Dalton K, Slifkin R T, Howard H A
Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 725 Airport Road, CB 7590, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7590, USA.
J Rural Health. 2000 Fall;16(4):357-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2000.tb00486.x.
This article examines rural hospitals that potentially qualify as critical access hospitals (CAH) and identifies facilities at substantial financial risk as a result of Medicare's expansion of prospective payment systems (PPS) to nonacute settings. Using Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) cost reports from the federal year ending Sept. 30, 1996, combined with county-level sociodemographic data from the Area Resource File (ARF), characteristics of potential CAHs were identified and their finances analyzed to determine whether they could benefit from the cost-based reimbursement rules applicable to CAH status. Rural hospitals were identified as potential CAHs if they met a combination of federal and state criteria for necessary providers. Rural facilities were classified as "at risk" if they had poor financial ratios in conjunction with high levels of dependence on outpatient, home-care or skilled nursing services. Almost 30 percent of all rural hospitals were identified as potential CAHs. Ninety percent of potential CAH facilities were identified as "at risk" by at least one of five possible risk criteria, and one-third were identified by at least three. Of those classified "at risk," 48 percent might not benefit from conversion to CAH because their inpatient Medicare reimbursement would likely be less under CAH payment rules than under their current PPS payment rules. Many potential CAHs were doing well under inpatient PPS because they were sole community hospitals (SCH) and were therefore eligible for special adjustments to the PPS rates. The Rural Hospital Flexibility Act would be more beneficial to the population of isolated rural hospitals if those eligible for both CAH and SCH status were given the option of retaining their SCH inpatient payment arrangements while still qualifying for outpatient cost-based reimbursement.
本文研究了有可能符合临界接入医院(CAH)资格的农村医院,并确定了由于医疗保险将预期支付系统(PPS)扩展到非急性病治疗机构而面临重大财务风险的机构。利用截至1996年9月30日联邦年度的医疗保健财务管理局(HCFA)成本报告,并结合地区资源文件(ARF)中的县级社会人口数据,确定了潜在临界接入医院的特征,并对其财务状况进行了分析,以确定它们是否能从适用于临界接入医院身份的基于成本的报销规则中受益。如果农村医院符合联邦和州关于必要医疗服务提供者的综合标准,则被确定为潜在临界接入医院。如果农村医疗机构财务比率不佳且高度依赖门诊、家庭护理或专业护理服务,则被归类为“有风险”。所有农村医院中近30%被确定为潜在临界接入医院。90%的潜在临界接入医院设施根据五个可能的风险标准中的至少一个被确定为“有风险”,三分之一根据至少三个标准被确定为“有风险”。在那些被归类为“有风险”的医院中,48%可能无法从转换为临界接入医院中受益,因为根据临界接入医院支付规则,它们的医疗保险住院报销可能低于当前的预期支付系统支付规则下的报销。许多潜在临界接入医院在住院预期支付系统下运营良好,因为它们是唯一的社区医院(SCH),因此有资格获得预期支付系统费率的特殊调整。如果那些有资格获得临界接入医院和唯一社区医院身份的医院能够选择保留其唯一社区医院住院支付安排,同时仍有资格获得基于成本的门诊报销,那么《农村医院灵活性法案》对偏远农村医院群体将更有益。