PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10312078

Misconceptions about case-mix payments for nursing homes.

Abstract

Despite the increasing use of case-mix payment systems for skilled and intermediate nursing home care (at least 10 state Medicaid programs have adopted or are considering adopting such a system), misconceptions about such systems still exist. Unless these inaccurate perceptions are corrected, a state may adopt a system that fails to realize its goals. Some of these misconceptions include the beliefs that case-mix payment systems: Apply to all nursing homes costs; Will benefit hospital-based facilities; Will resolve the access problems of heavy care public patients; Will result in higher statewide payment rates because patient characteristics are factored directly into the calculations. In fact, case-mix adjustments are applied only to costs that can be traced directly to patients' impairments. Nursing services and some ancillary services are dependent on case mix, while administrative and support services are largely independent of case mix. Capital costs usually can be ignored in formulating the case-mix adjustment. Although hospital-based facilities frequently have sicker patients than freestanding facilities, studies show that only a portion of the cost differential is explained by case-mix differences. In the case of heavy-care patients, some believe that case-mix payment systems will resolve access problems by paying higher rates in response to the higher treatment costs. Access may not improve, however, if the new rates are lower than those paid by comparable private patients. Perhaps a loosening in the certificate-of-need process will also be needed to resolve the access problem.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

P L Grimaldi. 1987. Misconceptions about case-mix payments for nursing homes.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10312078/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Reliability of diagnoses coding with ICD-10.

OBJECTIVE: Reliability of diagnoses coding is essential for the use of routine data in a national health care system. The present investigation compares reliability of diagnoses coding with ICD-10 between three groups of coding subjects. METHOD: One hundred and eighteen students coded 15 diagnoses lists, 27 medical managers from hospitals 34 discharge letters, and 13 coding specialists 12 discharge letters. Agreement in principal diagnosis was assessed using Cohen's Kappa and the fraction of coincidences over the number of pairs, agreement for the full set of diagnoses with a previously developed measure p(om). RESULTS: Kappa values were fair (managers) or moderate (coders) for terminal codes with 0.27 and 0.42 (agreement 29.2% versus 46.8%), substantial for the chapter level with 0.71 and 0.72 (agreement 78.3% versus 80.8%). p(om) was lower for the full set of diagnoses than for principal diagnoses, for example in case of managers with 0.21 versus 0.29 for terminal codes. Best results were achieved by students coding diagnoses lists. In summary, the results are remarkably lower than in earlier publications. CONCLUSION: The refinement of the ICD-10 accompanied by innumerous coding rules has established a complex environment that leads to significant uncertainties even for experts. Use of coded data for quality management, health care financing, and health care policy requires a remarkable simplification of ICD-10 to receive a valid image of health care reality.

Diagnosis-Related Groups↗