Skip to main content
NCBI home page
JAMA Network logoLink to JAMA Network
. 2025 Jan 2;160(3):296–302. doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2024.5920

Esophagectomy Trends and Postoperative Outcomes at Private Equity–Acquired Health Centers

Jonathan E Williams 1,2,✉, Sara L Schaefer 1,2, Ryan C Jacobs 2,3, Andrew M Ibrahim 1,2, David D Odell 1,2
PMCID: PMC11904734  PMID: 39745696

Key Points

Question

How do postoperative outcomes following esophagectomy at private equity–acquired health centers compare with outcomes at nonacquired centers?

Findings

In this cohort study of 9462 patients who underwent esophagectomy (517 at private equity–acquired hospitals vs 8945 at nonacquired hospitals), those treated at private equity–acquired hospitals had significantly higher rates of 30-day mortality (8.1% vs 4.9%), any complications (36.6% vs 30.1%), serious complications (17.5% vs 14.3%), and failure to rescue (5.9% vs 3.4%).

Meaning

These findings suggest that structural characteristics of private equity–acquired health centers may contribute to poorer surgical outcomes in patients undergoing esophagectomy, motivating quality improvement efforts or care allocation for these patients.

This cohort study compares structural characteristics and postoperative outcomes following esophagectomy between private equity–acquired and nonacquired health centers in the US.

Abstract

Importance

Growing trends in private equity acquisition of acute care hospitals in the US have motivated investigations into quality of care delivered at these health centers. While some studies have explored comparative outcomes for high-acuity medical conditions, care trends and outcomes of complex surgical procedures, such as esophagectomy, at private equity–acquired hospitals is unknown.

Objective

To compare structural characteristics and postoperative outcomes following esophagectomy between private equity–acquired and nonacquired health centers.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort study included Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 to 99 years who underwent elective esophagectomy at US health centers between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020. Health centers were designated as private equity acquired using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Compendium of US Health Systems. Data were analyzed between October 15, 2023, and March 30, 2024.

Exposure

Patient cohorts were created based on whether they received care at private equity–acquired or nonacquired health centers.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was 30-day postoperative complications, mortality, failure to rescue, and readmission using summary statistics and multivariable logistic regression.

Results

A total of 9462 patients (mean [SD] age, 72.9 [5.6] years; 6970 male [73.7%]) underwent esophagectomy during the study period, with 517 (5.5%) receiving care at private equity–acquired institutions. Annual procedure volume was lower at private equity–acquired hospitals vs nonacquired hospitals (median, 2 [IQR, 1-4] vs 7 [IQR, 3-15] procedures per year). Compared with patients treated at nonacquired hospitals, patients treated at private equity–acquired hospitals had significantly higher 30-day mortality (8.1% [95% CI, 5.8%-10.3%] vs 4.9% [95% CI, 4.5%-5.3%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.82 [95% CI, 1.25-2.64]; P = .002), any complications (36.6% [95% CI, 32.9%-40.3%] vs 30.1% [95% CI, 29.2%-30.9%]; OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.18-1.80]), serious complications (17.5% [95% CI, 14.5%-20.6%] vs 14.3% [95% CI, 13.7%-15.0%]; OR, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.03-1.77]; P = .03), and failure to rescue (5.9% [95% CI, 3.9%-7.9%] vs 3.4% [95% CI, 3.1%-3.8%]; OR, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.22-2.84]; P = .004).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that patients who undergo esophagectomy at private equity–acquired hospitals may be at risk for worse outcomes. Further understanding of the drivers of these outcomes is needed to improve performance and inform policy pertaining to care allocation for select surgical conditions.

Introduction

Private equity acquisition of health systems that contain acute care hospitals is increasing in the US.1,2 Traditionally, private equity entities acquire outpatient practices or long-term care facilities,3,4 but progression to health systems has gained attention from the medical community with regard to changes in cost and quality of care.5,6 The impetus of private equity acquisition of a health care institution is to directly manage and modify care delivery operations with a central goal of maximizing profit and limiting costly inefficiencies.7 As private equity acquisition of health systems has become more prevalent, both professional physician societies and governmental agencies have called for further investigation of the association of these practices with care quality.8

While some investigators have examined care outcomes of inpatient medical conditions at private equity–acquired health centers,9,10 comparative outcomes for surgical care between nonacquired and private equity–acquired health centers are unknown. As the resources necessary to deliver appropriate surgical care to patients, including infrastructure and trained personnel, are vast and diverse, this particular area of care delivery may be vulnerable in the private equity management model. Furthermore, patients undergoing high-complexity surgical procedures and conditions have been found to have improved outcomes at high-volume specialty centers.11,12 Thus, there is a need to study the association of private equity acquisition with the quality of complex surgical care being delivered. Esophagectomy is a highly morbid operation that requires substantial structural resources and experienced personnel to maximize postoperative outcomes, making it an exemplary case for high-complexity surgical care.

In this context, the objectives of our study were as follows: (1) to describe health center characteristics of private equity–acquired hospitals compared with nonacquired hospitals and (2) to evaluate the association of postoperative outcomes with status of health center private equity acquisition for patients undergoing esophagectomy. We hypothesized that private equity–acquired hospitals have distinct structural differences compared with nonacquired hospitals and that undergoing esophagectomy at private equity–acquired health centers is associated with worse postoperative outcomes compared with nonacquired centers.

Methods

Data Source and Designating Health Centers

This retrospective cohort study used the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review file to identify Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 to 99 years who underwent elective esophagectomy between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020. The University of Michigan’s institutional review board deemed this study exempt from review and informed consent as it was a retrospective analysis using publicly available, deidentified data. The study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline.

We used the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Compendium of US Health Systems to identify whether a health center had been acquired by a private equity entity. The compendium is a curated list of health systems with the central goal of providing a resource to study how health systems promote evidence-based practices in health care delivery.13 The AHRQ defines a health system as an entity with common ownership that contains at least 1 acute care hospital and at least 1 physician group to provide comprehensive primary and specialty care.13 We defined a health center as acquired by private equity if it is part of a health system and that system is designated as major investment owned in the compendium version most closely corresponding to the year of the procedure in a given observation. The AHRQ compendium has been used in several other studies to evaluate cohorts of Medicare beneficiaries.14,15

We also used the American Hospital Association Annual Survey to identify details about each hospital in our study.16 Each hospital was then linked to the AHRQ compendium using its unique Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Certification Number. Information about hospital bed size, for-profit status, and nurse to patient ratios were obtained from this data source.

Cohort Selection

Patients undergoing esophagectomy were identified using International Statistical Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) procedure codes. The ICD-10 codes were identified for excision or resection of the partial or total esophagus via any operative approach. Selected ICD-10 codes are included in eTable 1 in Supplement 1.

Outcomes of Interest

Postoperative outcomes of interest between private equity–acquired and nonacquired health centers included mortality rate at 30 days, occurrence of any complication, occurrence of serious complication, failure to rescue, and rate of readmission at 30 days. To identify 30-day mortality, 2 approaches were used. First, the Medicare Beneficiary Denominator File was used to identify any mortality event that occurred within 30 days of the index operation but after discharge from the hospital. Second, mortality events that occurred during the index admission were determined by vital signs at the time of discharge. Postoperative complications were determined using ICD-10 codes previously validated by the Complication Screening Project to be specific for surgical patient cohorts.17,18 These complications and their associated ICD-10 codes are provided in eTable 2 in Supplement 1. Serious complication occurrence was defined as having at least 1 postoperative complication and a postoperative length of stay greater than the 75th percentile for the given index operation, which has been described previously.19,20 Failure to rescue is a well-defined outcome determined as a death occurring in a patient with at least 1 documented postoperative complication (eTable 2 in Supplement 1) during the postoperative period.21,22,23 Readmission was defined as an inpatient admission occurring within 30 days of discharge from the original postoperative admission.24 These approaches to outcomes identification are well supported in other studies investigating thoracic surgical procedures using Medicare claims data.25,26

Statistical Analysis

The data for this study were analyzed between October 15, 2023, and March 30, 2024. First, patient demographics, including age, sex, and race and ethnicity based on the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review file (Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native American, White, other, unknown) and clinical characteristics, including Elixhauser comorbidities and oncologic resection, were described using summary statistics between patients treated at private equity–acquired and nonacquired centers. Race and ethnicity were included to provide context of the patient populations receiving care at private equity–acquired health centers. Second, health center characteristics, including center case volume, nurse to patient ratio, teaching status, and geographic concentration, were compared using similar descriptive statistics.

To evaluate differential postoperative outcomes between private equity–acquired hospitals and nonacquired hospitals for patients undergoing esophagectomy, we created a multivariable logistic regression model for each outcome of interest, with hospital private equity status as the independent variable and patient age, sex, Elixhauser comorbidities,27 procedure type (grouped as resection of the upper, middle, or lower esophagus), procedure approach (open or minimally invasive), and year of procedure as covariates. Any patient observations for which data were missing for variables included for characterization and analysis were dropped from the analysis. A sensitivity analysis was performed to adjust for volume-outcome effects by repeating the analysis only with a cohort of patients undergoing esophagectomy at health centers that were in the lowest quartile of annual hospital esophagectomy volume, as most private equity–acquired centers were in the lowest volume quartile. All analyses were performed using Stata, version 18.0 (StataCorp LLC), with a 2-sided significance threshold of 5% for all hypothesis testing.

Results

Patient Characteristics

During the study period, a total of 9462 patients underwent elective esophagectomy (mean [SD] age, 72.9 [5.6] years; 2492 female [26.3%] and 6970 male [73.7%]; 91 Asian [1.0%], 402 Black [4.2%], 86 Hispanic [0.9%], 22 Native American [0.2%], 8475 White [89.6%], 132 other [1.4%], and 254 unknown [2.7%] race and ethnicity), with 517 (5.5%) receiving care at private equity–acquired health centers. Patients undergoing esophagectomy at private equity–acquired hospitals were slightly older (mean [SD] age, 74.0 [6.2] vs 72.9 [5.6] years; P < .001) and tended to have fewer comorbidities (Table 1). There was no significant difference in sex or race distribution among patients undergoing esophagectomy at private equity–acquired hospitals vs those undergoing esophagectomy at nonacquired hospitals.

Table 1. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics for Medicare Beneficiaries Undergoing Esophagectomy at Private Equity–Acquired Hospitals and Nonacquired Hospitals, 2016-2020.

Characteristic No. (%) P value
Total (n = 9462) Nonacquired hospitals (n = 8945) Private equity–acquired hospitals (n = 517)
Age, mean (SD), y 72.9 (5.6) 72.9 (5.6) 74.0 (6.2) <.001
Sex
Female 2492 (26.3) 2358 (26.4) 134 (25.9) .82
Male 6970 (73.7) 6587 (73.6) 383 (74.1)
Race and ethnicitya
Asian 91 (1.0) 89 (1.0) 2 (0.4) .19
Black 402 (4.2) 376 (4.2) 26 (5.0)
Hispanic 86 (0.9) 80 (0.9) 6 (1.2)
Native American 22 (0.2) 21 (0.2) 1 (0.2)
White 8475 (89.6) 8004 (89.5) 471 (91.1)
Other 132 (1.4) 127 (1.4) 5 (1.0)
Unknown 254 (2.7) 248 (2.8) 6 (1.2)
No. of Elixhauser comorbidities
0 562 (5.9) 518 (5.8) 44 (8.5) .04
1 1382 (14.6) 1309 (14.6) 73 (14.1)
≥2 7518 (79.5) 7118 (79.6) 400 (77.4)
Oncologic resection
Yes 6557 (69.3) 6247 (69.8) 310 (60.0) <.001
No 2905 (30.7) 2698 (30.2) 207 (40.0)
Open in a new tab
a

Race and ethnicity categories are per the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Beneficiary Summary File. The file does not provide further granularity for races and ethnicities included in the Other distinction.

Health Center Characteristics

A total of 954 distinct health centers performed esophagectomy during the study period, of which 132 (13.9%) were private equity-acquired and 822 (86.1%) were nonacquired. Over the study period, the number of hospitals performing esophagectomy declined (Figure 1). Compared with nonacquired centers, private equity–acquired centers had a lower annual esophagectomy case volume (median, 2 [IQR, 1-4] vs 7 [IQR, 3-15] procedures per year; P < .001), had a lower nurse to patient ratio (mean [SD], 7.9 [3.6] vs 9.6 [3.3]; P < .001), were less likely to be a teaching institution (5 [3.8%] vs 203 [24.5%]; P < .001), and were more geographically concentrated in the South (80 [60.2%] vs 271 [32.8%]) and West (37 [27.8%] vs 186 [22.5%]; P < .001) (Table 2).

Figure 1. Temporal Trends of Number of Hospitals Performing Esophagectomy, 2016-2020.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Table 2. Hospital Characteristics for Private Equity–Acquired vs Nonacquired Health Centers.

Characteristic No. (%) P value
Total (N = 954) Nonacquired hospitals (n = 822) Private equity–acquired hospitals (n = 132)
Annual hospital volume, median (IQR), cases 6 (3-14) 7 (3-15) 2 (1-4) <.001
Hospital geographic region
Midwest 225 (23.4) 216 (26.1) 9 (6.8) <.001
Northeast 155 (16.1) 149 (18.0) 6 (4.5)
South 351 (36.6) 271 (32.8) 80 (60.2)
West 223 (23.2) 186 (22.5) 37 (27.8)
Teaching hospital
No 746 (77.7) 619 (74.8) 127 (95.5) <.001
Yes 208 (21.7) 203 (24.5) 5 (3.8)
Urban hospital
No 106 (11.0) 96 (11.6) 10 (7.5) .37
Yes 848 (88.3) 726 (87.8) 122 (91.7)
Nurse to patient ratio, mean (SD) 9.3 (3.4) 9.6 (3.3) 7.9 (3.6) <.001
Open in a new tab

Postoperative Outcomes

After risk adjustment, all assessed postoperative outcomes following esophagectomy, except for readmission, within 30 days were worse for patients undergoing esophagectomy at private equity–acquired health centers (Table 3; Figure 2). Compared with patients at nonacquired centers, patients who underwent esophagectomy at private equity–acquired health centers had a significantly higher 30-day mortality rate (8.1% [95% CI, 5.8%-10.3%] vs 4.9% [95% CI, 4.5%-5.3%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.82 [95% CI, 1.25-2.64]; P = .002). Additionally, these patients had higher rates of any complication (36.6% [95% CI, 32.9%-40.3%] vs 30.1% [95% CI, 29.2%-30.9%]; OR, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.18-1.80]; P = .001), serious complication (17.5% [95% CI, 14.5%-20.6%] vs 14.3% [95% CI, 13.7%-15.0%]; OR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.03-1.77]; P = .03), and failure to rescue (5.9% [95% CI, 3.9%-7.9%] vs 3.4% [95% CI, 3.1%-3.8%]; OR, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.22-2.84]; P = .004). No significant difference in readmission rates was found between patients at private equity-acquired centers vs those at nonacquired centers (21.2% [95% CI, 17.6%-24.7%] vs 19.2% [95% CI, 18.4%-20.0%]; OR, 1.13 [95% CI, 0.91-1.41]; P = .28).

Table 3. Comparative Risk-Adjusted Postoperative Outcomes Following Esophagectomy at Private Equity–Acquired vs Nonacquired Hospitals.

Postoperative outcome Risk-adjusted rates, % (95% CI) OR (95% CI) P value
Nonacquired hospitals Private equity–acquired hospitals
30-d Mortality 4.9 (4.5-5.3) 8.1 (5.8-10.3) 1.82 (1.25-2.64) .002
Serious complication 14.3 (13.7-15.0) 17.5 (14.5-20.6) 1.35 (1.03-1.77) .03
Any complication 30.1 (29.2-30.9) 36.6 (32.9-40.3) 1.46 (1.18-1.80) .001
Failure to rescue 3.4 (3.1-3.8) 5.9 (3.9-7.9) 1.86 (1.22-2.84) .004
Readmission 19.2 (18.4-20.0) 21.2 (17.6-24.7) 1.13 (0.91-1.41) .28
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: OR, odds ratio.

Figure 2. Risk-Adjusted Odds Ratios (ORs) for Complications Following Esophagectomy at Private Equity–Acquired vs Nonacquired Hospitals.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Sensitivity Analysis

A sensitivity analysis that included only patients undergoing esophagectomy at hospitals in the lowest quartile of annual volume was performed. The cohort included 2878 patients, with 337 (11.7%) having undergone resection at private equity–acquired institutions. The 30-day mortality and any complication rates remained significantly higher at private equity–acquired vs nonacquired institutions. Compared with patients undergoing esophagectomy at nonacquired centers, those treated at private equity–acquired centers had a higher 30-day mortality (8.4% [95% CI, 5.6%-11.2%] vs 5.6% [95% CI, 4.7%-6.4%]; OR, 1.67 [95% CI, 1.04-2.66]; P = .003) and a higher rate of any complication (37.7% [95% CI, 33.1%-42.2%] vs 32.5% [95% CI, 31.0%-34.1%]; OR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.02-1.78]; P = .03) (eTable 3 in Supplement 1). While statistical significance was not found for rates of serious complications, failure to rescue, or readmission between the sensitivity analysis groups, all adjusted outcome categories favored patients undergoing esophagectomy at nonacquired hospitals (eFigure in Supplement 1).

Discussion

In this cohort study investigating center characteristics and comparative outcomes for patients undergoing esophagectomy, there were 2 principal findings. First, volume and structural differences exist between private equity–acquired health centers and nonacquired centers delivering esophagectomy care. Second, patients undergoing esophagectomy at private equity–acquired centers have significantly higher rates of mortality, complications, and failure to rescue. Together, these findings suggest that poorer postoperative outcomes at private equity–acquired health centers may be attributed to characteristic structural differences associated with private equity acquisition.

Esophagectomy is a high-complexity operation that requires substantial structural resources and practitioner expertise. Complication rates are high, with national estimates of up to 64% of patients having some kind of postoperative complication.28 Mortality following esophagectomy is variable; however, contemporary reports range from 2% to 8%.29,30 Consequently, there have been prior investigations of institution-level factors that portend improved outcome trends, namely the association of esophagectomy volume with postoperative outcomes. For example, Holleran et al31 showed a direct association between institutional esophagectomy volume and improved postoperative mortality and length of stay, although other studies had conclusions that contrasted this claim.26 Additionally, Dolan et al32 found a positive association between surgeon volume and favorable postoperative outcomes following esophagectomy at the same institution, supporting the volume-outcome relationship. These studies support the theoretical benefit of undergoing esophagectomy at a high-volume institution with appropriate staff expertise and available structural resources for patient care. Our work shows that private equity–acquired institutions have both lower volumes and worse outcomes, which may support this trend.

Our sensitivity analysis, which analyzed comparative outcomes for similarly low-volume nonacquired and private equity–acquired health centers, showed a persistence in worse 30-day mortality and any complication rates for patients undergoing esophagectomy at private equity–acquired centers. This finding suggests that there are additional contributing institutional factors at play at private equity–acquired health centers than simply a volume-outcome association for esophagectomy care. It is possible that additional structural elements of an institution may play a role in postoperative outcomes for high-complexity surgery, for which esophagectomy is exemplary. These elements may include, but are not limited to, intensive care unit organization and multidisciplinary care teams, which have been shown to be associated with lower rates of adverse outcomes.33

Failure to rescue has gained much attention in surgical outcomes research over the past 2 decades, particularly for high-complexity operations. This is founded in the theoretical framework that it is not the incidence of complications that affects postoperative mortality but rather delays or omissions of timely recognition and subsequent treatment of complications before further adverse outcomes are compounded. Failure to rescue has been well studied in esophagectomy.34,35,36 Age, race and ethnicity, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class are known to be patient-level factors associated with failure to rescue.37 Abdelsattar et al38 showed that center volume for esophagectomy was directly associated with rescue, suggesting that this may be the mechanism of the volume-outcome association. The results of this study both confirm this association and show an association between hospital acquisition status and failure to rescue. This concept, coupled with known and confirmed volume associations, highlights the need for care allocation patterns for patients requiring esophagectomy.39

Additional structural elements found to differ between private equity–acquired and nonacquired centers included nurse to patient ratio and teaching hospital status. Nurse to patient ratio is well known to be associated with postoperative complications and rescue, as confirmed by Sheetz et al,40 who specifically identified increased failure to rescue in patients undergoing esophagectomy at hospitals with lower nurse to patient ratios. Others have investigated comparative outcomes for patients undergoing esophagectomy at teaching vs nonteaching hospitals.41 For example, Dikken et al42 showed worse mortality rates following esophagectomy at nonteaching hospitals. Thus, since both of these factors were found to be lower in our study at private equity–acquired health centers, it is possible that they play a role in worse postoperative outcomes in these patients.

These findings have important implications for high-complexity surgical care delivered at health centers acquired by private equity entities. First, characteristic structural differences exist for private equity–acquired centers that are associated with lower-quality surgical care for high-complexity operations, including institutional volume, nurse to patient ratio, and teaching hospital status. These examples of a multitude of systemic changes may be influenced by private equity acquisition. Second, worse postoperative outcomes for patients undergoing esophagectomy at private equity–acquired institutions call into question the appropriateness of whether these institutions should provide high-complexity surgical care.

Limitations

Our study should be considered in the context of several limitations. First, there is a lack of clinical granularity inherent to the use of claims data for Medicare beneficiaries, making ascertainment of comorbidities; oncologic details such as staging, resection margin status, or multimodality therapy use; and complications challenging.43,44 This potential bias was mitigated by using selected codes from the Complication Screening Project specifically for identifying postoperative complications, a practice described previously.17,18 Second, because the cohort comprised Medicare beneficiaries, our study is confined to patients older than 65 years, limiting generalizability to younger patients. However, a large proportion of patients undergoing esophagectomy fall into this age category, and the Medicare population provides the advantage of a nationally representative patient cohort. Third, while the AHRQ compendium is a well-vetted source of health systems data, time point data of acquisition is not recorded; thus, we were unable to examine temporality with regard to private equity acquisition of health centers. Ongoing work is therefore needed to assess temporal associations of private equity acquisition with center-level structural characteristics. Finally, while our data sources facilitate comparison of some center-level characteristics that may influence patient outcomes, this analysis does not provide an exhaustive comparison of institutional characteristics involved in patient care. Additional factors, such as physician board certification or specialist training, may also differ at private equity–acquired centers and may be associated with patient outcomes, thus motivating future investigations of these elements.

Conclusions

The results of this cohort study suggest that one possible solution for mitigating risks associated with patients undergoing esophagectomy at private equity–acquired hospitals is to address structural and systemic factors. One example of an institution-level improvement strategy may be the adoption and implementation of esophagectomy-specific enhanced recovery after surgery protocols, which have been well established at other centers and shown to both improve postoperative outcomes and lower health care costs associated with esophagectomy.45,46 Alternatively, allocation of esophagectomy care to nonacquired, high-volume, experienced centers may also mitigate this risk if structural improvement in private equity–acquired centers is not possible. Consideration of center-level structural changes associated with private equity acquisition may inform policy changes or center accreditations for complex surgical care. As private equity acquisition of health centers and practices has an uneven geographic distribution in the US,47 it is possible that policy considerations may be best made at the state level to reflect a given area’s penetrance of acquisition and should be done in parallel with careful consideration of access to high-quality care for vulnerable patient populations.48 Our findings suggest that center-level factors outside of case volume alone may influence outcomes for patients undergoing high-complexity operations, which may better inform center designations by advocacy groups who have historically been focused on case volume alone.49 Further investigations into structural drivers of outcome differences at private equity–acquired health centers are necessary to inform potential regulations for esophagectomy care and other similar high-complexity surgical conditions.

Supplement 1.

eTable 1. Selected ICD-10 Codes and Associated Procedure Descriptions Used to Identify the Patient Cohort

eTable 2. ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes Corresponding to Postoperative Complications Occurring During Hospitalization Following Esophagectomy

eTable 3. Sensitivity Analysis Comparing Risk-Adjusted Postoperative Outcomes Following Esophagectomy at Low-Volume Private Equity–Acquired vs Low-Volume Nonacquired Hospitals

eFigure. Risk-Adjusted Odds Ratios for Postoperative Complications Following Sensitivity Analysis

jamasurg-e245920-s001.pdf (176.5KB, pdf)
Supplement 2.

Data Sharing Statement

jamasurg-e245920-s002.pdf (12.9KB, pdf)

References

  • 1.Offodile AC II, Cerullo M, Bindal M, Rauh-Hain JA, Ho V. Private equity investments in health care: an overview of hospital and health system leveraged buyouts, 2003-17. Health Aff (Millwood). 2021;40(5):719-726. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Casalino LP, Saiani R, Bhidya S, Khullar D, O’Donnell E. Private equity acquisition of physician practices. Ann Intern Med. 2019;171(1):78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Singh Y, Song Z, Polsky D, Bruch JD, Zhu JM. Association of private equity acquisition of physician practices with changes in health care spending and utilization. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(9):e222886. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.O’Donnell EM, Lelli GJ, Bhidya S, Casalino LP. The growth of private equity investment in health care: perspectives from ophthalmology. Health Aff (Millwood). 2020;39(6):1026-1031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Crowley R, Atiq O, Hilden D; Health and Public Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians . Financial profit in medicine: a position paper from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174(10):1447-1449. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gondi S, Song Z. Potential implications of private equity investments in health care delivery. JAMA. 2019;321(11):1047-1048. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Appelbaum E, Batt R. Private Equity at Work: When Wall Street Manages Main Street. Russell Sage Foundation; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Borsa A, Bejarano G, Ellen M, Bruch JD. Evaluating trends in private equity ownership and impacts on health outcomes, costs, and quality: systematic review. BMJ. 2023;382:e075244. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Cerullo M, Yang K, Joynt Maddox KE, McDevitt RC, Roberts JW, Offodile AC II. Association between hospital private equity acquisition and outcomes of acute medical conditions among Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA Netw Open. 2022;5(4):e229581. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kannan S, Bruch JD, Song Z. Changes in hospital adverse events and patient outcomes associated with private equity acquisition. JAMA. 2023;330(24):2365-2375. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Papageorge MV, de Geus SWL, Woods AP, et al. The effect of hospital versus surgeon volume on short-term patient outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy: a SEER-Medicare analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29(4):2444-2451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Paredes AZ, Hyer JM, Tsilimigras DI, Sahara K, White S, Pawlik TM. Interaction of surgeon volume and nurse-to-patient ratio on post-operative outcomes of Medicare beneficiaries following pancreaticoduodenectomy. J Gastrointest Surg. 2020;24(11):2551-2559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Compendium of U.S. Health Systems, technical documentation. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality ; 2014. Accessed November 29, 2023. https://www.ahrq.gov/chsp/data-resources/compendium/technical-documentation.html
  • 14.Ganguli I, Morden NE, Yang CWW, Crawford M, Colla CH. Low-value care at the actionable level of individual health systems. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(11):1490-1500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Segal JB, Sen AP, Glanzberg-Krainin E, Hutfless S. Factors associated with overuse of health care within US health systems: a cross-sectional analysis of Medicare beneficiaries from 2016 to 2018. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(1):e214543. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.AHA Annual Survey Database. American Hospital Association. Accessed December 4, 2023. https://www.ahadata.com/aha-annual-survey-database
  • 17.Weingart SN, Iezzoni LI, Davis RB, et al. Use of administrative data to find substandard care: validation of the complications screening program. Med Care. 2000;38(8):796-806. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lawthers AG, McCarthy EP, Davis RB, Peterson LE, Palmer RH, Iezzoni LI. Identification of in-hospital complications from claims data: is it valid? Med Care. 2000;38(8):785-795. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Scally CP, Thumma JR, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Impact of surgical quality improvement on payments in Medicare patients. Ann Surg. 2015;262(2):249-252. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Osborne NH, Nicholas LH, Ryan AM, Thumma JR, Dimick JB. Association of hospital participation in a quality reporting program with surgical outcomes and expenditures for Medicare beneficiaries. JAMA. 2015;313(5):496-504. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Variation in hospital mortality associated with inpatient surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(14):1368-1375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ghaferi AA, Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Complications, failure to rescue, and mortality with major inpatient surgery in Medicare patients. Ann Surg. 2009;250(6):1029-1034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Silber JH, Williams SV, Krakauer H, Schwartz JS. Hospital and patient characteristics associated with death after surgery: a study of adverse occurrence and failure to rescue. Med Care. 1992;30(7):615-629. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tsai TC, Joynt KE, Orav EJ, Gawande AA, Jha AK. Variation in surgical-readmission rates and quality of hospital care. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(12):1134-1142. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Goodney PP, Lucas FL, Stukel TA, Birkmeyer JD. Surgeon specialty and operative mortality with lung resection. Ann Surg. 2005;241(1):179-184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Funk LM, Gawande AA, Semel ME, et al. Esophagectomy outcomes at low-volume hospitals: the association between systems characteristics and mortality. Ann Surg. 2011;253(5):912-917. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36(1):8-27. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Linden PA, Towe CW, Watson TJ, et al. Mortality after esophagectomy: analysis of individual complications and their association with mortality. J Gastrointest Surg. 2020;24(9):1948-1954. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Slaman AE, Pirozzolo G, Eshuis WJ, et al. Improved clinical and survival outcomes after esophagectomy for cancer over 25 years. Ann Thorac Surg. 2022;114(4):1118-1126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Griffin SM, Jones R, Kamarajah SK, et al. Evolution of esophagectomy for cancer over 30 years: changes in presentation, management and outcomes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(6):3011-3022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Holleran TJ, Napolitano MA, Sparks AD, Antevil JL, Brody FJ, Trachiotis GD. Hospital operative volume and esophagectomy outcomes in the Veterans Affairs system. J Surg Res. 2022;275:291-299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Dolan D, White A, Lee DN, et al. Short and long-term outcomes among high-volume vs low-volume esophagectomy surgeons at a high-volume center. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022;34(4):1340-1350. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ward ST, Dimick JB, Zhang W, Campbell DA, Ghaferi AA. Association between hospital staffing models and failure to rescue. Ann Surg. 2019;270(1):91-94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ubels S, Matthée E, Verstegen M, et al. ; TENTACLE—Esophagus Collaborative Group; Writing Committee; Study Collaborators . Practice variation in anastomotic leak after esophagectomy: unravelling differences in failure to rescue. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2023;49(5):974-982. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Arlow RL, Moore DF, Chen C, Langenfeld J, August DA. Outcome-volume relationships and transhiatal esophagectomy: minimizing “failure to rescue”. Ann Surg Innov Res. 2014;8(1):9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Oh KJ, Gajdos C, Savulionyte GE, Hennon M, Schwaitzberg SD, Nader ND. Failure to rescue from surgical complications after trans-thoracic and trans-hiatal esophageal resection: an ACS-NSQIP study. J Gastrointest Surg. 2021;25(2):536-538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Liou DZ, Serna-Gallegos D, Mirocha J, Bairamian V, Alban RF, Soukiasian HJ. Predictors of failure to rescue after esophagectomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105(3):871-878. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Abdelsattar ZM, Habermann E, Borah BJ, Moriarty JP, Rojas RL, Blackmon SH. Understanding failure to rescue after esophagectomy in the United States. Ann Thorac Surg. 2020;109(3):865-871. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Munasinghe A, Markar SR, Mamidanna R, et al. Is it time to centralize high-risk cancer care in the United States? comparison of outcomes of esophagectomy between England and the United States. Ann Surg. 2015;262(1):79-85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Sheetz KH, Dimick JB, Ghaferi AA. Impact of hospital characteristics on failure to rescue following major surgery. Ann Surg. 2016;263(4):692-697. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Dimick JB, Cowan JA Jr, Colletti LM, Upchurch GR Jr. Hospital teaching status and outcomes of complex surgical procedures in the United States. Arch Surg. 2004;139(2):137-141. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Dikken JL, Wouters MWJM, Lemmens VEP, et al. Influence of hospital type on outcomes after oesophageal and gastric cancer surgery. Br J Surg. 2012;99(7):954-963. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Iezzoni LI. Assessing quality using administrative data. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(8 pt 2):666-674. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Iezzoni LI, Daley J, Heeren T, et al. Identifying complications of care using administrative data. Med Care. 1994;32(7):700-715. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Cooke DT, Calhoun RF, Kuderer V, David EA. A defined esophagectomy perioperative clinical care process can improve outcomes and costs. Am Surg. 2017;83(1):103-111. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Schmidt HM, El Lakis MA, Markar SR, Hubka M, Low DE. Accelerated recovery within standardized recovery pathways after esophagectomy: a prospective cohort study assessing the effects of early discharge on outcomes, readmissions, patient satisfaction, and costs. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102(3):931-939. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Singh Y, Zhu JM, Polsky D, Song Z. Geographic variation in private equity penetration across select office-based physician specialties in the US. JAMA Health Forum. 2022;3(4):e220825. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Clark JM, Boffa DJ, Meguid RA, Brown LM, Cooke DT. Regionalization of esophagectomy: where are we now? J Thorac Dis. 2019;11(suppl 12):S1633-S1642. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Safety in numbers: The Leapfrog Group’s report on high-risk surgeries performed at American hospitals. The Leapfrog Group . Accessed September 30, 2024. https://www.leapfroggroup.org/sites/default/files/Files/Safety%20in%20Numbers_Leapfrog%20Report%20on%20Surgical%20Volume_3.pdf

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplement 1.

eTable 1. Selected ICD-10 Codes and Associated Procedure Descriptions Used to Identify the Patient Cohort

eTable 2. ICD-10 Diagnosis Codes Corresponding to Postoperative Complications Occurring During Hospitalization Following Esophagectomy

eTable 3. Sensitivity Analysis Comparing Risk-Adjusted Postoperative Outcomes Following Esophagectomy at Low-Volume Private Equity–Acquired vs Low-Volume Nonacquired Hospitals

eFigure. Risk-Adjusted Odds Ratios for Postoperative Complications Following Sensitivity Analysis

jamasurg-e245920-s001.pdf (176.5KB, pdf)
Supplement 2.

Data Sharing Statement

jamasurg-e245920-s002.pdf (12.9KB, pdf)

Articles from JAMA Surgery are provided here courtesy of American Medical Association

RESOURCES