Homeless individuals often suffer from serious health conditions and are frequently hospitalized. This study compares hospitalization costs for homeless and housed patients, with and without adjustment for patient and service characteristics. Administrative data on 93,426 admissions at an academic teaching hospital in Toronto, Canada, were collected over a 5-year period. These data included an identifier for patients who were homeless. Each admission was allocated a cost in Canadian dollars based on Ontario Case Costing methodology. Associations between homeless status and cost were examined for the entire sample and stratified by medical, surgical, and psychiatric services. Data were analyzed for 90,345 housed patient admissions (mean cost, $12,555) and 3081 homeless patient admissions (mean cost, $13,516). After adjustment for age, gender, and resource intensity weight, homeless patient admissions cost $2559 more than housed patient admissions (95% CI, $2053, $3066). For patients on medical and surgical services, much of this difference was explained by more alternate level of care days spent in the hospital, during which patients did not require the level of services provided in an acute care facility. Homeless patient admissions on the psychiatric service cost $1058 more than housed patient admissions (95% CI, $480, $1635) even after adjustment for length of stay. Homeless patients on medical and surgical services remain hospitalized longer than housed patients, resulting in substantial excess costs. Homeless patients admitted for psychiatric conditions have higher costs not explained by prolonged length of stay. These observations may help guide development of community-based interventions for homeless individuals and reduce their use of inpatient care.

To compare the operative outcomes of early and delayed cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Randomized trials comparing early to delayed cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis have limited contemporary external validity. Furthermore, no study to date has been large enough to assess the impact of timing of cholecystectomy on the frequency of serious rare complications including bile duct injury and death. This is a population-based retrospective cohort study of patients emergently admitted to hospital with acute cholecystitis and managed with cholecystectomy over the period of April 1, 2004, to March 31, 2011. We used administrative records for the province of Ontario, Canada. Patients were divided into 2 exposure groups: those who underwent cholecystectomy within 7 days of emergency department presentation on index admission (early cholecystectomy) and those whose cholecystectomy was delayed. The primary outcome was major bile duct injury requiring operative repair within 6 months of cholecystectomy. Secondary outcomes included major bile duct injury or death, 30-day postcholecystectomy mortality, completion of cholecystectomy with an open approach, conversion among laparoscopic cases, and total hospital length of stay. Propensity score methods were used to address confounding by indication. From 22,202 patients, a well-balanced matched cohort of 14,220 patients was defined. Early cholecystectomy was associated with a lower risk of major bile duct injury [0.28% vs 0.53%, relative risk (RR)=0.53, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-0.90], of major bile duct injury or death (1.36% vs 1.88%, RR=0.72, 95% CI: 0.56-0.94), and, albeit non-significant, of 30-day mortality (0.46% vs 0.64%, RR=0.73, 95% CI: 0.47-1.15). Total hospital length of stay was shorter with early cholecystectomy (mean difference 1.9 days, 95% CI: 1.7-2.1). No significant differences were observed in terms, open cholecystectomy (15% vs 14%, RR=1.07, 95% CI: 0.99-1.16) or in conversion among laparoscopic cases (11% vs 10%, RR=1.02, 95% CI: 0.93-1.13). These results support the benefit of early overdelayed cholecystectomy for patients with acute cholecystitis.

Background: Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) describe the probability that a new treatment or intervention is cost-effective. The net benefit regression framework (NBRF) allows cost-effectiveness analysis to be done in a simple regression framework. The objective of the paper is to illustrate how net benefit regression can be used to construct a CEAC. Methods: One hundred patients referred for ambulatory monitoring with syncope or presyncope were randomized to a one-month external loop recorder (n = 49) or 48-hour Holter monitor (n = 51). The primary endpoint was symptom-rhythm correlation during monitoring. Direct costs were calculated based on the 2003 Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) fee schedule combined with hospital case costing of labour, materials, service and overhead costs for diagnostic testing and related equipment. Results: In the loop recorder group, 63.27% of patients (31/49) had symptom recurrence and successful activation, compared to 23.53% in the Holter group (12/51). The cost in US dollars for loop recording was $648.50 and $212.92 for Holter monitoring. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of the loop recorder was $1,096 per extra successful diagnosis. The probability that the loop recorder was cost-effective compared to the Holter monitor was estimated using net benefit regression and plotted on a CEAC. In a sensitivity analysis, bootstrapping was used to examine the effect of distributional assumptions. Conclusion: The NBRF is straightforward to use and interpret. The resulting uncertainty surrounding the regression coefficient relates to the CEAC. When the link from the regression's p-value to the probability of cost-effectiveness is tentative, bootstrapping may be used.