The implementation of inpatient case mix funding in Alberta and Ontario does not allow for adequate incentives to shift resources to an outpatient basis, where appropriate, or to provide outpatient care efficiently. This paper explores the prospects and problems of further extending case mix tools into this area. The availability of tools to characterize output for day surgery, special clinics and emergency care is surveyed. We conclude that case mix funding is desirable and feasible for ambulatory surgery; however, it is questionable for emergency care and special clinics. However, developments in this area in the United States will continue, and this will likely maintain an interest in Canada.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BotzC.K.1991. Principles for funding on a case mix basis. Healthcare Management Forum4(4): 22–32.
2.
JacobsP.HallE.M.LaveJ.R., and GlendiningM.1992. Alberta's acute care funding project. Healthcare Management Forum5(3): 4–11.
3.
RobinsonR.E. and LazurkoM.1990. Ambulatory Care Funding Report: Phase I Report and Phase II Report, Edmonton, Alberta Health.
4.
EliasophH.1993. New initiatives in ambulatory care funding in Alberta. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management16(3): 30–39.
5.
LaveJ.R. and JacobsP.1994. The attitudes of Ontario hospitals toward transitional funding. Healthcare Management Forum6(1): 25–33.
6.
KellyW.P.FillmoreH.H.TenanP.M.1990. The classification of resource use in ambulatory care: The products of ambulatory surgery. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management13(1): 55–63.
7.
AverillR.F.GoldfieldN.I.McGuireT.E.1990. Design and Evaluation of a Prospective Payment System for Ambulatory Care, Wallingford, Conn., 3M Health Information Systems.
8.
TenanP.M.FillmoreH.H.CaressB.1988. PACs: Classifying ambulatory care patients and services for clinical and financial management. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management11(3): 36–53.
9.
GeorgalakisJ.M.GuillenA.C., and BollingD.1992. Research into a proposed emergency department grouping system. In MatsonT.A., The Hospital Emergency Department, Chicago, American Hospital Association.
10.
Hospital Medical Records Institute.1992. Resource Intensity Weights (RIWs): Summary of Methodology. Toronto: HMRI.
11.
Alberta Health.1991. Emergency Services Subcommittee of the Ambulatory Care Working Committee, final report, Edmonton, Alberta Health.
12.
BarraffL.J.CameronJ.M., and SekhonR.1991. Direct costs of emergency care: A diagnosis-based case mix classification system. Annals of Emergency Medicine20: 1–7.
13.
CameronJ.M.BarraffL.J., and SekhonR.1990. Case mix classification for emergency departments. Medical Care28: 146–158.
14.
LionJ.VertreesJ.MalbonA.1990. Toward a prospective payment system for ambulatory surgery. Health Care Financing Review11(3): 79–86.
15.
MaloneyS.1992. Ambulatory Care Project: Phase 2 Report. Grouping Methodology Enhancements, Toronto, Hospital Medical Records Institute.
16.
LionJ.MalbonA.VertreesJ.1992. Evaluation of “Development of a Prospective Payment System for Hospital-based Ambulatory Care,” final report, Waltham, Mass., Institute for Health Policy.
17.
Alberta Health.1992. Interim Report of the Ambulatory Care Costing Subcommittee of the Acute Care Funding Plan, Edmonton, Alberta Health.
18.
BotzC. and HallE.1993. Funding in-hospital same day surgery in Canada. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management16(3): 51–55.
