Health Care Management Science

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 349–357 | Cite as

A mixture model approach to updating payment weights with an application to ICD-10 implementation

Article

Keywords

Case mix Cost weights DRG 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hsia D, Krushat WM, Fagan AB, Tebutt JA, Kusserow RP (1988) Accuracy of diagnostic coding for medicare payments under the prospective payment system. N Engl J Med 11(6):352–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Silverman E, Skinner J (2004) Medicare upcoding and hospital ownership. J Health Econ 23(2):369–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Preyra C (2004) Coding response to a case mix measurement system based on multiple diagnoses. Health Serv Res 39(4):1027–1045, August (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mullin, R., Vertrees, J., Freedman, R., Castioni, R.: Tinker A (2002) Case-mix analysis across patient population boundaries: a refined classification system designed specifically for international use. 3M Health Information Systems, Salt Lake City, UtahGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roberts R, Hirsch N, Innes K, Truran DL (1999) Casemix classification issues and change from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-AM coding. Casemix 2, June 1999Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Canadian Institute for Health Information (2003) Coping with the introduction of ICD-10-CA and CCI—Impact of new classification systems on the assignment of Case Mix Groups/Day Procedure Groups Using Fiscal 2001–2002 Data. Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Libicki M, Brahmakulam I (2004) The costs and benefits of moving to the ICD-10 code sets. Prepared for the Department of Health and Human Services by RAND Corporation (TR-132-DHHS). RAND, Arlington, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fetter RB, Shin Y, Freeman JL, Averill RF, Thompson JD (1980) Case mix definition by diagnosis related groups. Med Care 18(2):1–53(supplement)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Canadian Classification of Diagnostic, Therapeutic and Surgical Procedures (1993) Statistics Canada, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anderson RN, Rosenberg HM (2001) Disease classification: measuring the effect of the tenth revision of the international classification of disease on cause-of-death data in the United States. Stat Med 22:1551–1570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jackson T (2001) Using computerised patient-level costing data for setting DRG weights: the Victorian (Australia) cost weight studies. Health Policy 56:149–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ontario Ministry of Health and Ontario Hospital Association (1999 September) 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, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Canadian Institute for Health Information (2002) Discharge abstract database data quality re-abstraction study, combined findings for fiscal years 1999/2000 and 2000/2001. Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (2004) Accuracy of complexity measurement in Ontario hospitals. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Toronto, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Canadian Institute for Health Information (2003) Discharge abstract database (DAD) CMG/Plx data quality re-abstraction study. Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sutherland JM, Botz CK (2006) The effects of misclassification errors on case mix measurement. Health Policy (in press)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Botz CK, Sutherland JM, Lawreson J (, 2006) Cost weight compression: impact of cost data precision and completeness. Health Care Financ Rev, Spring 2006 (in press)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCulloch CE, Lin H, Slate EH, Turnbull BW (2002) Discovering subpopulation structure with latent class mixed models. Stat Med 21:417–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee AH, Ng ASK, Yau KK (2001) Determinants of maternity length of stay: a gamma mixture risk-adjusted model. Health Care Manage Sci 4:249–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Quantin C, Sauleau E, Bolard P, Mousson C, Kerkri M, Lecomte PB, Moreau T (1999) Dusserre Modeling of high-cost patient distribution within renal failure diagnosis related group. J Clin Epidemiol 52:251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Polverejan E, Gardiner JC, Bradley CJ, Holmes-Rovner M, Rovner D (2003) Estimating mean hospital cost as a function of length of stay and patient characteristics. Health Econ 12:935–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang K, Yau KKW, Lee A (2002) A hierarchical Poisson mixture regression model to analyse maternity length of hospital stay. Stat Med 21:3639–3654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dempster AP, Laird NM, Rubin DB (1977) Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. J R Stat Soc, Ser B Stat Methodol 39:1–38Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee AH, Wang K, Yau KKW, Somerford PJ (2003) Truncated negative binomial mixed regression modelling of ischemic stroke hospitalizations. Stat Med 22:1129–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Manning WG, Mullahy J (2001) Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform? J Health Econ 20:461–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leroux BG (1992) Consistent estimation of a mixing distribution. Ann Stat 20:1350–1360Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Akaike H (1973) Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov BN, Csaki F (eds) Second international symposium on information theory. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest, pp 267–281Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Efron B, Tibshirani RJ (1993) An introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Krishnamoorthy K, Thomson J (2004) A more powerful test for comparing two Poisson means. J Stat Plan Inference 119:23–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Carter GM, Relles DA, Wynn B, Kawata J, Paddock S, Sood N, Totten M (2000) Interim report on an inpatient rehabilitation facility prospective payment system. The RAND Corporation, 2000Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of BiostatisticsIndiana University School of MedicineIndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health Policy, Management and EvaluationUniversity of TorontoOntarioCanada

Personalised recommendations