Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Health Services Research logoLink to Health Services Research
. 1997 Dec;32(5):651–668.

Rehabilitation costs: implications for prospective payment.

R E Schlenker, A M Kramer, C A Hrincevich, T B Eilertsen
PMCID: PMC1070220  PMID: 9402906

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To obtain information relevant to development of prospective payment for Medicare rehabilitation facilities (RFs) and skilled nursing facilities (SNFs): compares service utilization, length of stay (LOS), case mix, and resource consumption for Medicare patients receiving postacute institutional rehabilitation care. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Longitudinal patient-level and related facility-level data on Medicare hip fracture (n = 513) and stroke (n = 483) patients admitted in 1991-1994 to a sample of 27 RFs and 65 SNFs in urban areas in 17 states. STUDY DESIGN: For each condition, two-group RF-SNF comparisons were made. Regression analysis was used to adjust RF-SNF differences in resource consumption per stay for patient condition (case mix) and other factors, since random assignment was not possible. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Providers at each facility were trained to collect patient case-mix and service utilization information. Secondary data also were obtained. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: RF patients had shorter LOS, fewer total nursing hours (but more skilled nursing hours), and more ancillary hours than SNF patients. After adjustment, ancillary resource consumption per stay remained substantially higher for RF than SNF patients, particularly for stroke. The adjusted nursing resource consumption differences were smaller than the ancillary differences and not statistically significant for hip fracture. Supplemental outcome findings suggested minimal differences for hip fracture patients but better outcomes for RF than SNF stroke patients. CONCLUSIONS: Much can be gained from an integrated approach to developing prospective payment for RFs and SNFs. In that context, consideration of condition-specific per-stay payment methods applicable to both settings appears warranted.

Full text

PDF
651

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Charlson M. E., Pompei P., Ales K. L., MacKenzie C. R. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–383. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90171-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Folstein M. F., Folstein S. E., McHugh P. R. "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Nov;12(3):189–198. doi: 10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Fries B. E., Durance P. W., Nerenz D. R., Ashcraft M. L. A comprehensive payment model for short- and long-stay psychiatric patients. Health Care Financ Rev. 1993 Winter;15(2):31–50. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Fries B. E., Schneider D. P., Foley W. J., Gavazzi M., Burke R., Cornelius E. Refining a case-mix measure for nursing homes: Resource Utilization Groups (RUG-III). Med Care. 1994 Jul;32(7):668–685. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199407000-00002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Granger C. V., Ottenbacher K. J., Fiedler R. C. The Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. Report of first admissions for 1993. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1995 Jan-Feb;74(1):62–66. doi: 10.1097/00002060-199501000-00011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Harada N., Kominski G., Sofaer S. Development of a resource-based patient classification scheme for rehabilitation. Inquiry. 1993 Spring;30(1):54–63. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kramer A. M., Steiner J. F., Schlenker R. E., Eilertsen T. B., Hrincevich C. A., Tropea D. A., Ahmad L. A., Eckhoff D. G. Outcomes and costs after hip fracture and stroke. A comparison of rehabilitation settings. JAMA. 1997 Feb 5;277(5):396–404. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. MAHONEY F. I., BARTHEL D. W. FUNCTIONAL EVALUATION: THE BARTHEL INDEX. Md State Med J. 1965 Feb;14:61–65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Simpson J. M., Klar N., Donnor A. Accounting for cluster randomization: a review of primary prevention trials, 1990 through 1993. Am J Public Health. 1995 Oct;85(10):1378–1383. doi: 10.2105/ajph.85.10.1378. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Stineman M. G., Escarce J. J., Goin J. E., Hamilton B. B., Granger C. V., Williams S. V. A case-mix classification system for medical rehabilitation. Med Care. 1994 Apr;32(4):366–379. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199404000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Wade D. T., Collin C. The Barthel ADL Index: a standard measure of physical disability? Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10(2):64–67. doi: 10.3109/09638288809164105. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Health Services Research are provided here courtesy of Health Research & Educational Trust

RESOURCES