Health Care Management Science

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 65–73

Adjusting case mix payment amounts for inaccurately reported comorbidity data



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.


Case mix Clinical data Data quality DRG Payment 


  1. 1.
    Steinbusch PJM, Oosterbrink JB, Zuurbier JJ, Schaepkens FJM (2007) The risk of upcoding in casemix systems: a comparative study. Health Policy 81:289–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Busse R, Schreyogg J, Smith PC (2006) Editorial: hospital case payment systems in Europe. Health Care Manag Sci 9:211–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Winters A, Ray N (2008) Paying accurately for imaging services in medicare. Health Aff 27:1479–1490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hayes KJ, Pettengill J, Stensland J (2007) Getting the price right: medicare payment rates for cardiovascular services. Health Aff 26:124–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ginsburg PB (2006) Recalibrating medicare payments for inpatient care. N Engl J Med 355:2061–2064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Becker D, Kessler D, McClellan M (2005) Detecting medicare abuse. J Health Econ 24:189–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Preyra C (2004) Coding response to a case mix measurement system based on multiple diagnoses. Health Serv Res 39:1027–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Silverman E, Skinner J (2004) Upcoding across hospital ownership. J Health Econ 23:369–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 65:101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 5:95–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Steinwald B, Dummit LA (1989) Hospital case-mix change: sicker patients or DRG creep? Health Aff 8:35–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sutherland JM, Botz CK (2006) The effects of misclassification on case mix measurement. Health Policy 79:195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Audit Commission (2008) Pbr data assurance framework 2007/08, findings from the first year of the national clinical coding audit programme. Audit Commission, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Canadian Institute for Health Information (2003) CMG/Plx data quality re-abstraction study. Canadian Institute for Health Information, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  16. 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, 2007Google Scholar
  17. 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. 18.
    Ignatova I, Edwards D (2008) Probe samples and the minimum sum method for medicare fraud investigations. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol 8:209–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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, OttawaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dalton K (2007) A study of charge compression in calculating DRG relative weights, January 2007 report. RTI International, Research Triangle ParkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Botz CK, Sutherland JM, Lawrenson J (2006) Cost weight compression: impact of cost data precision and completeness. Health Care Financ Rev 27(3):1–12Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thorpe KE, Cretin S, Keeler EB (1988) Are the diagnosis-related group case weights compressed? Health Care Financ Rev 1988:37–46Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pettengill J, Vertrees J (1982) Reliability and validity in hospital case-mix measurement. Health Care Financ Rev 4(2):101–127Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    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
  25. 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, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Manning WG, Mullahy J (2001) Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform? J Health Econ 20:461–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Marazzi A, Paccaud F, Ruffieux C, Beguin C (1998) Fitting the distributions of length of stay by parametric models. Med Care 36:915–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 70:1029–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Liu J, Chen R (1998) Sequential Monte Carlo methods for dynamic systems. J Am Stat Assoc 93:1032–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brazauskas V, Jones BL, Zitikis R (2009) Robust fitting of claim severity distributions and the method of trimmed moments. J Stat Plan Inference 139:2028–2043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hayes KJ, Pettengill J, Stensland J (2007) Getting the price right: medicare payment rates for cardiovascular services. Health Aff 26:124–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ginsburg PB (2006) Recalibrating Medicare payments for inpatient care. N Engl J Med 355(20):2061–2064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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. 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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):281–285Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jason M. Sutherland
    • 1
  • Jeremy Hamm
    • 2
  • Jeff Hatcher
    • 3
  1. 1.The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical PracticeDartmouth CollegeLebanonUSA
  2. 2.Cancer Care OntarioTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Canadian Institute for Health InformationOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations