PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 3114635

Refining case-mix adjustment. The research evidence.

Abstract

We review case-mix adjustment, which is the process of adjusting for differences in the cases treated in different hospitals so that their costs or outcomes can be compared. We examine the Medicare payment system, which rests on case-mix adjustment, and identify areas, including outlier payments, in which payment accuracy might be improved without better measurement of the severity of illness. There is no available measure of severity of illness that would produce a large improvement in the accuracy of Medicare payments if used to supplement or replace the system of diagnosis-related groups. Evidence regarding whether better measurement of severity would substantially change the distribution of payments across hospitals is mixed. Considerable evidence suggests that the intensity of medically appropriate treatment for patients in the same diagnosis-related group varies substantially for reasons other than the severity of illness. Despite great demand for measures of the quality of care, important technical problems must be solved before we can be confident that differences in case-mix-adjusted outcomes reflect differences in the quality of care.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S F Jencks, A Dobson. 1987-09-10. Refining case-mix adjustment. The research evidence.. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm198709103171106

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↗