Measuring Casemix, Severity, and Complexity in Geriatric Patients Undergoing Rehabilitation

Medical Care

Volumn 35, Issue 6 SUPPL., 1997, Pages

  Stineman, Margaret G ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Casemix measurement; Function related groups; Geriatric rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

AGED; CLASSIFICATION; COMORBIDITY; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; DIAGNOSIS RELATED GROUP; DISABLED PERSON; GERIATRIC ASSESSMENT; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; LENGTH OF STAY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT CARE; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING; PROGNOSIS; REVIEW;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; AGED; COMORBIDITY; CONTINUITY OF PATIENT CARE; DIAGNOSIS-RELATED GROUPS; DISABLED PERSONS; GERIATRIC ASSESSMENT; HUMANS; LENGTH OF STAY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROGNOSIS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 0031157034     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199706001-00018     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Stineman MG, Escarce JJ, Goin JE, et al. A case mix classification system for medical rehabilitation. Med Care 1994;32:366.
2. World Health Organization (WHO). International classification of impairments, disabilities, and handicaps. Geneva: WHO, 1980.
3. Fetter RB. DRGs: Their design and development. Ann Arbor: Health Administration Press, 1991.
4. Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, et al. Studies of illness in the aged - the index of ADL: A standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA 1963;185:914.
5. Granger CV, Hamilton BB, Keith RA, et al. Advances in functional assessment for medical rehabilitation. Top Geriatr Rehabil 1986;1:59.
6. Guide for the Use of the Uniform Data Set for Medical Rehabilitation, Version 3.1. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo, 1990.
7. Whiteneck GG, Charlifue SW, Gerhart KA, et al. Quantifying handicap: A new measure of long-term rehabilitation outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992; 73:519.
8. Johnston MV, Miller LS. Cost-effectiveness of the Medicare three-hour regulation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1986;67:581.
9. Felsenthal G. Rehabilitating older patients: Primary care evaluation, treatment, and resources. Geriatrics 1989;44:81.
10. Ficke RC. Digest of data on persons with disabilities. Washington, DC: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 1992.
11. Kramer AM. Health care for elderly persons -myths and realities. N Engl J Med 1995;332:1027.
12. Manton KG, Stallard E, Corder L. Changes in morbidity and chronic disability in the U.S. elderly populations: Evidence from the 1982, 1984, and 1989 national long term care surveys. J Gerontol 1995;50B:S194.
13. Diagnosis-Related Groups, Version 13. Federal Register 1995;60:45893.
14. Stineman MG, Granger CV, Escarce JJ, et al. A prototype classification system for medical rehabilitation. Washington, DC: American Rehabilitation Association, 1994.
15. Carter G. Evaluation of case classification systems and a design of a prospective payment model for inpatient rehabilitation (Contract 500-92-0023). Grant awarded to the RAND Corporation by the Health Care Financing Administration in response to RFP-HCFA-95-012/PK, 1995.
16. Stineman MG. Function-based rehabilitation classification (RO1-HS07595). Final report to the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; Rockville, MD; 1996.
17. Stineman MG, Hamilton BB, Granger CV, et al. Four methods of characterizing disability in the formation of the function related groups. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994;75:1277.
18. Hamilton BB, Laughlin JA, Fiedler RC, et al. Interrater reliability of the 7-level Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Scand J Rehabil Med 1994;26:115.
19. Dodds TA, Martin DP, Stolov WC, et al. A validation of the functional independence measurement and its performance among rehabilitation inpatients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:531.
20. Stineman MG, Hamilton BB, Goin JE, et al. Functional gain and length of stay for major rehabilitation impairment categories: Patterns revealed by FRGs. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1996;75:68.
21. P.L. 97-248, The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982.
22. Batavia AI. The payors of medical rehabilitation: Eligibility, coverage, and payment policies. Washington, DC: National Association of Rehabilitation Facilities, 1989.
23. Harada N, Sofaer S, Kominski G. Functional status outcomes in rehabilitation: Implications for prospective payment. Med Care 1993;31:345.
24. Stineman MG. Function-based classification for stroke rehabilitation and issues of reimbursement: Using patient classification systems to scale payment to patient complexity. Top Stroke Rehabil 1994;3:50.
25. Wilkerson DL, Batavia AI, DeJong G. Use of functional status measures for payment of medical rehabilitation services. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992;73:111.
26. Stineman MG, Goin JE, Hamilton BB, et al. Efficiency pattern analysis for medical rehabilitation. Am J Med Quality 1995;10:190.
27. Kritchevsky SB, Simmons BP. Continuous quality improvement: Concepts and applications for physician care. JAMA 1991;266:1817.
28. Institute for Healthcare Improvement. Using clinical guidelines to improve patient outcomes. Course for the St. Louis Continuing Education Center of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Peabody, MA, September 27, 1994.
29. Fetter RB, Shin Y, Freeman JL, et al. Case mix definition by diagnosis-related groups. Med Care 1980;18:1.
30. Ashcraft MLF, Fries BE, Nerenz DR, et al. A psychiatric patient classification system: An alternative to diagnosis-related groups. Med Care 1989;27:543.
31. Fries BE, Schneider DP, Foley WJ, et al. Refining a case-mix measure for nursing homes: Resource utilization groups (RUG-III). Med Care 1994;32:668.
32. Harada N, Kominski G, Sofaer S. Development of a resource-based classification for rehabilitation. Inquiry 1993;30:54.
33. Cretin S, Worthman LA. Alternative systems for case mix classification in health care financing. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation, 1986.
34. Fleming JW. The golden age of rehabilitation. Med Rehabil Rep 1996;20:A.
35. Hosek S, Kane R, Carney M, et al. Charges and outcomes for rehabilitative care. Implications for the prospective payment system. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation, 1986.
36. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Alex KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40;737.
37. Horn SD, Chachich B, Clopton C. Measuring severity of illness: A reliability study. Med Care 1983;21:705.
38. Heinemann AW, Linacre JM, Wright BD, et al. Prediction of rehabilitation outcomes with disability measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994;75: 133.
39. Stineman MG, Maislin G, Williams SV. Applying quantitative methods to the prediction of full functional recovery in adult rehabilitation patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1993;74:787.