Abstract
Abstract
Background
The recent rising health spending intrigued efficiency and cost-based performance measures. However, mortality risk adjustment methods are still under consideration in cost estimation, though methods specific to cost estimate have been developed. Therefore, we aimed to compare the performance of diagnosis-based risk adjustment methods based on the episode-based cost to utilize in efficiency measurement.
Methods
We used the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service–National Patient Sample as the data source. A separate linear regression model was constructed within each Major Diagnostic Category (MDC). Individual models included explanatory (demographics, insurance type, institutional type, Adjacent Diagnosis Related Group [ADRG], diagnosis-based risk adjustment methods) and response variables (episode-based costs). The following risk adjustment methods were used: Refined Diagnosis Related Group (RDRG), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), National Health Insurance Service Hierarchical Condition Categories (NHIS-HCC), and Department of Health and Human Service-HCC (HHS-HCC). The model accuracy was compared using R-squared (R2), mean absolute error, and predictive ratio. For external validity, we used the 2017 dataset.
Results
The model including RDRG improved the mean adjusted R2 from 40.8% to 45.8% compared to the adjacent DRG. RDRG was inferior to both HCCs (RDRG adjusted R2 45.8%, NHIS-HCC adjusted R2 46.3%, HHS-HCC adjusted R2 45.9%) but superior to CCI (adjusted R2 42.7%). Model performance varied depending on the MDC groups. While both HCCs had the highest explanatory power in 12 MDCs, including MDC P (Newborns), RDRG showed the highest adjusted R2 in 6 MDCs, such as MDC O (pregnancy, childbirth, and puerperium). The overall mean absolute errors were the lowest in the model with RDRG ($1,099). The predictive ratios showed similar patterns among the models regardless of the subgroups according to age, sex, insurance type, institutional type, and the upper and lower 10th percentiles of actual costs. External validity also showed a similar pattern in the model performance.
Conclusions
Our research showed that either NHIS-HCC or HHS-HCC can be useful in adjusting comorbidities for episode-based costs in the process of efficiency measurement.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference49 articles.
1. OECD. Health at a Glance 2021. Paris (FR), OECD Publishing. 2021 https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/health-at-a-glance_19991312. Accessed 15 August 2023.
2. OECD. Health at a Glance 2019. Paris (FR), OECD Publishing. 2019. Accessed 26 December 2022.
3. Wagstaff A, Flores G, Hsu J, Smitz MF, Chepynoga K, Buisman LR, et al. Progress on catastrophic health spending in 133 countries: a retrospective observational study. Lancet Glob Health. 2018;6:e169–79.
4. UN. Goal 3: Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages. 2022 https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/health/. Accessed 5 August 2022.
5. KOSIS. Benefits by Year. Daejeon (KR), Statistics Korea. 2021 https://kosis.kr/statHtml/statHtml.do?orgId=350&tblId=TX_35001_A034&conn_path=I3. Accessed 15 August 2023.