Coomer Nicole M, Akiyama Jill, Morley Melissa, Ingber Melvin J, Silver Benjamin, Deutsch Anne
RTI International, Health Practice, Research Triangle Park, NC.
RTI International, Health Practice, Waltham, MA.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2024 Dec;105(12):2294-2300. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2024.07.018. Epub 2024 Aug 13.
To describe and compare 3 methods for estimating stay-level Medicare facility (Part A) costs using claims and cost report data for inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) and long-term care hospitals (LTCHs), the 2 hospital-based postacute care providers.
We calculated stay-level facility costs using different methods. Method 1 used routine costs per day and ancillary cost-to-charge ratios. Method 2 used routine and ancillary cost-to-charge ratios (freestanding IRFs and LTCHs only). Method 3 used facility-specific operating cost-to-charge ratios from the Provider Specific File. For each method, we compared the costs with payments and charges at the claim and facility levels and examined facility margins.
Data are from 1619 providers, including 266 freestanding IRFs, 909 IRF units, and 444 LTCHs.
The analyses included 239,284 claims from 2014, of which 86,118 claims were from freestanding IRFs, 92,799 claims were from IRF units, and 60,367 claims were from LTCHs.
Not applicable.
Costs and payments in 2014 United States Dollars.
For freestanding IRFs, the mean facility stay-level costs were calculated to be $13,610 (method 1), $13,575 (method 2), and $13,783 (method 3). For IRF units, the mean facility stay-level costs were $17,385 (method 1) and $19,093 (method 3). For LTCHs, the mean facility stay-level costs were $36,362 (method 1), $36,407 (method 2), and $37,056 (method 3).
The 3 methods resulted in small differences in facility mean stay-level costs. Using the facility-level cost-to-charge ratio (method 3) is the least resource-intensive method. Although more resource-intensive, using routine cost per day and ancillary cost-to-charge ratios (method 1) for cost calculations allows for differentiation in costs across patients based on differences in the mix of services used. As policymakers consider postacute care payment reforms, cost, rather than charge or payment data, needs to be calculated and the results of the methods compared.
利用住院康复机构(IRF)和长期护理医院(LTCH)这两类以医院为基础的急性后期护理服务提供者的索赔和成本报告数据,描述和比较3种估算住院医疗保险机构(A部分)费用的方法。
我们使用不同方法计算住院机构费用。方法1使用每日常规费用和辅助成本与收费比率。方法2使用常规和辅助成本与收费比率(仅适用于独立的IRF和LTCH)。方法3使用提供者特定文件中的机构特定运营成本与收费比率。对于每种方法,我们在索赔和机构层面将成本与支付和收费进行比较,并检查机构利润率。
数据来自1619个提供者,包括266个独立的IRF、909个IRF单位和444个LTCH。
分析纳入了2014年的239,284份索赔,其中86,118份索赔来自独立的IRF,九万两千七百九十九份索赔来自IRF单位,60,367份索赔来自LTCH。
不适用。
以2014年美元计的成本和支付。
对于独立的IRF,计算得出的机构平均住院费用为13,610美元(方法1)、13,575美元(方法2)和13,783美元(方法3)。对于IRF单位,机构平均住院费用为17,385美元(方法1)和19,093美元(方法3)。对于LTCH,机构平均住院费用为36,362美元(方法1)、36,407美元(方法2)和37,056美元(方法3)。
这3种方法在机构平均住院费用上产生的差异较小。使用机构层面的成本与收费比率(方法3)是资源消耗最少的方法。虽然资源消耗更大,但使用每日常规成本和辅助成本与收费比率(方法1)进行成本计算能够根据所使用服务组合的差异区分不同患者的成本。由于政策制定者在考虑急性后期护理支付改革,需要计算成本而非收费或支付数据,并比较这些方法的结果。