Background: Value-based health-care reform requires assessment of outcomes and costs of medical interventions. In cleft care, presurgical infant orthopedics is still being evaluated for clinical benefits and risks; however, the cost of these procedures has been largely ignored. This study uses robust accounting methods to quantify the cost of providing two types of presurgical infant orthopedics: Latham appliance treatment and nasoalveolar molding. Methods: This is a prospective study of patients with nonsyndromic cleft lip and/or palate who underwent treatment with presurgical infant orthopedics from 2017 to 2019 at two academic centers. Costs were measured using time-driven activity-based costing. Personnel costs, facility costs (operating room, clinic, and inpatient ward), and equipment costs were included. Travel expenses were incorporated as an estimate of direct costs borne by the family, but indirect costs (e.g., time off from work) were not considered. Results: Twenty-three patients were treated with Latham appliance treatment and 14 were treated with nasoalveolar molding. For Latham appliance treatment, average total cost was $7553 per patient ($1041 for personnel, $637 for equipment, $4871 for facility, and $1004 for travel over 6.5 visits). Unilateral and bilateral costs were $6891 and $8860, respectively. For nasoalveolar molding, average cost totaled $2541 ($364 for personnel, $151 for equipment, $300 for facility, and $1726 for travel over 13 visits); $2120 for unilateral and $3048 for bilateral treatment. Conclusions: The major difference in cost is attributable to operative placement of the Latham device. Travel cost for nasoalveolar molding is often higher because of frequent clinical encounters required. Future investigation should focus on whether outcomes achieved by presurgical infant orthopedics justify the $2100 to $8900 expenditure for these adjunctive procedures.

No abstract

Background: Graduate medical education (GME) programs are vital to developing future plastic surgeons. However, their cost-efficiency has yet to be contextualized. This cohort quality improvement (QI) project aimed to measure the indirect costs an institution assumes in training surgical residents, by comparing the differences in operative time and procedural charges between a resident and a physician assistant (PA) first-assisting during adolescent reduction mammaplasty. Methods: From 2013 to 2019, adolescent bilateral reduction mammaplasty procedures first-assisted by either a resident or physician assistant were considered for analysis. Financial data, including all hospital and physician expenditures and operation duration, patient demographics, and outcomes data were retrospectively collected. Results: A total of 49 reduction mammaplasty cases were included for analysis. Residents had an average of 5.9 ± 1.5 years of post-graduate surgical training, whereas the PA had 2 years of surgical experience. Procedures first-assisted by a surgical resident took a mean/median of 34 minutes longer and were $3750 more expensive, respectively, than cases first-assisted by a PA ( P < 0.01, both). Conclusions: Reduction mammaplasty procedures were longer and accrued higher charges when first-assisted by a surgical resident than by a PA. Although Graduate Medical Education programs are necessary to train the next generation of surgeons, they may result in unintended opportunity costs for teaching hospitals. Federal support to academic medical centers aims to cushion the cost of residential training, but is insufficient to compensate for resident inefficiency. Hospitals may consider incorporating PAs into the Graduate Medical Education paradigm to alleviate administrative burden, lower operational charges, and enhance resident training curricula.