Background: Whether or not antibiotic stewardship protocols based on procalcitonin levels results in cost savings remains unclear. Herein, our objective was to assess the economic impact of adopting procalcitonin testing among patients with suspected acute respiratory tract infection (ARI) from the perspective of a typical US integrated delivery network (IDN) with a 1,000,000 member catchment area or enrollment. Methods: To conduct an economic evaluation of procalcitonin testing versus usual care we built a cost-impact

Background:The proportion of outpatient surgeries performed in physician offices has been increasing over time, raising concern about the impact on outcomes.Objective:To use a private insurance claims database to compare 7-day and 30-day hospitalization rates following relatively complex outpatient surgical procedures across physician offices, freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), and hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs).Methods:A multivariable logistic regression model was used to compare the risk-adjusted probability of hospitalization among patients after any of the 88 study outpatient procedures at physician offices, ASCs, and HOPDs over 2008-2012 in Florida.Results:Risk-adjusted hospitalization rates were higher following procedures performed in physician offices compared with ASCs for all procedures grouped together, for most procedures grouped by type, and for many individual procedures.Conclusions:Hospitalizations following surgery were more likely for procedures performed in physician offices compared with ASCs, which highlights the need for ongoing research on the safety and efficacy of office-based surgery.

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.

Physician ownership of in-office ancillary services (IOASs) has come under increasing scrutiny. Advocates of argue that IOASs allow physicians to supervise the quality and coordination of care. Critics have argued that IOASs create financial incentives for physicians to increase ancillary service volume. In this paper we develop a conceptual framework to evaluate the tradeoffs associated with physician ownership of IOASs. There is some evidence supporting the existence of scope and transaction economies in IOASs. Improvement in flow and continuity of care are likely to generate scope economies and improvements in quality monitoring and reductions in consumer transaction costs are likely to generate transaction economies. Other factors include the capture of upstream and downstream profits, but these incentives are likely to be small compared to scope and transaction economies. Policy debates on the merits of IOASs should include an explicit assessment of these tradeoffs. This research was supported in part by funding from the American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).

In 2001, the U.S. government released a rule that allowed states to “opt-out” of the federal requirement that a physician supervise the administration of anesthesia by a nurse anesthetist. To date, 17 states have opted out. The majority of the opt-out states cited increased access to anesthesia care as the primary rationale for their decision. In this study, we assess the impact of state opt-out policy on access to and costs of surgeries and other procedures requiring anesthesia services. Our null hypothesis is that opt-out rule adoption had little or no effect on surgery access or costs. We estimate an inpatient model of surgeries and costs and an outpatient model of surgeries. Each model uses data from multiple years of U.S. inpatient hospital discharges and outpatient surgeries. For inpatient cost models, the coefficient of the opt-out variable was consistently positive and also statistically significant in most model specifications. In terms of access to inpatient surgical care, the opt-out rules did not increase or decrease access in opt-out states. The results for the outpatient access models are less consistent, with some model specifications indicating a reduction in access associated with opt-out status, while other model specifications suggesting no discernable change in access. Given the sensitivity of model findings to changes in model specification, the results do not provide support for the belief that opt-out policy improves access to outpatient surgical care, and may even reduce access to outpatient surgical care (among freestanding facilities).