Methods for Estimating Costs for Stays at Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities and Long-Term Care Hospitals

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 REHABILITATION Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation Pub Date : 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1016/j.apmr.2024.07.018
Nicole M. Coomer PhD , Jill Akiyama PhD, MA , Melissa Morley PhD , Melvin J. Ingber PhD , Benjamin Silver PhD , Anne Deutsch RN, PhD, CRRN
{"title":"Methods for Estimating Costs for Stays at Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities and Long-Term Care Hospitals","authors":"Nicole M. Coomer PhD ,&nbsp;Jill Akiyama PhD, MA ,&nbsp;Melissa Morley PhD ,&nbsp;Melvin J. Ingber PhD ,&nbsp;Benjamin Silver PhD ,&nbsp;Anne Deutsch RN, PhD, CRRN","doi":"10.1016/j.apmr.2024.07.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To describe and compare 3 methods for estimating stay-level Medicare facility (Part A) costs using claims and cost report data for inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) and long-term care hospitals (LTCHs), the 2 hospital-based postacute care providers.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>We calculated stay-level facility costs using different methods. Method 1 used routine costs per day and ancillary cost-to-charge ratios. Method 2 used routine and ancillary cost-to-charge ratios (freestanding IRFs and LTCHs only). Method 3 used facility-specific operating cost-to-charge ratios from the Provider Specific File. For each method, we compared the costs with payments and charges at the claim and facility levels and examined facility margins.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>Data are from 1619 providers, including 266 freestanding IRFs, 909 IRF units, and 444 LTCHs.</div></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><div>The analyses included 239,284 claims from 2014, of which 86,118 claims were from freestanding IRFs, 92,799 claims were from IRF units, and 60,367 claims were from LTCHs.</div></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><div>Not applicable.</div></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3><div>Costs and payments in 2014 United States Dollars.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>For freestanding IRFs, the mean facility stay-level costs were calculated to be $13,610 (method 1), $13,575 (method 2), and $13,783 (method 3). For IRF units, the mean facility stay-level costs were $17,385 (method 1) and $19,093 (method 3). For LTCHs, the mean facility stay-level costs were $36,362 (method 1), $36,407 (method 2), and $37,056 (method 3).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The 3 methods resulted in small differences in facility mean stay-level costs. Using the facility-level cost-to-charge ratio (method 3) is the least resource-intensive method. Although more resource-intensive, using routine cost per day and ancillary cost-to-charge ratios (method 1) for cost calculations allows for differentiation in costs across patients based on differences in the mix of services used. As policymakers consider postacute care payment reforms, cost, rather than charge or payment data, needs to be calculated and the results of the methods compared.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":8313,"journal":{"name":"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation","volume":"105 12","pages":"Pages 2294-2300"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003999324011675","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To describe and compare 3 methods for estimating stay-level Medicare facility (Part A) costs using claims and cost report data for inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) and long-term care hospitals (LTCHs), the 2 hospital-based postacute care providers.

Design

We calculated stay-level facility costs using different methods. Method 1 used routine costs per day and ancillary cost-to-charge ratios. Method 2 used routine and ancillary cost-to-charge ratios (freestanding IRFs and LTCHs only). Method 3 used facility-specific operating cost-to-charge ratios from the Provider Specific File. For each method, we compared the costs with payments and charges at the claim and facility levels and examined facility margins.

Setting

Data are from 1619 providers, including 266 freestanding IRFs, 909 IRF units, and 444 LTCHs.

Participants

The analyses included 239,284 claims from 2014, of which 86,118 claims were from freestanding IRFs, 92,799 claims were from IRF units, and 60,367 claims were from LTCHs.

Interventions

Not applicable.

Main Outcome Measures

Costs and payments in 2014 United States Dollars.

Results

For freestanding IRFs, the mean facility stay-level costs were calculated to be $13,610 (method 1), $13,575 (method 2), and $13,783 (method 3). For IRF units, the mean facility stay-level costs were $17,385 (method 1) and $19,093 (method 3). For LTCHs, the mean facility stay-level costs were $36,362 (method 1), $36,407 (method 2), and $37,056 (method 3).

Conclusions

The 3 methods resulted in small differences in facility mean stay-level costs. Using the facility-level cost-to-charge ratio (method 3) is the least resource-intensive method. Although more resource-intensive, using routine cost per day and ancillary cost-to-charge ratios (method 1) for cost calculations allows for differentiation in costs across patients based on differences in the mix of services used. As policymakers consider postacute care payment reforms, cost, rather than charge or payment data, needs to be calculated and the results of the methods compared.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
住院康复机构和长期护理医院的住院费用估算方法。
目的:利用住院康复机构(IRFs)和长期护理医院(LTCHs)这两家医院为基础的急性期后护理提供者的索赔和成本报告数据,描述并比较三种估算住院医疗保险设施(A 部分)成本的方法:设计:我们使用不同的方法计算了住院级别的设施成本。方法 1 采用每日常规成本和辅助成本与收费比率。方法 2 采用常规和辅助成本与收费比率(仅限独立的 IRF 和 LTCH)。方法 3 使用提供方特定档案中的特定机构运营成本与费用比率。对于每种方法,我们都会在报销单和设施层面将成本与付款和收费进行比较,并检查设施的利润率:数据来自 1619 家医疗机构,包括 266 家独立 IRF、909 家 IRF 单位和 444 家 LTCH:分析包括 2014 年的 239284 份索赔,其中 86118 份索赔来自独立的 IRF,92799 份索赔来自 IRF 单位,60367 份索赔来自 LTCH:不适用 主要结果测量指标:以 2014 年美元计算的成本和付款 结果:对于独立式 IRF,计算得出的平均设施住院成本为 13,610 美元(方法 1)、13,575 美元(方法 2)和 13,783 美元(方法 3)。对于 IRF 单位,平均设施住院成本为 17,385 美元(方法 1)和 19,093 美元(方法 3)。对于 LTCH,平均设施住院成本为 36,362 美元(方法 1)、36,407 美元(方法 2)和 37,056 美元(方法 3):结论:三种方法导致的机构平均住院成本差异很小。使用设施水平的成本与费用比率(方法 3)是资源密集度最低的方法。使用每日常规成本和辅助成本与收费比率(方法 1)计算成本虽然需要更多资源,但可以根据服务使用组合的差异来区分不同患者的成本。在政策制定者考虑后期护理支付改革时,需要计算成本,而不是收费或支付数据,并对各种方法的结果进行比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.70%
发文量
495
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: The Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation publishes original, peer-reviewed research and clinical reports on important trends and developments in physical medicine and rehabilitation and related fields. This international journal brings researchers and clinicians authoritative information on the therapeutic utilization of physical, behavioral and pharmaceutical agents in providing comprehensive care for individuals with chronic illness and disabilities. Archives began publication in 1920, publishes monthly, and is the official journal of the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Its papers are cited more often than any other rehabilitation journal.
期刊最新文献
Masthead Table of Contents Factors Related to the Quality and Stability of Partner Relationships After Stroke: A Systematic Literature Review Objectively Measured Physical Activity in Children With Developmental Coordination Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Effectiveness of mHealth Interventions to Improve Pain Intensity and Functional Disability in Individuals With Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1