Utilization review practices, innovations and trends for the 21 states using diagnosis-related groups for Medicaid during 1992 are described. Ac cording to this descriptive survey, Medicaid inpatient utilization review programs vary widely in authority, approach and focus, reflecting state payment system incentives, health and hospital system characteris tics, and provider practice norms. More than half of the states with Medicaid diagnosis-related group sys tems contract with a Medicare Peer Review Organi zation. State programs are developing complemen tary clinical and data analytic approaches, advised by multidisciplinary utilization review committees, and are moving from random review to strategies that focus on specific types of admissions/procedures, and shift as provider practices and utilization pat terns change. Utlization review strategies also sup port payment incentives and system features, e.g., by targeting outliers, readmissions and transfers, and short stays. Overall, programs are becoming more flexible, targeted, and interactive. Trends and sug gestions for refining utlization review programs for diagnosis-related group systems are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Health Care Financing Administration: Professional Standards Review Organization 1979 Program Evaluation. Health Care Financing Research Report, HCFA Publication No. 03041, Department of Health and Human Services, 1980.
2.
U.S. Congressional Budget Office: The Impact of PSROs on Health Care Costs: Update of CBO's 1979 Evaluation. Washington, DC, 1981.
3.
Comptroller General of the United States, General Accounting Office: Constraining National Health Care Expenditures: Achieving Quality Care at an Affordable Cost. GAO/HRD-85-105, September 30, 1985.
4.
Dobson A., Greer JG, Carlson RA, et al. PSROs: their current status and their impact to date. Inquiry1978;5:113-128.
5.
Smits HLThe PSRO in perspective. N Engl J Med1981 ;305:253-259.
6.
Mihalski EJThe new era of utilization and quality control: Professional review organizations . Bull N Y Acad Med1984;60:48-53.
Dans PE, Weiner JP, Otter SEPeer review organizations: promises and potential pitfalls. N Engl J Med1985 ;313:1131-1137.
9.
Payne Smc.Identifying and managing inappropriate hospital utilization: a policy synthesis . Health Serv Res1987;22:709-769.
10.
Feldstein, PJ , Wickizer, TM, Wheeler, JRPrivate cost containment: The effects of utilization review programs on health care use and expenditure. N Engl J Med1988;318:1310-1315.
11.
Wickizer TMThe effects of UR on hospital use and expenditures: a review of the literature and an update on recent findings. Med Care Rev1990;47:327-363.
12.
Wickizer TMThe effects of utilization review on hospital use and expenditures: a covariance analysis. Health Serv Res1992;27:103-121.
13.
Bailit HL, Sennett C.Utilization management as a cost-containment strategy. Health Care Financ Rev1991; Suppl:87-93.
14.
Cromwell J. , Harrow B., McGuire TG, et al. Medicare payment to psychiatric facilities: unfair and inefficient? HealthAff (Mill-wood)1991;10:124-134.
15.
Tischler GLUtilization management of mental health services by private third parties. Am J Psychiatry1990;147:967-973.
16.
Zusman J.Utilization review: theory, practice, and issues. Hosp Community Psychiatry1990;41:531-536.
17.
Frank RG, Lave JRPer case prospective payment for psychiatric inpatients: an assessment and an alternative. J Health Polit Policy Law1986;11:83-96.
18.
Lave JR, Frank RGFactors affecting Medicaid patients' length of stay in psychiatric units. Health Care Financ Rev1988;10:57-66.
