1 / 11

Ambulatory Surgery Centers

Ambulatory Surgery Centers. Econ 737.01 3/16/11. Outline. I. What are they? II. Potential benefits III. Potential drawbacks IV. Evidence. I. What are they?. F ree-standing facilities that provide relatively uncomplicated outpatient medical procedures

lenore
Télécharger la présentation

Ambulatory Surgery Centers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Ambulatory Surgery Centers Econ 737.01 3/16/11

  2. Outline • I. What are they? • II. Potential benefits • III. Potential drawbacks • IV. Evidence

  3. I. What are they? • Free-standing facilities that provide relatively uncomplicated outpatient medical procedures • Typically small and specialized, most often in ophthalmology, gastroenterology, or orthopedics • Typically privately-owned, either entirely or party by the physicians who practice there • The number of Medicare-certified ASCs in US has risen from 400 in 1983 to 4,700 in 2006. • ASCs provided 43% of all outpatient surgeries in US in 2006

  4. Source: Chukmaitov et al., 2008

  5. II. Potential benefits • Lower cost of care • Greater convenience • More flexibility in scheduling • Potentially nicer settings • Allows for more efficient sorting of patients (most risky to HOPD, less risky to ASC) • Better quality of care? (specialization) • Competitive effects on hospitals: lower prices, better quality?

  6. III. Potential drawbacks • The elephant in the room is physician ownership (“self referral”) • Not unique to ASCs – there are also physician-owned specialty hospitals and imaging centers • Wasteful services? • Cream skimming/cherry picking • Physicians may sendprofitable (better insurance or procedure with higher margin) to ASCs, less profitable to HOPDs • Might hurt hospital profitability (through either lower volume or lower margins) and limit their ability to cross-subsidize unprofitable procedures like charity care • Worse quality of care? (not as well equipped to deal with complications)

  7. IV. Evidence • Greater convenience • Weber (2008) • Structural model; strong spatial component to demand for patients • More efficient sorting of patients • Wynn et al. (2004) • Patients treated at HOPDs had more risk factors than those treated at ASCs • Plotzke and Courtemanche (2010) • More diagnosis codes and general anesthesia associated with lower probability of treatment at ASCs

  8. IV. Evidence • Quality • Chukmaitov et al. (2008) • Tested for risk-adjusted differences in 7- and 30-day mortality and hospitalizations for patients obtaining outpatient surgery at ASCs versus HOPDs • ASCs seem to do better for upper GI endoscopies and cataracts, HOPDs seem to do better for some other procedures that ASCs don’t perform as frequently

  9. IV. Evidence • Wasteful services • Hollingsworth et al. (2010) • In physician fixed effects models, found positive association between ASC ownership and surgical volume • Courtemanche and Plotzke (2010) • Reduction in hospital volume when an ASC enters is way less than the volume of the average ASC • Are the new services welfare-enhancing or wasteful?

  10. IV. Evidence • Cream skimming/cherry picking • Gabel et al. (2008) • Physicians who were leading referrers to physician-owned ASCs were more likely to refer Medicaid patients to HOPDs than leading referrers to non-physician-owned ASCs • Plotzke and Courtemanche (2010) • National sample of Medicare patients from the National Survey of Ambulatory Surgery • 10% increase in procedure profit margin was associated with a1.2-1.4 percentage point increase in the probability the procedure was performed in an ASC instead of a hospital.

  11. IV. Evidence • Hospital volume • Lynk and Longley (2002) • Two case studies where rural hospitals slashed their provision of outpatient surgery after ASCs entered • Bian and Morrisey (2007) • MSA-level panel analysis • An additional ASC per 100,000 residents reduced hospital outpatient surgery volume by 4.3% while not affecting inpatient volume • Courtemanche and Plotzke (2010) • Hospital-level panel analysis • ASCs only affect a hospital’s volume if they’re within a few miles of each other. • Even then, the average ASC reduces the average hospital’s volume by only 2-4%. • The effects of large ASCs and early entrants are more substantial.

More Related