Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Adjusting case mix payment amounts for inaccurately reported comorbidity data

  • Published:
Health Care Management Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Case mix methods such as diagnosis related groups have become a basis of payment for inpatient hospitalizations in many countries. Specifying cost weight values for case mix system payment has important consequences; recent evidence suggests case mix cost weight inaccuracies influence the supply of some hospital-based services. To begin to address the question of case mix cost weight accuracy, this paper is motivated by the objective of improving the accuracy of cost weight values due to inaccurate or incomplete comorbidity data. The methods are suitable to case mix methods that incorporate disease severity or comorbidity adjustments. The methods are based on the availability of detailed clinical and cost information linked at the patient level and leverage recent results from clinical data audits. A Bayesian framework is used to synthesize clinical data audit information regarding misclassification probabilities into cost weight value calculations. The models are implemented through Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. An example used to demonstrate the methods finds that inaccurate comorbidity data affects cost weight values by biasing cost weight values (and payments) downward. The implications for hospital payments are discussed and the generalizability of the approach is explored.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Steinbusch PJM, Oosterbrink JB, Zuurbier JJ, Schaepkens FJM (2007) The risk of upcoding in casemix systems: a comparative study. Health Policy 81:289–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Busse R, Schreyogg J, Smith PC (2006) Editorial: hospital case payment systems in Europe. Health Care Manag Sci 9:211–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Winters A, Ray N (2008) Paying accurately for imaging services in medicare. Health Aff 27:1479–1490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hayes KJ, Pettengill J, Stensland J (2007) Getting the price right: medicare payment rates for cardiovascular services. Health Aff 26:124–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ginsburg PB (2006) Recalibrating medicare payments for inpatient care. N Engl J Med 355:2061–2064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Becker D, Kessler D, McClellan M (2005) Detecting medicare abuse. J Health Econ 24:189–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Preyra C (2004) Coding response to a case mix measurement system based on multiple diagnoses. Health Serv Res 39:1027–1046

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Silverman E, Skinner J (2004) Upcoding across hospital ownership. J Health Econ 23:369–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Serden L, Lindqvist R, Rosen M (2003) Have DRG-based prospective payment systems influenced the number of secondary diagnoses in health care administrative data? Health Policy 65:101–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Antioch KM, Walsh MK (2004) The risk-adjusted vision beyond casemix (DRG) funding in Australia. International lessons in high complexity and capitation. Eur J Health Econ 5:95–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wynn BO, Beckett M, Hillborne L, Scott M, Bahney B (2007) Working paper: evaluation of severity-adjusted DRG systems: interim report, WR-434-CMS. RAND Health, USA

    Google Scholar 

  12. Steinwald B, Dummit LA (1989) Hospital case-mix change: sicker patients or DRG creep? Health Aff 8:35–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sutherland JM, Botz CK (2006) The effects of misclassification on case mix measurement. Health Policy 79:195–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Audit Commission (2008) Pbr data assurance framework 2007/08, findings from the first year of the national clinical coding audit programme. Audit Commission, London

    Google Scholar 

  15. Canadian Institute for Health Information (2003) CMG/Plx data quality re-abstraction study. Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bryngelsson S, Bolin P, Karlsson M (2007) Cost outlier, why? In: Proceedings of the PCSI 23rd working conference 7–10 November 2007. Patient Classification Systems International, Venice, Italy, 2007

  17. Sutherland JM, Steinum O (2009) Hospital factors associated with clinical data quality. Health Policy. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2009.01.007

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ignatova I, Edwards D (2008) Probe samples and the minimum sum method for medicare fraud investigations. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol 8:209–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Canadian Institute for Health Information (2003) Discharge abstract database data quality re-abstraction study, combined findings for 1999/2000 and 2000/2001. Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dalton K (2007) A study of charge compression in calculating DRG relative weights, January 2007 report. RTI International, Research Triangle Park

    Google Scholar 

  21. Botz CK, Sutherland JM, Lawrenson J (2006) Cost weight compression: impact of cost data precision and completeness. Health Care Financ Rev 27(3):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  22. Thorpe KE, Cretin S, Keeler EB (1988) Are the diagnosis-related group case weights compressed? Health Care Financ Rev 1988:37–46

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pettengill J, Vertrees J (1982) Reliability and validity in hospital case-mix measurement. Health Care Financ Rev 4(2):101–127

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jackson T (2001) Using computerised patient-level costing data for setting DRG weights: the Victorian (Australia) cost weight studies. Health Policy 56:149–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Hospital Association (1999) Ontario guide to case costing version 2.0, joint initiative of the Ontario hospital association and the Ontario ministry of health. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  26. Manning WG, Mullahy J (2001) Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform? J Health Econ 20:461–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Marazzi A, Paccaud F, Ruffieux C, Beguin C (1998) Fitting the distributions of length of stay by parametric models. Med Care 36:915–927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Zhou X-H, Lin H, Johnson E (2009) Non-parametric heteroscedastic transformation regression models for skewed data with an application to health care costs. J R Stat Soc Ser B 70:1029–1047

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Liu J, Chen R (1998) Sequential Monte Carlo methods for dynamic systems. J Am Stat Assoc 93:1032–1044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Brazauskas V, Jones BL, Zitikis R (2009) Robust fitting of claim severity distributions and the method of trimmed moments. J Stat Plan Inference 139:2028–2043

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hayes KJ, Pettengill J, Stensland J (2007) Getting the price right: medicare payment rates for cardiovascular services. Health Aff 26:124–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ginsburg PB (2006) Recalibrating Medicare payments for inpatient care. N Engl J Med 355(20):2061–2064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ginsburg PB, Grossman JM (2005) When the price isn’t right: how inadvertent payment incentives drive medical care. Health Aff 376–384. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.w5.376

    Google Scholar 

  34. Clement FM, Ghali WA, Donaldson C, Manns BJ (2008) The impact of using different costing methods on the results of an economic evaluation of cardiac care: microcosting vs gross-costing approaches. Health Econ 18(4):377–388. doi:10.1002/hec

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lash TL, Mor V, Wieland D, Ferrucci L, Satariano W, Silliman RA (2007) Methodology, design, and analytic techniques to address measurement of comorbid disease. J Gerontol Ser A Biol Sci 62(3):281–285

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care for providing access to the data for this project and for supporting case mix measurement improvement initiatives. The authors would also like to thank the reviewers whose comments and insights have improved this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, 35 Centerra Parkway, Suite 110, Lebanon, NH, 03766, USA

    Jason M. Sutherland

  2. Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Jeremy Hamm

  3. Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    Jeff Hatcher

Authors
  1. Jason M. Sutherland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeremy Hamm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeff Hatcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason M. Sutherland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sutherland, J.M., Hamm, J. & Hatcher, J. Adjusting case mix payment amounts for inaccurately reported comorbidity data. Health Care Manag Sci 13, 65–73 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-009-9112-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10729-009-9112-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation