Comparing apples with apples in clinical populations: Applications of the adjusted Clinical Group System in British Columbia

Healthcare management forum / Canadian College of Health Service Executives = Forum gestion des soins de santé / Collège canadien des directeurs de services de santé

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 11-16

  Reid, Robert J ^a   Verhulst, Lorne ^b   Forrest, Christopher B ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^b Government of British Columbia   (United States)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AMBULATORY CARE; ARTICLE; CANADA; CAPITATION FEE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSIS RELATED GROUP; ECONOMICS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH INSURANCE; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; MALE; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

AMBULATORY CARE; BRITISH COLUMBIA; CAPITATION FEE; DIAGNOSIS-RELATED GROUPS; FEMALE; HEALTH RESOURCES; HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS AND DEMAND; HUMANS; INSURANCE, PHYSICIAN SERVICES; MALE; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE;

EID: 0036599447     PISSN: 08404704     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0840-4704(10)60575-3     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Canada Health Act, RSC 1985, c6.
2. S Birch S Chambers To each according to need: a community-based approach to allocating healthcare resources Canadian Medical Association Journal 149 5 1993 607 612
3. Canadian Institute for Health Information. CMG/Pix Directory 2000. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information.
4. Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health. The Johns Hopkins University ACG case-mix adjustment system. (version 5) 2001. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University.
5. For more information on ACG applications, readers are referred to http://www.acg.jhsph.edu
6. J Weiner B Starfield D Steinwachs L Mumford Development and application of a population-oriented measure of ambulatory care case-mix Medical Care 29 1991 452 472
7. B Starfield J Weiner L Mumford D Steinwachs Ambulatory care groups: a categorization of diagnoses for research and management Health Services Research 26 1991 53 74
8. Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health The ACG assignment process ACG software documentation/users manual (version 4.5) 2000 Johns Hopkins University Baltimore (MD) 27 46
9. The number of categories depends on whether or not “delivery status” and “birth weight” are used as variables in the grouping process.
10. S Juncosa B Bolibar Un sistema de clasificacion de pacientes para nuestra atencion primaria: Los ambulatory care groups (ACGs) Gaceta Sanitaria 11 1997 83 94
11. JF Orueta J Lopez-DeMunain K Baez JM Aiarzaguena JI Aranguren E Pedrero Application of ambulatory care groups in the primary care of a European national healthcare system — does it work? Medical Care 37 1999 238 248
12. RJ Reid L MacWilliam L Verhulst NP Roos M Atkinson Performance of the ACG case-mix system in two Canadian provinces Medical Care 39 1 2001 86 99
13. Reid RJ, Roos N P, MacWilliam L, Frohlich N, Black C. Assessing population healthcare need using a claims-based ACG morbidity measure: a validation analysis in the province of Manitoba. Health Services Research. In press 2002.
14. L Verhulst RJ Reid CB Forrest Hold it — my patients are sicker! The importance of case-mix adjustment to practitioner profiles in British Columbia British Columbia Medical Journal 6 43 2001 328 333
15. Medical Services Plan A guide to the interpretation of the medical services plan practitioner profiles 2000 Ministry of Health Services Victoria
16. S Salem-Schatz G Moore M Rucker SD Pearson The case for case-mix adjustment in practice profiling: when good apples look bad Journal of the American Medical Association 272 1994 871 874
17. Ministry of Health Planning. Primary Care Demonstration Project: policy and information guide. Victoria: Ministry of Health Planning; 2000. Available at www.healthplanning.gov.bc.ca/care/primdemo/polman.pdf
18. DL Rogal AK Gauthier Are health-based payments a feasible tool for addressing risk segmentation? Inquiry 35 1998 115 121