Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

A cost, profit, and efficiency analysis of performing carpal tunnel surgery in the operating room versus the clinic setting in the United States.
Ann Plast Surg. 2011 Mar; 66(3):245-8.AP

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Carpal tunnel surgery (CTS) can be performed in the clinic or operating room with similar outcomes. Our goals were to perform a total cost comparison, profit analysis, and assess efficiency of CTS in each setting.

METHODS

A detailed cost analysis for all CTSs at a tertiary care academic center was done for the year 2007. We calculated the net revenues and profit margins for single endoscopic port and open CTS performed in each setting in the year 2007. For efficiency analysis, we assumed that the time saved by performing a procedure in the more efficient setting could accumulate and permit additional CTSs. This would be the opportunity cost of performing CTS in the less efficient setting.

RESULTS

In general, the operating room was a costlier setting than the clinic. The total cost per case when performing single-port endoscopic CTS was more than double ($2273 vs. $985) when performed in the operating room versus the clinic. For open CTS, the operating room was more than 4 times as expensive than the clinic ($3469 vs. $670). For single endoscopic port cases, profits gained were greater than double in the clinic versus the operating room ($2710 vs. $1139). For open CTS, clinic cases had a profit margin per case of $1186; however, procedures in the operating room incurred a loss of $650 per case. The block time allowed for CTS in the clinic was 30 and 60 minutes in the operating room. To value this efficiency, we used the profit margin of CTS performed in the clinic ($2710) and divided it by the 30 minutes it took to perform. This provided us with a multiplier of $90/min. We multiplied the 30 minutes saved when operating in the clinic by the $90/min to give us an opportunity cost of $2700.

CONCLUSION

Performing either single endoscopic port or open CTS in the operating room is more expensive and less efficient than in the clinic setting.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA. abhishek.chatterjee@hitchcock.orgNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

21042185

Citation

Chatterjee, Abhishek, et al. "A Cost, Profit, and Efficiency Analysis of Performing Carpal Tunnel Surgery in the Operating Room Versus the Clinic Setting in the United States." Annals of Plastic Surgery, vol. 66, no. 3, 2011, pp. 245-8.
Chatterjee A, McCarthy JE, Montagne SA, et al. A cost, profit, and efficiency analysis of performing carpal tunnel surgery in the operating room versus the clinic setting in the United States. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;66(3):245-8.
Chatterjee, A., McCarthy, J. E., Montagne, S. A., Leong, K., & Kerrigan, C. L. (2011). A cost, profit, and efficiency analysis of performing carpal tunnel surgery in the operating room versus the clinic setting in the United States. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 66(3), 245-8. https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e3181db7784
Chatterjee A, et al. A Cost, Profit, and Efficiency Analysis of Performing Carpal Tunnel Surgery in the Operating Room Versus the Clinic Setting in the United States. Ann Plast Surg. 2011;66(3):245-8. PubMed PMID: 21042185.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - A cost, profit, and efficiency analysis of performing carpal tunnel surgery in the operating room versus the clinic setting in the United States. AU - Chatterjee,Abhishek, AU - McCarthy,James E, AU - Montagne,Shirley A, AU - Leong,Kenneth, AU - Kerrigan,Carolyn L, PY - 2010/11/3/entrez PY - 2010/11/3/pubmed PY - 2011/6/22/medline SP - 245 EP - 8 JF - Annals of plastic surgery JO - Ann Plast Surg VL - 66 IS - 3 N2 - BACKGROUND: Carpal tunnel surgery (CTS) can be performed in the clinic or operating room with similar outcomes. Our goals were to perform a total cost comparison, profit analysis, and assess efficiency of CTS in each setting. METHODS: A detailed cost analysis for all CTSs at a tertiary care academic center was done for the year 2007. We calculated the net revenues and profit margins for single endoscopic port and open CTS performed in each setting in the year 2007. For efficiency analysis, we assumed that the time saved by performing a procedure in the more efficient setting could accumulate and permit additional CTSs. This would be the opportunity cost of performing CTS in the less efficient setting. RESULTS: In general, the operating room was a costlier setting than the clinic. The total cost per case when performing single-port endoscopic CTS was more than double ($2273 vs. $985) when performed in the operating room versus the clinic. For open CTS, the operating room was more than 4 times as expensive than the clinic ($3469 vs. $670). For single endoscopic port cases, profits gained were greater than double in the clinic versus the operating room ($2710 vs. $1139). For open CTS, clinic cases had a profit margin per case of $1186; however, procedures in the operating room incurred a loss of $650 per case. The block time allowed for CTS in the clinic was 30 and 60 minutes in the operating room. To value this efficiency, we used the profit margin of CTS performed in the clinic ($2710) and divided it by the 30 minutes it took to perform. This provided us with a multiplier of $90/min. We multiplied the 30 minutes saved when operating in the clinic by the $90/min to give us an opportunity cost of $2700. CONCLUSION: Performing either single endoscopic port or open CTS in the operating room is more expensive and less efficient than in the clinic setting. SN - 1536-3708 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/21042185/A_cost_profit_and_efficiency_analysis_of_performing_carpal_tunnel_surgery_in_the_operating_room_versus_the_clinic_setting_in_the_United_States_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -