Cline K E
Blue Cross of Western Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh 15222.
Med Care. 1990 Aug;28(8):681-702. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199008000-00003.
In response to continuing health care cost increases, many employers have expressed interest in a case-mix hospital payment system. They believe that such a system will more accurately reflect their utilization of health care resources and assist them in better controlling their costs. Therefore, using data generated by the Experimental Hospital Case Mix Payment Program of Blue Cross of Western Pennsylvania, this paper compares employer group costs based on an average cost per diagnostic case with costs based on an average cost per day. The analysis shows that by changing the basis of employer group costs from the traditional per diem method to one based on diagnostic case, while some groups may benefit in the form of lower costs, many groups would experience substantial increases to their costs. In a model explaining differences in employer group costs between the two payment methods, patient diagnosis was found to be the major explanatory factor, contributing to two thirds of the total explained variation. In addition, results indicated that a group's total admissions, mean patient age and gender, and a hospital's teaching status, location, bed size, occupancy rate, and mean ancillary costs influence the differences in a group's costs under the two methods.
为应对持续增长的医疗保健成本,许多雇主对病例组合医院支付系统表示出兴趣。他们认为这样的系统将更准确地反映他们对医疗保健资源的利用情况,并帮助他们更好地控制成本。因此,本文利用宾夕法尼亚西部蓝十字实验性医院病例组合支付项目生成的数据,将基于每个诊断病例平均成本的雇主群体成本与基于每天平均成本的成本进行了比较。分析表明,通过将雇主群体成本的计算基础从传统的每日计算方法改为基于诊断病例的方法,虽然一些群体可能会因成本降低而受益,但许多群体的成本将大幅增加。在一个解释两种支付方式下雇主群体成本差异的模型中,发现患者诊断是主要的解释因素,占总解释变异的三分之二。此外,结果表明,一个群体的总入院人数、患者平均年龄和性别,以及医院的教学地位、位置、床位规模、入住率和平均辅助成本会影响两种方法下该群体成本的差异。