Advertisement

Empirical Economics

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 563–582 | Cite as

The effect of a law limiting upcoding on hospital admissions: evidence from Italy

  • Giorgio Vittadini
  • Paolo BertaEmail author
  • Gianmaria Martini
  • Giuditta Callea
Article

Abstract

Policy makers have made several attempts to limit hospitals’ upcoding. We investigate the impact of a law introducing a minimum length of stay for discharges with complications. We analyze its effects on the probability of a discharge with complications, on its length of stay and on its reimbursement. We show that the policy has been effective in limiting upcoding, since, after the law, (1) the probability of a discharge with complications has decreased by 3%; (2) its length of stay has risen by 0.17 days more than the observed corresponding variation in the length of stay of a discharge in the control group; (3) the hospital’s revenue on a discharge with complications has decreased by 8.5% more than the observed revenue change on a discharge in the control group. Furthermore, we find evidence of an ownership effect on upcoding, since not-for-profit and for-profit hospitals have been more affected by the law than public hospitals.

Keywords

Upcoding Length of stay Logit model Difference-in-difference model 

JEL Classification

C51 I11 I18 L33 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (2008) Healthcare cost and utilization project. Comorbidity Software Version 3.3. http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/toolssoftware/comorbidity/comorbidity.jsp
  2. Berta P, Callea G, Martini G, Vittadini G (2010) The effects of upcoding, cream skimming and readmissions on the Italian hospitals efficiency: a population–based investigation. Econ Model 27: 812–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Besley T, Case A (2000) Unnatural experiments? Estimating the incidence of endogenous policies. Econ J 110: 672–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blundell R, McCurdy T (1999) Labor supply: a review of alternative approaches. In: Ashenfelter O, Card D (eds) Handbook of labor economics. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  5. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KA, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40: 373–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dafny LS (2005) How do hospitals respond to price changes?. Am Econ Rev 95: 1525–1547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dafny LS, Dranove D (2009) Regulatory exploitation and management changes: upcoding in the hospital industry. J Law Econ 52: 223–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Groot V, Beckerman H, Lankhorst G, Bouter L (2003) How to measure comorbidity: a critical review of available methods. J Clin Epidemiol 56: 221–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM (1998) Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 36: 8–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fossati A (2002) Economia Pubblica. Franco Angeli, MilanGoogle Scholar
  11. GoldsteinH Spiegelhalter DJ (1996) League tables and their limitations: statistical issues in comparison of institutional performance. JRSS Ser A 159(3): 385–443Google Scholar
  12. Heckman J (2005) The scientific model of causality. Sociol Methodol 35: 1–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holland PW (1986) Statistics and causal inference. J Am Stat Assoc 81: 945–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Imbens G, Rubin DB (2009) Causal inference in statistics, and in the social and biomedical sciences. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Jin H, Rubin DB (2009) Public schools versus private schools: causal inference with partial compliance. J Educ Behav Stat 34: 24–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jones AM (2009) Panel data methods and applications to health economics. In: Mills TC, Patterson K (eds) Palgrave handbook of econometrics. Volume II: applied econometrics. Palgrave MacMillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu Z, Dow WH, Norton EC (2004) Effect of drive-through delivery laws in postpartum length of stay and hospital charges. J Health Econ 23: 129–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McClellan M (1997) Hospital reimbursement incentives: an empirical analysis. J Econ Manag Strat 6: 91–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mayes R (2007) The origins, development, and passage of Medicare’s revolutionary prospective payment system. J History Med Allied Sci 62: 21–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rubin DB (1974) Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and nonrandomized studies. J Educ Psychol 66: 688–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rubin DB (1975) Bayesian inference for causality: the importance of randomization. In: The Proceedings of the social statistics section of the American Statistical Association, pp 233–239Google Scholar
  22. Rubin DB (1978) Bayesian–inference for causal effects—ole of randomization. Annals of Statistics 6: 34–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schneider B, Carnoy M, Kilpatrick J, Schmidt WH, Shavelson RJ (2007) Estimating causal effects using experimental and observational designs a think tank white paper. American Educational Research Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Silverman E, Skinner J (2004) Medicare upcoding and hospital ownership. J Health Econ 23: 369–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Simborg DW (1981) DRG creep: a new hospital-acquired disease. New Engl J Med 304(26): 1602–1604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Southern DA, Quan H, Ghali WA (2004) Comparison of the Elixhauser and Charlson/Deyo methods of comorbidity measurement in administrative data. Med Care 42: 355–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stuart EA (2007) Estimating causal effects using school-level data sets. Educ Res 36: 187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Winship C, Morgan S (2007) Counterfactuals and causal inference. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giorgio Vittadini
    • 1
  • Paolo Berta
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gianmaria Martini
    • 2
  • Giuditta Callea
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Quantitative MethodsCRISP, University of Milan BicoccaMilanItaly
  2. 2.Department of Economics and Technology ManagementUniversity of BergamoBergamoItaly

Personalised recommendations