Evaluating outpatient versus inpatient costs in endophthalmitis management

Destry J. Sulkes, Ingrid U. Scott, Harry W. Flynn, William J. Feuer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the cost savings that would result from 1) implementing the treatment guidelines of the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study (EVS) and 2) performing procedures on an outpatient rather than an inpatient basis, and to compare the savings to the cost of conducting the EVS. Methods: The coding algorithms for four endophthalmitis treatment groups were obtained from Patient Financial Services at the Anne Bates Leach Eye Hospital (ABLEH) and national Medicare averages were consulted for reimbursements in 2000 dollars. The four groups were: 1) inpatient pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with intravenous antibiotics; 2) outpatient PPV; 3) inpatient vitreous tap with intravenous antibiotics; and 4) outpatient vitreous tap. Physician reimbursements were calculated using International Classification of Diseases-9 (ICD-9) diagnoses and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Facility reimbursements were calculated using ICD-9 diagnoses and Diagnosis-Related Group codes for inpatient procedures versus Ambulatory Payment Classification codes for outpatient procedures. The annual savings in reimbursements were estimated for a range of annual incidence rates of endophthalmitis assuming ABLEH financial data across all patients in the United States, and the savings into the future as well as the total expenses of conducting the EVS from 1989 to 1995 were summed in 2000 dollars using a net present value analysis based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price indices. Results: Facility reimbursements are significantly higher for procedures performed on an inpatient compared to an outpatient basis (P < 0.001). Treating endophthalmitis according to the EVS guidelines on an outpatient basis would be associated with an estimated $1.5 to $7.8 million reduction in reimbursements per year. The cost of the EVS in 2000 dollars was $4.0 million. Conclusions: Implementing the treatment guidelines of the EVS on an outpatient basis may result in significant cost savings - savings that may cover the entire cost of the EVS in 3 years.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)747-751
Number of pages5
JournalRetina
Volume22
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2002

Fingerprint

Endophthalmitis
Vitrectomy
Inpatients
Outpatients
Costs and Cost Analysis
Cost Savings
Temazepam
International Classification of Diseases
Guidelines
Current Procedural Terminology
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Diagnosis-Related Groups
Medicare
Therapeutics
Economics
Physicians

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Sulkes, Destry J. ; Scott, Ingrid U. ; Flynn, Harry W. ; Feuer, William J. / Evaluating outpatient versus inpatient costs in endophthalmitis management. In: Retina. 2002 ; Vol. 22, No. 6. pp. 747-751.
@article{91c1319b89244f7ca9bbe1fa4828adc0,
title = "Evaluating outpatient versus inpatient costs in endophthalmitis management",
abstract = "Purpose: To assess the cost savings that would result from 1) implementing the treatment guidelines of the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study (EVS) and 2) performing procedures on an outpatient rather than an inpatient basis, and to compare the savings to the cost of conducting the EVS. Methods: The coding algorithms for four endophthalmitis treatment groups were obtained from Patient Financial Services at the Anne Bates Leach Eye Hospital (ABLEH) and national Medicare averages were consulted for reimbursements in 2000 dollars. The four groups were: 1) inpatient pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with intravenous antibiotics; 2) outpatient PPV; 3) inpatient vitreous tap with intravenous antibiotics; and 4) outpatient vitreous tap. Physician reimbursements were calculated using International Classification of Diseases-9 (ICD-9) diagnoses and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Facility reimbursements were calculated using ICD-9 diagnoses and Diagnosis-Related Group codes for inpatient procedures versus Ambulatory Payment Classification codes for outpatient procedures. The annual savings in reimbursements were estimated for a range of annual incidence rates of endophthalmitis assuming ABLEH financial data across all patients in the United States, and the savings into the future as well as the total expenses of conducting the EVS from 1989 to 1995 were summed in 2000 dollars using a net present value analysis based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price indices. Results: Facility reimbursements are significantly higher for procedures performed on an inpatient compared to an outpatient basis (P < 0.001). Treating endophthalmitis according to the EVS guidelines on an outpatient basis would be associated with an estimated $1.5 to $7.8 million reduction in reimbursements per year. The cost of the EVS in 2000 dollars was $4.0 million. Conclusions: Implementing the treatment guidelines of the EVS on an outpatient basis may result in significant cost savings - savings that may cover the entire cost of the EVS in 3 years.",
author = "Sulkes, {Destry J.} and Scott, {Ingrid U.} and Flynn, {Harry W.} and Feuer, {William J.}",
year = "2002",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1097/00006982-200212000-00010",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "747--751",
journal = "Retina",
issn = "0275-004X",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "6",

}

Evaluating outpatient versus inpatient costs in endophthalmitis management. / Sulkes, Destry J.; Scott, Ingrid U.; Flynn, Harry W.; Feuer, William J.

In: Retina, Vol. 22, No. 6, 12.2002, p. 747-751.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluating outpatient versus inpatient costs in endophthalmitis management

AU - Sulkes, Destry J.

AU - Scott, Ingrid U.

AU - Flynn, Harry W.

AU - Feuer, William J.

PY - 2002/12

Y1 - 2002/12

N2 - Purpose: To assess the cost savings that would result from 1) implementing the treatment guidelines of the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study (EVS) and 2) performing procedures on an outpatient rather than an inpatient basis, and to compare the savings to the cost of conducting the EVS. Methods: The coding algorithms for four endophthalmitis treatment groups were obtained from Patient Financial Services at the Anne Bates Leach Eye Hospital (ABLEH) and national Medicare averages were consulted for reimbursements in 2000 dollars. The four groups were: 1) inpatient pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with intravenous antibiotics; 2) outpatient PPV; 3) inpatient vitreous tap with intravenous antibiotics; and 4) outpatient vitreous tap. Physician reimbursements were calculated using International Classification of Diseases-9 (ICD-9) diagnoses and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Facility reimbursements were calculated using ICD-9 diagnoses and Diagnosis-Related Group codes for inpatient procedures versus Ambulatory Payment Classification codes for outpatient procedures. The annual savings in reimbursements were estimated for a range of annual incidence rates of endophthalmitis assuming ABLEH financial data across all patients in the United States, and the savings into the future as well as the total expenses of conducting the EVS from 1989 to 1995 were summed in 2000 dollars using a net present value analysis based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price indices. Results: Facility reimbursements are significantly higher for procedures performed on an inpatient compared to an outpatient basis (P < 0.001). Treating endophthalmitis according to the EVS guidelines on an outpatient basis would be associated with an estimated $1.5 to $7.8 million reduction in reimbursements per year. The cost of the EVS in 2000 dollars was $4.0 million. Conclusions: Implementing the treatment guidelines of the EVS on an outpatient basis may result in significant cost savings - savings that may cover the entire cost of the EVS in 3 years.

AB - Purpose: To assess the cost savings that would result from 1) implementing the treatment guidelines of the Endophthalmitis Vitrectomy Study (EVS) and 2) performing procedures on an outpatient rather than an inpatient basis, and to compare the savings to the cost of conducting the EVS. Methods: The coding algorithms for four endophthalmitis treatment groups were obtained from Patient Financial Services at the Anne Bates Leach Eye Hospital (ABLEH) and national Medicare averages were consulted for reimbursements in 2000 dollars. The four groups were: 1) inpatient pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) with intravenous antibiotics; 2) outpatient PPV; 3) inpatient vitreous tap with intravenous antibiotics; and 4) outpatient vitreous tap. Physician reimbursements were calculated using International Classification of Diseases-9 (ICD-9) diagnoses and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Facility reimbursements were calculated using ICD-9 diagnoses and Diagnosis-Related Group codes for inpatient procedures versus Ambulatory Payment Classification codes for outpatient procedures. The annual savings in reimbursements were estimated for a range of annual incidence rates of endophthalmitis assuming ABLEH financial data across all patients in the United States, and the savings into the future as well as the total expenses of conducting the EVS from 1989 to 1995 were summed in 2000 dollars using a net present value analysis based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price indices. Results: Facility reimbursements are significantly higher for procedures performed on an inpatient compared to an outpatient basis (P < 0.001). Treating endophthalmitis according to the EVS guidelines on an outpatient basis would be associated with an estimated $1.5 to $7.8 million reduction in reimbursements per year. The cost of the EVS in 2000 dollars was $4.0 million. Conclusions: Implementing the treatment guidelines of the EVS on an outpatient basis may result in significant cost savings - savings that may cover the entire cost of the EVS in 3 years.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036903199&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036903199&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00006982-200212000-00010

DO - 10.1097/00006982-200212000-00010

M3 - Article

C2 - 12476101

AN - SCOPUS:0036903199

VL - 22

SP - 747

EP - 751

JO - Retina

JF - Retina

SN - 0275-004X

IS - 6

ER -