| Arizona |
None |
Program does not specifically address volume changes |
| Connecticut |
50/50 (as of FY 1979) Adjustment made to adjusted budget base |
None |
| Maryland |
Generally, 40/60 for routine centers and 60/40 for ancillary services. Adjustment mechanism is complicated and depends on actual percent change the change In revenues and adjusted admissions, and whether the adjustment applies to retrospective or prospective volume changes. Adjustments are computed for hospital overall but are applied departmentally. |
Intensity increases are addressed via a separate system (Table 4) |
| Massachusetts Medicaid |
None |
No analysis of volume changes |
| Charge-control |
60/40; 40% of base year costs allowed for volume increases (or decreases) in revenue-producing centers beyond acceptable corridors |
Projected volume assessed for reasonableness |
| Minnesota |
None |
During budget review, hospital's length of stay is evaluated |
| New Jersey |
Generally, 50/50 for personnel and 100% variable for supplies; applied to relevant costs in non-overhead cost centers |
Only “exceptional” volume increases are scrutinized |
| New York |
None |
Volume changes are not evaluated per se, but utilization is an important system target (Table 4) |
| Western Pennsylvania |
None |
Volume changes are generally considered beyond control of hospital administrator. Beginning in 1977, retroactive adjustments could be obtained to compensate for decrease in length of stay. |
| Washington |
As of 1978, ratios established for each peer group (80/20, 70/30, 60/40); applied to incremental revenue resulting from volume changes |
Trends in various volume measures are examined for reasonableness. |
