{"title":"病例组合、成本和结果:大学医院教师和社区服务的差异","authors":"A. Garber, V. Fuchs, J. Silverman","doi":"10.1142/9789813232877_0017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To gain insight into the possible consequences of prospective payment for university hospitals, we studied 2025 admissions to the faculty and community services of a university hospital, measuring differences in case mix, costs, and mortality in the hospital. The faculty service had more of the patients with costly diagnoses, but even after adjustment for diagnosis-related groups (DRGs), costs were 11 per cent higher on the faculty service (95 per cent confidence limits, 4 to 18 per cent). The percentage differential was greatest for diagnostic costs. The differential was particularly large--70 per cent (95 per cent confidence limits, 33 to 107 per cent)--for patients with a predicted probability of death of 0.25 or greater. The in-hospital mortality rate was significantly lower on the faculty service after adjustment for case mix and patient characteristics (P less than 0.05); the difference was particularly large for patients in the high-death-risk category. Comparison of a matched sample of 51 pairs of admissions from the high-death-risk category confirmed the above results with respect to costs and in-hospital mortality, but follow-up revealed that the survival rates were equal for the two services at nine months after discharge. The effect of prospective payment on the cost of care will be closely watched; we conclude that is will also be important to monitor the effect on outcomes, including hospital mortality rates.","PeriodicalId":304394,"journal":{"name":"HEN: Hospitals (Topic)","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1983-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"132","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Case Mix, Costs, and Outcomes: Differences between Faculty and Community Services in a University Hospital\",\"authors\":\"A. Garber, V. Fuchs, J. Silverman\",\"doi\":\"10.1142/9789813232877_0017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To gain insight into the possible consequences of prospective payment for university hospitals, we studied 2025 admissions to the faculty and community services of a university hospital, measuring differences in case mix, costs, and mortality in the hospital. The faculty service had more of the patients with costly diagnoses, but even after adjustment for diagnosis-related groups (DRGs), costs were 11 per cent higher on the faculty service (95 per cent confidence limits, 4 to 18 per cent). The percentage differential was greatest for diagnostic costs. The differential was particularly large--70 per cent (95 per cent confidence limits, 33 to 107 per cent)--for patients with a predicted probability of death of 0.25 or greater. The in-hospital mortality rate was significantly lower on the faculty service after adjustment for case mix and patient characteristics (P less than 0.05); the difference was particularly large for patients in the high-death-risk category. Comparison of a matched sample of 51 pairs of admissions from the high-death-risk category confirmed the above results with respect to costs and in-hospital mortality, but follow-up revealed that the survival rates were equal for the two services at nine months after discharge. The effect of prospective payment on the cost of care will be closely watched; we conclude that is will also be important to monitor the effect on outcomes, including hospital mortality rates.\",\"PeriodicalId\":304394,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"HEN: Hospitals (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1983-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"132\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"HEN: Hospitals (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813232877_0017\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HEN: Hospitals (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813232877_0017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Case Mix, Costs, and Outcomes: Differences between Faculty and Community Services in a University Hospital
To gain insight into the possible consequences of prospective payment for university hospitals, we studied 2025 admissions to the faculty and community services of a university hospital, measuring differences in case mix, costs, and mortality in the hospital. The faculty service had more of the patients with costly diagnoses, but even after adjustment for diagnosis-related groups (DRGs), costs were 11 per cent higher on the faculty service (95 per cent confidence limits, 4 to 18 per cent). The percentage differential was greatest for diagnostic costs. The differential was particularly large--70 per cent (95 per cent confidence limits, 33 to 107 per cent)--for patients with a predicted probability of death of 0.25 or greater. The in-hospital mortality rate was significantly lower on the faculty service after adjustment for case mix and patient characteristics (P less than 0.05); the difference was particularly large for patients in the high-death-risk category. Comparison of a matched sample of 51 pairs of admissions from the high-death-risk category confirmed the above results with respect to costs and in-hospital mortality, but follow-up revealed that the survival rates were equal for the two services at nine months after discharge. The effect of prospective payment on the cost of care will be closely watched; we conclude that is will also be important to monitor the effect on outcomes, including hospital mortality rates.