I got a couple emails and posts about the last entry here on Plastic Surgery 101 on the lawsuit over breast reduction asking some questions about the cost of these procedures. Particularly, people (me included) feel this woman's lawsuit is sympathetic but feel the cost difference is indeed something that should be factored in, especially as it's over 15 years out from her original surgery.
A colleague pointed out some of the long-term costs associated with implants that you don't necessarily have with autologous (your own tissue) reconstruction (ie. need for replacing ruptured implants or the need for revision surgery for capsular contracture).
Here's my take.......
Trying to figure out the actual costs & morbidity of surgical procedures is difficult. There are tremendous variables all playing into this. A number of studies have compared the cost of different reconstructions at their institutions and come to different conclusions on long term costs. Implant based reconstruction is clearly cheaper up front, but over the course of many years (and further revision surgeries) this evens out assuming no major complications from flap-based surgery. These studies have never addressed scenarios like the one involved in this lawsuit.
A colleague pointed out some of the long-term costs associated with implants that you don't necessarily have with autologous (your own tissue) reconstruction (ie. need for replacing ruptured implants or the need for revision surgery for capsular contracture).
Here's my take.......
Trying to figure out the actual costs & morbidity of surgical procedures is difficult. There are tremendous variables all playing into this. A number of studies have compared the cost of different reconstructions at their institutions and come to different conclusions on long term costs. Implant based reconstruction is clearly cheaper up front, but over the course of many years (and further revision surgeries) this evens out assuming no major complications from flap-based surgery. These studies have never addressed scenarios like the one involved in this lawsuit.
It becomes silly at some point to try to translate the cost of these surgeries at a place like MD-Anderson or Sloan-Kettering Memorial (the most well-known cancer centers in the country) to how much it costs to do the surgery in some non super-tertiary center. Length of stay, routine post-op care, and operating times in these papers are all over the place and most Plastic Surgeons reading these analysis just don't believe the numbers reported (or at least don't believe those numbers are reproducible at their hospital).
In this case consider the up-front costs of the two proposed surgeries:
1. An hour-long outpatient bilateral implant exchange/minor revision prob. has a true cost (not what you'd seen on charges to an insurance company) between $5-10,000. I say "true cost" as I know what it would cost to do this as a cosmetic case where all fees are out in the open. For comparison of what an implant costs (not the surgery fee, but the price tag for just a single device): a saline implant is ~ $300, a traditional silicone implant is about $850, and the not currently available Inamed 410 "gummy bear" implant will be almost $1100
2. a traditional bilateral pedicled (where you keep the blood vessel attached) TRAM flap is a surgery that would likely take 5-7 hours for one surgeon to do and require closer to a week in the hospital. Charges for this might run closer to $100,000. Associated with harvesting both rectus muscles is a fair incidence of abdominal wall hernias requiring future surgery.
3. a microsurgical bilateral "free" DIEP flap could take 10 hours of surgery depending upon the difficulty of the microsurgery, require ICU admission for flap monitoring post-op, require a week in the hospital, and bring a bill over $150,000. This procedure spares the muscle harvest of a TRAM at the expense of a longer and more complex surgery with higher rates of flap loss.
Implant reconstruction brings some "legacy costs" which autologous reconstruction does not. Now modern implants life-expectancy is still a moving target, but 15 years is a reasonable expectation. (The gummy-bear implants still pending approval may extend that life-span indefinitely). Worse-case scenario, a young or middle aged-woman might have to have her implants exchanged 2-3 times over the course of her life. Reoperations from hardening (capsular contracture) are also going to add some number of reoperations to this figure.
From my crude estimate of costs in this case, even though immediate implant-based reconstruction may be more expensive in some cost-analysis decades out from surgery (when reoperation costs are figured in) then doing a TRAM or DIEP at the time of mastectomy, you can imagine that the costs in this particular scenario will never make sense from a cost perspective, especially when the system has already been hit once with the first reconstruction cost. It's for this reason I find it most compelling to expect the patient to self-finance part of this when other less expensive options are available.
In this case consider the up-front costs of the two proposed surgeries:
1. An hour-long outpatient bilateral implant exchange/minor revision prob. has a true cost (not what you'd seen on charges to an insurance company) between $5-10,000. I say "true cost" as I know what it would cost to do this as a cosmetic case where all fees are out in the open. For comparison of what an implant costs (not the surgery fee, but the price tag for just a single device): a saline implant is ~ $300, a traditional silicone implant is about $850, and the not currently available Inamed 410 "gummy bear" implant will be almost $1100
2. a traditional bilateral pedicled (where you keep the blood vessel attached) TRAM flap is a surgery that would likely take 5-7 hours for one surgeon to do and require closer to a week in the hospital. Charges for this might run closer to $100,000. Associated with harvesting both rectus muscles is a fair incidence of abdominal wall hernias requiring future surgery.
3. a microsurgical bilateral "free" DIEP flap could take 10 hours of surgery depending upon the difficulty of the microsurgery, require ICU admission for flap monitoring post-op, require a week in the hospital, and bring a bill over $150,000. This procedure spares the muscle harvest of a TRAM at the expense of a longer and more complex surgery with higher rates of flap loss.
Implant reconstruction brings some "legacy costs" which autologous reconstruction does not. Now modern implants life-expectancy is still a moving target, but 15 years is a reasonable expectation. (The gummy-bear implants still pending approval may extend that life-span indefinitely). Worse-case scenario, a young or middle aged-woman might have to have her implants exchanged 2-3 times over the course of her life. Reoperations from hardening (capsular contracture) are also going to add some number of reoperations to this figure.
From my crude estimate of costs in this case, even though immediate implant-based reconstruction may be more expensive in some cost-analysis decades out from surgery (when reoperation costs are figured in) then doing a TRAM or DIEP at the time of mastectomy, you can imagine that the costs in this particular scenario will never make sense from a cost perspective, especially when the system has already been hit once with the first reconstruction cost. It's for this reason I find it most compelling to expect the patient to self-finance part of this when other less expensive options are available.
No comments:
Post a Comment