Case mix classifications are the frameworks that underlie many healthcare funding schemes, including the so-called activity-based funding. Now more than ever, Canadian healthcare administrators are evaluating case mix-based funding and deciphering how they will influence their organization. Case mix is a topic fraught with technical jargon and largely relegated to government agencies or private industries. This article provides an abridged review of case mix classification as well as its implications for management in healthcare.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
McKillopIPinkGHJohnsonLM. The Financial Management of Acute Care in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Institute for Health Information; 2001.
2.
HirdesJP. Long-term care funding in Canada: a policy mosaic. J Aging Soc Policy. 2001;13:69–81.
3.
McKillopI. Financial Rules as a Catalyst for Change in the Canadian Healthcare System. Discussion Paper No. 19. Ottawa: Commission on the Future of Healthcare in Canada; 2002.
4.
SutherlandJMBarerMLEvansRGCrumpT. Will paying the piper change the tune?Healthc Policy. 2011;6:16–24.
5.
SutherlandJMMcGrailKMLawMRBarerMLCrumpRT. British Columbia hospitals: examination and assessment of payment reform (B-CHeaPR). BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;11:150.
FriesBESchneiderDPFoleyJWGavazziMBurkeRCorneliusE. Refining a Case-Mix Measure for Nursing Homes: Resource Utilization Groups (RUG-III). Medical Care. 1994;32:668–85.
12.
BotzCKBestardSDemarayMMolloyG. Resource utilization groups (RUGs): defining chronic care, rehabilitation and nursing home case mix in Canada. Healthc Manage Forum. 1993;6:5–19.
13.
Canadian Institute for Health Information. Resource Utilization Groups III (RUG-III 44-Group) Grouping Methodology: Flow Charts, SAS Code, and CMI Values, CCRS Version. Canadian Institute for Health Information. https://secure.cihi.ca/estore/productSeries.htm?pc=PCC546. Accessed September 22, 2014.
14.
FriesBESchneiderDPFoleyWJDowlingM. Case-mix classification of Medicare residents in skilled nursing facilities: resource utilization groups (RUG-T18). Med Care. 1989;27:843–858.
15.
FriesBE. Comparing case-mix systems for nursing home payment. Healthcare Financ Rev. 1990;11:103–119.
16.
HirdesJPBotzCAKozakJLeppV. Identifying an appropriate case mix measure for chronic care: evidence from an Ontario pilot study. Healthc Manage Forum. 1996;9:40–46.
17.
BjorkgrenMAFriesBEShugarmanLR. A RUG-III based case-mix system for home care. Can J Aging. 2000;19:106–125.
PossJWHirdesJPFriesBEMcKillopIChaseM. Validation of resource utilization groups version III for home care (RUG-III/HC): evidence from a Canadian home care jurisdiction. Med Care. 2008;46:380–387.
20.
SutherlandJWalkerJ. Development of the rehabilitation patient group (RPG) case mix classification methodology and weighting system for adult inpatient rehabilitation. Technical report. Ontario: Joint Policy and Planning Committee; 2006.
21.
SutherlandJMWalkerJ. Challenges of rehabilitation case mix measurement in Ontario hospitals. Health Policy. 2008;85:336–348.
FetterRBFreemanJL. Diagnosis related groups: product line management within hospitals. Acad Manage Rev. 1986;11:41–54.
24.
FisherESWhaleyFSKrushatWM. The accuracy of Medicare's hospital claims data: progress has been made, but problems remain. Am J Public Health. 1992;82:243–248.
25.
LouisDZYuenEJBragaM. Impact of a DRG-based hospital financing system on quality and outcomes of care in Italy. Health Serv Res. 1999;34:405–415.
26.
FarrarSYiDSuttonMChalkleyMSussexJScottA. Has payment by results affected the way that English hospitals provide care? Difference-in-differences analysis. BMJ. 2009;339:b3047.
27.
SchutFTVarkevisserM. Tackling hospital waiting times: the impact of past and current policies in the Netherlands. Health Policy. 2013;113:127–133.
28.
O’ReillyJBusseRHäkkinenUOrZStreetAWileyM. Paying for hospital care: the experience with implementing activity-based funding in five European countries. Health Econ Policy Law. 2012;7:73–101.
29.
HsiaDCKrushatWMFaganABTebbuttJAKusserowRP. Accuracy of diagnostic coding for Medicare patients under the prospective-payment system. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:352–355.
30.
SteinbuschPJOostenbrinkJBZuurbierJJSchaepkensFJ. The risk of upcoding in casemix systems: a comparative study. Health Policy. 2007;81:289–299.
