The 60 percent rule has served as a controversial policy change within the postacute care sector since its revision in 2004, requiring inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) to admit no less than 60% of patients according to 1 of 13 specific conditions or else risk the loss of IRF designation according to Medicare’s prospective payment system. Using a contingency theory framework, this study proposes that the 60 percent rule introduced considerable uncertainty into freestanding IRFs’ operational environment, and as a result, IRFs’ operational performance varied according to their “fit” between certain structural characteristics and the pervasive environmental uncertainty. The results suggest that operational performance, as measured by facility Malmquist Index scores, decreased on average for freestanding IRFs following the 60 percent rule’s enforcement in 2005. In contrast, organizations possessing structural characteristics that better “fit” the heightened environmental uncertainty exhibited improved performance on average during the study’s 6-year time period.
AguiarC.LiskC. (2011, December16). Assessing payment adequacy: Inpatient rehabilitation facility services [Presentation slides]. Presented at the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission Public Meeting, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.medpac.gov
2.
BazzoliG. J.ChanB.ShortellS. M.D’AunnoT. (2000). The financial performance of hospitals belonging to health networks and systems. Inquiry, 37, 234-252.
3.
BazzoliG. J.ShortellS. M.DubbsN.ChanC.KralovecP. (1999). A taxonomy of health networks and systems: Bringing order out of chaos. Health Services Research, 33, 1683-1717.
4.
BrittJ.HerringC. (2007). The rehabilitation of rehab. Healthcare Financial Management, 61(6), 98-102.
5.
BuntinM. B. (2007). Access to postacute rehabilitation. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 88, 1488-1493.
6.
CameronD. J. (2008). Postacute strategic planning: Preparing for an aging population. Healthcare Financial Management, 62(2), 104-112.
7.
CavesD. W.ChristensenL. R.DiewertW. E. (1982). The econometric theory of index numbers and the measurement of input and output productivity. Econometrica, 50, 1393-1414.
CharnesA.CooperW. W.RhodesE. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429-444.
11.
ConnorR.FeldmanR.DowdB. (1998). The effects of market concentration and horizontal mergers on hospital costs and prices. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 5, 159-180.
12.
CooperW. W.SeifordL. M.ToneK. (2007). Data envelopment analysis: A comprehensive text with models, applications, references, and DEA-Solver software. Boston, MA: Springer.
13.
CuellarA. E.GertlerP. J. (2003). Trends in hospital consolidation: The formation of local systems. Health Affairs, 22(6), 77-87.
14.
CuellarA. E.GertlerP. J. (2005). How the expansion of hospital systems has affected consumers. Health Affairs, 24, 213-219.
DonaldsonL. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
DrazinR.Van de VenA. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 514-539.
18.
DurkinE. M.DeutschA.HeinemannA. W. (2010). Inpatient rehabilitation facilities: Variation in organizational practice in response to prospective payment. Medical Care Research and Review, 67, 149-172.
FareR.GrosskopfS.LindgrenB.RoosP. (1994). Productivity developments in Swedish hospitals: A Malmquist output index approach. In CharnesA.CooperW. W.LewinA. Y.SeifordL. M. (Eds.), Data envelopment analysis: Theory, methodology, and applications (pp. 253-272). Boston, MA: Kluwer.
21.
GansB. M. (2008). Impact of the “60% Rule” on inpatient medical rehabilitation. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 87, 255-257.
22.
HalpernM. T.AlexanderJ. A.FennellM. L. (1992). Multihospital system affiliation as a survival strategy for rural hospitals under the prospective payment system. Journal of Rural Health, 8, 93-105.
23.
LukeR. D.OzcanY. A.OldenP. C. (1995). Local markets and systems: Hospital consolidations in metropolitan areas. Health Services Research, 30, 555-575.
24.
McCueM. J.ThompsonJ. M. (2010). HealthSouth’s inpatient rehabilitation facilities: How does their performance compare with other for-profit and nonprofit inpatient rehabilitation facilities?Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91, 708-713.
25.
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. (2003). Report to the Congress: Variation and innovation in Medicare. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.medpac.gov
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. (2010a). A data book: Healthcare spending and the Medicare program. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.medpac.gov
28.
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. (2010b). Report to the Congress: Medicare payment policy, March 2010. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.medpac.gov
29.
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. (2011). Report to the Congress: Medicare payment policy, March 2011. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.medpac.gov
30.
MillerD.DrogeC. (1986). Psychological and traditional determinants of structure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 539-560.
31.
The Moran Company. (2011, November). Utilization trends in inpatient rehabilitation: Update through Q2: 2011. Arlington, VA: Moran Company. Retrieved from http://www.aha.org/content/11/11nov-irfmoranrpt.pdf
32.
MurerC. G. (2005, April). Growing confusion: CMS’ 75% Rule is causing uncertainty for inpatient rehabilitation facilities. Rehab Management. Retrieved from http://www.rehabpub.com/rehabec/42005/1.asp
O’NeillL.RaunerM.HeidenbergerK.KrausM. (2008). A cross-national comparison and taxonomy of DEA-based hospital efficiency studies. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 42, 158-189.
35.
OzcanY. A. (2008). Health care benchmarking and performance evaluation: An assessment using data envelopment analysis (DEA). New York, NY: Springer.
36.
OzcanY. A.LukeR. D. (2011). Health care delivery restructuring and productivity change: Assessing the Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) using the Malmquist approach. Medical Care Research and Review, 68(1 Suppl.), 20S-35S.
37.
OzgenH.OzcanY. A. (2004). Longitudinal analysis of efficiency in multiple output dialysis markets. Health Care Management Science, 7, 253-261.
38.
PezzinL. E.RobertsB. A.MiaoH.DillinghamT. R. (2011). Regulatory policies, the “75% Rule,” and post-acute care discharge setting. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 90, 954-958.
39.
RoskoM. D.ProencaJ. (2005). Impact of network and system use on hospital X-inefficiency. Health Care Management Review, 30, 69-79.
40.
RoskoM. D.ProencaJ.ZinnJ. S.BazzoliG. J. (2007). Hospital inefficiency: What is the impact of membership in different types of systems?Inquiry, 44, 335-349.
41.
ScottW. R.DavisG. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
42.
SegalM.PedersenA. L.FreemanK.FastA. (2008). Medicare’s new restrictions on rehabilitation admissions: Impact on the elderly. American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, 87, 872-882.
43.
SwoffordM. D. (2011). Rural hospital system affiliations and their effects on hospital economic performance, 2004-2008 (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Accession Order No. AAT 3465420)
44.
ThompsonJ. M.McCueM. J. (2010). Performance of freestanding inpatient rehabilitation hospitals before and after the rehabilitation prospective payment system. Health Care Management Review, 35, 36-45.
45.
TilsonS. (2006, January24). Medicare payment issues affecting inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs). Congressional Research Service report for Congress. Retrieved from http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32640_20060124.pdf
