Perioperative outcomes and hospital reimbursement by type of radical prostatectomy: results from a privately insured patient population
Background: With the increasing use of robotic surgery in the United States, the comparative effectiveness and differences in reimbursement of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) and open prostatectomy (ORP) in privately insured patients are unknown. Therefore, we sought to assess the di...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases 2015-03, Vol.18 (1), p.13-17 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 17 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 13 |
| container_title | Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases |
| container_volume | 18 |
| creator | Kim, S P Gross, C P Smaldone, M C Han, L C Van Houten, H Lotan, Y Svatek, R S Thompson, R H Karnes, R J Trinh, Q-D Kutikov, A Shah, N D |
| description | Background:
With the increasing use of robotic surgery in the United States, the comparative effectiveness and differences in reimbursement of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) and open prostatectomy (ORP) in privately insured patients are unknown. Therefore, we sought to assess the differences in perioperative outcomes and hospital reimbursement in a privately insured patient population who were surgically treated for prostate cancer.
Methods:
Using a large private insurance database, we identified 17 610 prostate cancer patients who underwent either MIRP or ORP from 2003 to 2010. The primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), perioperative complications, 90-day readmissions rates and hospital reimbursement. Multivariable regression analyses were used to evaluate for differences in primary outcomes across surgical approaches.
Results:
Overall, 8981 (51.0%) and 8629 (49.0%) surgically treated prostate cancer patients underwent MIRP and ORP, respectively. The proportion of patients undergoing MIRP markedly rose from 11.9% in 2003 to 72.5% in 2010 (
P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1038/pcan.2014.38 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1654698474</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A401907265</galeid><sourcerecordid>A401907265</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c553t-75820c48cc811c239bda95432e66e45cb8de43ab76d602cef56a9b8679e57aad3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90l1r1jAUAOAiipvTO68lIIgX9jVpPuvdGH7BQC_0OqTp6ZbRNjVJB-8v8G97yjt1kyG5aOh5cvJxTlU9Z3THKDdvF-_mXUOZ2HHzoDpmQqtaKmoe4pwrWWsjm6PqSc5XlNKWtfRxddRIzphW6rj6-RVSiAskV8I1kLgWHyfIxM09uYx5CcWNJEGYujVlmGAupNuTsl_QDiS5PngES4q5uAK-xGn_Dn1ex5LJkOJEHEbDNQbHPQlzXhP0ZMHdtlRLXNYR53F-Wj0a3Jjh2c33pPr-4f23s0_1-ZePn89Oz2svJS-1lqahXhjvDWO-4W3Xu1YK3oBSIKTvTA-Cu06rXtHGwyCVazujdAtSO9fzk-r1IS8e-ccKudgpZA_j6GaIa7ZMSaFaI7RA-vIfehXXNOPpbMM5U0h1-z-FoNGtpoL-VRduBBvmIZbk_La1PRUUi6IbJVHt7lE4epiCjzMMAf_fWfDq1oJLcGO5zHFctxfNd-GbA_RYqZxgsFiUyaW9ZdRubWS3NrJbG1lukL-4udTaTdD_wb_7BkF9ABlD8wWkW7e-L-EvnZnSdA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1652797040</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Perioperative outcomes and hospital reimbursement by type of radical prostatectomy: results from a privately insured patient population</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Kim, S P ; Gross, C P ; Smaldone, M C ; Han, L C ; Van Houten, H ; Lotan, Y ; Svatek, R S ; Thompson, R H ; Karnes, R J ; Trinh, Q-D ; Kutikov, A ; Shah, N D</creator><creatorcontrib>Kim, S P ; Gross, C P ; Smaldone, M C ; Han, L C ; Van Houten, H ; Lotan, Y ; Svatek, R S ; Thompson, R H ; Karnes, R J ; Trinh, Q-D ; Kutikov, A ; Shah, N D</creatorcontrib><description>Background:
With the increasing use of robotic surgery in the United States, the comparative effectiveness and differences in reimbursement of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) and open prostatectomy (ORP) in privately insured patients are unknown. Therefore, we sought to assess the differences in perioperative outcomes and hospital reimbursement in a privately insured patient population who were surgically treated for prostate cancer.
Methods:
Using a large private insurance database, we identified 17 610 prostate cancer patients who underwent either MIRP or ORP from 2003 to 2010. The primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), perioperative complications, 90-day readmissions rates and hospital reimbursement. Multivariable regression analyses were used to evaluate for differences in primary outcomes across surgical approaches.
Results:
Overall, 8981 (51.0%) and 8629 (49.0%) surgically treated prostate cancer patients underwent MIRP and ORP, respectively. The proportion of patients undergoing MIRP markedly rose from 11.9% in 2003 to 72.5% in 2010 (
P
<0.001 for trend). Relative to ORP, MIRP was associated with a shorter median LOS (1.0 day vs 3.0 days;
P
<0.001) and lower adjusted odds ratio of perioperative complications (OR: 0.82;
P
<0.001). However, the 90-day readmission rates of MIRP and ORP were similar (OR: 0.99;
P
=0.76). MIRP provided higher adjusted mean hospital reimbursement compared with ORP (US$19 292 vs US$17 347;
P
<0.001).
Conclusions:
Among privately insured patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, robotic surgery rapidly disseminated with over 70% of patients undergoing MIRP by 2009–2010. Although MIRP was associated with shorter LOS and modestly better perioperative outcomes, hospitals received higher reimbursement for MIRP compared with ORP.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1365-7852</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1476-5608</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/pcan.2014.38</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25311766</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>631/67/2324 ; Adult ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Biomedicine ; Cancer Research ; Cancer surgery ; Cancer treatment ; Care and treatment ; Complications ; Diagnosis related groups ; DRGs ; Hospitalization insurance ; Humans ; Influence ; Insurance, Health, Reimbursement - economics ; Length of Stay - economics ; Male ; Medicare ; Methods ; Middle Aged ; original-article ; Patient outcomes ; Patients ; Perioperative Period ; Prostate cancer ; Prostatectomy ; Prostatectomy - economics ; Prostatic Neoplasms - economics ; Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology ; Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery ; Regression analysis ; Robotic surgery ; Statistics ; Surgery ; Treatment Outcome ; Urological surgery</subject><ispartof>Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2015-03, Vol.18 (1), p.13-17</ispartof><rights>Macmillan Publishers Limited 2015</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2015 Nature Publishing Group</rights><rights>Copyright Nature Publishing Group Mar 2015</rights><rights>Macmillan Publishers Limited 2015.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c553t-75820c48cc811c239bda95432e66e45cb8de43ab76d602cef56a9b8679e57aad3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c553t-75820c48cc811c239bda95432e66e45cb8de43ab76d602cef56a9b8679e57aad3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25311766$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Kim, S P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gross, C P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smaldone, M C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Han, L C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Houten, H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lotan, Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Svatek, R S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, R H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karnes, R J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trinh, Q-D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kutikov, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shah, N D</creatorcontrib><title>Perioperative outcomes and hospital reimbursement by type of radical prostatectomy: results from a privately insured patient population</title><title>Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases</title><addtitle>Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis</addtitle><addtitle>Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis</addtitle><description>Background:
With the increasing use of robotic surgery in the United States, the comparative effectiveness and differences in reimbursement of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) and open prostatectomy (ORP) in privately insured patients are unknown. Therefore, we sought to assess the differences in perioperative outcomes and hospital reimbursement in a privately insured patient population who were surgically treated for prostate cancer.
Methods:
Using a large private insurance database, we identified 17 610 prostate cancer patients who underwent either MIRP or ORP from 2003 to 2010. The primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), perioperative complications, 90-day readmissions rates and hospital reimbursement. Multivariable regression analyses were used to evaluate for differences in primary outcomes across surgical approaches.
Results:
Overall, 8981 (51.0%) and 8629 (49.0%) surgically treated prostate cancer patients underwent MIRP and ORP, respectively. The proportion of patients undergoing MIRP markedly rose from 11.9% in 2003 to 72.5% in 2010 (
P
<0.001 for trend). Relative to ORP, MIRP was associated with a shorter median LOS (1.0 day vs 3.0 days;
P
<0.001) and lower adjusted odds ratio of perioperative complications (OR: 0.82;
P
<0.001). However, the 90-day readmission rates of MIRP and ORP were similar (OR: 0.99;
P
=0.76). MIRP provided higher adjusted mean hospital reimbursement compared with ORP (US$19 292 vs US$17 347;
P
<0.001).
Conclusions:
Among privately insured patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, robotic surgery rapidly disseminated with over 70% of patients undergoing MIRP by 2009–2010. Although MIRP was associated with shorter LOS and modestly better perioperative outcomes, hospitals received higher reimbursement for MIRP compared with ORP.</description><subject>631/67/2324</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Biomedicine</subject><subject>Cancer Research</subject><subject>Cancer surgery</subject><subject>Cancer treatment</subject><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Complications</subject><subject>Diagnosis related groups</subject><subject>DRGs</subject><subject>Hospitalization insurance</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Influence</subject><subject>Insurance, Health, Reimbursement - economics</subject><subject>Length of Stay - economics</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicare</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>original-article</subject><subject>Patient outcomes</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Perioperative Period</subject><subject>Prostate cancer</subject><subject>Prostatectomy</subject><subject>Prostatectomy - economics</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - economics</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery</subject><subject>Regression analysis</subject><subject>Robotic surgery</subject><subject>Statistics</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><subject>Urological surgery</subject><issn>1365-7852</issn><issn>1476-5608</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp90l1r1jAUAOAiipvTO68lIIgX9jVpPuvdGH7BQC_0OqTp6ZbRNjVJB-8v8G97yjt1kyG5aOh5cvJxTlU9Z3THKDdvF-_mXUOZ2HHzoDpmQqtaKmoe4pwrWWsjm6PqSc5XlNKWtfRxddRIzphW6rj6-RVSiAskV8I1kLgWHyfIxM09uYx5CcWNJEGYujVlmGAupNuTsl_QDiS5PngES4q5uAK-xGn_Dn1ex5LJkOJEHEbDNQbHPQlzXhP0ZMHdtlRLXNYR53F-Wj0a3Jjh2c33pPr-4f23s0_1-ZePn89Oz2svJS-1lqahXhjvDWO-4W3Xu1YK3oBSIKTvTA-Cu06rXtHGwyCVazujdAtSO9fzk-r1IS8e-ccKudgpZA_j6GaIa7ZMSaFaI7RA-vIfehXXNOPpbMM5U0h1-z-FoNGtpoL-VRduBBvmIZbk_La1PRUUi6IbJVHt7lE4epiCjzMMAf_fWfDq1oJLcGO5zHFctxfNd-GbA_RYqZxgsFiUyaW9ZdRubWS3NrJbG1lukL-4udTaTdD_wb_7BkF9ABlD8wWkW7e-L-EvnZnSdA</recordid><startdate>20150301</startdate><enddate>20150301</enddate><creator>Kim, S P</creator><creator>Gross, C P</creator><creator>Smaldone, M C</creator><creator>Han, L C</creator><creator>Van Houten, H</creator><creator>Lotan, Y</creator><creator>Svatek, R S</creator><creator>Thompson, R H</creator><creator>Karnes, R J</creator><creator>Trinh, Q-D</creator><creator>Kutikov, A</creator><creator>Shah, N D</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TO</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7Z</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150301</creationdate><title>Perioperative outcomes and hospital reimbursement by type of radical prostatectomy: results from a privately insured patient population</title><author>Kim, S P ; Gross, C P ; Smaldone, M C ; Han, L C ; Van Houten, H ; Lotan, Y ; Svatek, R S ; Thompson, R H ; Karnes, R J ; Trinh, Q-D ; Kutikov, A ; Shah, N D</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c553t-75820c48cc811c239bda95432e66e45cb8de43ab76d602cef56a9b8679e57aad3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>631/67/2324</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Biomedicine</topic><topic>Cancer Research</topic><topic>Cancer surgery</topic><topic>Cancer treatment</topic><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Complications</topic><topic>Diagnosis related groups</topic><topic>DRGs</topic><topic>Hospitalization insurance</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Influence</topic><topic>Insurance, Health, Reimbursement - economics</topic><topic>Length of Stay - economics</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicare</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>original-article</topic><topic>Patient outcomes</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Perioperative Period</topic><topic>Prostate cancer</topic><topic>Prostatectomy</topic><topic>Prostatectomy - economics</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - economics</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery</topic><topic>Regression analysis</topic><topic>Robotic surgery</topic><topic>Statistics</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><topic>Urological surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Kim, S P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gross, C P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smaldone, M C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Han, L C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Houten, H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lotan, Y</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Svatek, R S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thompson, R H</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Karnes, R J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Trinh, Q-D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kutikov, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shah, N D</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Oncogenes and Growth Factors Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Biochemistry Abstracts 1</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Kim, S P</au><au>Gross, C P</au><au>Smaldone, M C</au><au>Han, L C</au><au>Van Houten, H</au><au>Lotan, Y</au><au>Svatek, R S</au><au>Thompson, R H</au><au>Karnes, R J</au><au>Trinh, Q-D</au><au>Kutikov, A</au><au>Shah, N D</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Perioperative outcomes and hospital reimbursement by type of radical prostatectomy: results from a privately insured patient population</atitle><jtitle>Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases</jtitle><stitle>Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis</stitle><addtitle>Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis</addtitle><date>2015-03-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>13</spage><epage>17</epage><pages>13-17</pages><issn>1365-7852</issn><eissn>1476-5608</eissn><abstract>Background:
With the increasing use of robotic surgery in the United States, the comparative effectiveness and differences in reimbursement of minimally invasive radical prostatectomy (MIRP) and open prostatectomy (ORP) in privately insured patients are unknown. Therefore, we sought to assess the differences in perioperative outcomes and hospital reimbursement in a privately insured patient population who were surgically treated for prostate cancer.
Methods:
Using a large private insurance database, we identified 17 610 prostate cancer patients who underwent either MIRP or ORP from 2003 to 2010. The primary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), perioperative complications, 90-day readmissions rates and hospital reimbursement. Multivariable regression analyses were used to evaluate for differences in primary outcomes across surgical approaches.
Results:
Overall, 8981 (51.0%) and 8629 (49.0%) surgically treated prostate cancer patients underwent MIRP and ORP, respectively. The proportion of patients undergoing MIRP markedly rose from 11.9% in 2003 to 72.5% in 2010 (
P
<0.001 for trend). Relative to ORP, MIRP was associated with a shorter median LOS (1.0 day vs 3.0 days;
P
<0.001) and lower adjusted odds ratio of perioperative complications (OR: 0.82;
P
<0.001). However, the 90-day readmission rates of MIRP and ORP were similar (OR: 0.99;
P
=0.76). MIRP provided higher adjusted mean hospital reimbursement compared with ORP (US$19 292 vs US$17 347;
P
<0.001).
Conclusions:
Among privately insured patients diagnosed with prostate cancer, robotic surgery rapidly disseminated with over 70% of patients undergoing MIRP by 2009–2010. Although MIRP was associated with shorter LOS and modestly better perioperative outcomes, hospitals received higher reimbursement for MIRP compared with ORP.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><pmid>25311766</pmid><doi>10.1038/pcan.2014.38</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1365-7852 |
| ispartof | Prostate cancer and prostatic diseases, 2015-03, Vol.18 (1), p.13-17 |
| issn | 1365-7852 1476-5608 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1654698474 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
| subjects | 631/67/2324 Adult Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedicine Cancer Research Cancer surgery Cancer treatment Care and treatment Complications Diagnosis related groups DRGs Hospitalization insurance Humans Influence Insurance, Health, Reimbursement - economics Length of Stay - economics Male Medicare Methods Middle Aged original-article Patient outcomes Patients Perioperative Period Prostate cancer Prostatectomy Prostatectomy - economics Prostatic Neoplasms - economics Prostatic Neoplasms - pathology Prostatic Neoplasms - surgery Regression analysis Robotic surgery Statistics Surgery Treatment Outcome Urological surgery |
| title | Perioperative outcomes and hospital reimbursement by type of radical prostatectomy: results from a privately insured patient population |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T15%3A58%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Perioperative%20outcomes%20and%20hospital%20reimbursement%20by%20type%20of%20radical%20prostatectomy:%20results%20from%20a%20privately%20insured%20patient%20population&rft.jtitle=Prostate%20cancer%20and%20prostatic%20diseases&rft.au=Kim,%20S%20P&rft.date=2015-03-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=13&rft.epage=17&rft.pages=13-17&rft.issn=1365-7852&rft.eissn=1476-5608&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/pcan.2014.38&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA401907265%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1652797040&rft_id=info:pmid/25311766&rft_galeid=A401907265&rfr_iscdi=true |