Objectives:To characterize the current burden, outcomes, and costs of managing sepsis patients in U.S. hospitals.Design:A retrospective observational study was conducted using the Premier Healthcare Database, which represents ~20% of U.S. inpatient discharges among private and academic hospitals. Hospital costs were obtained from billing records per the cost accounting method used by each hospital. Descriptive statistics were performed on patient demographics, characteristics, and clinical and economic outcomes for the index hospitalization and 30-day readmissions.Setting:Sepsis patient hospitalizations, including inpatient, general ward, and ICU (intermediate and/or step-down).Patients:Adults over 18 years old with a hospital discharge diagnosis code of sepsis from January 1, 2010, to September 30, 2016.Interventions:None. This was a retrospective observational study of deidentified data.Measurements and Main Results:The final study cohort consisted of 2,566,689 sepsis cases, representing patients with a mean age of 65 years (50.8% female). Overall mortality was 12.5% but varied greatly by severity (5.6%, 14.9%, and 34.2%) for sepsis without organ dysfunction, severe sepsis, and septic shock, respectively. Costs followed a similar pattern increasing by severity level: $16,324, $24,638, and $38,298 and varied widely by sepsis present at admission ($18,023) and not present at admission ($51,022).Conclusions:The highest burden of incidence and total costs occurred in the lowest severity sepsis cohort population. Sepsis cases not diagnosed until after admission, and those with increasing severity had a higher economic burden and mortality on a case-by-case basis. Methods to improve early identification of sepsis may provide opportunities for reducing the severity and economic burden of sepsis in the United States.

Purpose: With rising health care costs in the United States, clearly defined end-of-life (EOL) cancer costs are needed to help health administrators proactively manage this important care. Our objective was to examine EOL health care resource costs among oncology patients in a US commercial insurance population. Methods:A retrospective claims database affiliated with OptumInsight was analyzed. Included patients had: a medical claim with cancer diagnosis between July 1, 2002, and December 31, 2009; death on or before December 31, 2009; continuous enrollment with medical/pharmacy benefits from diagnosis until death; Ն 180 follow-up days; and active cancer in the last 6 months before death (MBD). Death was captured from facility discharge codes or Social Security Administration death files. Costs were determined by summing paid amounts on all services utilized within the last 6 MBD: cancer-related inpatient (IP) stays, cancer-related hospice care, and cancer-related outpatient (OP) services (ie, chemotherapy, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, granulocyte colony-stimulating factors, radiation, cancer-related office or emergency room visits, cancer-related hospital OP procedures, and other services with cancer diagnosis).Results: A total of 28,530 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean total cancer-related costs in the last 6 MBD were $74,212 (standard deviation, $112,740), comprising IP costs of $40,702 (55%), OP costs of $30,254 (41%), and hospice costs of $3,256 (4%). OP costs decreased from $6,021 in the sixth MBD to $2,238 in the last MBD, whereas IP care costs increased from $1,785 to $20,559. Hospice utilization increased from 0.7% in the sixth MBD to 35.6% in the last MBD. Conclusion:Oncology costs increase in the last 6 MBD largely because of increased IP costs, whereas OP costs decrease.

BackgroundDeciding when to biopsy a man with non-suspicious DRE findings and tPSA in the 4–10 ng/ml range can be challenging, because two-thirds of such biopsies are typically found to be benign. The Prostate Health Index (phi) exhibits significantly improved diagnostic accuracy for prostate cancer detection when compared to tPSA and %fPSA, however only one published study to date has investigated its impact on biopsy decisions in clinical practice.MethodsAn IRB approved observational study was conducted at four large urology group practices using a physician reported two-part questionnaire. Physician recommendations were recorded before and after receiving the phi test result. A historical control group was queried from each site's electronic medical records for eligible men who were seen by the same participating urologists prior to the implementation of the phi test in their practice. 506 men receiving a phi test were prospectively enrolled and 683 men were identified for the historical control group (without phi). Biopsy and pathological findings were also recorded for both groups.ResultsMen receiving a phi test showed a significant reduction in biopsy procedures performed when compared to the historical control group (36.4% vs. 60.3%, respectively, P < 0.0001). Based on questionnaire responses, the phi score impacted the physician’s patient management plan in 73% of cases, including biopsy deferrals when the phi score was low, and decisions to perform biopsies when the phi score indicated an intermediate or high probability of prostate cancer (phi ≥36).Conclusions phi testing significantly impacted the physician’s biopsy decision for men with tPSA in the 4–10 ng/ml range and non-suspicious DRE findings. Appropriate utilization of phi resulted in a significant reduction in biopsy procedures performed compared to historical patients seen by the same participating urologists who would have met enrollment eligibility but did not receive a phi test.

Background and objectives The US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) End Stage Renal Disease Prospective Payment System and Quality Incentive Program requires that dialysis centers meet predefined criteria for quality of patient care to ensure future funding. The CMS selected the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems In-Center Hemodialysis (CAHPS-ICH) survey for the assessment of patient experience of care. This analysis evaluated the psychometric properties of the CAHPS-ICH survey in a sample of hemodialysis patients.Design, setting, participants, & measurements Data were drawn from the Adelphi CKD Disease Specific Program (a retrospective, cross-sectional survey of nephrologists and patients). Selected United States-based nephrologists treating patients receiving hemodialysis completed patient record forms and provided information on their dialysis center. Patients (n=404) completed the CAHPS-ICH survey (comprising 58 questions) providing six scores for the assessment of patient experience of care. CAHPS-ICH item-scale convergence, discrimination, and reliability were evaluated for multi-item scales. Floor and ceiling effects were estimated for all six scores. Patient (demographics, dialysis history, vascular access method) and facility characteristics (size, ratio of patients-tophysicians, nurses, and technicians) associated with the CAHPS-ICH scores were also evaluated.Results Item-scale correlations and internal consistency reliability estimates provided support for the nephrologists' communication (range, 0.16-0.71; a=0.81) and quality of care (range, 0.16-0.76; a=0.90) composites. However, the patient information composite had low internal consistency reliability (a=0.55). Provider-topatient ratios (range, 2.37 for facilities with .36 patients per physician to 2.8 for those with ,8 patients per physician) and time spent in the waiting room (3.44 for .15 minutes of waiting time to 3.75 for 5 to ,10 minutes) were characteristics most consistently related to patients' perceptions of dialysis care.Conclusions CAHPS-ICH is a potentially valuable and informative tool for the evaluation of patients' experiences with dialysis care. Additional studies are needed to estimate clinically meaningful differences between care providers.