Publications

Detailed Information

Comparison of diagnosis-based risk adjustment methods for episode-based costs to apply in efficiency measurement

DC Field Value Language
dc.contributor.authorKim, Juyoung-
dc.contributor.authorOck, Minsu-
dc.contributor.authorOh, In-Hwan-
dc.contributor.authorJo, Min-Woo-
dc.contributor.authorKim, Yoon-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Moo-Song-
dc.contributor.authorLee, Sang-il-
dc.date.accessioned2023-12-05T04:58:15Z-
dc.date.available2023-12-05T14:00:03Z-
dc.date.issued2023-12-01-
dc.identifier.citationBMC Health Services Research, Vol.23(1):1334ko_KR
dc.identifier.issn1472-6963-
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10371/197605-
dc.description.abstractBackground
The recent rising health spending intrigued efficiency and cost-based performance measures. However, mortality risk adjustment methods are still under consideration in cost estimation, though methods specific to cost estimate have been developed. Therefore, we aimed to compare the performance of diagnosis-based risk adjustment methods based on the episode-based cost to utilize in efficiency measurement.

Methods
We used the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service–National Patient Sample as the data source. A separate linear regression model was constructed within each Major Diagnostic Category (MDC). Individual models included explanatory (demographics, insurance type, institutional type, Adjacent Diagnosis Related Group [ADRG], diagnosis-based risk adjustment methods) and response variables (episode-based costs). The following risk adjustment methods were used: Refined Diagnosis Related Group (RDRG), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), National Health Insurance Service Hierarchical Condition Categories (NHIS-HCC), and Department of Health and Human Service-HCC (HHS-HCC). The model accuracy was compared using R-squared (R2), mean absolute error, and predictive ratio. For external validity, we used the 2017 dataset.

Results
The model including RDRG improved the mean adjusted R2 from 40.8% to 45.8% compared to the adjacent DRG. RDRG was inferior to both HCCs (RDRG adjusted R2 45.8%, NHIS-HCC adjusted R2 46.3%, HHS-HCC adjusted R2 45.9%) but superior to CCI (adjusted R2 42.7%). Model performance varied depending on the MDC groups. While both HCCs had the highest explanatory power in 12 MDCs, including MDC P (Newborns), RDRG showed the highest adjusted R2 in 6 MDCs, such as MDC O (pregnancy, childbirth, and puerperium). The overall mean absolute errors were the lowest in the model with RDRG ($1,099). The predictive ratios showed similar patterns among the models regardless of the subgroups according to age, sex, insurance type, institutional type, and the upper and lower 10th percentiles of actual costs. External validity also showed a similar pattern in the model performance.

Conclusions
Our research showed that either NHIS-HCC or HHS-HCC can be useful in adjusting comorbidities for episode-based costs in the process of efficiency measurement.
ko_KR
dc.language.isoenko_KR
dc.publisherBMCko_KR
dc.subjectCharlson Comorbidity Index (CCI)-
dc.subjectEpisode-based costs-
dc.subjectHierarchical Condition Categories (HCCs)-
dc.subjectKorean Diagnostic Related Group (KDRG)-
dc.subjectRisk adjustments-
dc.titleComparison of diagnosis-based risk adjustment methods for episode-based costs to apply in efficiency measurementko_KR
dc.typeArticleko_KR
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12913-023-10282-4ko_KR
dc.citation.journaltitleBMC Health Services Researchko_KR
dc.language.rfc3066en-
dc.rights.holderThe Author(s)-
dc.date.updated2023-12-03T04:09:55Z-
dc.citation.number1ko_KR
dc.citation.volume23ko_KR
Appears in Collections:
Files in This Item:

Altmetrics

Item View & Download Count

  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Share