English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

I read with interest the article by Girardi et al, in which the authors analyze the impact of two surgical techniques on the hospital costs related to the procedures1. I would like to congratulate the authors for their boldness in addressing such a controversial subject as well as for their transparency and objectiveness. The funding of myocardial revascularization surgeries in hospitals accredited by the Brazilian Public Health System (SUS), either with or without extracorporeal circulation, seems to have a negative impact on the number of elective surgeries performed, as is the case in our institution. Apparently, the funding offered by the public health insurance system (SUS) does not cover the entire cost of the procedure, which eventually results in lack of payment to suppliers and contractors. The immediate consequence is the limitation of the number of performed cardiac surgeries with the ensuing long waiting for the procedure, which within short and midterm periods, possibly affect the outcome of patients waiting to undergo the procedure. In this context, de Oliveira et al2, in an a excellent article published in the Brazilian Archives of Cardiology, verified the high social cost related to invasive cardiac procedures (surgical or interventionist ones), performed at institutions accredited by SUS in the state of Rio de Janeiro between 1999 and 2003, in which they demonstrated high intra-hospital morbidity and mortality, much higher than the accepted quality standards. When looking at the two sides of the situation, it seems that the apparent paradox completes itself: the inadequate funding of hospital expenses supplied by the health insurance company reflects directly on the quality of the procedures and, consequently, on the hospitalization outcomes. What should one do? Efficient surgical procedures, with low intra-hospital costs and adequate therapeutic efficacy are noteworthy and must be considered in health care management. However, the improvement in health quality indicators, such as intra-hospital morbimortality rates, must be preceded by the adequate management of health care services and the appropriate funding of the performed procedures. Peace and blessings.

[Comments on the article by Girardi et al: costs in cardiac surgery].