Funding of early rehabilitation;Finanzierung der frürehabilitation

Physikalische Medizin Rehabilitationsmedizin Kurortmedizin

Volumn 12, Issue 6, 2002, Pages 317-324

  Brach, M ^a   Piek, S ^a   Stucki, G ^a  

^a LUDWIG MAXIMILIANS UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

Author keywords

Diagnosis related groups; Early rehabilitation in hospital; Funding; Payment systems

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DIAGNOSIS RELATED GROUP; DISABILITY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GERMANY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HOSPITALIZATION; PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT; REHABILITATION MEDICINE; REIMBURSEMENT;

EID: 0036952479     PISSN: 09406689     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-36191     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Easton L, Cogen R, Fulcomer M. Effect of Medicare prospective payment system on a home health agency: changes in patient population and services provided. Appl Nurs Res 1991; 4(3): 107-112
2. Newhouse J, Young D. Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Health of the House Committee on Ways and Means. Hearing on Rehabilitation and Long-Term Care Hospital Payments, 1997 http://www.house. gov/ways_means/health/105cong/4-10-97/4-10newh.htm
3. Kahn K et al. Comparing Outcomes of Care Before and After Implementation of the DRG-Based Prospective Payment System. JAMA 1990; 264: 1987-1988
4. Kahn K et al. Measuring Quality of Care With Explicit Process Criteria Before and After Implementation of the DRG-Based Prospective Payment System. JAMA 1990; 264: 1969-1973
5. DesHarnais S et al. The early effects of the prospective payment system on inpatient utilization and the quality of care. Inquiry 1987; 24 (1): 7-16
6. Sutton J, DeJong G, Wilkerson D. Function-Based Payment Model for Inpatient Medical Rehabilitation: An Evaluation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996; 77: 693-701
7. Kosecoff J et al. Prospective Payment System and Impairment at Discharge. The 'Quicker-and-Sicker' Story Revisited. JAMA 1990; 264 (15): 1980-1983
8. Rubenstein L et al. Changes in Quality of Care for Five Diseases Measured by Implicit Review, 1981 to 1986. JAMA 1990; 264 (15): 1979-1994
9. Paolucci S et al. Changes in functional outcome in patient stroke rehabilitation resulting from new health policy regulations in Italy. European Journal of Neurology 1998; 5: 17-22
10. Gadomski M. Frührehabilitation im Krankenhaus. Phys Med Rehab Kuror 2000; 10: 127-132
11. DVfR. DRGs und Rehabilitation - Memorandum der Deutschen Vereinigung für die Rehabilitation Behinderter. Rehabilitation, 2001; 40: 361-368
12. Stucki G et al. Indikationsübergreifende Frührehabilitation. Phys Med Rehab Kuror 2002; 12: 146-156
13. Stier-Jarmer M, Stucki G. Frührehabilitation im Krankenhaus - Gesetzliche Grundlagen. Phys Med Rehab Kuror 2002; 12: 129-133
14. Stucki G et al. Konzept zur indikationsübergreifenden Frührehabilitation im Akutkrankenhaus. Phys Med Rehab Kuror 2002; 12: 134-145
15. Egner U, Verbarg A. Das DRG-System im Krankenhaus und seine Auswirkungen auf die Rehabilitation. Die Angestellten Versicherung 2001; 11: 1-6
16. Haaf H-G. Gesundheitsbkonomische Analyse der Vergütung mit Fallpauschalen in der medizinischen Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation 2002; 41 (1): 14-30
17. Rochell B, Roeder N. DRGs als Grundlage der künftigen Krankenhausfinanzierung - Stand der Umsetzung und Einfluss auf die Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation 2002; 41 (1): 1-9
18. Gay E, Kronenfeld J. Regulation, retrenchment - the DRG experience: problems from changing reimbursement practice. Social Science and Medicine 1990; 31 (10): 1103-1118
19. Duckett S. Casemix funding in Victoria: The first year. The Medical Journal of Australia 1995; 162: 650-654
20. Ewert T, Cieza A, Stucki G. Die ICF in der Rehabilitation. Phys Med Rehab Kuror 2002; 12: 157-162
21. Stucki G et al. Application of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in clinical practice. Disability and Rehabilitation 2002; 24: 281-282
22. Köhler F. Auswirkungen des DRG-Systems auf Anschluss- und Rehabilitationsbehandlung in Sydney, New South Wales, Australien. Rehabilitation 2002; 41 (1): 10-13
23. Evans R et al. Effects of prospective payment financing on rehabilitation outcome. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 1990; 13 (1): 27-35
24. Stineman M. Case-Mix Measurement in Medical Rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1995; 76: 1163-1170
25. Cooner L, Fries B. Validation and use of resource utilisation groups as a case-mix measure for long-term care. Medical Care 1985; 23: 123-132
26. Fries B, Cooney L. Resource utilisation groups: A patient classification system for long-term care. Medical Care 1985; 23: 110-122
27. Fries B. Comparing case-mix systems for nursing home payment. Health Care Financing Review 1990; 11: 103-119
28. Fries B et al. Refining a case-mix measure for nursing homes: Resource Utilisation Groups (RUG-III). Medical Care 1994; 32: p. 668-685
29. Harada N, Kominski G, Sofaer S. Development of a resource-based patient classification scheme for rehabilitation. Inquiry 1993; 30: 54-63
30. Stineman M,. The Story of Function-Related Groups - Please, First Do No Harm. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001; 82 (4): 553-557
31. Eagar K et al. The Australian national sub-acute and non-acute patient classification (AN-SNAP): report of the national sub-acute and nonacute casemix classification study. Centre for Health Service Development. Wollongong: University of Wollongong, 1997
32. Lee L et al. Non acute casemix in the Illawarra. J Qual Clin Pract 1994; 14: 23-30
33. Lee L, Eagar K, Smith M. Subacute and non-acute casemix in Australia. Medical Journal of Australia 1998; 169, Suppl: S22-S25
34. McNair P, Duckett S. Funding Victoria's public hospitals: The casemix policy of 2000-2001. Australian Health Review 2002; 25 (1): 72-98
35. Clade H. Plädoyer für modifiziertes Klassifikationssystem. Deutsches Ärzteblatt 2001; 98 (43): B 2382
36. Duckett S, Gray L, Howe A. Designing a funding system for rehabilitation services Part 1: Rationale and recent developments. Australian Health Review 1995; 18 (3): 30-44
37. Duckett S, Gray L, Howe A. Designing a funding system for rehabilitation services. Part 2: Policy objectives and options for achieving efficiency and quality of care. Australian Health Review 1995; 18 (4): 62-77
38. AMPRA. The New IRF-PPS System and Data Collection Tool. 2001; http://amrpa.firminc.com/irfppscoltool.htm
39. Wilkerson D, Batavia A, DeJong G. Use of Functional Status Measures for Payment of Medical Rehabilitation Services. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1992; 73: 111-120
40. Granger C, Hamilton B. UDS report: the uniform data system for medical rehabilitation. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 1992; 71: 33-38
41. Stineman M et al. A case-mix classification system for medical rehabilitation. Medical Care 1994; 32: 366-379
42. Stineman M et al. Development of function-related groups version 2.0: a classification system for medical rehabilitation. Health Services Research 1997; 32 (4): 529-548
43. Cisari C et al. Influence of the national health service's new retribution system on inpatient rehabilitation for stroke. Eur Medicophys 2000; 36 (2): 67-73
44. Sjekkliste. Vedlegg - Spesialtilfeller i dataregistrering: Rehabiliteringspasienter. Sjekkliste for registrering, datakvalitet og avlevering av oppholdsdata fra sykehusene. Sozial- og helsedepartementet, 2000: 8
45. Preusker U. Nicht immer, aber immer öfter...; "Diagnosis Related Groups" in Skandinavien. Gesundheit und Gesellschaft (G+G) 1999; 12: 44-51
46. Neubauer G, Nowy R. Wege zur Einführung eines leistungsorientierten und pauschalierenden Vergütungssystems für operative und konservative Krankenhausleistungen in Deutschland. Gutachten im Auftrag der Deutschen Krankenhausgesellschaft. München: Institut für Gesundheitsökonomik, 2000
47. Niedersachsen/Bremen, A.N.F. Frührehabilitation aus DRG-System herausnehmen. Wachkoma, 2002; 2: 6
48. Bühren V. Kommentar zum DRG-System aus Sicht des Unfallchirurgen. Chirurg 2001; 40 (9): 238-240