Health care financing review. Annual supplement最新文献

The results of coordinating and changing patterns of health care using managed care activities and organizations are reviewed in this article. Although utilization review and high-cost case management programs reduce the use of expensive services, incentives for providers of care, placing them at risk, are important for managing the intensity of health care. Managed care appears capable of reducing health care costs substantially. However, this increased efficiency has not translated to lower insurance premiums or modulated total health care expenditures because either purchasers are not aware or are not concerned about securing care at the least cost. To correct these deficiencies and deliver the potential of managed care, the author suggests the need to separate insurance into its three components parts (financing, risk spreading, and program management) and developed policies for each.

The rapid growth in outpatient expenditures and the congressional mandate for development of a prospective payment system (PPS) for these expenditures are discussed. Extension of diagnosis-related groups to outpatient care is shown to be infeasible. Alternative patient classification schemes and options for defining the unit of payment and establishing weights and rates are discussed. A PPS primarily controls price and can only address volume by defining a broad unit of payment, such as an episode of care. Therefore, adoption of a volume performance standard approach could be effective. Outpatient payment policies must be integrated with those of other ambulatory care providers.

The special characteristics of capital have an important effect on the cross-section variation in hospitals' capital costs. Variables reflecting capital age and financing differences perform as expected and add substantial explanatory power to capital cost models. However, even with the inclusion of these variables, the capital-cost models perform poorly compared with total-cost models. The empirical findings of this article support using the total-cost models to develop a common set of adjustment factors for capital and operating payment amounts in the Medicare prospective payment system.

Utilization management (UM) is now an integral part of most public and private health plans. Hospital review, until recently the primary focus of UM, is associated with a reduction in bed days and rate of hospital cost increases. These reductions appear to have had limited impact on aggregate health care costs because of increases in unmanaged services. In the future, with electronic connectivity between payers and providers and the use of clinical guidelines and computer-based decision-support systems, the need for prospective case-level reviews will be reduced. With these changes, UM programs are likely to become more acceptable to providers and patients.

In the United States, when the cost-containment paradigm shifted from regulation to competition, all-payer hospital ratesetting went out of favor. After reviewing the published literature and supplementing the existing literature with more current information, the author concludes that all-payer ratesetting is able to meet its multiple objectives of cost containment, reduction of the amount of cost shifting, improvement of access to the uninsured, and increased productivity. At the same time, all-payer ratesetting has not stifled the diffusion of competitive health care systems or new technology, and any impact on length of stay, admissions, and quality of care is small, if it exists at all.

Implementation of the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) for hospital payment has produced major changes in the hospital industry and in the way hospital services are used by physicians and their patients. The substantial published literature that examines these changes is reviewed in this article. This literature suggests that most of the intended effects of PPS on costs and intensity of care have been realized. But the literature fails to answer fundamental questions about the effectiveness and equity of administered pricing as a policy tool for cost containment. The literature offers some hope that the worst fears about the effects of PPS on quality of care and the health of the hospital industry have not materialized. But because of data lags, the studies done to date seem to tell us more about the effects of the early, more generous period of PPS than about the opportunity costs of reducing hospital cost inflation.