the impact of global budgeting on treatment outcomes
DESCRIPTION
THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES. Kanhom Kan Shu-Fen Li Wei-Der Tsai. Objective of this study Investigate the impact of global budgeting on treatment outcome. Motivation: - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES
Kanhom KanShu-Fen Li Wei-Der Tsai
1
![Page 2: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Objective of this studyInvestigate the impact of global budgeting on
treatment outcome.
Motivation:1. The rapid increase in health care expenditure
since the 1960s has become a great concern to policy makers in most developed countries.
2. Global Budgeting is effective in controlling medical expenditures.
3. Global Budgeting was adopted in OECD countries (see Docteur and Oxley, 2004, and Wolfe and Moran, 1993).
2
![Page 3: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
6,500
7,000
7,500
8,000
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000
NHE( )平均每人 美元
GDP( )平均每人 美元
Taiwan
Norway
Japan2006
IcelandDenmark
Sweden Ireland
FinlandUnited Kingdom
AustriaCanada
Belgium
Australia2006
ItalyGreece
France
New Zealand
Spain
KoreaCzech Republic
HungarySlovak Republic
Portugal2006
Turkey2005
Poland
Germany
Mexico
Netherlands
Data Source: OECD Health Data 2009 3
Comparison of per capital NHI Between OECD countries and Taiwan
![Page 4: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
資料來源:中央健保局
The Growth of NHI Revenues and Expenditures
4
![Page 5: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Literature Review Most relative research focus on the provider’s behavior
responses (quantity and quality) to global budgeting:
A. Theoretical Prediction:1. Phelps (2009) and Fan et al. (1998) show that medical
service providers will increase the quantity of services supplied.
2. Benstetter and Wambach’s (2006) suggest that there is likely to be a coordination failure such that medical service providers will supply a high quantity of services in order to achieve a target income and prevent bankruptcy (the so-called “treadmill effect”).
5
![Page 6: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Literature Review (cont)A. Theoretical Predictions:3. Based on the assumption of monopolist and
Cournot competitive market, Mougeot and Naegelen (2005) suggest that compared with FFS, an expenditure cap results in a lower level of service quantity and quality.
4. Feldman and Lobo’s (1997) assume that medical service providers’ utility is a function of services quantity and quality. Their model indicates that the excess demand which is prevalent under global budget systems is due to the high level of resource intensity chosen by service providers.
6
![Page 7: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Literature Review (cont)B. Empirical Evidence: 1. Rochaix (1993) show in response to an expenditure
cap, physicians in Québec increase their activity levels, and provide more complex and high-priced procedures.
2. Similar results found by Hurley et al. (1997) [cases of Alberta and Scotia Nova in Canada] and Lee and Jones (2004) [case of Taiwan’s dentists].
3. Chen et al. (2007) and Cheng, et al. (2009) show that hospitals in Taiwan are more likely to hospitalize patients and increase per case expenses claim under global budgeting.
7
![Page 8: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Research Agenda The literature is silent on the issue that
whether the implement of global budgeting has an impact on quality or treatment outcome.
Using the data of Taiwan’s National Health Insurance claim records in 1998-2008, we examine the effect of global budgeting on treatment outcomes of AMI (acute myocardial infraction), ischemic heart disease, ischemic stroke and hemorrhagic stroke patients.
8
![Page 9: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Research Agenda (cont)Treatment outcome is measured by inpatient
readmission within 30 days, and the rate of 7, 14, 30, 60 and 90 days post-discharge mortality.
Hospitals were divided into for-profit and not-for-profit hospitals. Different ownership may respond to the launch of global budget differently.
Regression discontinuity design was applied to analyze the effect of global budgeting on treatment outcome.
9
![Page 10: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Background of Taiwan’s NHINational Health Insurance (NHI) was
implemented in March of 1995.NHI provides patients with comprehensive
care, but only requests low out of pocket expenditures.
Payment system started from FFS in 1995, but changed to global budget system sector by sector. 1998/7 Dental services 2000/7 Chinese Medicine 2001/7 Community clinics in 2001 2002/7 Hospital services 2010/1 DRG for some hospital inpatient services.
10
![Page 11: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
![Page 12: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Background of Taiwan’s NHI (cont)Under FFS, a providers is credited a certain
point for each treatment procedure offered and each point is worth NT$ 1.
Under global budgeting system, there is a regional level expenditure cap. Taiwan was divided into six medical regions. The point value for a given region is determined as follows
12
![Page 13: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
![Page 14: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
![Page 15: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
![Page 16: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
![Page 17: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
![Page 18: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
For-profit vs. Not-for Profit Hospitals For-profit and not-for-profit hospitals have different
ownership.
Not-for-profit hospitals enjoys property tax exemption and profit tax exemption if over 80% of its earnings are spent.
Not-for-profit hospitals (i.e., public hospitals and private not-for-profit hospitals) lack profit-making incentives. Hence, they would respond to global budgeting in a way different from that of for-profit ones.
18
![Page 19: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
For-Profit and Not-for-Profit Hospitals in Taiwan
19
![Page 20: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
For-Profit and Not-for-Profit Hospitals in Taiwan (cont)
20
![Page 21: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Data DescriptionClaim record form the 1998-2008 Claim File of
Taiwan’s NHI.
The claim record contain information both on hospitalized patients’ and hospitals’ characteristics.
We use the claim data to construct three samples, including AMI (acute myocardial infraction, ICD 410), ischemic heart disease (ICD 411-413), ischemic stroke ( ICD 434) and hemorrhagic stroke (ICD 430 -431) patients during the period 2000-2005.
21
![Page 22: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Data DescriptionSome criteria are imposed to exclude observations. (a) hospitalized due to the same disease in the
previous year;(b) admitted to a hospital, which treated less than 30
cases in the current year;(c) hospitalized for the disease during the SARS
epidemic (March-July, 2003);(d) hospitalized during July 2002 (1st month of GB); (e) Patients not discharged from hospital after
admission;(f) Patients transferred from one hospital to another
hospitalObs for AMI: 40,444; Ischemic heart disease:
232,157; ischemic stroke: 155,884; hemorrhagic stroke: 49,373
22
![Page 23: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Measurement of Treatment Outcome
(a) 30-days readmission rate;(b) 7-day mortality rate;(c) 14-day mortality rate;(d)30-day mortality rate;(e)60-day mortality rate;(f)90-day mortality rate;
23
![Page 24: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
![Page 25: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
![Page 26: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
![Page 27: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
![Page 28: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Empirical Strategy Linear probability model with hospital fixed effects:
Where subscribe d index calendar dates, h and i index, respectively, the hospital and the patient; yhid an outcome of interest; GBd global budgeting indicator; trendd year trend, Xhid a vector of patient characteristics (i.e., CCI score, age, gender); ηh hospital fixed effect; εhid residuals.
28
![Page 29: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Empirical Results— Coefficient estimates of GB
29
![Page 30: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Empirical Results— Coefficient estimates of GB
30
![Page 31: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Empirical Results— Coefficient estimates of GB
31
![Page 32: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Empirical Results— Coefficient estimates of GB
32
![Page 33: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
ConclusionOur estimation results suggest that global
budgeting has some effects on post-discharge readmission and mortality for for-profit hospitals, but not for not-for-profit hospitals.
For AMI patients hospitalized in for-profit hospitals, GB reduces 30 days post-discharge readmission by 5.85% (compared to the sample means 13.93% in 2000 and 14.47% in 2001, respectively), and 7 days post-discharge mortality by 1.94% (compared to 4.25% in 2000 and 4.25% in 2001, respectively).
33
![Page 34: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Conclusion (cont)For hemorrhagic stroke patients hospitalized in
for-profit hospitals, GB reduces the 30 days post-discharge readmission rate by 3.12% (compared to the sample mean 16.89% in 2000 and 17.08% in 2001, respectively). Moreover, GB reduces 14, 30 and 60 days post-discharge mortality by 1.55%, 1.78% and 1.89%, respectively. The impacts of GB are non-negligible if compared to 2000-2001 sample mortality rates of 8%-7.02% (14 days), 10.12%-8.89% (30 days), and 12.05%-10.31% (60 days).
34
![Page 35: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Conclusion (cont)The vast increase in the amount of resources
devoted to medical treatment after the launch of GB yield some effects.
This suggests that the installation of GB, which contains costs, has the side effect of improving the outcomes of treatment.
35
![Page 36: THE IMPACT OF GLOBAL BUDGETING ON TREATMENT OUTCOMES](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022081517/56816586550346895dd83a9a/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
The End. Thank you and
Comments are welcome!