3 resultados para Billing
em DigitalCommons@The Texas Medical Center
Resumo:
This investigation compares two different methodologies for calculating the national cost of epilepsy: provider-based survey method (PBSM) and the patient-based medical charts and billing method (PBMC&BM). The PBSM uses the National Hospital Discharge Survey (NHDS), the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS) and the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) as the sources of utilization. The PBMC&BM uses patient data, charts and billings, to determine utilization rates for specific components of hospital, physician and drug prescriptions. ^ The 1995 hospital and physician cost of epilepsy is estimated to be $722 million using the PBSM and $1,058 million using the PBMC&BM. The difference of $336 million results from $136 million difference in utilization and $200 million difference in unit cost. ^ Utilization. The utilization difference of $136 million is composed of an inpatient variation of $129 million, $100 million hospital and $29 million physician, and an ambulatory variation of $7 million. The $100 million hospital variance is attributed to inclusion of febrile seizures in the PBSM, $−79 million, and the exclusion of admissions attributed to epilepsy, $179 million. The former suggests that the diagnostic codes used in the NHDS may not properly match the current definition of epilepsy as used in the PBMC&BM. The latter suggests NHDS errors in the attribution of an admission to the principal diagnosis. ^ The $29 million variance in inpatient physician utilization is the result of different per-day-of-care physician visit rates, 1.3 for the PBMC&BM versus 1.0 for the PBSM. The absence of visit frequency measures in the NHDS affects the internal validity of the PBSM estimate and requires the investigator to make conservative assumptions. ^ The remaining ambulatory resource utilization variance is $7 million. Of this amount, $22 million is the result of an underestimate of ancillaries in the NHAMCS and NAMCS extrapolations using the patient visit weight. ^ Unit cost. The resource cost variation is $200 million, inpatient is $22 million and ambulatory is $178 million. The inpatient variation of $22 million is composed of $19 million in hospital per day rates, due to a higher cost per day in the PBMC&BM, and $3 million in physician visit rates, due to a higher cost per visit in the PBMC&BM. ^ The ambulatory cost variance is $178 million, composed of higher per-physician-visit costs of $97 million and higher per-ancillary costs of $81 million. Both are attributed to the PBMC&BM's precise identification of resource utilization that permits accurate valuation. ^ Conclusion. Both methods have specific limitations. The PBSM strengths are its sample designs that lead to nationally representative estimates and permit statistical point and confidence interval estimation for the nation for certain variables under investigation. However, the findings of this investigation suggest the internal validity of the estimates derived is questionable and important additional information required to precisely estimate the cost of an illness is absent. ^ The PBMC&BM is a superior method in identifying resources utilized in the physician encounter with the patient permitting more accurate valuation. However, the PBMC&BM does not have the statistical reliability of the PBSM; it relies on synthesized national prevalence estimates to extrapolate a national cost estimate. While precision is important, the ability to generalize to the nation may be limited due to the small number of patients that are followed. ^
Resumo:
Unlike infections occurring during periods of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, postoperative infections in patients with solid malignancy remain largely understudied. The purpose of this population-based study was to evaluate the clinical and economic burden, as well as the relationship of hospital surgical volume and outcomes associated with serious postoperative infection (SPI) – i.e., bacteremia/sepsis, pneumonia, and wound infection – following resection of common solid tumors.^ From the Texas Discharge Data Research File, we identified all Texas residents who underwent resection of cancer of the lung, esophagus, stomach, pancreas, colon, or rectum between 2002 and 2006. From their billing records, we identified ICD-9 codes indicating SPI and also subsequent SPI-related readmissions occurring within 30 days of surgery. Random-effects logistic regression was used to calculate the impact of SPI on mortality, as well as the association between surgical volume and SPI, adjusting for case-mix, hospital characteristics, and clustering of multiple surgical admissions within the same patient and patients within the same hospital. Excess bed days and costs were calculated by subtracting values for patients without infections from those with infections computed using multilevel mixed-effects generalized linear model by fitting a gamma distribution to the data using log link.^ Serious postoperative infection occurred following 9.4% of the 37,582 eligible tumor resections and was independently associated with an 11-fold increase in the odds of in-hospital mortality (95% Confidence Interval [95% CI], 6.7-18.5, P < 0.001). Patients with SPI required 6.3 additional hospital days (95% CI, 6.1 - 6.5) at an incremental cost of $16,396 (95% CI, $15,927–$16,875). There was a significant trend toward lower overall rates of SPI with higher surgical volume (P=0.037). ^ Due to the substantial morbidity, mortality, and excess costs associated with SPI following solid tumor resections and given that, under current reimbursement practices, most of this heavy burden is borne by acute care providers, it is imperative for hospitals to identify more effective prophylactic measures, so that these potentially preventable infections and their associated expenditures can be averted. Additional volume-outcomes research is also needed to identify infection prevention processes that can be transferred from higher- to lower-volume providers.^
Resumo:
Few studies have explored factors related to participation in cancer chemoprevention trials. The purpose of this dissertation was to conduct investigations in this emerging field by studying aspects of participation at three phases of cancer chemoprevention trials: at enrollment, during a placebo run-in period, and post-trial. In all three studies, subjects had a history of cancer and were at high risk of recurrence or second primary tumors.^ The first study explored correlates of enrollment in a head and neck cancer chemoprevention trial by comparing participants and eligible nonparticipants. Of 148 subjects who met the trial's preliminary eligibility criteria, 40% enrolled. In multivariate analysis, enrollment was positively associated with being male (OR 2.36) and being employed (OR 2.73). The most commonly cited reason for declining participation among nonparticipants was transportation.^ The second study examined outcomes of an eight-week placebo run-in period in a head and neck cancer chemoprevention trial. Of 391 subjects, 91.3% were randomized after the run-in. Adherence to drug capsules ranged from 0% to 120.3% (mean $\pm$ SD, 95.8% $\pm$ 15.1). In multivariate analysis, the main variable predicting run-in outcome was race; white subjects were 3.45 times more likely to be randomized than non-white subjects. Subjects with Karnofsky scores of 100 were 2.13 times more likely to be randomized than were subjects with lower scores.^ The third study used post-trial questionnaires to assess subjects' (n = 64) perceptions of participation in a cancer chemoprevention trial. The most highly rated trial benefit was the perception of potential colon cancer prevention, and the most troublesome barrier was erroneous billing for study visits. Perceived benefits were positively associated with interest in participating in future trials of the same (p = 0.05) and longer (p = 0.02) duration, and difficulty with trial pills and procedures was inversely related to interest in future placebo-controlled trials (p = 0.01).^ These are among the first behavioral studies to be completed in the rapidly growing field of cancer chemoprevention. Much work has yet to be done, however, to advance our understanding of the complex issues relating to chemoprevention trial participation. ^