PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10113716

Laboratory cost and utilization containment.

Abstract

The authors analyzed laboratory costs and utilization in 3,771 cases of Medicare inpatients admitted to a New England academic medical center ("the Hospital") from October 1, 1989 to September 30, 1990. The data were derived from the Hospital's Decision Resource System comprehensive data base. The authors established a historical reference point for laboratory costs as a percentage of total inpatient costs using 1981-82 Medicare claims data and cost report information. Inpatient laboratory costs were estimated at 9.5% of total inpatient costs for pre-Diagnostic Related Groups (DRGs) Medicare discharges. Using this reference point and adjusting for the Hospital's 1990 case mix, the "expected" laboratory cost was 9.3% of total cost. In fact, the cost averaged 11.5% (i.e., 24% above the expected cost level), and costs represented an even greater percentage of DRG reimbursement at 12.9%. If we regard the reimbursement as a total cost target (to eliminate losses from Medicare), then that 12.9% is 39% above the "expected" laboratory proportion of 9.3%. The Hospital lost an average of $1,091 on each DRG inpatient. The laboratory contributed 29% to this loss per case. Compared to other large hospitals, the Hospital was slightly (3%) above the mean direct cost per on-site test and significantly (58%) above the mean number of inpatient tests per inpatient day compared to large teaching hospitals. The findings suggest that careful laboratory cost analyses will become increasingly important as the proportion of patients reimbursed in a fixed manner grows. The future may hold a prospective zero-based laboratory budgeting process based on predictable patterns of DRG admissions or other fixed-reimbursement admission and laboratory utilization patterns.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J W Steiner, J M Root, D C White. Laboratory cost and utilization containment.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10113716/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Challenges in drug development for muscle disease: a stakeholders' meeting.

Current treatment benefits for patients with muscle disease are limited, but progress in legislative and scientific initiatives have set the stage for the development of new therapies. The MD-CARE Act (Public Law 107-84), which allocates federal resources to muscular dystrophy, was approved by Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States in 2001. This has shifted the emphasis toward translational research. To facilitate a push toward therapy for muscle disorders, the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA) sponsored a meeting with representatives from industry, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and other government agencies and academia. Each contributed in different ways. The FDA helped define the necessary data to support investigational new drug (IND) applications including the design of proof-of-principle studies, outcome measures for clinical trials, and the pathway for developing surrogate measures for fast-tracking promising new drugs. The NIH, other government agencies, and the MDA described potential funding sources for translational research. Industry delineated a complementary role with academia, and academic investigators elucidated the current strengths and weaknesses of available clinical endpoints. The meeting provided a format for communication for diverse disciplines that usually have no common meeting ground, helping to lay the foundation for bringing products to market in a timely fashion.

Academic Medical Centers↗

Reporting of adverse drug reactions: predictors of under-reporting in Malaysia.

BACKGROUND: Malaysia like many other countries worldwide uses spontaneous reporting systems as a mean of collecting data on suspected adverse drug reaction (ADR). However, compared to other countries, which use the system, the reporting rate in Malaysia is very low. Why some physicians do not report ADRs is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors, which would predict physicians' failure to send ADR reports. DESIGN AND SETTING: Face-to-face interview using a structured questionnaire involving physicians working at the University of Malaya Medical Centre, Malaysia. RESULTS: About a third of the physicians in the Centre participated. Sixty-five of the 415 approached refused to participate. A high proportion of the respondents (81.4%) indicated that they had suspected an ADR but did not report it, while about 40% of the respondents were not aware of the existence of the national reporting system in Malaysia. Logistic regression modelling identified the variable 'ADR considered to be too trivial or too well known to report' as the strongest predictor of not reporting, followed by physicians' category and uncertainty that the reaction had been definitely caused by a drug. CONCLUSION: Important predictor variables, which limit physicians from reporting ADR in Malaysia, were related to uncertainty of types of reaction to report, lack of awareness about the existence, function and purpose of national ADR reporting. The findings could be useful for planning strategies to improve the reporting rate.

Academic Medical Centers↗