising predictive factors were determined, unadjusted, and after adjusting for variables including age, initial body mass index (BMI), duration of T2DM, and weight loss. Main outcome measures for the economic evaluation were total costs, total quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at willingness-to-pay threshold of GBP£20,000. A total of 2,484 patients were eligible for inclusion, of which 1,847 had 1-year follow-up data (mean age of 51 years, mean initial BMI 47.2 kg/m2, and 64% female). 67% of patients no longer required insulin at 1-year postoperatively: these rates persisted for 4 years. Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) was associated with a higher rate of insulin cessation (71.7%) than sleeve gastrectomy (SG; 64.5%; RR 0.92, confidence interval (CI) 0.86-0.99) and adjustable gastric band (AGB; 33.6%; RR 0.45, CI 0.34-0.60; p < 0.001). When adjusted for percentage total weight loss and demographic variables, insulin cessation following surgery was comparable for RYGB and SG (RR 0.97, CI 0.90-1.04), with AGB having the lowest cessation rates (RR 0.55, CI 0.40-0.74; p < 0.001). Over 5 years, bariatric surgery was cost saving compared to BMT (total cost GBP£22,057 versus GBP£26,286 respectively, incremental difference GBP£4,229). This was due to lower treatment costs as well as reduced diabetes-related complications costs and increased health benefits. Limitations of this study include loss to follow-up of patients within the NBSR dataset and that the time horizon for the economic analysis is limited to 5 years. In addition, the study reflects current medical and surgical treatment regimens for this cohort of patients, which may change. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed that in patients with obesity and T2DM-Ins, bariatric surgery was associated with high rates of postoperative cessation of insulin therapy, which is, in turn, a major driver of overall reductions in direct healthcare cost. Our findings suggest that a strategy utilising bariatric surgery for patients with obesity and T2DM-Ins is cost saving to the national healthcare provider (National Health Service (NHS)) over a 5-year time horizon.

Protocol of a multicentre, prospective cohort study that evaluates cost-effectiveness of two perioperative care strategies for potential obstructive sleep apnoea in morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the high prevalence of obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) in obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery, OSA is undiagnosed in the majority of patients and thus untreated. While untreated OSA is associated with an increased risk of preoperative and postoperative complications, no evidence-based guidelines on perioperative care for these patients are available. The aim of the POPCORN study (Post-Operative Pulse oximetry without OSA sCreening vs perioperative continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment following OSA scReeNing by polygraphy (PG)) is to evaluate which perioperative strategy is the most cost-effective for obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery without a history of OSA. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this multicentre observational cohort study, data from 1380 patients who will undergo bariatric surgery will be collected. Patients will receive either postoperative care with pulse oximetry monitoring and supplemental oxygen during the first postoperative night, or care that includes preoperative PG and CPAP treatment in case of moderate or severe OSA. Local protocols for perioperative care in each participating hospital will determine into which cohort a patient is placed. The primary outcome is cost-effectiveness, which will be calculated by comparing all healthcare costs with the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs, calculated using EQ-5D questionnaires). Secondary outcomes are mortality, complications within 30 days after surgery, readmissions, reoperations, length of stay, weight loss, generic quality of life (QOL), OSA-specific QOL, OSA symptoms and CPAP adherence. Patients will receive questionnaires before surgery and 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery to report QALYs and other patient-reported outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approval from the Medical Research Ethics Committees United was granted in accordance with the Dutch law for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (WMO) (reference number W17.050). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at (inter)national conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR6991.

Endoscopy Used as Provocative Testing in Bariatric Surgery: An Analysis of the Texas Public Use Data File.

BACKGROUND: Many bariatric surgeons test the anastomosis and staple lines with some sort of provocative test. This can take the form of an air leak test with a nasogastric tube with methylene blue dye or with an endoscopy. The State Department of Health Statistics in Texas tracks outcomes using the Texas Public Use Data File (PUDF). METHODS: We queried the Texas Inpatient and Outpatient PUDFs for 2013 to 2017 to examine the number of bariatric surgeries with endoscopy performed at the same time. We used the International Classification of Diseases Clinical Modification Version 9 (ICD-9-CM) and ICD-10 procedure codes and Current Procedural Terminology for Sleeve Gastrectomy (SG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) and endoscopy, and the ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 diagnosis codes for morbid obesity. RESULTS: There were 74,075 SG reported in the Texas Inpatient and Outpatient PUDF for the years 2013-2017. Of the SG performed, 5,521 (7.4%) had an intraoperative endoscopy. For the 19,192 LRYGB reported, 1640 (8.6%) underwent LRYGB + endoscopy. This was broken down by SG only vs SG + endoscopy and LRYGB only vs LRYGB + endoscopy. Overall, SG + endoscopy had a significantly shorter length of stay (LOS) vs LRYGB + endoscopy at 1.74 d vs 2.34 d (P < .001) and a significantly less cost of $71,685 vs $91,093 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A small percentage of SG and LRYGB patients underwent endoscopy for provocative testing over the study period. Provocative testing with endoscopy costs more for SG and LRYGB and was associated with a shorter LOS.

Elective robotic-assisted bariatric surgery: Is it worth the money? A national database analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to evaluate surgical outcomes, cost, and opiate utilization between patients who underwent either laparoscopic or robotic-assisted bariatric procedures, including sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). METHODS: The Vizient administrative database was queried for patients admitted with mild to moderate severity of illness scores who underwent elective laparoscopic (L) and robotic-assisted (R) SG or RYGB from October 2015 through December 2018. Patients were grouped according to surgical approach for each bariatric procedure. Rates of overall complications, mortality, 30-day readmission, LOS, total direct cost, and opiate utilization were collected. Comparisons were performed within each bariatric procedure, between laparoscopic and robotic approaches, using IBM SPSS v.25.0, α = 0.05. RESULTS: For SG, a total of 84,034 patients were included (LSG:N = 78,405; RSG:N = 5639). There was no significant difference in rates of overall complications (LSG:0.5%, RSG:0.4%; p = 0.872), mortality (LSG:<0.01%, RSG:<0.01%; p = 0.660), and 30-day readmissions (LSG: 0.5%, RSG:0.5%; p = 0.524). Average LOS was 1.65 ± 1.07 days for LSG and 1.77 ± 1.29 days for RSG (p=<0.001). Robotic approach had a significantly higher direct cost (LSG: $6505 ± 3,200, RSG: $8018 ± 3849; p=<0.001). Rate of opiate use was 97.3% for both groups (p=>0.05). For RYGB, 36,039 patients met the inclusion criteria (LRYGB:N = 33,053; RRYGB:N = 2986). There was no significant difference in rates of overall complications (LRYGB: 1.4%, RRYGB:1.3%; p = 0.414) or mortality (LRGYB:<0.01%, RRYGB: <0.01%; p = 0.646). Robotic approach was associated with a lower 30-day readmission rate (LRYGB: 1.3%, RRYGB:<0.01%; p=<0.001). Average LOS was 2.1 ± 2.18 days for LRYGB and 2.18 ± 3.78 days for RRYGB (p = 0.075). Robotic approach had a significantly higher direct cost (LRYGB:$8564 ± 5,350, RRYGB: $10,325 ± 7689; p=<0.001) and rate of opiate use (LRYG:95.75%, RRYGB:96.85%; p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Our study found the direct cost of RSG to be significantly higher than LSG with no added clinical benefit, therefore, universal use of the robotic platform for routine SG cases remains difficult to justify. While the direct cost of RRYGB was also higher than LRYGB, the significantly lower readmission rate associated with robotic approach may help to offset the financial discrepancy and warrant its use.