Search

Background: Evidence is lacking to support the use of specialized anesthesia providers in minor surgical operations for patients without medical necessity. The authors sought to estimate the extent of potentially discretionary service use (anesthesiologist-administered anesthesia services among low-risk patients)., Methods: The authors performed a retrospective claims analysis using the Truven MarketScan Database to estimate the prevalence and cost of anesthesiologist-administered anesthesia services provided to patients undergoing minor hand surgery (i.e., carpal tunnel release, trigger finger release, or de Quervain release) from 2010 to 2015. A predictive probability model was created to estimate patient risk status. The authors examined the relationship between patient risk status and anesthesia use using multivariable regression models., Results: Of 441,579 eligible procedures, 352,779 (80 percent) involved anesthesiologist-administered anesthesia services. The total proportion of estimated anesthesiologist-administered anesthesia use in low-risk patients who did not need anesthesiologist support declined over the study period (from 69.7 percent in 2010 to 65.8 percent in 2015). Although total payments for these services remained steady between 2010 and 2014, the average payment per procedure increased regardless of procedure type (from $376.8 in 2010 to $427.9 in 2015 for a carpal tunnel release operation). Approximately 83.7 percent of payments ($133 million) to anesthesia providers is credited to services in low-risk patients., Conclusions: Anesthesiologist-administered anesthesia services are commonly rendered to low-risk surgical patients. Existing health care reform efforts do not adequately address discretionary services that can be a targeted area for cost saving. It is important to consider the implications of potentially discretionary use of specialized anesthesia providers, particularly with the advancement of bundled payment models.

Study Objective: To provide estimates of the costs and health outcomes implications of the excess risk of unexpected disposition for nurse anesthetist (NA) procedures., Design: A projection model was used to apply estimates of costs and health outcomes associated with the excess risk of unexpected disposition for NAs reported in a recent study., Setting: Ambulatory and inpatient surgery., Patients: Base-case model parameters were based on estimates taken from peer-reviewed publications when available, or from other sources including data for all hospital stays in the United States in 2013 from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Web site. The impact of parameter uncertainty was assessed using 1-way and 2-way sensitivity analyses., Interventions: Not applicable., Measurements: Major complication rates, relative risks of complications, anesthesia costs, costs of complications, and cost-effectiveness ratios., Main Results: In the base-case model, there were on average 2.3 fewer unexpected dispositions for physician anesthesiologists compared with NAs. Overall, anesthesia-related costs (including the cost of managing unexpected dispositions) were estimated to be about $31 higher per procedure for physician anesthesiologists compared with NAs. Alternative model scenarios in the sensitivity analysis produced estimates of smaller additional costs associated with physician anesthesia administration, to the point of cost savings in some scenarios., Conclusions: Provision of anesthesia for ambulatory knee and shoulder procedures by physician anesthesiologists results in better health outcomes, at a reasonable additional cost, compared with procedures with NA-administered anesthesia, at least when using updated cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay benchmarks., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: As the United Nations moves from Millennium Development Goals to Sustainable Development Goals, we find ourselves with the opportunity to influence the priority of global health initiatives. Previously, the global health community has failed to recognise the importance of access to safe, affordable surgery and developing the necessary specialities that support it as most of the funding focus had been on primary healthcare and infectious diseases., Recent Findings: Now the WHO is publishing guidelines to safe surgery and the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery has been launched. However, this is only the start; anaesthesia remains a forgotten speciality within the world of public and global health and there are still challenges in escalating surgery in low and middle-income countries to an acceptable level that is affordable and timely., Summary: Although there is increased world interest in safe surgery and anaesthesia this has not yet been translated into a mandate that will compel countries to invest in improving levels of infrastructure, accessibility, manpower, and safety. A general anaesthetic remains a dangerous event in a child's life in resource-limited countries.