Advertisement

Applying a value-based care framework to post-mastectomy reconstruction

  • Clifford C. Sheckter
  • Evan Matros
  • Gordon K. Lee
  • Jesse C. Selber
  • Anaeze C. OffodileIIEmail author
Review
  • 37 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Reconstructive breast surgeons, like all procedural care providers, face a transition from volume reimbursement (i.e., per unit of service) to value-based care. Value can be defined as the relationship between outcomes and costs, or more specifically healthcare outcomes per unit cost. Although the definition of a meaningful outcome for a particular treatment can vary, some weighted average of survival, function, complications, process measures, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) comprise the numerator, while the total cost of a complete care cycle is the denominator. We aim to construct a value-based care framework for reconstructive surgery using post-mastectomy reconstruction as an organizing element.

Methods

A preexisting value framework was applied to breast reconstruction using expert opinion and literature review. Domains and associated realization strategies were constructed based on established health economic principles.

Results

Seven domains were identified including: implementing an inclusive and transparent process for stakeholder engagement, practicing clear and explicit treatment goals, anchoring care delivery to the patient perspective, maximizing value across the entire continuum of care, optimizing operation efficiency, and scaling best practices with implementation science.

Conclusions

In the near future, reconstructive plastic surgeons may be asked to solve clinical problems for fixed reimbursement (i.e. bundled payments). Considering breast reconstruction through a value lens provides surgeons with an opportunity to adapt and thrive in an evolving healthcare landscape. Lastly, we hope this document helps promote value assessment within the specialty.

Keywords

Value-based care Breast reconstruction Mastectomy Health policy 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Porter ME (2010) What is value in health care? N Engl J Med 363(26):2477–2481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bowyer A, Royse CF (2016) The future of postoperative quality of recovery assessment: multidimensional, dichotomous, and directed to individualize care to patients after surgery. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 29(6):683–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Papanicolas I, Woskie LR, Jha AK (2018) Health care spending in the United States and other high-income countries. JAMA 319(10):1024–1039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Healthcare prices to outpace inflation for the first time since 2010|Fortune [Internet]. http://fortune.com/2018/02/15/healthcare-prices/. Cited 28 Aug 2018
  5. 5.
    Berwick DM, Hackbarth AD (2012) Eliminating waste in US health care. JAMA 307(14):1513–1516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Offodile AC, Lee CN-H (2018) Future directions for breast reconstruction on the 20th anniversary of the women’s health and cancer rights act. JAMA Surg 153(7):605–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wheeler SB, Spencer J, Rotter J (2018) Toward value in health care: perspectives, priorities, and policy. N C Med J 79(1):62–65Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    29 U.S. Code § 1185b—Required coverage for reconstructive surgery following mastectomies [Internet]. LII/Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/1185b. Cited 6 Mar 2017
  9. 9.
    Majno G (1975) The healing hand: man and wound in the ancient world. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levin LS (2018) From autotransplantation to allotransplantation: a perspective on the future of reconstructive microsurgery. J Reconstr Microsurg 34(9):681–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gottlieb LJ, Krieger LM (1994) From the reconstructive ladder to the reconstructive elevator. Plast Reconstr Surg 93(7):1503–1504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elwyn G, Laitner S, Coulter A, Walker E, Watson P, Thomson R (2010) Implementing shared decision making in the NHS. BMJ 14(341):c5146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee CN-H, Deal AM, Huh R, Ubel PA, Liu Y-J, Blizard L et al (2017) Quality of patient decisions about breast reconstruction after mastectomy. JAMA Surg 152(8):741–748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamid KS, Nwachukwu BU, Bozic KJ (2017) Decisions and incisions: a value-driven practice framework for academic surgeons. J Bone Joint Surg Am 99(10):e50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Changoor NR, Udyavar NR, Morris MA, Torain M, Mullen JT, Kent TS et al (2017) Surgeons’ perceptions toward providing care for diverse patients: the need for cultural dexterity training. Ann Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000002560 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jopling JK, Sheckter CC, James BC (2018) To cut is to cure: the surgeon’s role in improving value. Ann Surg 267(5):817–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fischer JP, Fox JP, Nelson JA, Kovach SJ, Serletti JM (2015) A longitudinal assessment of outcomes and healthcare resource utilization after immediate breast reconstruction—comparing implant- and autologous-based breast reconstruction. Ann Surg 262(4):692–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Offodile AC, Gu C, Boukovalas S, Coroneos CJ, Chatterjee A, Largo RD et al (2018) Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways in breast reconstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4991-8 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ranganathan K, Sears ED, Zhong L, Chung T-T, Chung KC, Kozlow JH et al (2018) Antibiotic prophylaxis after immediate breast reconstruction: the reality of its efficacy. Plast Reconstr Surg 141(4):865–877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brooke BS, Finlayson SRG (2015) What surgeons can learn from the emerging science of implementation. JAMA Surg 150(10):1006–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sheckter CC, Razdan SN, Disa JJ, Mehrara BJ, Matros E (2018) Conceptual considerations for payment bundling in breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 141(2):294–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Plastic & Reconstructive SurgeryStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plastic SurgeryMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Plastic & Reconstructive SurgeryMD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  4. 4.The Baker Institute for Public PolicyRice UniversityHoustonUSA

Personalised recommendations