Currently Viewing:
The American Journal of Managed Care June 2014
Comparison Between Guideline-Preferred and Nonpreferred First-Line HIV Antiretroviral Therapy
Stephen S. Johnston, MA; Timothy Juday, PhD; Amanda M. Farr, MPH; Bong-Chul Chu, PhD; and Tony Hebden, PhD
The Value of Specialty Pharmaceuticals - A Systematic Review
Martin Zalesak, MD, PhD; Joyce S. Greenbaum, BA; Joshua T. Cohen, PhD; Fotios Kokkotos, PhD; Adam Lustig, MS; Peter J. Neumann, ScD; Daryl Pritchard, PhD; Jeffrey Stewart, BA; and Robert W. Dubois, MD
Health Insurance and Breast-Conserving Surgery With Radiation Treatment
Askal Ayalew Ali, MA; Hong Xiao, PhD; and Gebre-Egziabher Kiros, PhD
Patient-Centered Medical Home and Quality Measurement in Small Practices
Jason J. Wang, PhD; Chloe H. Winther, BA; Jisung Cha, PhD; Colleen M. McCullough, MPA; Amanda S. Parsons, MD, MBA; Jesse Singer, DO, MPH; and Sarah C. Shih, MPH
Impact of a Patient Incentive Program on Receipt of Preventive Care
Ateev Mehrotra, MD; Ruopeng An, PhD; Deepak N. Patel, MBBS; and Roland Sturm, PhD
Novel Predictive Models for Metabolic Syndrome Risk: A "Big Data" Analytic Approach
Gregory B. Steinberg, MB, BCh; Bruce W. Church, PhD; Carol J. McCall, FSA, MAAA; Adam B. Scott, MBA; and Brian P. Kalis, MBA
Primary Care Diabetes Bundle Management: 3-Year Outcomes for Microvascular and Macrovascular Events
Frederick J. Bloom Jr, MD; Xiaowei Yan, PhD; Walter F. Stewart, PhD; Thomas R. Graf, MD; Tammy Anderer, PhD; Duane E. Davis, MD; Steven B. Pierdon, MD; James Pitcavage, MS; and Glenn D. Steele Jr, MD
Association of Electronic Health Records With Cost Savings in a National Sample
Abby Swanson Kazley, PhD; Annie N. Simpson, PhD; Kit N. Simpson, DPH; and Ron Teufel, MD
Learning About 30-Day Readmissions From Patients With Repeated Hospitalizations
Jeanne T. Black, PhD, MBA
Currently Reading
Removing a Constraint on Hospital Utilization: A Natural Experiment in Maryland
Noah S. Kalman, MD; Bradley G. Hammill, MS; Robert B. Murray, MA, MBA; and Kevin A. Schulman, MD
Real-World Impact of Comparative Effectiveness Research Findings on Clinical Practice
Teresa B. Gibson, PhD; Emily D. Ehrlich, MPH; Jennifer Graff, PharmD; Robert Dubois, MD; Amanda M. Farr, MPH; Michael Chernew, PhD; and A. Mark Fendrick, MD
A Systematic Review of Value-Based Insurance Design in Chronic Diseases
Karen L. Tang, MD; Lianne Barnieh, PhD; Bikaramjit Mann, MD; Fiona Clement, PhD; David J.T. Campbell, MD, MSc; Brenda R. Hemmelgarn, MD, PhD; Marcello Tonelli, MD, SM; Diane Lorenzetti, MLS; and Braden J. Manns, MD, MSc

Removing a Constraint on Hospital Utilization: A Natural Experiment in Maryland

Noah S. Kalman, MD; Bradley G. Hammill, MS; Robert B. Murray, MA, MBA; and Kevin A. Schulman, MD
In 2001, Maryland began to reimburse hospitals for excess volume at full case rates. The authors investigated the impact on hospital utilization and finances.
Additional factors may have influenced the growth in hospital utilization. The repeal of the payment adjustment, negotiated by the HSCRC with hospitals and payers in Maryland, was undertaken in exchange for tight overall case-rate inflation for 2001 through 2003. Similarly tight case-rate updates had been implemented in 1999 and 2000 in response to the 1997 Balanced Budget Amendment. Although these small rate updates limited per case cost growth, it likely enhanced the relative profitability of additional patient volume (because incremental volume has no fixed costs to cover) compared with the profitability of baseline patient volume. Indeed, inpatient and outpatient volume grew faster in 1999 and 2000 than in 1997 and 1998. Generous case-rate increases from 2004 through 2007, combined with a strong economy that expanded the potential demand for hospital services, further increased the profitability of additional patients. For outpatient services in particular, the repeal of a small ambulatory surgery constraint program released a restriction on outpatient service growth. Overall, these factors could have provided extra inducement for hospitals to admit and treat more patients.

Hospital Finances

Commensurate with the increase in hospital utilization, the rate of growth in hospital operating revenue and operating costs accelerated with full case rates. Operating revenue growth outpaced utilization growth, which would be expected given case-rate inflation approved by the HSCRC on top of larger patient volumes. That operating costs had greater increases than operating revenue demonstrated that hospitals’ cost inflation exceeded case-rate inflation. Such cost increases in response to more generous payments are consistent with converse research indicating that hospitals reduced operating costs in response to payment cuts.11‑14 Contrary to expectations, operating profit trends had a significant 1-year decrease in value of nearly 50% post policy repeal, and operating profit trends as a percentage of operating revenue had a significant 1-year decrease in value of 3.1%. These results can be attributed to the extremely tight overall case rate updates between 1999 and 2003. Although the tight updates did initially impact operating profits, operating profit as a percentage of operating revenue returned to historical levels over time (Figure 3, Panel C).

Limitations

The HSCRC data allow comparisons of trends over many years, increasing the statistical power of the data. Furthermore, the database maintains consistent reporting fields over the 18-year period. Although it is a relatively small state, Maryland has a range of hospital types, including academic medical centers, community hospitals, and safety net hospitals in both rural and urban areas.

Our analysis did not include other state or national trends as a control group for the observed change, nor did it explicitly control for population growth, macroeconomic trends, or changes in insurance coverage or health status. However, the growth in admissions nationally remained relatively constant,15 diminishing the likelihood that a national policy change or national business cycle had an impact. Furthermore, population growth in Maryland remained relatively constant, indicating that population growth did not account for the increase in admissions.16 This limits the likelihood that changes in the time series are attributable to endogenous factors not recorded in the analysis.

Certain reported hospital-level measures, specifically operating revenue, operating costs, and operating profit, included hospital operations unrelated to direct patient care. This made the analysis of the impact of the policy change more difficult. In addition, the reported effects of the policy change may not be uniform across all hospitals, because hospitals varied in their response to the policy change. The inclusion of some hospitals in multihospital health systems could have further altered the observed financial impact.

Lastly, the HSCRC reintroduced the 85% payment adjustment policy in 2009. Although hospital volume has recently declined, we were unable to assess whether the reinstatement of the payment adjustment policy had a statistically significant impact on hospital behavior, given the policy’s recent reimplementation. Future research is required to examine this effect once sufficient time points have been reported.

Policy Implications

In the 1990s, Maryland’s 85% payment adjustment policy limited the financial incentive of case-based payment systems for hospitals to increase utilization. With the policy change to reimburse full case rates for increases in hospital services, hospitals unsurprisingly responded to this incentive change by increasing utilization, operating revenue, and operating costs faster than baseline growth. Policy makers should be concerned that Maryland’s payment incentives in the 2000s, which mirror those of Medicare, led to changes in hospital infrastructure and strategy that have long-term consequences. In the 8 years with full case rates, hospital operating costs in Maryland more than doubled. If the baseline operating cost trajectory had remained the same, hospital operating costs in the state would have been 25% lower in 2008.

On a national level, efforts to bend the healthcare cost curve, such as bundled payments and accountable care organizations, rely on financial incentives to change behavior. However, Medicare has focused on containing costs without understanding hospitals’ underlying cost structure. Indeed, neither of these new programs addresses the incentives created by the current average costbased payment system. Policy makers may consider Maryland’s payment adjustment policy as a potential tool to address these incentives.

CONCLUSIONS

The 1990s Maryland payment adjustment policy intended to deliver payments that more accurately reflected hospitals’ mix of fixed and variable costs and to limit the incentive for hospitals to increase service volume.17 The policy’s repeal made reimbursement for incremental volume more generous, similar to Medicare’s current payment structure. We observed significant acceleration in the growth trends of inpatient and outpatient utilization, as well as operating costs, associated with full case rates. The payment adjustment policy of the 1990s appeared to restrict the growth in hospital costs in Maryland and may prove a useful method to limit hospital cost growth nationally.

Author Affiliations: Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina (NSK, BGH, KAS); Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC (NSK, KAS); Global Health Payment, LLC, Towson, MD (RBM).

Source of Funding: This work was supported internally by departmental funds.

Author Disclosures: The authors report no relationship or financial interest with any entity that would pose a conflict of interest with the subject matter of this article.

Authorship Information: Concept and design (NSK, BGH, RBM, KAS); acquisition of data (NSK); analysis and interpretation of data (NSK, BGH, RBM, KAS); drafting of the manuscript (NSK); critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content (NSK, BGH, RBM, KAS); statistical analysis (NSK, BGH); supervision (KAS).

Address correspondence to: Kevin A. Schulman, MD, Duke Clinical Research Institute, PO Box 17969, Durham, NC 27715. E-mail: kevin .schulman@duke.edu.
1. Iglehart JK. Medicare begins prospective payment of hospitals. N Engl J Med. 1983;308(23):1428-1432.

2. Robinson JC. Theory and practice in the design of physician payment incentives. Milbank Q. 2001;79(2):149-177, III.

3. Murray R. Setting hospital rates to control costs and boost quality: the Maryland experience. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(5):1395-1405.

4. Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission. HSCRC Policy Documents and Reports: Annual Reports. Baltimore, Maryland; 2012. http://www.hscrc.state.md.us/pdr_annualReports.cfm. Accessed July 11, 2013.

5. Manning WG, Basu A, Mullahy J. Generalized modeling approaches to risk adjustment of skewed outcomes data. J Health Econ. 2005;24(3):465-488.

6. White C. How do changes in Medicare hospital payment rates affect the volume of services? Paper presented at: Issues in Medicare Payment Policy. AcademyHealth Annual Research Meeting; June 12-14, 2011; Seattle, WA.

7. He D, Mellor J. Hospital volume responses to Medicare’s outpatient prospective payment system: evidence from Florida; 2012. Social Science Research Network website. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2039135. Accessed July 11, 2013.

8. Lindrooth RC, Bazzoli GJ, Clement J. The effect of reimbursement on the intensity of hospital services. South Econ J. 2007;73(3):575-587.

9. Dafny LS. How do hospitals respond to price changes? Am Econ Rev. 2005;95(5):1525-1547.

10. Ginsburg PB. Can hospitals and physicians shift the effects of cuts in Medicare reimbursement to private payers? Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;suppl Web Exclusives:W3-472-W3-479.

11. Feder J, Hadley J, Zuckerman S. How did Medicare’s prospective payment system affect hospitals? N Engl J Med. 1987;317(14):867-873.

12. Bazzoli GJ, Lindrooth RC, Hasnain-Wynia R, Needleman J. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and US hospital operations. Inquiry. 2004;41(4):401-417.

13. Lindrooth RC, Bazzoli GJ, Needleman J, Hasnain-Wynia R. The effect of changes in hospital reimbursement on nurse staffing decisions at safety net and nonsafety net hospitals. Health Serv Res. 2006;41(3, pt 1):701-720.

14. Zhao M, Bazzoli GJ, Clement JP, Lindrooth RC, Nolin JM, Chukmaitov AS. Hospital staffing decisions: does financial performance matter? Inquiry. 2008;45(3):293-307.

15. TrendWatch Chartbook 2012: Trends Affecting Hospitals and Health Systems. Table 3.1: Trends in inpatient utilization in community hospitals, 1990-2010; Washington, DC; 2012. American Hospital Association website. http://www.aha.org/research/reports/tw/chartbook/2012/ table3-1.pdf. Accessed July 11, 2013.

16. Maryland population. Maryland Manual On-Line; Annapolis, Maryland; 2012. Maryland State Archives website. http://www.msa.md.gov/ msa/mdmanual/01glance/html/pop.html. Accessed July 11, 2013.

17. Final Staff Recommendation and Discussion Document Regarding the FY 2012 HSCRC Hospital Payment Update; Baltimore, Maryland; 2011. Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission website. http://www.hscrc.state.md.us/documents/HSCRC_PolicyDocumentsReports/ ApprovedPolicyPapersStaffRecommendations/2011/04/Final- StaffRecFY2012HospPaymentUpdate.pdf. Accessed July 11, 2013.

18. MacDougall C, Polk RE. Antimicrobial stewardship programs in health care systems. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2005;18(4):638-656.
PDF
 
Copyright AJMC 2006-2019 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
x
Welcome the the new and improved AJMC.com, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up