Using a public hospital funding model to strengthen a case for improved nutritional care in a cancer setting

Objective. This study aimed to measure the prevalence of malnutrition risk and assessed malnutrition in patients admitted to a cancer-specific public hospital, and to model the potential hospital funding opportunity associated with implementing routine malnutrition screening. Methods. A point-prevalence audit of malnutrition risk and diagnosable malnutrition was conducted. A retrospective audit of hospital funding associated with documented cases of malnutrition was conducted. Audit results were used to estimate annual malnutrition prevalence, associated casemix-based reimbursement potential and the clinical support resources required to adequately identify and treat malnutrition. Results. Sixty-four percent of inpatients were at risk of malnutrition. Of these, 90% were assessed as malnourished. Twelve percent of malnourished patients produced a positive change in the diagnosis-related group (DRG) and increased allocated financial reimbursement. Identifying and diagnosing all cases of malnutrition could contribute an additional AU$413644 reimbursement funding annually. Conclusions. Early identification of malnutrition may expedite appropriate nutritional management and improve patient outcomes in addition to contributing to casemix-based reimbursement funding for health services. A successful business case for additional clinical resources to improve nutritional care was aided by demonstrating the link between malnutrition screening, hospital reimbursements and improved nutritional care. What is known about the topic? It is known that between 20 and 50% of hospital patients are malnourished and oncology patients are 1.7 times more likely to be malnourished than are other hospitalised patients. Despite the existence of practice guidelines for malnutrition screening of at-risk oncology patients, these are not routinely implemented. Identification of malnutrition in hospitalised patients is linked to casemix funding via DRG. Casemix reimbursement for malnutrition can be enhanced if: (1) malnutrition risk is identified; (2) malnutrition is diagnosed; (3) the word ‘malnutrition’ and an associated action plan is documented in the medical record; and (4) malnutrition is recognised and recorded by the clinical coder. Amendments to the ICD-10-AM in 2008 allowing malnutrition to be recognised as a complication for coding when it is documented by a dietitian in the medical history has hospital reimbursement implications for dietetic practice. Reimbursement potential for malnutrition has been calculated in public hospitals in Australia with varying results. What does this paper add? This paper reports the components of a successful business case made to enhance resources for identification and treatment of malnutrition on the basis of improved treatment as well as enhanced reimbursement potential resulting from changes to the ICD-10-AM. The present study adds to the body of literature showing that malnutrition coding contributes to casemix funding in Australian public hospitals, as well as internationally, and highlights the previously unreported opportunity for a cancer-specific health service. This work demonstrated that reassignment of a DRG based on a diagnosis of malnutrition altered the overall casemix funding value for 12% of audited patients. This compares with the findings of other authors who demonstrated hypothetical DRG changes and financial reallocation. What are the implications for practitioners? This paper highlights that practitioner-centred strategies are needed to enhance malnutrition identification, diagnosis, documentation and coding to maximise casemix reimbursement and better treat malnutrition in hospitals. Strategies include education of the dietetics, medical and health-information workforce. This manuscript provides a description of the conduct of quality-improvement activities that may support successful business cases for increased dietetic resources in future.

Towards an outcomes-based system

THE DILEMMA over how best to satisfy unlimited demand with limited resources is the core problem of health care funding, management and politics. Governments and health authorities have struggled with the conflict throughout history and dealt with it with varying degrees of sophistication and success. Current strategies in Australia predominantly involve limiting supply by limiting access, most commonly by limiting workforce, physical facilities, equipment, pharmaceuticals and operating funding, in any combination. Application of these strategies inevitably results in delays in service or non-provision of service for some. While such a pragmatic approach to the problem is effective for the purpose of financial control, it causes funding tensions and is a weak system for ensuring that the limited resources are used to best effect. Casemix funding is well established in Australia, but is primarily used in an attempt to equitably distribute available resources. Although it is touted as a system for funding output, it is a simplistic and inaccurate system based on weighted throughput of patients and makes no attempt to take into account the effectiveness of services provided.

Funding Victoria's public hospitals: The casemix policy of 2000-2001

On 1 July 1993 Victoria became the first Australian state to use casemix information to set budgets for its public hospitals commencing with casemix funding for inpatient services. Victoria's casemix funding approach now embracesinpatient, outpatient and rehabilitation services.