Search

Objective: We sought to assess whether outcomes and reimbursement differ for Medicare beneficiaries with hip fracture when treated in an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) compared with a skilled nursing facility (SNF) subacute rehabilitation program.Participants: Clinical data were linked with Medicare claims for 29,793 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with a recent hip fracture who completed treatment in 1996 or 1997 in rehabilitation facilities that subscribed to the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation.Outcome Measures: We measured discharge destination, change in motor FIM rating, and Medicare Part A reimbursement.Results: For patients with moderate-to-severe and severe disabilities, case mix groups (CMGs) 704 and 705, the percentage of patients discharged to the community from IRFs was lower than for patients treated in subacute rehabilitation SNFs, after controlling for covariates. Adjusted odds ratios were 0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.55-0.92) for CMG 704 and 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.63-0.83) for CMG 705. For patients in the 3 other CMGs, no significant differences were detected. Improvement in motor functional status was roughly equivalent for patients treated in IRFs and those treated in the subacute rehabilitation programs across all 5 CMGs, after controlling for covariates. Medicare Part A payments for IRFs were significantly higher than SNF payments across all CMGs.Conclusion: SNF-based subacute rehabilitation was less costly and outcomes were in most, but not all, instances similar or better than IRF-based rehabilitation for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who had a recent hip fracture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Examine disparity in health services and outcomes for adults with a hip fracture or lower extremity joint replacement.Materials and Methods: This study examined 28,522 patient records including 12,328 (mean age 76.6 years) with hip fracture and 16,194 (mean age 71.8 years) with joint replacement.Results: Non-Hispanic white and black patients were significantly (P < 0.05) more likely to be discharged home alone and responsible for their own care than were Asian or Hispanic patients. Sixty-four percent of Hispanic patients received inpatient rehabilitation after hip fracture and 36% after hip or knee arthroplasty. In contrast, 58% of non-Hispanic white persons, 67% of black persons, and 56% of Asian persons received inpatient medical rehabilitation after hip or knee joint replacement.Conclusion: Disparity in outcomes appeared to be related to family structure and social support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is unclear if volume-outcome relationships exist in inpatient rehabilitation., Objectives: Assess associations between facility volumes and 2 patient-centered outcomes in the 3 most common diagnostic groups in inpatient rehabilitation., Research Design: We used hierarchical linear and generalized linear models to analyze administrative assessment data from patients receiving inpatient rehabilitation services for stroke (n=202,423), lower extremity fracture (n=132,194), or lower extremity joint replacement (n=148,068) between 2006 and 2008 in 717 rehabilitation facilities across the United States. Facilities were assigned to quintiles based on average annual diagnosis-specific patient volumes., Measures: Discharge functional status (FIM instrument) and probability of home discharge., Results: Facility-level factors accounted for 6%-15% of the variance in discharge FIM total scores and 3%-5% of the variance in home discharge probability across the 3 diagnostic groups. We used the middle volume quintile (Q3) as the reference group for all analyses and detected small, but statistically significant (P<0.01) associations with discharge functional status in all 3 diagnosis groups. Only the highest volume quintile (Q5) reached statistical significance, displaying higher functional status ratings than Q3 each time. The largest effect was observed in FIM total scores among fracture patients, with only a 3.6-point difference in Q5 and Q3 group means. Volume was not independently related to home discharge., Conclusions: Outcome-specific volume effects ranged from small (functional status) to none (home discharge) in all 3 diagnostic groups. Patients with these conditions can be treated locally rather than at higher volume regional centers. Further regionalization of inpatient rehabilitation services is not needed for these conditions.

Objectives: To create a more suitable payment system for medical rehabilitation, the authors developed a companion classification system to the original functional independence measure-function-related groups (FIM-FRGs), which classify patients having similar lengths of stay in a rehabilitation hospital or inpatient unit. The companion system presented here groups patients according to their gains in functional status during the rehabilitation stay., Methods: Data from 84,492 patients discharged from 252 rehabilitation facilities in 1992 were provided by the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. Classification rules were formed using clinical judgment and a recursive partitioning algorithm. The gain-FRGs system used four predictor variables: (1) diagnosis leading to disability, admission scores on the (2) motor and (3) cognitive subscales of the FIM, and (4) patient age., Results: The gain-FRGs system contained 74 patient groups and explained 21% of the variation in functional gain for patients in a different set of records withheld for validation., Conclusions: The gain-FRGs system should be considered for prospective payment systems because it gives the provider an incentive to improve patient outcomes, which is missing in a payment system based on FIM-FRGs alone.

Dissatisfaction with Medicare's current system of paying for rehabilitation care has led to proposals for a rehabilitation prospective payment system, but first a classification system for rehabilitation patients must be created. Data for 36,980 patients admitted to and discharged from 125 rehabilitation facilities between January 1, 1990, and April 19, 1991, were provided by the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation. Classification rules were formed using clinical judgment and a recursive partitioning algorithm. The Functional Independence Measure version of the Function Related Groups (FIM-FRGs) uses four predictor variables: diagnosis leading to disability, admission scores for motor and cognitive functional status subscales as measured by the Functional Independence Measure, and patient age. The system contains 53 FRGs and explains 31.3% of the variance in the natural logarithm length of stay for patients in a validation sample. The FIM-FRG classification system is conceptually simple and stable when tested on a validation sample. The classification system contains a manageable number of groups, and may represent a solution to the problem of classifying medical rehabilitation patients for payment, facility planning, and research on the outcomes, quality, and cost of rehabilitation.