Cromwell Jerry, Drozd Edward M, Gage Barbara, Maier Jan, Richter Erin, Goldman Howard H
RTI, 411 Waverley Oaks Road, Suite 330, Waltham, Massachusetts 02452-8414, USA.
J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2005 Mar;8(1):15-28.
The Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999 included a Congressional mandate to develop a patient-level case mix prospective payment system (PPS) for all Medicare beneficiaries treated in PPS-exempt psychiatric facilities. Payment levels by case mix category have been proposed by the government based on claims and facility cost reports. Because of claims data limitations, these levels do not account for patient-specific staffing costs within a facility's routine units, nor are certain key patient characteristics considered for higher payment.
This study uses novel primary data to quantify heretofore unmeasured differences in daily staffing intensity on routine units among Medicare patients. The data are used to test for compression (or narrowing) in case mix payment weights that would result from using only Medicare claims and facility cost reports to quantify daily routine costliness.
Primary data on patient and staff times in over 20 activities were collected from 40 psychiatric facilities and 66 psychiatric units, nation-wide. Patient times were reported on all inpatients on each shift over a 7-day study period. A resource intensity measure (in Registered Nurse (RN)-equivalent minutes) was constructed on a daily basis for 4,149 Medicare and 4,667 non-Medicare patient days. The routine measure is converted into daily cost using cost report per diems and ancillary costs added using submitted claims. Descriptive tables isolate key cost drivers for Medicare patients. Classification and Regression Trees (CART) clustering identifies 16 potential case mix groups. Multivariate regression is used to compare case mix, day-of-stay, and facility effects using 4 alternative measures of daily routine and ancillary costs.
Patient daily routine intensity of care is found to vary by a factor of 3 or more between the top and bottom 10% of days. Medicare patient days were 12.5% more staff intensive than non-Medicare days, which may have been due to age and other differences. Older dementia and "residual diagnosis" patients are more intensive while schizophrenia and substance-related patients are less intensive. Age, psychiatric and medical severity, deficits in Activities in Daily Living (ADLs), dangerous behaviors, and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) also contribute substantially to higher staffing intensity. Other patient characteristics were insignificant within broad diagnostic groups. Routine costs based on a single facility per diem produced narrower case mix cost differences--often by a factor of 2 or more--for 10 of 12 groups with significantly higher costs. Adding patient-specific ancillary to uniform per diem costs only marginally decompressed costs. Day of-stay costs were similarly compressed when using only cost reports.
Claims-based costing using Medicare cost reports unduly compresses (narrows) estimates of inter-group case mix cost differences. Also, by not capturing ADL deficits and dangerous behaviors, administrative data sets fail to identify small, but very resource intensive, patient groups. ECT treatment regimens, although rare, significantly increase costs on a daily basis.
Medicare's recently proposed prospective payment system for psychiatric inpatients uses claims-based costing methods based on widely available administrative data. Consequently, fewer high cost groups are identified due to non-reported patient characteristics such as ADL deficits. Moreover, inter-group relative cost differences are likely understated. It is also possible that any standardized dollar amount applied to group relative weights is understated because Medicare patients appear more intensive per day on routine units.
Larger primary samples of special psychiatric units (e.g., med-psych, child/adolescent) could improve estimates of daily routine costliness. Larger samples could also support stronger tests of case mix and cost differences by facility type and teaching status. Medical records information on non-Medicare patients could quantify any systematic differences in average daily costs holding case mix constant. Similar primary studies of psychiatric patients treated outside PPS-exempt units in acute general hospitals could result in a fully integrated payment system for all mentally ill Medicare patients, thereby avoiding payment inefficiencies and inequities.
1999年的《平衡预算细化法案》包含一项国会授权,即针对在豁免按病例组合预付费系统(PPS)的精神病设施中接受治疗的所有医疗保险受益人,开发一种基于患者层面病例组合的前瞻性支付系统(PPS)。政府已根据索赔和设施成本报告,按病例组合类别提出了支付水平。由于索赔数据的局限性,这些水平未考虑设施常规病房内患者特定的人员配备成本,也未将某些关键患者特征纳入以提高支付额度。
本研究使用新的原始数据,对医疗保险患者在常规病房日常人员配备强度方面此前未测量的差异进行量化。这些数据用于测试仅使用医疗保险索赔和设施成本报告来量化日常常规成本时,病例组合支付权重是否会出现压缩(或缩小)。
在全国范围内,从40家精神病设施和66个精神病房收集了20多项活动中患者和工作人员时间的原始数据。在为期7天的研究期间,报告了每个班次所有住院患者的患者时间。每天为4149个医疗保险患者日和4667个非医疗保险患者日构建了一种资源强度度量(以等效注册护士(RN)分钟为单位)。常规度量通过成本报告每日费用转化为每日成本,并使用提交的索赔增加辅助成本。描述性表格分离出医疗保险患者的关键成本驱动因素。分类与回归树(CART)聚类识别出16个潜在的病例组合组。使用4种日常常规和辅助成本的替代度量,通过多元回归比较病例组合、住院天数和设施影响。
发现患者日常常规护理强度在最高和最低的10%天数之间相差3倍或更多。医疗保险患者日的人员配备强度比非医疗保险患者日高12.5%,这可能是由于年龄和其他差异所致。老年痴呆症患者和“残留诊断”患者的护理强度更高,而精神分裂症患者和与物质相关的患者护理强度较低。年龄、精神和医疗严重程度、日常生活活动(ADL)缺陷、危险行为以及电休克治疗(ECT)也对更高的人员配备强度有很大影响。在广泛的诊断组中,其他患者特征并不显著。对于12个成本显著较高的组中的10个组,基于单一设施每日费用的常规成本产生的病例组合成本差异更窄——通常相差2倍或更多。在统一的每日费用中加入患者特定的辅助费用,仅略微缓解了成本压缩。仅使用成本报告时,住院天数成本也同样被压缩。
使用医疗保险成本报告进行基于索赔的成本核算过度压缩(缩小)了组间病例组合成本差异的估计。此外,行政数据集由于未捕捉到ADL缺陷和危险行为,未能识别出规模小但资源密集度非常高的患者群体。ECT治疗方案虽然罕见,但会显著增加每日成本。
医疗保险最近提议的针对精神病住院患者的前瞻性支付系统,使用基于广泛可用行政数据的基于索赔的成本核算方法。因此,由于未报告的患者特征(如ADL缺陷),识别出的高成本群体较少。此外,组间相对成本差异可能被低估。同样有可能的是,应用于组相对权重的任何标准化金额被低估,因为医疗保险患者在常规病房的每日护理强度似乎更高。
更大规模的特殊精神病房(如内科 - 精神科、儿童/青少年病房)原始样本,可能会改进对日常常规成本的估计。更大的样本也可以支持对不同设施类型和教学状况下病例组合和成本差异进行更有力的测试。非医疗保险患者的病历信息可以量化在病例组合不变的情况下平均每日成本的任何系统差异。对在急性综合医院非豁免PPS病房接受治疗的精神病患者进行类似的原始研究,可能会为所有患有精神疾病的医疗保险患者建立一个完全整合的支付系统,从而避免支付效率低下和不公平的情况。