• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

丹麦、英国、德国和美国再入院政策比较路线图及应用

A roadmap for comparing readmission policies with application to Denmark, England, Germany and the United States.

作者信息

Kristensen Søren Rud, Bech Mickael, Quentin Wilm

机构信息

Manchester Centre for Health Economics, University of Manchester, UK; COHERE - Centre of Health Economics Research, Department of Business and Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark.

COHERE - Centre of Health Economics Research, Department of Business and Economics, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark.

出版信息

Health Policy. 2015 Mar;119(3):264-73. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.12.009. Epub 2014 Dec 15.

DOI:10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.12.009
PMID:25547401
Abstract

Hospital readmissions receive increasing interest from policy makers because reducing unnecessary readmissions has the potential to simultaneously improve quality and save costs. This paper reviews readmission policies in Denmark, England, Germany and the United States (Medicare system). The suggested roadmap enables researchers and policy makers to systematically compare and analyse readmission policies. We find considerable differences across countries. In Germany, the readmission policy aims to avoid unintended consequences of the introduction of DRG-based payment; it focuses on readmissions of individual patients and hospitals receive only one DRG-based payment for both the initial and the re-admission. In Denmark, England and the US readmission policies aim at quality improvement and focus on readmission rates. In Denmark, readmission rates are publicly reported but payments are not adjusted in relation to readmissions. In England and the US, financial incentives penalise hospitals with readmission rates above a certain benchmark. In England, this benchmark is defined through local clinical review, while it is based on the risk-adjusted national average in the US. At present, not enough evidence exists to give recommendations on the optimal design of readmission policies. The roadmap can be a tool for systematically assessing how elements of other countries' readmission policies can potentially be adopted to improve national policies.

摘要

医院再入院问题越来越受到政策制定者的关注,因为减少不必要的再入院有可能同时提高医疗质量并节省成本。本文回顾了丹麦、英国、德国和美国(医疗保险系统)的再入院政策。所建议的路线图使研究人员和政策制定者能够系统地比较和分析再入院政策。我们发现各国之间存在相当大的差异。在德国,再入院政策旨在避免引入基于诊断相关分组(DRG)付费带来的意外后果;它侧重于个别患者的再入院情况,医院对于初次入院和再次入院仅收取一次基于DRG的费用。在丹麦、英国和美国,再入院政策旨在提高医疗质量,并侧重于再入院率。在丹麦,再入院率会公开报告,但付费不会因再入院情况而调整。在英国和美国,经济激励措施会惩罚那些再入院率高于某个基准的医院。在英国,这个基准是通过当地临床审查来确定的,而在美国则是基于风险调整后的全国平均水平。目前,尚无足够证据就再入院政策的最优设计提出建议。该路线图可以作为一种工具,用于系统评估如何有可能采用其他国家再入院政策的要素来改进本国政策。

相似文献

1
A roadmap for comparing readmission policies with application to Denmark, England, Germany and the United States.丹麦、英国、德国和美国再入院政策比较路线图及应用
Health Policy. 2015 Mar;119(3):264-73. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.12.009. Epub 2014 Dec 15.
2
How Denmark, England, Estonia, France, Germany, and the USA Pay for Variable, Specialized and Low Volume Care: A Cross-country Comparison of In-patient Payment Systems.丹麦、英国、爱沙尼亚、法国、德国和美国如何为多样化、专业化和低量医疗服务付费:住院支付体系的跨国比较。
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2022 Dec 19;11(12):2940-2950. doi: 10.34172/ijhpm.2022.6536. Epub 2022 May 7.
3
Higher readmissions at safety-net hospitals and potential policy solutions.安全网医院的再入院率较高及潜在的政策解决方案。
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2012 Dec;34:1-16.
4
The costs of acute readmissions to a different hospital - Does the effect vary across provider types?急性再入院至不同医院的费用 - 不同提供者类型的效果是否存在差异?
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Jun;183:116-125. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.04.036. Epub 2017 Apr 26.
5
California safety-net hospitals likely to be penalized by ACA value, readmission, and meaningful-use programs.加利福尼亚州的安全网医院可能会因《平价医疗法案》的价值、再入院和有意义使用计划而受到处罚。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2014 Aug;33(8):1314-22. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0138.
6
Costs associated with readmissions in Belgian acute-care hospitals.比利时急症医院再入院相关费用。
Acta Clin Belg. 2013 Jul-Aug;68(4):263-7. doi: 10.2143/ACB.3263.
7
Medicare program; hospital inpatient prospective payment systems for acute care hospitals and the long-term care hospital prospective payment system and fiscal year 2015 rates; quality reporting requirements for specific providers; reasonable compensation equivalents for physician services in excluded hospitals and certain teaching hospitals; provider administrative appeals and judicial review; enforcement provisions for organ transplant centers; and electronic health record (EHR) incentive program. Final rule.医疗保险计划;急性护理医院的住院病人前瞻性支付系统、长期护理医院前瞻性支付系统及2015财年费率;特定提供者的质量报告要求;被排除医院及某些教学医院中医师服务的合理补偿等价物;提供者行政申诉和司法审查;器官移植中心的执行规定;以及电子健康记录(EHR)激励计划。最终规则。
Fed Regist. 2014 Aug 22;79(163):49853-50536.
8
Preventing readmissions through comprehensive discharge planning.通过全面的出院计划预防再入院。
Prof Case Manag. 2013 Mar-Apr;18(2):56-63; quiz 64-5. doi: 10.1097/NCM.0b013e31827de1ce.
9
Thirty-day readmissions--truth and consequences.30天再入院——真相与后果。
N Engl J Med. 2012 Apr 12;366(15):1366-9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1201598. Epub 2012 Mar 28.
10
Can all cause readmission policy improve quality or lower expenditures? A historical perspective on current initiatives.所有导致再次入院的政策都能提高质量或降低支出吗?对当前举措的历史视角。
Health Econ Policy Law. 2014 Apr;9(2):193-213. doi: 10.1017/S1744133113000340. Epub 2013 Aug 30.

引用本文的文献

1
Is cooperation better than competition? Evidence from patient mobility before and after the COVID-19 pandemic in Tuscany, Italy.合作是否优于竞争?来自意大利托斯卡纳地区新冠疫情前后患者流动情况的证据。
Front Public Health. 2025 Jul 30;13:1551574. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1551574. eCollection 2025.
2
Impact of functional status and biomarkers on hospital costs and readmission rates in geriatric patients: An observational study with comprehensive geriatric assessment.功能状态和生物标志物对老年患者住院费用及再入院率的影响:一项采用综合老年评估的观察性研究
PLoS One. 2025 May 29;20(5):e0324465. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0324465. eCollection 2025.
3
Influencing factors and mechanism of physicians strategic behavior under the DRG payment system.
疾病诊断相关分组(DRG)支付制度下医生策略行为的影响因素及机制
Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2024 Nov 28;49(11):1828-1839. doi: 10.11817/j.issn.1672-7347.2024.240593.
4
Geographic disparities in hospital readmissions: a retrospective cohort study among patients with chronic disease in rural China.中国农村地区慢性病患者医院再入院情况的地域差异:一项回顾性队列研究
Int J Equity Health. 2025 Mar 26;24(1):83. doi: 10.1186/s12939-025-02443-0.
5
Factors associated with unplanned readmissions for patients with mental and behavioural disorders in China: a quantitative analysis.中国精神和行为障碍患者计划外再入院的相关因素:一项定量分析。
Glob Health Action. 2024 Dec 31;17(1):2435642. doi: 10.1080/16549716.2024.2435642. Epub 2025 Jan 20.
6
Impact of pay-for-performance on hospital readmissions in Lebanon: an ARIMA-based intervention analysis using routine data.绩效薪酬对黎巴嫩医院再入院率的影响:基于自回归整合移动平均模型(ARIMA)的常规数据干预分析
BMC Health Serv Res. 2024 Dec 5;24(1):1551. doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-12045-1.
7
The cost of readmissions in hospitals: the case of the Spanish public hospitals.医院再入院的成本:以西班牙公立医院为例。
Health Econ Rev. 2024 Nov 23;14(1):96. doi: 10.1186/s13561-024-00575-7.
8
Agreement and comparative accuracy of instability criteria at discharge for predicting adverse events in patients with community-acquired pneumonia.出院时不稳定标准的一致性和准确性预测社区获得性肺炎患者不良事件的比较。
BMJ Open Respir Res. 2024 Nov 7;11(1):e002289. doi: 10.1136/bmjresp-2024-002289.
9
Are Primary Health Care Visits Associated With Reduced Risk of Hospital Readmissions After Discharge From Geriatric Inpatient Departments? Evidence From Stockholm County.初级保健就诊是否与老年住院病房出院后降低住院再入院风险相关?来自斯德哥尔摩郡的证据。
J Prim Care Community Health. 2024 Jan-Dec;15:21501319241277413. doi: 10.1177/21501319241277413.
10
Characteristics and Factors of 30-Day Readmissions after Hospitalization for Acute Heart Failure in China.中国急性心力衰竭住院后30天再入院的特征及影响因素
Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2024 Aug 8;25(8):279. doi: 10.31083/j.rcm2508279. eCollection 2024 Aug.