Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Mar;131(3):615-622.
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31827c6ffb.

The financial impact of multidisciplinary cleft care: an analysis of hospital revenue to advance program development

Affiliations

The financial impact of multidisciplinary cleft care: an analysis of hospital revenue to advance program development

Frederic W-B Deleyiannis et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Mar.

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the financial impact of cleft care on the hospital and to evaluate trends in reimbursement over the past 6 years.

Methods: Medical and accounting records of 327 consecutive infants undergoing cleft repair between 2005 and 2011 were reviewed. Charges, payments, and direct cost data were analyzed to illustrate hospital revenue and margins.

Results: Hospital payments for all inpatient services (cleft and noncleft) during the first 24 months of life were $9,483,168. Mean hospital payment varied from $5525 (Medicaid) to $10,274 (managed care) for a cleft lip repair (p < 0.0001) and from $6573 (Medicaid) to $12,933 (managed care) for a cleft palate repair (p < 0.0001). Hospital charges for a definitive lip or palate repair to both Medicaid and managed care more than doubled between 2005 and 2011 (p < 0.0001). Overall, mean hospital margins were $3904 and $3520, respectively, for a cleft lip repair and cleft palate repair. Medicaid physician payments for cleft lip and palate were, respectively, $588 and $646. From 2005 to 2006, 2007 to 2008, and 2009 to 2010, 41 percent, 43 percent, and 63 percent of patients, respectively, were enrolled in Medicaid.

Conclusions: Cleft care generates substantial revenue for the hospital. For their mutual benefit, hospitals should join with their cleft teams to provide administrative support. Bolstered reimbursement figures, based on the overall value of cleft care to the hospital system, would better attract and retain skilled clinicians dedicated to cleft care. This may become particularly important if Medicaid enrollment continues to increase.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Parameters for evaluation and treatment of patients with cleft lip/palate or other craniofacial anomalies. American Cleft Palate–Craniofacial Association. March 1993. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1993;30(Suppl):S1–S16.
    1. Calzolari E, Pierini A, Astolfi G, Bianchi F, Neville AJ, Rivieri F. Associated anomalies in multi-malformed infants with cleft lip and palate: An epidemiologic study of nearly 6 million births in 23 EUROCAT registries. Am J Med Genet A 2007;143:528–537.
    1. Cassell CH, Meyer R, Daniels J. Health care expenditures among Medicaid enrolled children with and without orofacial clefts in North Carolina, 1995–2002. Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol. 2008;82:785–794.
    1. Boulet SL, Grosse SD, Honein MA, Correa-Villaseñor A. Children with orofacial clefts: Health-care use and costs among a privately insured population. Public Health Rep. 2009;124:447–453.
    1. Skinner AC, Mayer ML. Effects of insurance status on children's access to specialty care: A systematic review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;28:194.

LinkOut - more resources