IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/sduhec/2014_003.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Mixed reimbursement of hospitals: Securing high activity and global expenditures control?

Author

Listed:

Abstract

When introducing Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) tariffs as the basis for paying hospitals in Europe, one of the major problems was to find a balancing point between the aim of increasing hospital activity and the need to control global expenditures on hospital care. Consequently, in several European countries, DRG-based reimbursement has been mixed with the already existing forms of hospital reimbursement, such as block budgets, instead of replacing the latter entirely. The mixed reimbursement is viewed as a cautious way of introducing DRG-based funding, which offers the potential for achieving activity expansion without jeopardizing global expenditures control. Denmark is one of the countries where DRG tariffs have been added to the system of block budgets coupled with activity targets. The transition to the mixed reimbursement occurred by replacing a part of each hospital’s ‘old’ block budget by a ‘new’ DRG-based component. The DRG-based component depends on a hospital’s case mix and applicable DRG tariffs, which are, however, reduced by, e.g. 30-50% as compared with a monetary value of a full tariff. The usual interpretation is that such a mix of reimbursement methods provides a specific set of incentives that is different from other hospital payment methods. Yet, the exact modus operandi of the mixed reimbursement remains obscure. It is not entirely clear whether and how the unit rate of reimbursement was changed after the transition? Was the entire volume of a hospital’s activity affected or only certain treatments and/or higher levels of activity? Another question is what happened with the activity targets that traditionally accompanied the ‘old’ block budgets? The aim of this article is to provide a comprehensive description of the change in hospital incentive scheme that followed the transition to the mixed reimbursement in Denmark. In doing so, the paper provides a qualitative assessment of the mixed reimbursement with regard to the asserted exceptionality of its incentive structure, with a particular focus on its ability to balance incentives for activity expansion and global expenditures control. We show that the mixed reimbursement is simply a veiled version of the usual block budget system, which due to certain added complications might even distort activity/efficiency improvements in a new way. The cautions way of implementing DRG –based reimbursement resulted in a system that has hardly moved away from the historical patterns of activity and costs. The sum of the ‘new’ DRG-based component and the remaining part of the ‘old’ block budget simply added up to the total of the ‘old’ block budget (+/- standard annual corrections for inflation, etc.), which allowed hospitals to produce unchanged sort and volume of activity at unchanged unit cost. Only few percent of the annual activity volume is indeed subject to altered reimbursement incentives. In sum, the mixed reimbursement as implemented in Denmark does not present any innovation. Hence, any empirical research based on the assumption that the incentive scheme for the entire volume of hospital activity was changed by the transition to the mixed reimbursement might produce false conclusions.

Suggested Citation

  • Socha, Karolina, 2014. "Mixed reimbursement of hospitals: Securing high activity and global expenditures control?," COHERE Working Paper 2014:3, University of Southern Denmark, COHERE - Centre of Health Economics Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:sduhec:2014_003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles//5/7/D/%7B57DFD89D-B2E8-41A6-9071-D27BCB96D8D7%7D2014_3.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary Charness & Peter Kuhn & Marie Claire Villeval, 2011. "Competition and the Ratchet Effect," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(3), pages 513-547.
    2. Andrei Shleifer, 1985. "A Theory of Yardstick Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(3), pages 319-327, Autumn.
    3. Street, Andrew & Maynard, Alan, 2007. "Activity based financing in England: the need for continual refinement of payment by results," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(04), pages 419-427, October.
    4. Gary Charness & Peter Kuhn & Marie Claire Villeval, 2011. "Competition and the Ratchet Effect," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(3), pages 513-547.
    5. Levinthal, Daniel, 1988. "A survey of agency models of organizations," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 153-185, March.
    6. Kjeld Møller Pedersen & Terkel Christiansen & Mickael Bech, 2005. "The Danish health care system: evolution - not revolution - in a decentralized system," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(S1), pages 41-57.
    7. Broyles, Robert W. & Rosko, Michael D., 1985. "A qualitative assessment of the medicare prospective payment system," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 20(11), pages 1185-1190, January.
    8. Vrangbaek, Karsten & Bech, Mickael, 2004. "County level responses to the introduction of DRG rates for "extended choice" hospital patients in Denmark," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 25-37, January.
    9. Christiansen, Terkel, 2002. "Organization and financing of the Danish health care system," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 107-118, January.
    10. O'Reilly, Jacqueline & Busse, Reinhard & Häkkinen, Unto & Or, Zeynep & Street, Andrew & Wiley, Miriam, 2012. "Paying for hospital care: the experience with implementing activity-based funding in five European countries," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 7(01), pages 73-101, January.
    11. Pope, Gregory C., 1989. "Hospital nonprice competition and medicare reimbursement policy," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 147-172, June.
    12. Magnussen, Jon & Hagen, Terje P. & Kaarboe, Oddvar M., 2007. "Centralized or decentralized? A case study of Norwegian hospital reform," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 64(10), pages 2129-2137, May.
    13. Carmichael, H Lorne & MacLeod, W Bentley, 2000. "Worker Cooperation and the Ratchet Effect," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(1), pages 1-19, January.
    14. McGuire, A., 1985. "The theory of the hospital: A review of the models," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 20(11), pages 1177-1184, January.
    15. Iversen, Tor, 1993. "A theory of hospital waiting lists," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 55-71, April.
    16. Anni Ankjær-Jensen & Pernille Rosling & Lone Bilde, 2006. "Variable prospective financing in the Danish hospital sector and the development of a Danish case-mix system," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 259-268, August.
    17. Ellis, Randall P. & McGuire, Thomas G., 1986. "Provider behavior under prospective reimbursement : Cost sharing and supply," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 129-151, June.
    18. Andrew Street & Kirsi Vitikainen & Afsaneh Bjorvatn & Anne Hvenegaard, 2007. "Introducing activity-based financing: a review of experience in Australia, Denmark, Norway and Sweden," Working Papers 030cherp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    19. Gary Charness & Peter Kuhn & Marie Claire Villeval, 2011. "Competition and the Ratchet Effect," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 29(3), pages 513-547.
    20. Joseph P. Newhouse, 1996. "Reimbursing Health Plans and Health Providers: Efficiency in Production versus Selection," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 34(3), pages 1236-1263, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Diagnosis-Related Groups; Block budgets; Hospital reimbursement; Denmark;

    JEL classification:

    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • I13 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Insurance, Public and Private
    • I14 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health and Inequality

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:sduhec:2014_003. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Terkel Christiansen). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/hesdudk.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.