ArticleJTCVS open2026
Framework for estimating the financial contribution of a benign foregut practice: What general thoracic surgeons need to know.
Article in JTCVS open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The study objective was to estimate payor-specific reimbursements for foregut surgery and determine the relative contribution compared with pulmonary procedures. Methods: Medical records of patients undergoing foregut surgery, identified by Diagnosis-Related Group codes 326, 327, and 328, by thoracic surgeons from January 2018 to December 2019 were reviewed. Esophagectomies and primary neoplasm diagnoses were excluded. Volume of surgeries, preoperative and postoperative studies, and clinic visits were measured. Reimbursements were estimated using Current Procedural Terminology and Diagnosis-Related Group Medicare data, cost-to-charge ratios, and Private:Medicare/Medicaid:Medicare payment ratios. Average payments for foregut and equivalent complexity pulmonary Diagnosis-Related Group codes were compared to calculate relative contribution. Results: A total of 72 patients met inclusion criteria and underwent 73 operations (hiatal hernia in 62 [85%] and esophageal diverticulectomy or myotomy in 11 [15%]), 538 studies, and 284 clinic visits. This volume equated to $12.7M in charges and $2.0M in Medicare reimbursement. Adjusting for a 59% Private, 32% Medicare, and 9% Medicaid payor mix, total reimbursement was $3.7M. Average reimbursement per surgery was $60k for Private, $35k for Medicare, and $28k for Medicaid. Total costs and operating income were $3.2M and $503k (ie, 14% operating margin), respectively. Compared with pulmonary procedures, foregut averaged greater reimbursement for the highest complexity cohort but less reimbursement for lower complexity cases ( Conclusions: This framework can estimate payor-specific reimbursements, costs, and operating margins for both foregut and pulmonary surgeries. There are no financial disadvantages to having a diverse practice model. Balance of payor mix, case complexity, and a focus on reduced perioperative cost and increased care efficiency can improve margins and throughput.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.