移植成本报告跟踪在亨利福特移植研究所和其他中心全国。

Marianne Beach-Langlois, Pamela Yankasky
{"title":"移植成本报告跟踪在亨利福特移植研究所和其他中心全国。","authors":"Marianne Beach-Langlois,&nbsp;Pamela Yankasky","doi":"10.1177/152692481102100214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context: </strong>The lack of uniformity in the reporting of direct and indirect costs by organ acquisition cost centers, diagnosis-related groups, and in physician reimbursement often results in Medicare overpayment and findings of unjustified charges in audits conducted by the Office of the Inspector General. Although it is true that organ transplantation costs vary widely, uniform cost-report accounting is needed.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Henry Ford Transplant Institute has developed systematic auditing protocols that result in acceptable compliance with Medicare. The differences between those protocols and the methods used elsewhere are illustrated by the results of a national survey of transplant centers.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>The survey addresses 10 crucial questions, drawn from the cost-reporting model used at Henry Ford Transplant Institute. Setting-Surveys were distributed via the United Network for Organ Sharing listserv, with replies from 43 centers.</p><p><strong>Patients or other participants: </strong>The participants were transplant administrators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Several important practices that are audited by the Office of the Inspector General were not followed by a number of reporting institutions. About 30% did not account for pretransplant charges, 15% did not track pretransplant services, 40% do not use an external consultant, and the frequency of physician time studies varied. On the other hand, the vast majority of institutions perform frequent time studies and manually review pretransplant charges. These results suggest that most centers use accounting methods similar to those used at Henry Ford Transplant Institute, which will significantly improve recognition of pretransplantation costs.</p>","PeriodicalId":346415,"journal":{"name":"Progress in Transplantation (Aliso Viejo, Calif.)","volume":" ","pages":"169-73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/152692481102100214","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Transplant cost-report tracking at Henry Ford Transplant Institute and other centers nationwide.\",\"authors\":\"Marianne Beach-Langlois,&nbsp;Pamela Yankasky\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/152692481102100214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Context: </strong>The lack of uniformity in the reporting of direct and indirect costs by organ acquisition cost centers, diagnosis-related groups, and in physician reimbursement often results in Medicare overpayment and findings of unjustified charges in audits conducted by the Office of the Inspector General. Although it is true that organ transplantation costs vary widely, uniform cost-report accounting is needed.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Henry Ford Transplant Institute has developed systematic auditing protocols that result in acceptable compliance with Medicare. The differences between those protocols and the methods used elsewhere are illustrated by the results of a national survey of transplant centers.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>The survey addresses 10 crucial questions, drawn from the cost-reporting model used at Henry Ford Transplant Institute. Setting-Surveys were distributed via the United Network for Organ Sharing listserv, with replies from 43 centers.</p><p><strong>Patients or other participants: </strong>The participants were transplant administrators.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Several important practices that are audited by the Office of the Inspector General were not followed by a number of reporting institutions. About 30% did not account for pretransplant charges, 15% did not track pretransplant services, 40% do not use an external consultant, and the frequency of physician time studies varied. On the other hand, the vast majority of institutions perform frequent time studies and manually review pretransplant charges. These results suggest that most centers use accounting methods similar to those used at Henry Ford Transplant Institute, which will significantly improve recognition of pretransplantation costs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":346415,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Progress in Transplantation (Aliso Viejo, Calif.)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"169-73\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/152692481102100214\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Progress in Transplantation (Aliso Viejo, Calif.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/152692481102100214\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in Transplantation (Aliso Viejo, Calif.)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/152692481102100214","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:器官获取成本中心、诊断相关团体和医生报销在报告直接和间接成本方面缺乏一致性,经常导致医疗保险多付,并在监察长办公室进行的审计中发现不合理的收费。虽然器官移植的成本差异很大,但统一的成本报告会计是必要的。目的:亨利福特移植研究所已经制定了系统的审计协议,导致可接受的医疗保险的遵守。一项针对全国移植中心的调查结果表明,这些方案与其他地方使用的方法之间存在差异。设计:该调查涉及10个关键问题,取自亨利·福特移植研究所使用的成本报告模型。设置调查是通过器官共享联合网络发送的,有来自43个中心的回复。患者或其他参与者:参与者为移植管理人员。结果:一些报告机构没有遵循监察长办公室审计的若干重要做法。大约30%的人没有考虑移植前的费用,15%的人没有跟踪移植前的服务,40%的人没有使用外部顾问,医生时间研究的频率各不相同。另一方面,绝大多数机构进行频繁的时间研究和人工审查移植前收费。这些结果表明,大多数中心使用类似于亨利福特移植研究所使用的会计方法,这将显著提高对移植前成本的认识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Transplant cost-report tracking at Henry Ford Transplant Institute and other centers nationwide.

Context: The lack of uniformity in the reporting of direct and indirect costs by organ acquisition cost centers, diagnosis-related groups, and in physician reimbursement often results in Medicare overpayment and findings of unjustified charges in audits conducted by the Office of the Inspector General. Although it is true that organ transplantation costs vary widely, uniform cost-report accounting is needed.

Objective: Henry Ford Transplant Institute has developed systematic auditing protocols that result in acceptable compliance with Medicare. The differences between those protocols and the methods used elsewhere are illustrated by the results of a national survey of transplant centers.

Design: The survey addresses 10 crucial questions, drawn from the cost-reporting model used at Henry Ford Transplant Institute. Setting-Surveys were distributed via the United Network for Organ Sharing listserv, with replies from 43 centers.

Patients or other participants: The participants were transplant administrators.

Results: Several important practices that are audited by the Office of the Inspector General were not followed by a number of reporting institutions. About 30% did not account for pretransplant charges, 15% did not track pretransplant services, 40% do not use an external consultant, and the frequency of physician time studies varied. On the other hand, the vast majority of institutions perform frequent time studies and manually review pretransplant charges. These results suggest that most centers use accounting methods similar to those used at Henry Ford Transplant Institute, which will significantly improve recognition of pretransplantation costs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信