Comparison of Urban-Rural Readmission Rates After Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Findings From a Privately Insured Population

Abstract

Objectives:

We assessed the 30-day readmission rate of a privately insured population diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) who had primary tumor resection in rural and urban communities.

Methods:

Claims data of people aged <65 with a diagnosis of CRC between 2012 and 2016 and enrolled in a private health plan administered by BlueCross BlueShield of Nebraska were analyzed. Readmission was defined as the number of discharged patients who were readmitted within 30 days, divided by all discharged patients. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate the factors associated with readmission.

Results:

The urban population had a higher readmission rate (11%) than the rural population (8%). Although the adjusted odds ratio showed that there is no difference in readmission between rural and urban residents, patients with a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) of >1 were more likely than those without CCI to be readmitted (OR 3.59, 1.41-9.11). Patients with open vs. laparoscopic surgery (OR 2.80, 1.39-5.63) and those with an obstructed or perforated colon vs. none (OR 7.17, 3.75-13.72) were more likely to be readmitted.

Conclusions:

Readmission after CRC surgery occurs frequently. Interventions that target the identified risk factors should reduce readmission rates in this privately insured population.

Keywords

access to care colorectal cancer readmission health services research geography private insurance

Introduction

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and the third leading cause of cancer mortality in the United States (US) for both women and men, with an estimated 135,430 new cases and 50,260 deaths from CRC in 2017.^1

-4 With surgery being the primary treatment approach for CRC patients, superior oncological outcomes are crucial; nonetheless, postoperative hospital readmissions occur frequently in this patient population.⁵ Hospital readmissions are associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs.^6
-8 Determinants of preventable readmissions suggest a lack of access to quality care during the index hospitalization, a characteristic more frequent in rural areas due to limited institutional resources and the adverse characteristics of the rural population.^9
-11

Rural-urban disparities in access to quality cancer care is a worldwide phenomenon.¹² Previous research showed that a rural population and those with lower socioeconomic status (SES) were less likely to be screened, less likely to receive treatment, and at an increased risk of death following CRC diagnosis.^13

-17 Factors that predispose rural residents to experience worse cancer outcomes include the characteristics of the rural population, the institutional resources, the health behavior of rural residents, and the availability of quality cancer services. For instance, rural residents tend to be elderly and poor, lack medical help-seeking behavior due to location barriers, a characteristic associated with low follow-up on initiated treatment, and little offered treatment options.¹⁸ In addition to the aforementioned disparities, rural residents lack access to cancer specialists such as oncologists and surgeons.^19
-21

In the United States, the annual readmission rate for the 600,000 cases of colorectal surgery range between 9% and 25%.^5,8,22 Factors associated with readmissions are age, sex, race, SES, insurance type, deprivation score, comorbidities, immunosuppressant use, the severity of illness, surgical approach (open vs. laparoscopic), procedure type and urgency, operation time, length of stay (LOS), complications, non-home discharge, blood transfusion around the time of surgery, postoperative steroids and stoma.⁵ Most prior research related to hospital readmission rates for patients receiving surgery for CRC has not examined differences between rural and urban populations. Of those that considered rurality, some did not investigate patients <65 or privately insured population, and others instead were limited to a single institution or used a Medicare population.^23

-29 There is a paucity of population-based studies of rural-urban differences that include people under 65 years of age. In contrast to the overall US population, where 20%-25% of people live in rural areas, 35% of the population of Nebraska lives in rural areas.¹⁰

The objective of the study was to measure the rate of hospital readmission of patients after surgical resection of CRC, using data from a privately insured population of people <65 years of age. BlueCross BlueShield of Nebraska data captures information about patients’ diagnoses and procedures, which can be used to derive comorbidities and complications. We wanted to compare the frequency of readmissions following CRC surgery between rural and urban populations and identify factors associated with a higher likelihood of readmission after CRC. Therefore, we hypothesized that rural patients, those with higher comorbidities, underwent open surgery, presented with an obstructed or perforated colon, discharged with a stoma, and with a higher length of stay at the hospital were more likely to get readmitted within 30 days of their index surgery compared to their counterparts.

Methods

Data Sources

We designed a retrospective cohort study using data from BlueCross BlueShield of Nebraska (BCBSNE). BCBSNE is a large private health insurer covering more than 700,000 individuals in Nebraska.³⁰ Data consists of claims from inpatient, professional and outpatient services. The data also contains members’ demographic information that includes age, gender, member, and provider 5-digit ZIP codes. BCBSNE captures the member’s enrollment information, which consists of the beginning and ending date of coverage and the beginning and ending date of services. Diagnosis and procedural codes for inpatient, outpatient, and professional services were all available from their claims data warehouse.

Study Population

Participants included in this study were members of BCBSNE between January 1st, 2012, and June, 30th 2016, who were 19-64 years old, enrolled with BCBSNE for the entire year, and who were diagnosed with CRC. The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes, and ICD-10-CM diagnosis codes were used (See supplementary material S1 for the codes used to identify the diagnosis of CRC).³¹ Figure 1 shows eligibility criteria. Patients were diagnosed with CRC if they had at least one inpatient or 2 outpatient claims with a primary diagnosis of CRC at 2 different visits.³² We excluded members >65 since BCBSNE data did not contain claims for all of their Medicare-covered health services. We also excluded members with no surgery claims 1 month before CRC diagnosis or within 6 months after the diagnosis. See supplementary material S2 for the codes used to identify CRC surgery. Additionally, members with no admission or discharge records were also excluded.

Figure 1.

Eligibility criteria for the study population.

Study Variables

Patient characteristics

We used the enrollment file to extract the beginning and ending dates of coverage and services. Patient demographics, including age, gender, and 5-digit ZIP code of residence, were derived from the claims file. Utilization and clinical variables were extracted from the international classification of disease fields and current procedural terminology fields from the claims file.

The updated Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) was used to determine the burden of disease and case-mix.^33,34 The index contains a comprehensive list of 17 comorbid conditions developed by Charlson et al and recently updated by Quan et al.

Travel time measurements were described previously.³¹ Briefly, travel time was computed by measuring the time in minutes between the member and provider ZIP codes at the date of surgery. The provider’s ZIP code was defined as the place where the operation took place on the date of the index surgery, and the member’s ZIP code as that for their place of residence when receiving the operation. Travel times to surgical treatment were obtained using an open-source SAS program that makes repeated calls to Google to get travel time information for any number of locations.^35,36 Studies have found a high correlation of Google maps with straight-line distance (r² = 0.96) but with superior travel time estimates. We measured travel time as both continuous variable and as 4 categories based on quartile distribution.

Rural-Urban Status Measurement

A patient’s “index” surgery was designated as the first time a patient had surgery within 1 month before or 6 months after their CRC diagnosis. The surgery was the basis on which both members’ and providers’ ZIP codes were defined to calculate the travel time. The provider’s ZIP code was defined as that on the date of the index surgery, and the member’s ZIP code as that for their place of residence when receiving the index surgery.

For the rural-urban status definition, we used the Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes to assign each member’s residential status based on their residential ZIP code. Subsequently, we used these codes to classify members by rural-urban status using “Categorization C,” as suggested by the publisher.³⁷ This categorization combines RUCA codes into urban and rural codes. The urban codes consist of a metropolitan area core, micropolitan or small-town high-commuting areas, or rural areas with a secondary commuting flow of 30% to 49% within an urban area. The rural codes consist of a micropolitan area core with a secondary flow of 10% to 29% to an urban area, small-town, low-commuting areas, or rural areas with commuting to urban cluster areas.

Outcome Variables

CRC surgery was defined as the resection of the primary tumor with or without stoma creation within 1 month before or 6 months after the CRC diagnosis. We applied this definition to patients with 6 months of continuous enrollment before and after CRC diagnosis (1 year of continuous enrollment) to ensure that we are not missing surgeries conducted after systemic therapy according to guidelines (i.e., surgery after neoadjuvant therapy).³⁸ The codes used to identify surgeries (Appendix A) were selected in consultation with a surgeon and a trained coder, as well as previous publications.^5,29,39
-41 The 30-day readmission was defined as the number of discharged patients who were readmitted within 30 days, divided by the number of people discharged. Operationally, we used the inpatient records and admission and discharge dates to measure hospital readmission. The same definition has been used in previous publications.^{8,24,25,29,39,40,42
-44}

Data Analysis

Patient characteristics including age, gender, rural-urban status, travel time, LOS, and CCI were compared between readmitted and non-readmitted groups using a student t-test for continuous variables and the Chi-square (X²) test for categorical variables. The same tests were used to compare readmitted and non-readmitted patients according to the surgery characteristics, including tumor location, surgery site, and approach, whether a patient has an intestinal obstruction or perforation and whether a patient required a stoma. Wald tests were used to assess the predictors’ significance. The fractional polynomial method was used to examine non-linear relationships between the log odds of readmission and the continuous variables.⁴⁵ We inspected the curves of the predictors against the dichotomous response and used the likelihood ratio test for improvement in fit against the assumed linear relationship. We performed univariate analysis to assess the relationship between each independent variable and readmission rates, with variables that have P-value <0.25 added to the multivariate model. At the multivariate analysis, were performed backward elimination to eliminate non-significant variables (P > 0.05) with the final model adjusting for the surgical approach, the presence of intestinal obstruction or perforation, and CCI. There were no interactions between rural-urban status and independent variables. All tests were 2-sided and using α = 0.05. SAS statistical software version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC) was used to conduct all analyses. This study, with its fully anonymized data, was approved by the University of Nebraska Medical Center Institutional Review Board (IRB# 366-1).

Results

The application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in a cohort of 315 patients with CRC surgery claims (Figure 1).

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the study members who had CRC surgery by their hospital readmission status. The urban population (11%) had a higher readmission rate than the rural population (8%). Readmitted patients presented with more comorbidities compared to non-readmitted patients. Mean travel times were very similar between the readmitted (mean = 27.69 min) and non-readmitted (mean = 27.92 min) groups. Overall, 25% traveled a maximum distance of 7.5 miles, 50% traveled a maximum of 19 miles, and 75% traveled a maximum of 35 miles. While the median distance traveled by rural patients was 33.02 miles, urban patients traveled a median of 10.16 miles to get to a hospital.

Table 1.

Patient Characteristics by 30-Days Readmission Status, BCBSNE 2012-2016 (N = 315).

	Readmitted		Non-readmitted
	No	% or SD	No	% or SD	Total	P
Overall	62	19.70	253	80.30	315
Member location
Rural	26	41.39	135	53.36	161	0.11
Urban	36	58.06	118	46.64	154
Age, mean	54.0	8.32	53.95	7.96		0.92
Gender
Female	24	38.71	105	41.50		129	0.69
Male	38	61.29	148	58.50	186
Travel time (minutes)
Mean	27.69	27.19	27.92	40.46		0.22
Median	21.0	24.0	17.0	24.0
Charlson Comorbidity Index before surgery
0	33	53.22	171	67.59	204	0.02
1	18	29.03	64	25.30	82
>1	11	17.74	18	7.11	29

Table 2 displays the surgery characteristics according to readmission status. The majority of the surgical procedures (77%) of readmitted patients were open surgery, compared to half of the surgical procedures of the non-readmitted patients. The majority of surgical procedures among readmitted patients were performed on patients who had intestinal obstruction or perforation before surgery and who had no stoma.

Table 2.

Index Surgery Characteristics by 30-Days Readmission Status, BCBSNE 2012-2016 (N = 315).

	Readmitted		Non-Readmitted
	No	% or SD	No	% or SD	Total	P
Tumor location
Colon	38	61.29	168	66.40	206	0.45
Rectum	24	38.71	85	33.60	109
Surgery site
Proximal	12	19.35	45	17.79	57	0.95
Distal	23	37.10	97	38.34	120
Rectal /other	27	43.55	111	43.87	138
Surgery approach
Laparoscopic	14	22.58	127	50.20	141	<0.01
Open	48	77.42	126	49.80	174
Intestinal obstruction or perforation on admission
Yes	36	58.06	41	16.20	77	<0.01
No	26	41.93	212	83.79	238
Stoma creation
Yes	22	35.48	61	24.11	83	0.07
No	40	64.51	192	75.88	232
Length of stay
Mean	6.42	5.21	5.46	5.72		0.07
Median	50	5.00	40	3.00

Table 3 shows the results of the multivariate analysis for the association between rural-urban status and 30-day readmission rates. Compared with patients who had no comorbidities, patients with >1 comorbid condition had 3.59 (95% CI, 1.41-9.11) higher odds of being readmitted within 30-day of the index surgery. Patients who had open surgery during the index admission had 2.80 (95% CI, 1.39-5.63) higher odds of being readmitted within 30-days compared to patients who had laparoscopic surgery. Patients who presented with intestinal obstruction or perforation during their index admission had 7.17 (95% CI, 3.75-13.72) higher odds of getting readmitted within 30-day of the index surgery compared with those without such symptoms. We found no significant difference in 30-day readmission between BCBSNE members who live in rural vs. urban areas.

Table 3.

Univariate and Multivariate Analysis of Risk Factors for 30-Day Readmission, BCBSNE 2012-2016.

	Univariate Analysis		Multivariate Analysis
	OR	(95% CI)	OR	(95% CI)
Member Location
Rural	1.0		1.0
Urban	1.58	(0.90, 2.78)	1.81 —	(0.96, 3.42)
Age	0.99	(0.96, 1.03)	—	—
Travel time	1.00	(0.99, 1.01)
LOS	1.02	(0.98, 1.07)
Gender			—	—
Female	1.0		—	—
Male	1.12	(0.63, 1.98)	—	—
Charlson Comorbidity Index
0	1.0		1.0
1	1.46	(0.77, 2.77)	1.11	(0.45, 2.30)
>1	3.17	(1.37, 7.32)	3.59	(1.41, 9.11)
Surgery approach
Laparoscopic	1.0		1.0
Open	3.46	(1.81, 6.60)	2.80	(1.39, 5.63)
Intestinal obstruction or perforation on admission
No	1.0		1.0
Yes	7.16	(3.91, 13.11)	7.17	(3.75, 13.72)

Bold values indicate significant findings (P value < 0.05).

Discussion

The retrospective cohort study of the privately insured adults who had CRC and treated surgically from January 2012 to June 2016 resulted in a readmission rate of 11% in urban population and 8% in the rural population. The consequences of readmission can be detrimental since patients who are readmitted within 30 days of the index surgery have 2.44 increased odds of mortality than those who were not readmitted.⁴⁰ Our finding is comparable to previous studies that reported readmission rates ranging between 9% and 25%.^8,22,41 The discrepant results in readmission rates, evidenced by a wide readmission range, could be because of the differences in the time of surgical complications (e.g., complications that occurred during the index surgery or postdischarge) or differences in the time of readmission.⁴² Alternatively, differences in readmission rates could also be partly due to different definitions used for hospital readmission. For example, the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) uses a clinical reviewer to check medical records for postoperative complications derived from readmission and handles phone calls to follow up with patients. However, the University Health System Consortium (UHC) database is a discharge billing data set that is limited to inpatient records.⁵ Another difference is that the NSQIP defines readmission starting from the date of surgery, while UHC uses the day after discharge.⁵

In the current study, the rural-urban status was not a predictive factor for 30-day hospital readmission. This finding is similar to a study conducted with the Medicare population that found no differences between the rural and urban populations in the 30-day readmission rate.⁴⁰ Still, it is dissimilar to others, which found that the rural population is more likely to get readmitted.⁴³, ⁴⁶ For instance, a study conducted with the Veteran Affairs (VA) patients 65 years and older found that rural patients were more likely to be readmitted within 30-days and indicated that the findings reflect the low quality of care for patients treated at rural hospitals. Additionally, a study conducted in Nebraska found that the rural population is 40% less likely than urban to receive a laparoscopic colectomy, a procedure associated with improved postoperative patient outcomes.¹¹

Since the introduction of laparoscopic CRC surgery in 1991,^47,48 the association between laparoscopic CRC surgery vs. open approach and the decreased readmission rates has been controversial. The impact of the surgical approach on the risk of hospital readmission after CRC surgery is somewhat anticipated. Although the laparoscopic procedure is associated with a longer operation time, several studies have found that the minimally invasive laparoscopic approach is associated with favorable outcomes, including lower readmission rates.^41,49 As a result, there has been an increase in the utilization of laparoscopy during CRC surgery (37% in 2008 and 44% in 2011).⁵⁰ Additional favorable outcomes associated with laparoscopy use are lower postoperative pain, shorter duration of ileus, improved pulmonary function, better overall quality of life during the 30 days postoperatively, and lower postoperative LOS.⁴⁹ The latter is associated with lower 30-day hospital readmission; in the current study, we found near-significant higher LOS among readmitted patients (P = 0.07).

The risk factors of 30-day readmission identified in this study include the use of an open surgery approach. Our research found that patients who had open surgery had 2.8 the odds of being readmitted to the hospital within 30 days of the index surgery compared to those who had laparoscopic surgery, 2.8 (95% CI: 1.39, 5.63). Congruent with our findings, Damle et al assessed the association between the surgery approach and 30-day readmission and found that patients who had open surgery to be 24% more likely to get readmitted compared to those with laparoscopic surgery, 1.24 (95% CI: 1.17, 1.31).³⁹ Likewise, Bartlett et al found that patients who had laparoscopic surgery to be less likely to be readmitted, 0.90 (95% CI: 0.85, 0.96).⁴² However, other studies reported non-significant findings.^24,51,52 Accordingly, given that the higher the use of laparoscopy, the lower the LOS, and subsequently, the lower the hospital readmission, the evidence suggests an association between laparoscopic use and lower readmission rate.

Another risk factor that has been identified in this study was poor baseline health or comorbidities. We found that patients with >1 CCI score to be 3.59 more likely to be readmitted to the hospital within 30 days after the index surgery. Several studies from diverse populations found that the higher the comorbidity, the higher the likelihood of readmission.^42,43,53,54 Comorbidity is associated with higher mortality, lower quality of life, and higher complications of treatment.⁵⁵ For instance, Greenblatt and colleagues found that patients with comorbidities were 14% more likely to be readmitted within 30 days of discharge and were 27% more likely to die within 1 year of discharge.⁴⁰

We also found that 24% of readmitted patients had an obstructed or perforated bowel at the time of the index surgery. This finding is slightly higher than some studies.⁵⁶ but similar to others.^57,58 Part of the differences could be different age groups among these studies. Patients with obstructed or perforated bowel were 7.17 more likely to be readmitted to the hospital within 30 days after the index surgery, which is similar to some studies that found worse outcomes associated with patients presented with an obstructed or perforated tumor.^29,40

Previous studies showed a positive association between surgical outcomes and undergoing surgery at high surgery volume hospitals or by high volume surgeons.^21,59

-64 While we did not measure surgery volume in this privately insured young population, we noticed that travel time was not significantly different between the readmitted and non-readmitted patients, and the majority of patients (75%) did not exceed 35 miles. Given the higher frequency of colon cancer surgeries (less complex surgery) in the state than rectal cancer surgery (supplementary materials, S3 and S4), the lack of differences in travel time and readmission could be related to more frequent colon cancer surgery in the state. Future studies should elaborate on the surgery volume and its impact on cancer outcomes. This result is consistent with previous findings,^6,21,64 which showed that the distance traveled for CRC surgeries ranges between 1.9 and 9.3 miles among medium-volume hospitals. At high-volume hospitals, the distance was between 2.9 and 24.5 miles. Accordingly, among this rural population, some of the patients did not mind traveling more than 35 miles to undergo surgery and, therefore, did not consider traveling as a barrier to receiving surgery. Although having surgeries at high volume hospitals is associated with better outcomes, especially among rectal cancer patients, referral patterns are strong contributing factors to surgical outcomes.⁶⁵

A strength of the current study is the use of privately insured populations who are less represented in prior studies. For instance, despite its nationwide representation, limitations of Medicare data include restricting the population to adults over 65 years of age and including only fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries. On the other hand, some limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings. First, our sample is relatively small compared with some prior publications. Second, hospital surgery volumes were not measured in the current study, and therefore we were unable to adjust for it in the analysis. Although hospital volume was associated with mortality, it is not associated with readmission rates.⁶⁶ Third, the studied population is limited to patients with private insurance from Nebraska. Therefore, our results may not be generalized to communities located in different states or with different types of insurance, those underinsured or uninsured. Nevertheless, Nebraska residents resemble the population of other rural states.^9,10 Fourth, prior studies show that SES is proportionally associated with access to health services use.⁶⁷ Our privately insured population tends to be of higher SES compared to populations without private insurance, so while we could not examine SES as a predictor variable, we could minimize the impact of the access to insurance component of SES on our results. Fifth, our data lacks detailed information about patients’ complications and disposition postdischarge; therefore, they were not investigated in this study. Moreover, we acknowledge the lack of data regarding postoperative complications and surgical infection in this privately insured population. Lastly, it is possible that the study is underpowered to find an association between rural-urban status and hospital readmission.

Considering our findings, a state-wide quality initiative should be implemented. First, access to care during the postdischarge period among patients with a high risk of readmission should be facilitated. For example, in our study, we found that patients with ≥2 comorbidities were more likely to be readmitted. Accordingly, payers should waive copayments for outpatient visits during 30-60 days of discharge for patients with ≥2 comorbidities, even among out-of-network providers. Second, providers should prioritize appointments for the said patients to facilitate timely treatment, avoid delayed appointments, and possibly prevent readmission. Third, access to multidisciplinary quality care is essential to monitor patients during the postdischarge period. For instance, patients with comorbidities are usually prescribed polypharmacy (e.g., anticoagulants, antihypertensive, or treatment to other chronic diseases) and thus in need of postdischarge medications’ management.

Conclusions

The rate of readmission after CRC surgery is common among the young privately insured population. To reduce readmission in a privately insured population, the identified risk factors should be targeted for interventions. For instance, patients present with comorbidities or those admitted with an obstructed colon at the index hospitalization should undergo frequent outpatient follow up after discharge to minimize the chance of readmission. Additionally, enhanced use of laparoscopic surgery, especially in rural areas, should be implemented. It is also possible that the rural population who are privately insured might have more access to quality care compared to the rural population with no private insurance.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-ccx-10.1177_10732748211027169 - Comparison of Urban-Rural Readmission Rates After Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Findings From a Privately Insured Population

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-ccx-10.1177_10732748211027169 for Comparison of Urban-Rural Readmission Rates After Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Findings From a Privately Insured Population by Mesnad Alyabsi, Mary Charlton, Jane Meza, K. M. Monirul Islam, Amr Soliman and Shinobu Watanabe-Galloway in Cancer Control

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Mesnad Alyabsi, Mary Charlton, Jane Meza, K. M. Monirul Islam, Amr Soliman, and Shinobu Watanabe-Galloway contributed equally to this work. Our study was approved by The University of Nebraska Medical Center Institutional Review Board (IRB# 366-1). All patients provided written informed consent prior to enrollment in the study.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Mesnad Alyabsi

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Appendix A

ICD/CPT Codes Used in Identifying the Colorectal Cancer Surgery.

ICD/CPT	Description
4571/0dbe0zz,0dbe3zz,0dbe7zz, 0dbe8zz	Open Multi-Segment Resection of Large Intestine
4572/0dth0zz, 0dth7zz, Dth8zz	Open Cecectomy Nec
4573/0dtf0zz, 0dtf7zz, 0dtf8zz, 0dtk0zz	Open Right Hemicolectomy Nec
4574/0dtl0zz, 0dtl7zz, 0dtl8zz	Open Transverse Colon Res Nec
4575/0dtg0zz, 0dtg7zz, 0dtg8zz	Open Left Hemicolectmy Nec
4576/0dtn0zz, 0dtn7zz, 0dtn8zz	Open Sigmoidectomy Nec
4579	Partial Large Intestine Excision NEC/NOS
4581/0dte4zz	Laparoscopic Total Intra-Abdominal Colectomy
4582/0dte0zz	Open Total Intrabdominal Colectomy
4583/0dte7zz, 0dte8zz	Total Abdominal Colectomy Nec/Nos
1731/0dbe4zz	Laparoscopic Multi-Segment Resection Large Intestine
1732/0dth4zz	Laparoscopic Cecectomy
1733/0dtf4zz	Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy
1734/0dtl4zz	Laparoscopic Resection Transverse Colon
1735/0dtg4zz	Laparoscopic Left Hemicolectomy
1736/0dtn4zz	Laparoscopic Sigmoidectomy
1739/0dbe4zz	Laparoscopic Partial Excision Large Intestine Nec
44140	Colectomy Partial W/Anastomosis
44141	Colectomy Partial W/Skin Level Cecostomy/Colostomy
44143	Colectomy Partial W/End Colostomy & Closure of Distal Segment
44144	Colectomy Partial W/ Colostomy /Ileostomy & Mucofistula
44145	Colectomy Partial W/Coloproctostomy
44146	Colectomy Partial W/Coloproctostomy & Colostomy
44147	Colectomy Partial Abdominal & Transanal Approach
44150	Colectomy Total Abdominal W/O Proctectomy W/ Ileostomy
44151	Colectomy Total Abdominal W/O Proctectomy W/Continent Ileostomy
44155	Colectomy Total Abdominal W/Proctectomy W/Ileostomy
44157	Colectomy Total Abdominal W/Proctectomy Ileoanal Anastomosis
44158	Colectomy Total Abdominal W/ Proctectomy Ileoanal Anastomosis & Reservoir
44160	Colectomy Partial W/Removal Terminal Ileum & Ileocolostomy
44204	Laparoscopic Colectomy Partial W/Anastomosis
44205	Laparoscopic Colectomy Partial W/ Removal Terminal Ileum
44206	Laparoscopic Colectomy Partial W/End Colostomy & Closure of Distal Segment
44207	Laparoscopic Colectomy Partial W/Coloproctostomy Low Pelvic Anastomosis
44208	Laparoscopic Colectomy Partial W/ Coloproctostomy Low Pelvic Anastomosis W/Colostomy
44210	Laparoscopic Colectomy Total W/O Proctectomy W/Ileostomy/Ileoproctostomy
44211	Laparoscopic Colectomy Total Abdominal W/Proctectomy Ileoanal Anastomosis
44212	Laparoscopic Colectomy Abdominal W/Proctectomy W/Ileostomy
44145	Colectomy Prtl W/Coloproctostomy
44146	Colectomy Prtl W/Coloproctostomy & Colostomy
44147	Colectomy Prtl Abdominal & Transanal Approach
44155	TPC—Total Proctocolectomy, Ileostomy Includes Stoma
44156	TPC—Total Proctocolectomy, Continent Ileostomy Includes Stoma
44157	TPC, IAA—Ileo-Anal Anastomosis, Straight With or Without Stoma, Code Stoma Separately When Done
44158	TPC, IPAA—Ileal Pouch-Anal Anastomosis
44207	Laps Colectomy Prtl W/Colopxtstmy Lw Anast
44208	Laps Colectomy Prtl W/Colopxtstmy Lw Anast W/Clst
44211	Laps Colct Ttl Abd W/Prctect Ileoanal Anastomosis
44212	Laparoscopic TPC—Total Proctocolectomy, Includes Stoma
44238	Unlisted Laparoscopy Procedure, Intestine
45499	Unlisted Laparoscopy Rectum
45110	Proctectomy, APR, Colostomy Includes Stoma
45111	Prctect Prtl Rescj Rectum Tabdl Appr
45112	Prctect Cmbn Abdominoprnl Pull-Thru Px
45113	Prctect Prtl W/Mucosec Ileoanal Anast Rsvr
45114	Proctectomy, Combined Abdominal And Transsacral Approach With or Without Stoma
45116	Proctectomy, Partial, Parasacral (Kraske or York-Mason Approach) Anorectal Procedures Transanal Excision
45119	Prctect Cmbn Pull-Thru W/Rsvr W/Ntrstm
45120	Prctect Compl W/Pull-Thru Px & Anastomosis
45121	Proctocolectomy, For Congenital Megacolon, Including Total Colectomy With Pull-Through (Eg, Swenson, Duhamel, or Soave) With or Without Stoma, Code Stoma Separately When Done
45123	Prctect Prtl W/O Anast Prnl Appr
45126	Pelvic Exenteration For Colorectal Malignancy, With Proctectomy (With or Without Colostomy), With Removal of Bladder And Ureteral Transplantations, And Hysterectomy, or Cervicectomy, With or Without Removal of Tube(S), With or Without Removal of Ovary(S),
45160	Exc Rct Tum Proctotomy Transsac/Transcoccyge
45170	Excision of Rectal Tumor, Transanal Approach CPT Expanded
45171	Exc Rct Tum Not Incl Muscularis Propria
45172	Exc Rct Tum Incl Muscularis Propria
45190	Destruction Rectal Tumor Transanal Approach
45395	Proctectomy, APR, Colostomy, Laparoscopic Includes Stoma
45999	Unlisted Procedure, Rectum (Open)
45397	Laps Proctectomy Combined Pull-Thru W/Reservoir
483	Local Excision or Destruction of Lesion or Tissue of Rectum
4831	Radical Electrocoagulation of Rectal Lesion or Tissue
4832, 0d5p0zz, 0d5p3zz,0d5p4zz, 0d5p7zz, 0d5p8zz	Other Electrocoagulation of Rectal Lesion or Tissue
4833	Destruction of Rectal Lesion or Tissue By Laser
4834	Destruction of Rectal Lesion or Tissue By Cryosurgery
4835, 0dbp3zz, 0dbp7zz, 0dbp8zz	Local Excision of Rectal Lesion or Tissue
4836, 0dbp4zz, 0dbp8zz	[Endoscopic] Polypectomy of Rectum
4840,0dtp0zz, 0dtp4zz	Pull-Through Resection of Rectum, Not Otherwise Specified
4841	Soave Submucosal Resection of Rectum
4842, 0dtp4zz	Laparoscopic Pull-Through Resection of Rectum
4843, 0dtp0zz	Open Pull-Through Resection of Rectum
4849, 0dtp0zz, 0dtp4zz	Other Pull-Through Resection of Rectum
4850, 0dtp0zz, 0dtp4zz, 0dtp7zz, 0dtp8zz, 0d1n0z4	Abdominoperineal Resection of the Rectum, Not Otherwise Specified
4851, 0dtp4zz, 0d1n0z4	Laparoscopic Abdominoperineal Resection of the Rectum
4852, 0dtp0zz, 0d1n0z4	Open Abdominoperineal Resection of the Rectum
4859, 0dtp7zz, 0dtp8zz, 0d1n0z4	Other Abdominoperineal Resection of the Rectum
486	Other Resection of Rectum
4861	Transsacral Rectosigmoidectomy
4862, 0dtp0zz, 0dtp4zz, 0d1n0z4, 0d1n4z4	Anterior Resection of Rectum With Synchronous Colostomy
4863, 0dtp0zz, 0dtp4zz	Other Anterior Resection of Rectum
4864	Posterior Resection of Rectum
4865	Duhamel Resection of Rectum

References

Kohler

Sherman

Howlader

, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2011, featuring incidence of breast cancer subtypes by race/ethnicity, poverty, and state. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(6):djv048.

Siegel

Desantis

Jemal

. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(2):104–117.

Siegel

Miller

Fedewa

, et al. Colorectal cancer statistics, 2017. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017;67(3):177–193.

ACC. American Cancer Society. Colorectal Cancer Facts & Figures 2017-2017. American Cancer Society; 2017.

Damle

Alavi

. The University Healthsystem Consortium clinical database: an emerging resource in colorectal surgery research. Semin Colon Rectal Surg. 2016;27(2):92–95.

Stitzenberg

Chang

Smith

Nielsen

. Exploring the burden of inpatient readmissions after major cancer surgery. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(5):455–464.

Wiseman

Guzman

Fernandes-Taylor

Engelbert

Saunders

Kent

. General and vascular surgery readmissions: a systematic review. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219(3):552–569.e2.

Jencks

Williams

Coleman

. Rehospitalizations among patients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(14):1418–1428.

Finlayson

. Assessing and improving the quality of surgical care in rural America. Surg Clin North Am. 2009;89(6):1373–1381, x.

10.

Cogbill

Cofer

Jarman

. Contemporary issues in rural surgery. Curr Probl Surg. 2012;49(5):263–318.

11.

Gruber

Soliman

Schmid

Rettig

Ryan

Watanabe-Galloway

. Disparities in the utilization of laparoscopic surgery for colon cancer in rural Nebraska: a call for placement and training of rural general surgeons. J Rural Health. 2015;31(4):392–400.

12.

Carriere

Adam

Fielding

Barlas

Ong

Murchie

. Rural dwellers are less likely to survive cancer—an international review and meta-analysis. Health Place. 2018;53:219–227.

13.

Beydoun

. Predictors of colorectal cancer screening behaviors among average-risk older adults in the United States. Cancer Causes Control. 2008;19(4):339–359.

14.

Cole

Jackson

Doescher

. Urban-rural disparities in colorectal cancer screening: cross-sectional analysis of 1998-2005 data from the centers for disease control’s behavioral risk factor surveillance study. Cancer Med. 2012;1(3):350–356.

15.

Hines

Markossian

Johnson

Dong

Bayakly

. Geographic residency status and census tract socioeconomic status as determinants of colorectal cancer outcomes. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(3):e63–e71.

16.

Ziogas

Lipkin

Zell

. Effects of socioeconomic status and treatment disparities in colorectal cancer survival. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17(8):1950–1962.

17.

Sankaranarayanan

Watanabe-Galloway

Sun

Qiu

Boilesen

Thorson

. Age and rural residence effects on accessing colorectal cancer treatments: a registry study. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(4):265–273.

18.

Campbell

Elliott

Sharp

Ritchie

Cassidy

Little

. Rural factors and survival from cancer: analysis of Scottish cancer registrations. Br J Cancer. 2000;82(11):1863–1866.

19.

Ward

Ullrich

Matthews

, et al. Access to chemotherapy services by availability of local and visiting oncologists. J Oncol Pract. 2014;10(1):26–31.

20.

Baldwin

Cai

Larson

, et al. Access to cancer services for rural colorectal cancer patients. J Rural Health. 2008;24(4):390–399.

21.

Stitzenberg

Sigurdson

Egleston

Starkey

Meropol

. Centralization of cancer surgery: implications for patient access to optimal care. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(28):4671–4678.

22.

Tsai

Joynt

Orav

Gawande

Jha

. Variation in surgical-readmission rates and quality of hospital care. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(12):1134–1142.

23.

Appau

Fazio

Shen

, et al. Use of infliximab within 3 months of ileocolonic resection is associated with adverse postoperative outcomes in Crohn’s patients. J Gastrointest Surg. 2008;12(10):1738–1744.

24.

Kariv

Wang

Senagore

Hammel

Fazio

Delaney

. Multivariable analysis of factors associated with hospital readmission after intestinal surgery. Am J Surg. 2006;191(3):364–371.

25.

Manilich

Vogel

Kiran

Church

Seyidova-Khoshknabi

Remzi

. Key factors associated with postoperative complications in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(1):64–71.

26.

Ozturk

Kiran

Remzi

Fazio

. Early readmission after ileoanal pouch surgery. Dis Colon Rectum. 2009;52(11):1848–1853.

27.

Paquette

Solan

Rafferty

Ferguson

Davis

. Readmission for dehydration or renal failure after ileostomy creation. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(8):974–979.

28.

Lidor

Schneider

Segal

Feinberg

. Elective surgery for diverticulitis is associated with high risk of intestinal diversion and hospital readmission in older adults. J Gastrointest Surg. 2010;14(12):1867–1873; discussion 1873-1874.

29.

Hendren

Morris

Zhang

Dimick

. Early discharge and hospital readmission after colectomy for cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2011;54(11):1362–1367.

30.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska. Published September 13, 2016. Accessed August 20, 2019. https://www.nebraskablue.com/about/company-profile/history

31.

Alyabsi

Charlton

Meza

Islam

KMM

Soliman

Watanabe-Galloway

. The impact of travel time on colorectal cancer stage at diagnosis in a privately insured population. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):172.

32.

Setoguchi

Solomon

Glynn

Cook

Levin

Schneeweiss

. Agreement of diagnosis and its date for hematologic malignancies and solid tumors between Medicare claims and cancer registry data. Cancer Causes Control. 2007;18(5):561–569.

33.

Charlson

Pompei

Ales

MacKenzie

. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–383.

34.

Quan

Couris

, et al. Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol. 2011;173(6):676–682.

35.

Zdeb

. Driving Distances and Drive Times using SAS and Google Maps 2016. SAS Global Forum 2010. Accessed December 03, 2016. https://support.sas.com/resources/papers/proceedings10/050-2010.pdf

36.

Boscoe

Henry

Zdeb

. A nationwide comparison of driving distance versus straight-line distance to hospitals. Prof Geogr. 2012;64(2):10.1080/00330124.2011.583586.

37.

University of Washington Rural Health Resource Center. RUCA Data. 2017. Accessed February 15, 2017. http://depts.washington.edu/uwruca/ruca-codes.php

38.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Colon and rectal cancer guidelines 2016. Published 2016. Accessed January 23, 2017. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/colon.pdf

39.

Damle

Cherng

Flahive

, et al. Clinical and financial impact of hospital readmissions after colorectal resection: predictors, outcomes, and costs. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(12):1421–1429.

40.

Greenblatt

Weber

O’Connor

LoConte

Liou

Smith

. Readmission after colectomy for cancer predicts one-year mortality. Ann Surg. 2010;251(4):659–669.

41.

Hansen

Fox

Gross

Bruun

. Hospital readmissions and emergency department visits following laparoscopic and open colon resection for cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(9):1053–1061.

42.

Bartlett

Hoffman

Mahmoud

Karakousis

Kelz

. Postdischarge occurrences after colorectal surgery happen early and are associated with dramatically increased rates of readmission. Dis Colon Rectum. 2014;57(11):1309–1316.

43.

Devon

Urbach

McLeod

. Postoperative disposition and health services use in elderly patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery: a population-based study. Surgery. 2011;149(5):705–712.

44.

Hechenbleikner

Makary

Samarov

, et al. Hospital readmission by method of data collection. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216(6):1150–1158.

45.

Hosmer

Jr Lemeshow

Sturdivant

. Applied Logistic Regression. John Wiley & Sons; 2013.

46.

Weeks

Lee

Wallace

West

Bagian

. Do older rural and urban veterans experience different rates of unplanned readmission to VA and non-VA hospitals? J Rural Health. 2009;25(1):62–69.

47.

Fowler

White

. Laparoscopy-assisted sigmoid resection. Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1991;1(3):183–188.

48.

Jacobs

Verdeja

Goldstein

. Minimally invasive colon resection (laparoscopic colectomy). Surg Laparosc Endosc. 1991;1(3):144–150.

49.

Schwenk

Haase

Neudecker

Müller

. Short term benefits for laparoscopic colorectal resection. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(3):CD003145.

50.

Langenfeld

Thompson

Oleynikov

. Laparoscopic colon resection: is it being utilized? Adv Surg. 2013;47:29–43.

51.

Faiz

Haji

Burns

Bottle

Kennedy

Aylin

. Hospital stay amongst patients undergoing major elective colorectal surgery: predicting prolonged stay and readmissions in NHS hospitals. Colorectal Dis. 2011;13(7):816–822.

52.

Turina

Remzi

Dietz

, et al. Quantification of risk for early unplanned readmission after rectal resection: a single-center study. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217(2):200–208.

53.

Schneider

Hyder

Brooke

, et al. Patient readmission and mortality after colorectal surgery for colon cancer: impact of length of stay relative to other clinical factors. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214(4):390–398; discussion 398-399.

54.

Kelly

Sharp

Dwane

Kelleher

Comber

. Factors predicting hospital length-of-stay and readmission after colorectal resection: a population-based study of elective and emergency admissions. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:77.

55.

Gijsen

Hoeymans

Schellevis

Ruwaard

Satariano

van den Bos

. Causes and consequences of comorbidity: a review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54(7):661–674.

56.

Temple

Hsieh

Wong

Saltz

Schrag

. Use of surgery among elderly patients with stage IV colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(17):3475–3484.

57.

Winner

Mooney

Hershman

, et al. Incidence and predictors of bowel obstruction in elderly patients with stage IV colon cancer: a population-based cohort study. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(8):715–722.

58.

Feuer

Broadley

Shepherd

Barton

. Systematic review of surgery in malignant bowel obstruction in advanced gynecological and gastrointestinal cancer. The Systematic Review Steering Committee. Gynecol Oncol. 1999;75(3):313–322.

59.

Begg

Cramer

Hoskins

Brennan

. Impact of hospital volume on operative mortality for major cancer surgery. JAMA. 1998;280(20):1747–1751.

60.

Birkmeyer

Reames

McCulloch

Carr

Campbell

Wennberg

. Understanding of regional variation in the use of surgery. Lancet. 2013;382(9898):1121–1129.

61.

Birkmeyer

Siewers

Marth

Goodman

. Regionalization of high-risk surgery and implications for patient travel times. JAMA. 2003;290(20):2703–2708.

62.

Khani

Smedh

. Centralization of rectal cancer surgery improves long-term survival. Colorectal Dis. 2010;12(9):874–879.

63.

Schrag

Panageas

Riedel

, et al. Hospital and surgeon procedure volume as predictors of outcome following rectal cancer resection. Ann Surg. 2002;236(5):583–592.

64.

Stitzenberg

Meropol

. Trends in centralization of cancer surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(11):2824–2831.

65.

Chioreso

Gao

Gribovskaja-Rupp

, et al. Hospital and surgeon selection for Medicare beneficiaries with stage II/III rectal cancer: the role of rurality, distance to care, and colonoscopy provider. Ann Surg. 2019;10.1097/SLA.0000000000003673.

66.

Goodney

Stukel

Lucas

Finlayson

Birkmeyer

. Hospital volume, length of stay, and readmission rates in high-risk surgery. Ann Surg. 2003;238(2):161–167.

67.

Singer

Ryff

; Council NR. The Influence of Inequality on Health Outcomes. National Academies Press; 2001.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.15 MB