Bloodless Surgery Cuts Hospital Stay and Bills

by MadApostate 5 Replies latest watchtower medical

  • MadApostate
    MadApostate

    Atlanta Business Chronicle - February 11, 2002

    . http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2002/02/11/focus10.html

    From the February 8, 2002 print edition

    Bloodless surgery cuts hospital stay and bills

    Ray Glier
    Contributing Writer

    You've heard the horror stories, or else you've seen the horrific bills up close and too personal. Just a one-day stay in a hospital can give you yearlong sticker shock.

    But what if you could trim a day off that stay in the hospital? What if the seven-day stay at approximately $3,500 a day was trimmed to six days or even five?

    Imagine the savings to you and the glee on the face of your insurance company.

    One of the advantages of the "bloodless" medicine program at Atlanta Medical Center is it can get you out of the hospital faster. In bloodless surgery, a patient does not use transfusions of banked blood during an operation, thus reducing the risk of infection and further problems.

    During bloodless surgery, physicians reduce blood loss by using laser and harmonic scalpels, argon beam coagulators and drugs that help minimize blood loss.

    "Bloodless surgery allows a patient to recover a lot faster because of not having a foreign body added to their system to suppress their immune system," said Melvin Satterfield, the program administrator of Atlanta Medical Center's bloodless surgery program. "One of the complications of a blood transfusion is an added hospital stay."

    Cost savings

    Shorter hospital stays mean less for the insurer to pay.

    "Just think if a person had a double or triple bypass," Satterfield said. "If you can cut a couple of days off that length of stay, then just divide that by the $50,000 or $60,000 cost of the stay, you can see the savings."

    There is no distinction in reimbursement to hospitals when insurance companies handle bloodless medicine claims, said Deborah Tolich, director of the bloodless medicine program at St. Vincent Charity Hospital in Cleveland.

    Savings aren't just realized by a patient's shorter stay in the hospital.

    "A lot of people don't realize the cost of blood, the cost of storage, the administrative cost, the cost of cross-matching," Satterfield said. "There are some that are considered indirect cost. There is reduced cost of medication because sometimes the medication a person might take is to fight an infection from their body being suppressed by the foreign blood."

    The cost of bloodless medicine procedures compared with transfusion procedures can be the same or significantly lower, Tolich said. The actual costs depend on the procedure.

    Atlanta Medical Center has a full menu of surgeries in its bloodless medicine program including open-heart, heart bypass, hip replacement and cancer removal. Even the most complicated of surgeries like the "Whipple," where organs have to be disconnected and moved, can be done without a blood transfusion.
    Atlanta Medical Center already had several pieces of general surgical equipment in place when it started its bloodless medicine program two years ago. One piece of equipment that must be purchased is called a cell saver, which typically costs between $5,000 and $10,000.

    Religious accommodations

    The bloodless technique was developed approximately 60 years ago by doctors treating Jehovah's Witnesses. For religious reasons, such patients do not accept blood transfusions, so techniques were developed to minimize blood loss.

    The Jehovah's Witnesses' position is a non-negotiable stance outlined on the group's Web site ( http://www.watchtower.org), which states, "Those who respect life as a gift from the Creator do not try to sustain life by taking in blood."

    Ninety percent of Atlanta Medical Center's patients use the surgery for religious purposes, said Dr. Edward "Mac" Mason, general surgeon and medical director of the center's Bloodless Medicine program. But, in other cities, the mix becomes 50-50 once the program becomes more well-known. Houston, Chicago, Cleveland and Los Angeles are other cities with advanced programs in bloodless medicine.

    From a surgeon's point of view, the bloodless medicine technique makes perfect sense in terms of the health of a patient following surgery.

    "We know that in certain types of illnesses, the long-term effect of giving blood is harmful," Mason said. "We've known for a long time that patients who have had surgery for colon cancer and receive blood don't have as good a survival rate as those patients who don't receive blood. When you use stored blood, you are using a lot of factors than can complicate the surgery, both from a respiratory point of view and the kidney point of view."

    The bloodless technique used by hospitals does not involve a heavy commitment to retraining doctors or sending them off to school.

    "Bloodless medicine is really a no-brainer," Tolich said. "You teach doctors how to limit lab draws and how to prevent patients from getting severely anemic. The hardest part in the training is to get them to limit their transfusion trigger so they aren't running for blood."

    Many hospitals mistakenly think they are practicing bloodless medicine techniques, said Tom Johnson, president of Autologous Blood Resources Inc. of Lawrenceville.

    "They're not," he said. "They don't understand how it all fits together. They think they are using less blood, but they could do even more. It goes outside the operating room. It involves laboratory, how lab samples are handled, how a patient is prepped for surgery, how there are medications that are given to them so they would not have to get blood in the surgery."

    Copyright 2002 American City Business Journals Inc.

  • MadApostate
  • hawkaw
    hawkaw

    Cell Savage Machines and other techniques are actually forms of blood transfusions and make up this type of therapy. I like Dr. Sam Muramoto who considers this type of work "blood conservation therapy" and not "bloodless surgery".

    I hate these stories because they make it sound so good it has to be true. Less we forget those who are in trauma.

    Some of these reporters just by the party line hoo line and sinker without giving what the consequences are.

    hawk

  • BluesBrother
    BluesBrother

    A couple of days after the previous post, but someone might still look at it.

    No one objects to doctors developing bloodless techniques, and some of us, myself included, would certainly prefer it to a transfusion in an operation of choice.

    That is a long way from a stand of banning the use of certain blood treatments, based on a certain interpretation of Bible law. The counter arguements presented on this web are also pretty convincing. Of course there will be occasions when a treatment may be just not available in your hospital at the time you need it .

    Does any human have the right to insist that you refuse it at a possible loss of your life?

    What did Paul write about "Not being masters of your faith"

  • Sam Beli
    Sam Beli

    This writer’s story did not even rise to the level of half-truths. More often than not, “bloodless” care requires LONGER stays, not shorter stays. “Bloodless” care is usually more expensive, not less expensive. Why did he not mention the cost of EPO and other “bloodless” drugs like albumin? Did he factor in the early admission required to “build-up” this type of patient?

    This story implies that each day of a hospital stay costs about the same amount. That assumption is not usually correct. The early days of a hospital admission are usually the most expensive. These are the days when the majority of the expensive diagnostic work is done: Lab tests, x-rays, etc. followed by any corrective procedures, surgery and perhaps an ICU admission. Lying in a general care bed recovering afterward is less expensive than those early admission days.

    However, why are we even talking about these medical issues? I thought this was a religious issue.

    Sam Beli

    I have seen all the works which have been done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and striving after wind. What is crooked cannot be straightened and what is lacking cannot be counted. Solomon

  • Sam Beli
    Sam Beli

    When will the WTS condemn automobiles and alcohol and place them in the same category as blood because they too cost too much?

    Some useful data comes from:

    U.S. Department of Transportation
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
    Washington, DC 20590

    The second paragraph in this report says:

    This report presents the results of an analysis of motor vehicle crash costs in 1994. The total economic cost of motor vehicle crashes in 1994 was $150.5 billion. This represents the present value of lifetime costs for 40,676 fatalities, 5.2 million nonfatal injuries, and 27 million damaged vehicles, in both police reported and unreported crashes. Property damage costs of $52.1 billion accounted for the largest share of costs, while lost market productivity accounted for $42.4 billion. Medical expenses totalled $17 billion. Each fatality resulted in an average discounted lifetime cost of $830,000. Alcohol-involved crashes caused $45 billion or 30 percent of all economic costs, and 78 percent of these costs occurred in crashes where a driver or pedestrian was legally intoxicated (>= .10% BAC). Crashes in which police indicate that at least one driver was exceeding the legal speed limit or driving too fast for conditions cost $27.7 billion in 1994. Public revenues paid for 24 percent of medical costs, and 9 percent of all costs resulting from motor vehicle crashes. These crashes cost taxpayers $13.8 billion in 1994, the equivalent of $144 in added taxes for each household in the United States.

    You can read the entire report here: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/economic/ecomvc1994.html

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit