Hospitals Overspending on Blood Transfusions
Hospitals can do a lot to reduce how much blood their surgeons use for transfusions, especially since blood products are scarce, carry risk of adverse events and are extremely costly, says the fall edition of Economic Outlook, a report by the hospital purchasing and quality alliance, Premier.
Premier looked at 7.4 million case-mix adjusted patients with common DRGs discharged from 464 hospitals over four years. Its analysts did the math and found an enormous variation among hospitals across the country.
It also realized that if all 464 hospitals in the Premier study instituted blood utilization practices similar to those hospitals in the top 25%, they could save $165 million annually in blood purchasing costs, and avoid using 802,716 units without changing patient outcomes.
And that's just in the top 10 patient diagnoses, excluding avoided costs of testing, storage, transportation, administration and the increased cost of care when patients' adverse reactions to blood units require longer lengths of stay.
They also would avoid an uncertain number of unintended consequences that occur when patients develop serious adverse reactions to transfused blood.
- As Retail Clinics Surge, Quality Metrics MIA
- No Employee Satisfaction, No Patient-Centered Culture
- Providers' Push to Consolidate Roils Payers
- RN Named Chief Patient Experience Officer
- Medicare Cost, Quality Data Tools Weak, Says GAO
- Population Health Pays Off for NY Collaborative
- Former NQF Co-Chair Linked to Conflicts of Interest in Journal Probe
- How Payers Are Curbing Behavioral-Health Cost Drivers
- How Simple Data Analytics is Driving Physician Incentives
- AMA Pushes Lame Duck Congress for SGR Repeal