Challenges of rehabilitation case mix measurement in Ontario hospitals

Health Policy

Volumn 85, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 336-348

  Sutherland, Jason Murray ^a   Walker, Jan ^b  

^a DARTMOUTH INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH POLICY AND CLINICAL PRACTICE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Case mix; Cost weights; Functional status; Inpatient rehabilitation; Rehabilitation

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; CANADA; CASE MIX; FEMALE; HOSPITAL; HUMAN; MALE; REHABILITATION CARE;

AGED; DIAGNOSIS-RELATED GROUPS; FEMALE; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMANS; LONG-TERM CARE; MALE; NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS; ONTARIO; REHABILITATION; REIMBURSEMENT MECHANISMS;

EID: 38749100541     PISSN: 01688510     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2007.09.006     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Schreyögg J., Tiemann O., and Busse R. Cost accounting to determine prices: how well do prices reflect costs in the German DRG-system?. Health Care Management Science 9 3 (2006) 269-279
2. Kroneman M., and Nagy J. Introducing DRG-based financing in Hungary: a study into the relationship between supply of hospital beds and use of these beds under changing institutional circumstances. Health Policy 55 1 (2001) 19-36
3. Schreyoögg J., Stargardt T., Tiemann O., and Busse R. Methods to determine reimbursement rates for diagnosis related groups (DRG): a comparison of nine European countries. Health Care Management Science 9 3 (2006) 215-223
4. Busse R., Schreyoögg J., and Smith P.C. Editorial: hospital case payment systems in Europe. Health Care Management Science 9 3 (2006) 211-213
5. Hensen P., Fuörstenberg T., Luger T.A., Steinhoff M., and Roeder N. Case mix measures and diagnosis-related groups: opportunities and threats for inpatient dermatology. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology 19 5 (2005) 582-588
6. Hansen T.W.R. Changes in the utilization of diagnostic codes in neonatology following the introduction of activity-based financing. Health Policy 74 2 (2005) 218-223
7. Skeie B., Mishra V., Vaaler S., and Amlie E. A comparison of actual cost, DRG-based cost, and hospital reimbursement for liver transplant patients. Transplant International 15 9-10 (2002) 439-445
8. Mishra V., Tjønnfjord G.E., Paus A.C., and Vaaler S. Orthopaedic surgery in severe bleeding disorders: a low-volume, high-cost procedure. Haemophilia 8 6 (2002) 809-814
9. Ontario Joint Policy and Planning Committee. Summary Report of the Hospital Funding Committee on the Use of 2004/05 Cost and Activity Data, JPPC Reference Document #10-9. The Ontario Joint Policy and Planning Committee. Toronto, Ontario, February 2006.
10. Harada N., Kominski G., and Sofaer S. Development of a resource-based patient classification scheme for rehabilitation. Inquiry 30 1 (1993) 54-63
11. Carter G.M., Relles D.A., Wynn B.O., Kawata J., Paddock S.M., Sood N., and Totten M.E. Interim report on an inpatient rehabilitation facility prospective payment system (2000), RAND, Santa Monica, California DRU-2309-HCFA
12. Batavia A.I. Dangers of inpatient rehabilitation industry consolidation. Health Affairs 17 5 (1988) 256-257
13. Wilkerson D.L., Batavia A.I., and DeJong G. Use of functional status measures for payment of medical rehabilitation services. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 73 2 (1992) 111-120
14. Stineman M.G., Escarce J.J., Goin J.E., Hamilton B.B., Granger C.V., and Williams S.V. A case-mix classification system for medical rehabilitation. Medical Care 32 4 (1994) 366-379
15. Stineman M.G., Tassoni C.J., Escarce J.J., Goin J.E., Granger C.V., Fielder R.C., and Williams S.V. Development of function-related groups version 2.0: a classification system for medical rehabilitation. Health Services Research 32 4 (1997) 529-548
16. Carter G.M., Beeuwkes Buntin M., Hayden O., Kawata J., Paddock S.M., Relles D.A., Ridgeway G.K., Totten M.E., and Wynn B.O. Analyses for the initial implementation of the inpatient rehabilitation facility prospective payment system (2001), RAND, Santa Monica, CA MR-1500-CMS
17. Carter G.M., Relles D.A., Wynn B.O., Kawata J., Paddock S.M., Sood N., and Totten M.E. Interim report on an inpatient rehabilitation facility prospective payment system (2002), RAND, Santa Monica, CA MR-1503-CMS
18. Paddock S.M., Carter G.M., Wynn B.O., and Zhou A.J. Possible refinements to the facility-level payment adjustments for the inpatient rehabilitation facility prospective payment system (2005), RAND, Santa Monica, CA TR-219-CMS
19. Carter G.M., and Totten M. Preliminary analyses for refinement of the tier comorbidities in the inpatient rehabilitation facility prospective payment system (2005), RAND, Santa Monica, CA TR-201-CMS
20. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Federal Register, August 15, 2005, 42 CFR Part 412 at 47880. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Washington, USA; 2005.
21. Eagar K, Gordon R, Hodkinson A, Green J, Eagar L, Erven J., et al. Centre for Health Service Development. The Australian national sub-acute and non-acute patient classification (AN-SNAP): report of the national sub-acute and non-acute casemix study. Wollongong Australia: University of Wollongong; 1997.
22. Tesio L. Case mix classifications. The special case for rehabilitation. Europa Medicophysica 39 4 (2003) 201-220
23. Eagar K., Cromwell D., Kennedy C., and Lee L. Classifying sub-acute and non-acute patients: results of the NSW Casemix Area Network Study. Australian Health Review 20 (1997) 56-74
24. Linacre J., Heinemann A.W., Wright B.D., Granger C.V., and Hamilton B.B. The structure and stability of the functional independence measure. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 75 2 (1994) 127-132
25. Stineman M.G., Shea J.A., Jette A., Tassoni C.J., Ottenbacher K.J., Fiedler R., and Granger C.V. The functional independence measure: tests of scaling assumptions, structure, and reliability across 20 diverse impairment categories. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 77 11 (1996) 1101-1108
26. Ontario Joint Policy and Planning Committee. Ontario Cost Distribution Methodology By Patient Activity, Version 1998/1999. Toronto, Ontario: The Ontario Joint Policy and Planning Committee; 2000.
27. Breiman L., Friedman J.H., Olshen R.A., and Stone C.J. Classification and regression trees (1984), Wadsworth International Group
28. Wagner T.H., Richardson S.S., Vogel B., Wing K., and Smith M.W. Cost of inpatient rehabilitation in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 43 7 (2006) 929-938
29. Relles D., Ridgeway G., and Carter G. Data mining and the implementation of a prospective payment system for inpatient rehabilitation. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology 3 3-4 (2002) 247-266
30. Hastie T.J., and Tibshirani R.J. Generalized additive models (1990), Chapman & Hall, London
31. Carter G.M., Relles D.A., Ridgeway G.K., and Rimes C.M. Measuring function for Medicare inpatient rehabilitation payment. Health Care Financing Review 24 3 (2003) 25-44
32. Preyra C., Senger D., and Sutherland J.M. Child friendly performance measurement in paediatrics (October 2005), Canadian Paediatric Society General Meeting, St. John's Newfoundland, Canada
33. Centers for Medicare Medicaid Services. Final Rule, Medicare Program; Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility Prospective Payment System for FY 2006, 42 CFR Part 412 (2006), Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Washington, USA
34. Hayes K.J., Pettengill J., and Stensland J. Getting the price right: medicare payment rates for cardiovascular services. Health Affairs 26 1 (2007) 124-136
35. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MEDPAC). Report to the congress: physician-owned specialty hospitals. Washington, USA: Medicare Payment Advisory Commission; March 2005.
36. Sutherland JM, Walker J. Development of the rehabilitation patient group (RPG) case mix classification methodology and weighting system for adult inpatient rehabilitation, Technical Report. Toronto, Ontario: The Ontario Joint Policy and Planning Committee; October 2006.
37. Carter G.M., Newhouse J.P., and Relles D.A. How much change in the case mix index is DRG creep?. Journal of Health Economics 9 4 (1990) 411-428
38. Silverman E., and Skinner J. Medicare upcoding and hospital ownership. Journal of Health Economics 23 (2004) 369-389
39. Carter G.M., and Paddock S.M. Preliminary analyses of changes in coding and case mix under the inpatient rehabilitation facility prospective payment system (2005), RAND, Santa Monica, CA TR-213-CMS
40. Preyra C. Coding response to a case mix measurement system based on multiple diagnoses. Health Services Research 39 4 (2004) 1027-1046
41. Ontario Joint Policy Planning Committee. Evaluation and selection of a grouper and weighting methodology for adult inpatient rehabilitation care, Reference Document RD10-10 (October 2006), Ontario Joint Policy and Planning Committee, Toronto