Functional Status and Its Uses in Rehabilitation Medicine

Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine

Volumn 66, Issue 3, 1999, Pages 179-187

  Eastwood, Elizabeth A ^a  

^a MOUNT SINAI SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Functional outcomes; Functional status; Public policy; Rehabilitation reimbursement

Indexed keywords

ACCREDITATION; ECONOMICS; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; POLICY; PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT; REHABILITATION; REVIEW; STANDARD;

ACCREDITATION; HUMANS; MANAGED CARE PROGRAMS; PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEM; PUBLIC POLICY; REHABILITATION;

EID: 0033124321     PISSN: 00272507     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, et al. Studies on illness in the aged - the index of ADL; A standardized measure of biological and psychosocial functioning. JAMA 1963; 185(12):914-919.
2. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: The Barthel Index. Md State Med J 1965; (2):61-65.
3. Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. Guide for the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation, Version 4.0. Buffalo (NY): Research Foundation, State University at Buffalo; 1993.
4. Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. Quarterly UDS Report. U.S. Edition 1998: 11(4).
5. Hamilton BB, Laughlin JA, Fiedler RC, Granger CV. Interrater agreement of the 7-level Functional Independence Measure (FIM). Scand J Rehabil Med 1994; 26(3):115-119.
6. Ottenhacher KJ, Mann WC, Granger CV, et al. Inter-rater agreement and stability of functional assessment in the community-based elderly. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1994; 75(12): 1297-1301.
7. Morbus C, Morris J, Grip J. Ordinal scales and the foundations of misinference. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1989; 70(4):308-312.
8. Area Resource File (ARF). February 1997 release. Washington (DC): Office of Research and Planning, Bureau of Health Professions, Health Resources and Services Administration. Department of Health and Human Services, p. 179.
9. Batavia AI, DeJong G. Prospective payment for medical rehabilitation: The Department of Health and Human Services Report lo Congress. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1988; 69(5):377-380.
10. Fetter RB, Shin Y, Freeman JL, et al. Case mix definition by diagnosis related group. Med Care 1980: 18(Suppl 2):1.
11. Department of Health and Human Services: Report to Congress: Developing a prospective payment system for excluded hospitals.1987: Washington. DC 1987: Department of Health and Human Services.
12. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. Report to the Congress: Medicare payment policy. Washington, DC: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, March 1998.
13. Harada N, Sofaer S, Kominski G, Functional status outcomes in rehabilitation: Implications for prospective payment. Med Care 1993; 31:345-357.
14. Stineman MG, Escarce JJ, Goin JE, Hamilton BB, et al. A case mix classification for medical rehabilitation. Med Care 1994; 32(4):366-379.
15. Stineman MG, Tassoni CJ, Escarce JE, et al. Development of function-related groups version 2.0: A classification system for medical rehabilitation. Health Serv Res 1997; 32(4):529-548.
16. Carter GM, Relles DA, Buchanan JL, et al. A classification system for inpatient rehabilitation patients: A review and proposed revisions to the functional independence measurefunction related groups. Springfield (VA): National Technical Information Service. RAND; Health Care Financing Administration, Publication No. PM-682-HCFA. Sponsored by U.S. Department of Commerce; 1997.
17. Stineman MG, Hamilton BB, Granger CV, et al. Functional gain and length of stay for major rehabilitation categories. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 75:68-78.
18. Fiedler RC, Granger CV. Uniform data system for medical rehabilitation: Report of first admissions for 1996. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 1998; 77(1):69-75.
19. Fries BE, Schneider DP, Foley WP, et al. Refining a case-mix measure for nursing homes: resource utilization groups (RUG-III). Med Care 1994; 32(7):668-685.
20. Eilertsen TB, Kramer AM, Schlenker RE, Hrincevich CA. Applications of functional independence measure-function related groups ard resource utilization groups-version III systems across post-acute settings. Med Care 1998; 36(5):695-705.
21. Stineman MG, Goin JE, Granger CV, et al. Discharge motor FIM-function related groups. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1997; 78(9):980-985.
22. Stineman MG, Goin JE, Tassoni CJ, et al. Classifying rehabilitation inpatients by expected functional gain. Med Care 1997; 35(9):963-973.
23. Sutton JP, DeJong G, Wilkerson D. Function-based payment model for inpatient rehabilitation: An evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77(7):693-701.