Justin B. Dimick, MD, MPH.

Yes: Accreditation is why bariatric surgery outcomes are so good.

In the early days of bariatric surgery, there were very high mortality rates, up to 21% at 1 year in some studies. Because of that level of risk to patients, accreditation was implemented. Currently, mortality rates for bariatric surgery are at 0.15%, an extraordinary achievement in less than a decade. There are now 729 accredited hospitals in the United States, and that number says much about the level of access for patients. It is not unfettered access to bariatric surgery that is important, but rather access by patients to quality care. That’s what matters at the end of the day.

Accreditation isn’t keeping patients from gaining access to bariatric surgery. The bigger problem in access is making sure the federal and state health exchanges provide coverage for bariatric surgery among the essential health benefits. Fewer than half the states have this coverage.

Since accreditation started, there have been six studies with findings supporting it and three with findings that did not. Among the papers supporting it, Flum et al. is most persuasive because it looks at the Medicare population before and after the implementation of accreditation. It shows a big improvement in deaths, complications, and readmissions after the accreditation mandate despite an increase in the number of patients undergoing bariatric surgery (Ann. Surg. 2011;254:860-5).

The question that always comes up is whether it is volume (the number of cases you’re doing) or accreditation that matters for outcomes. A 2013 study found that accreditation status rendered a benefit independent of volume (Surg. Endosc. 2013;27:4539-46).

If we look at the three papers that found against accreditation, I would dismiss one study because it preceded the accreditation movement (Arch. Surg. 2009;144:319-25).

A study of Michigan patients reported similar complication rates at Centers of Excellence (COEs) and non-COEs (JAMA 2010;304:435-42). The problem with that study is that all of the hospitals in the study essentially are COEs, with the same components that come out of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP). They have a registry. They have volume requirements. They have quality improvement. So, essentially, they’re all COEs, and I’m glad that they embrace the same concepts that we espouse.

The final paper, by Dr. Dimick, takes an econometric approach using differences within differences analysis, which means you look at the differential rate of change to see if the experimental group (in this case, the Medicare population) is different in some way from the control group (non-Medicare). Here’s the problem: That is not a true control. Non-Medicare patients were exposed to accreditation. All of the major insurers embraced accreditation then and continue to do so.

The paper didn’t look at mortality and failure to rescue patients from complications (JAMA 2013;309:792-9). Even though mortality may be low, it still matters. It’s what I would call a sentinel event. It’s become so rare that when it happens, it’s a signal of an issue around quality. We see improvements in both the Medicare and non-Medicare populations. Do two rights make a wrong? Does that mean that accreditation doesn’t work? I think it points out that we’re seeing important changes for the better for all groups.

We presented findings at the American Surgical Association this year showing that accredited hospitals had lower total charges with lower rates of complications, mortality, and failure to rescue. What accreditation provides is a safety net. If something goes wrong, the difference is the ability to recover from complications. There was not a big difference between accredited and non-accredited hospitals in complications in general, but a bigger difference in mortality. Mortality still counts. Failure to rescue is a very important metric that we all need to pay attention to.

Some of our other data show a halo effect from accreditation. In the accredited centers, outcomes were better for non-bariatric procedures. Why? Because they had more experience with obese patients. It’s a collateral benefit.

Without accreditation, I wonder what will happen at hospitals that aren’t required to be accredited. Will they still have the registry? Will they still have the resources they need? Not everybody has the advantages that Michigan has with major insurer support to pay for accreditation efforts. And it’s critical that we have those data. You can’t manage what you don’t measure. Accreditation is vital for bariatric surgery.

Dr. Morton is director of both bariatric surgery and surgical quality at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center. He disclosed financial associations with Vivus, Covidien, and Ethicon.

No: The data do not show that outcomes are better in COEs.

The Centers of Excellence has evolved into the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP), which is an outcomes benchmarking and quality improvement program. So we are, in many ways, looking in the rear-view mirror when we talk about whether or not the historical accreditation process improved outcomes.

I’m going to make two arguments against the historical way it was done. The first argument is that limiting care to Centers of Excellence (COEs) as they were defined had very little benefit on outcomes and may have caused some harm.

A lot of the data out there to evaluate the COE program are a little misleading. They looked at Medicare data for outcomes before and after the Medicare COE mandate was put in place requiring that bariatric surgery be performed in a COE to qualify for coverage. The problem with that is the outcomes are improving so quickly that you can’t just do a before and after study. You need to adjust for that time frame to make sure you’re not getting a spurious finding.

We did a study comparing improvement trends for any complications, serious complications, and reoperations before and after Medicare implemented its coverage decision. Surgeons were already getting better before that. There was no change in the trajectory of improvements when the policy was implemented. We concluded that the policy that selectively referred patients to Centers of Excellence didn’t have any benefit (JAMA 2013;309:792-9). We originally included mortality in our analysis but deaths were so rare that it didn’t meet power specifications set by the journal.

In that paper, we did a head-to-head comparison of COEs vs. non-COEs in 12 large states. It’s hard to do a randomized controlled trial for this, so we did an instrumental variable analysis, a sophisticated analysis that takes out a lot of the unmeasured confounding in selection bias. We found that there was no benefit to having bariatric surgery in a COE.

We noticed that many hospitals that traditionally served minorities did not achieve accreditation. One can assume that’s because they probably didn’t have the resources to participate in the program. After the policy was implemented, the rate of bariatric surgery in minorities dropped substantially, whereas it went up in non-minority patients (JAMA 2013;310:1399-1400). So, there’s potential evidence of harm with these policies.

Medicare eliminated their facility accreditation requirement for bariatric surgery last September.

My second argument is that we could be doing something so much better than accreditation to improve bariatric surgery outcomes. Michigan’s approach is a large quality improvement collaborative funded by Blue Cross Blue Shield. We’re using lessons learned in Michigan to implement change on a broader scale without the involvement of payers. We have 70 surgeons and 32 bariatric surgery programs benchmarking outcomes and using those in strategic ways to learn from each other, hopefully improving everybody’s outcomes.

We standardized venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis across the state and implemented decision support. VTE rates fell by half. We saw a 90% improvement in mortality and a 24% drop in overall complications. Yes, bariatric surgery centers everywhere were improving at that same time, but when we compared Michigan hospitals participating in our collaborative to non-Michigan hospitals, we saw steeper declines in adverse outcomes in Michigan. That’s very robust evidence that this approach is effective for improving perioperative care.

We have launched a technical skill initiative in which surgeons participating in the collaborative give us a video of a typical procedure that gets rated in a blinded fashion by their peers. We just got funded to use these videos in a coaching program to help surgeons in Michigan improve our technique.

Doing this kind of collaborative work doesn’t take a ton of money. It does take time, strategy, and social capital – developing networks of surgeons that work together and learn together. The historical Centers of Excellence program wasn’t a bad idea, but it wasn’t correlated with perioperative outcomes, and it did have harms.

Dr. Dimick is chief of minimally invasive surgery at the University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor. He disclosed being a stockholder in ArborMetrix.

Yes: Accreditation is why bariatric surgery outcomes are so good.

In the early days of bariatric surgery, there were very high mortality rates, up to 21% at 1 year in some studies. Because of that level of risk to patients, accreditation was implemented. Currently, mortality rates for bariatric surgery are at 0.15%, an extraordinary achievement in less than a decade. There are now 729 accredited hospitals in the United States, and that number says much about the level of access for patients. It is not unfettered access to bariatric surgery that is important, but rather access by patients to quality care. That’s what matters at the end of the day.

Accreditation isn’t keeping patients from gaining access to bariatric surgery. The bigger problem in access is making sure the federal and state health exchanges provide coverage for bariatric surgery among the essential health benefits. Fewer than half the states have this coverage.

Since accreditation started, there have been six studies with findings supporting it and three with findings that did not. Among the papers supporting it, Flum et al. is most persuasive because it looks at the Medicare population before and after the implementation of accreditation. It shows a big improvement in deaths, complications, and readmissions after the accreditation mandate despite an increase in the number of patients undergoing bariatric surgery (Ann. Surg. 2011;254:860-5).

The question that always comes up is whether it is volume (the number of cases you’re doing) or accreditation that matters for outcomes. A 2013 study found that accreditation status rendered a benefit independent of volume (Surg. Endosc. 2013;27:4539-46).

If we look at the three papers that found against accreditation, I would dismiss one study because it preceded the accreditation movement (Arch. Surg. 2009;144:319-25).

A study of Michigan patients reported similar complication rates at Centers of Excellence (COEs) and non-COEs (JAMA 2010;304:435-42). The problem with that study is that all of the hospitals in the study essentially are COEs, with the same components that come out of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP). They have a registry. They have volume requirements. They have quality improvement. So, essentially, they’re all COEs, and I’m glad that they embrace the same concepts that we espouse.

The final paper, by Dr. Dimick, takes an econometric approach using differences within differences analysis, which means you look at the differential rate of change to see if the experimental group (in this case, the Medicare population) is different in some way from the control group (non-Medicare). Here’s the problem: That is not a true control. Non-Medicare patients were exposed to accreditation. All of the major insurers embraced accreditation then and continue to do so.

The paper didn’t look at mortality and failure to rescue patients from complications (JAMA 2013;309:792-9). Even though mortality may be low, it still matters. It’s what I would call a sentinel event. It’s become so rare that when it happens, it’s a signal of an issue around quality. We see improvements in both the Medicare and non-Medicare populations. Do two rights make a wrong? Does that mean that accreditation doesn’t work? I think it points out that we’re seeing important changes for the better for all groups.

We presented findings at the American Surgical Association this year showing that accredited hospitals had lower total charges with lower rates of complications, mortality, and failure to rescue. What accreditation provides is a safety net. If something goes wrong, the difference is the ability to recover from complications. There was not a big difference between accredited and non-accredited hospitals in complications in general, but a bigger difference in mortality. Mortality still counts. Failure to rescue is a very important metric that we all need to pay attention to.

Some of our other data show a halo effect from accreditation. In the accredited centers, outcomes were better for non-bariatric procedures. Why? Because they had more experience with obese patients. It’s a collateral benefit.

Without accreditation, I wonder what will happen at hospitals that aren’t required to be accredited. Will they still have the registry? Will they still have the resources they need? Not everybody has the advantages that Michigan has with major insurer support to pay for accreditation efforts. And it’s critical that we have those data. You can’t manage what you don’t measure. Accreditation is vital for bariatric surgery.

Dr. Morton is director of both bariatric surgery and surgical quality at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center. He disclosed financial associations with Vivus, Covidien, and Ethicon.

No: The data do not show that outcomes are better in COEs.

The Centers of Excellence has evolved into the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP), which is an outcomes benchmarking and quality improvement program. So we are, in many ways, looking in the rear-view mirror when we talk about whether or not the historical accreditation process improved outcomes.

I’m going to make two arguments against the historical way it was done. The first argument is that limiting care to Centers of Excellence (COEs) as they were defined had very little benefit on outcomes and may have caused some harm.

A lot of the data out there to evaluate the COE program are a little misleading. They looked at Medicare data for outcomes before and after the Medicare COE mandate was put in place requiring that bariatric surgery be performed in a COE to qualify for coverage. The problem with that is the outcomes are improving so quickly that you can’t just do a before and after study. You need to adjust for that time frame to make sure you’re not getting a spurious finding.

We did a study comparing improvement trends for any complications, serious complications, and reoperations before and after Medicare implemented its coverage decision. Surgeons were already getting better before that. There was no change in the trajectory of improvements when the policy was implemented. We concluded that the policy that selectively referred patients to Centers of Excellence didn’t have any benefit (JAMA 2013;309:792-9). We originally included mortality in our analysis but deaths were so rare that it didn’t meet power specifications set by the journal.

In that paper, we did a head-to-head comparison of COEs vs. non-COEs in 12 large states. It’s hard to do a randomized controlled trial for this, so we did an instrumental variable analysis, a sophisticated analysis that takes out a lot of the unmeasured confounding in selection bias. We found that there was no benefit to having bariatric surgery in a COE.

We noticed that many hospitals that traditionally served minorities did not achieve accreditation. One can assume that’s because they probably didn’t have the resources to participate in the program. After the policy was implemented, the rate of bariatric surgery in minorities dropped substantially, whereas it went up in non-minority patients (JAMA 2013;310:1399-1400). So, there’s potential evidence of harm with these policies.

Medicare eliminated their facility accreditation requirement for bariatric surgery last September.

My second argument is that we could be doing something so much better than accreditation to improve bariatric surgery outcomes. Michigan’s approach is a large quality improvement collaborative funded by Blue Cross Blue Shield. We’re using lessons learned in Michigan to implement change on a broader scale without the involvement of payers. We have 70 surgeons and 32 bariatric surgery programs benchmarking outcomes and using those in strategic ways to learn from each other, hopefully improving everybody’s outcomes.

We standardized venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis across the state and implemented decision support. VTE rates fell by half. We saw a 90% improvement in mortality and a 24% drop in overall complications. Yes, bariatric surgery centers everywhere were improving at that same time, but when we compared Michigan hospitals participating in our collaborative to non-Michigan hospitals, we saw steeper declines in adverse outcomes in Michigan. That’s very robust evidence that this approach is effective for improving perioperative care.

We have launched a technical skill initiative in which surgeons participating in the collaborative give us a video of a typical procedure that gets rated in a blinded fashion by their peers. We just got funded to use these videos in a coaching program to help surgeons in Michigan improve our technique.

Doing this kind of collaborative work doesn’t take a ton of money. It does take time, strategy, and social capital – developing networks of surgeons that work together and learn together. The historical Centers of Excellence program wasn’t a bad idea, but it wasn’t correlated with perioperative outcomes, and it did have harms.

Dr. Dimick is chief of minimally invasive surgery at the University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor. He disclosed being a stockholder in ArborMetrix.

Yes: Accreditation is why bariatric surgery outcomes are so good.

In the early days of bariatric surgery, there were very high mortality rates, up to 21% at 1 year in some studies. Because of that level of risk to patients, accreditation was implemented. Currently, mortality rates for bariatric surgery are at 0.15%, an extraordinary achievement in less than a decade. There are now 729 accredited hospitals in the United States, and that number says much about the level of access for patients. It is not unfettered access to bariatric surgery that is important, but rather access by patients to quality care. That’s what matters at the end of the day.

Accreditation isn’t keeping patients from gaining access to bariatric surgery. The bigger problem in access is making sure the federal and state health exchanges provide coverage for bariatric surgery among the essential health benefits. Fewer than half the states have this coverage.

Since accreditation started, there have been six studies with findings supporting it and three with findings that did not. Among the papers supporting it, Flum et al. is most persuasive because it looks at the Medicare population before and after the implementation of accreditation. It shows a big improvement in deaths, complications, and readmissions after the accreditation mandate despite an increase in the number of patients undergoing bariatric surgery (Ann. Surg. 2011;254:860-5).

The question that always comes up is whether it is volume (the number of cases you’re doing) or accreditation that matters for outcomes. A 2013 study found that accreditation status rendered a benefit independent of volume (Surg. Endosc. 2013;27:4539-46).

If we look at the three papers that found against accreditation, I would dismiss one study because it preceded the accreditation movement (Arch. Surg. 2009;144:319-25).

A study of Michigan patients reported similar complication rates at Centers of Excellence (COEs) and non-COEs (JAMA 2010;304:435-42). The problem with that study is that all of the hospitals in the study essentially are COEs, with the same components that come out of the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP). They have a registry. They have volume requirements. They have quality improvement. So, essentially, they’re all COEs, and I’m glad that they embrace the same concepts that we espouse.

The final paper, by Dr. Dimick, takes an econometric approach using differences within differences analysis, which means you look at the differential rate of change to see if the experimental group (in this case, the Medicare population) is different in some way from the control group (non-Medicare). Here’s the problem: That is not a true control. Non-Medicare patients were exposed to accreditation. All of the major insurers embraced accreditation then and continue to do so.

The paper didn’t look at mortality and failure to rescue patients from complications (JAMA 2013;309:792-9). Even though mortality may be low, it still matters. It’s what I would call a sentinel event. It’s become so rare that when it happens, it’s a signal of an issue around quality. We see improvements in both the Medicare and non-Medicare populations. Do two rights make a wrong? Does that mean that accreditation doesn’t work? I think it points out that we’re seeing important changes for the better for all groups.

We presented findings at the American Surgical Association this year showing that accredited hospitals had lower total charges with lower rates of complications, mortality, and failure to rescue. What accreditation provides is a safety net. If something goes wrong, the difference is the ability to recover from complications. There was not a big difference between accredited and non-accredited hospitals in complications in general, but a bigger difference in mortality. Mortality still counts. Failure to rescue is a very important metric that we all need to pay attention to.

Some of our other data show a halo effect from accreditation. In the accredited centers, outcomes were better for non-bariatric procedures. Why? Because they had more experience with obese patients. It’s a collateral benefit.

Without accreditation, I wonder what will happen at hospitals that aren’t required to be accredited. Will they still have the registry? Will they still have the resources they need? Not everybody has the advantages that Michigan has with major insurer support to pay for accreditation efforts. And it’s critical that we have those data. You can’t manage what you don’t measure. Accreditation is vital for bariatric surgery.

Dr. Morton is director of both bariatric surgery and surgical quality at Stanford (Calif.) University Medical Center. He disclosed financial associations with Vivus, Covidien, and Ethicon.

No: The data do not show that outcomes are better in COEs.

The Centers of Excellence has evolved into the Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program (MBSAQIP), which is an outcomes benchmarking and quality improvement program. So we are, in many ways, looking in the rear-view mirror when we talk about whether or not the historical accreditation process improved outcomes.

I’m going to make two arguments against the historical way it was done. The first argument is that limiting care to Centers of Excellence (COEs) as they were defined had very little benefit on outcomes and may have caused some harm.

A lot of the data out there to evaluate the COE program are a little misleading. They looked at Medicare data for outcomes before and after the Medicare COE mandate was put in place requiring that bariatric surgery be performed in a COE to qualify for coverage. The problem with that is the outcomes are improving so quickly that you can’t just do a before and after study. You need to adjust for that time frame to make sure you’re not getting a spurious finding.

We did a study comparing improvement trends for any complications, serious complications, and reoperations before and after Medicare implemented its coverage decision. Surgeons were already getting better before that. There was no change in the trajectory of improvements when the policy was implemented. We concluded that the policy that selectively referred patients to Centers of Excellence didn’t have any benefit (JAMA 2013;309:792-9). We originally included mortality in our analysis but deaths were so rare that it didn’t meet power specifications set by the journal.

In that paper, we did a head-to-head comparison of COEs vs. non-COEs in 12 large states. It’s hard to do a randomized controlled trial for this, so we did an instrumental variable analysis, a sophisticated analysis that takes out a lot of the unmeasured confounding in selection bias. We found that there was no benefit to having bariatric surgery in a COE.

We noticed that many hospitals that traditionally served minorities did not achieve accreditation. One can assume that’s because they probably didn’t have the resources to participate in the program. After the policy was implemented, the rate of bariatric surgery in minorities dropped substantially, whereas it went up in non-minority patients (JAMA 2013;310:1399-1400). So, there’s potential evidence of harm with these policies.

Medicare eliminated their facility accreditation requirement for bariatric surgery last September.

My second argument is that we could be doing something so much better than accreditation to improve bariatric surgery outcomes. Michigan’s approach is a large quality improvement collaborative funded by Blue Cross Blue Shield. We’re using lessons learned in Michigan to implement change on a broader scale without the involvement of payers. We have 70 surgeons and 32 bariatric surgery programs benchmarking outcomes and using those in strategic ways to learn from each other, hopefully improving everybody’s outcomes.

We standardized venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis across the state and implemented decision support. VTE rates fell by half. We saw a 90% improvement in mortality and a 24% drop in overall complications. Yes, bariatric surgery centers everywhere were improving at that same time, but when we compared Michigan hospitals participating in our collaborative to non-Michigan hospitals, we saw steeper declines in adverse outcomes in Michigan. That’s very robust evidence that this approach is effective for improving perioperative care.

We have launched a technical skill initiative in which surgeons participating in the collaborative give us a video of a typical procedure that gets rated in a blinded fashion by their peers. We just got funded to use these videos in a coaching program to help surgeons in Michigan improve our technique.

Doing this kind of collaborative work doesn’t take a ton of money. It does take time, strategy, and social capital – developing networks of surgeons that work together and learn together. The historical Centers of Excellence program wasn’t a bad idea, but it wasn’t correlated with perioperative outcomes, and it did have harms.

Dr. Dimick is chief of minimally invasive surgery at the University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor. He disclosed being a stockholder in ArborMetrix.