Can health care rationing ever be rational?

Factors Influencing Older Persons' Transitions to Facility-Based Care Settings: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Older adults (≥65 years) are living longer with complex health needs and wish to remain at home as their care needs change. We aimed to determine which factors influence older persons' transitions from home living to facility-based care (FBC) settings such as long-term care facilities or assisted living.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Through a scoping review of 7 databases, we considered all academic literature examining factors influencing transitions from home living to FBC. Only English articles were reviewed. Based on the Meleis' Health Transition (MHT) model, we categorized findings into: (a) transition conditions; (b) patterns of response; and (c) health services and interventions.

RESULTS

We included 204 unique studies. Age, cognitive/functional impairments, and caregiver burden were the most consistent risk factors for older persons' transitions to FBC. Caregiver burden was the only consistent risk factor in both quantitative and qualitative literature. Other factors around health service use or nonmedical factors were examined in a small number of studies, or demonstrated mixed or nonsignificant results. Key research gaps relate to transitions to intermediate levels of FBC, research in public health systems, and research employing qualitative and interventional methods.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

We expanded the MHT model to capture informal caregivers and their critical role in transitions from home to FBC settings. More research is needed to address practical needs of clients and caregivers while at home, and self-directed care funding models could be expanded. Theory-driven interventional research focusing on caregivers and successful hospital discharge is critically needed.

The sociology of rationing: Towards increased interdisciplinary dialogue - A critical interpretive literature review

Since the 1990s, the sociology of rationing has developed in explicit opposition to health economic and bioethical approaches to healthcare rationing. This implies a limited engagement with other disciplines and a limited impact on political debates. To bring the sociology of rationing into an interdisciplinary dialogue, it is important to understand the disciplines' analytical differences and similarities. Based on a critical interpretive literature synthesis, this article examines four disciplinary perspectives on healthcare rationing and priority setting: (1) Health economics, which seeks to develop decision models to provide for more rational resource allocation; (2) Bioethics, which seeks to develop normative principles and procedures to facilitate a just allocation of resources; (3) Health policy studies, which focus on issues of legitimacy and implementation of decision models; and lastly (4) Sociology, which analyses the uncertainty of rationing and the resulting value conflicts and negotiations. The article provides an analytical overview and suggestions on how to advance the impact of sociological arguments in future rationing debates: Firstly, we discuss how to develop the concepts and assumptions of the sociology of rationing. Secondly, we identify specific themes relevant for sociological inquiry, including the recurring problem of how to translate administrative priority setting decisions into clinical practice.

Rationing medical education

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the role of rationing in medical education. Medical education is expensive and there is a limit to that which governments, funders or individuals can spend on it. Rationing involves the allocation of resources that are limited. This paper discussed the pros and cons of the application of rationing to medical education and the different forms of rationing that could be applied. Even though some stakeholders in medical education might be taken aback at the prospect of rationing, the truth is that rationing has always occurred in one form or another in medical education and in healthcare more broadly. Different types of rationing exist in healthcare professional education. For example rationing may be implicit or explicit or may be based on macro-allocation or micro-allocation decisions. Funding can be distributed equally among learners, or according to the needs of individual learners, or to ensure that overall usefulness is maximised. One final option is to allow the market to operate freely and to decide in that way. These principles of rationing can apply to individual learners or to institutions or departments or learning modes. Rationing is occurring in medical education, even though it might be implicit. It is worth giving consideration to methods of rationing and to make thinking about rationing more explicit.

Proportional costs in trauma and acute care surgery patients: dominant role of intensive care unit costs

BACKGROUND

Controlling inpatient costs is increasingly important. Identifying proportionately larger cost categories may help focus cost control efforts. The purpose of this study was to identify proportionate patient cost categories in trauma and acute care surgery (TACS) patients and determine subgroups in which the largest opportunities for cost savings might exist.

STUDY DESIGN

Administrative data from our academic, urban, level I trauma center were used to identify all adult TACS patients from FY07 through FY11. We determined, on average, what proportion of the whole each cost category contributed to patients' total costs and examined the same proportions for subgroups of patients.

RESULTS

We identified 6,008 TACS patients. Trauma patients (n = 3,904) made up 65% of the cohort (mean Injury Severity Score 13.2). Payers were: 22% government (Medicare, Medicaid, Champus), 27% private, 43% self-pay/indigent, 3% other, and 5% workers compensation. Nontrauma (general surgery) patients (n = 2,104) made up 35% of the cohort. Payers were: 44% government, 24% private, 29% self-pay/indigent, 2% other, and 1% workers compensation. Total inpatient costs were $141,304,993. Per patient costs rose from $17,245 in FY07 to $26,468 in FY11. In the aggregate, supplies, ICU stays, and ward stays represented the largest proportionate cost categories. On a per patient basis, however, ICU stays were by far the largest cost. Patients with ICU stay greater than 10 days were only 7% of all patients but accounted for 41% of total costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Trauma and acute care surgery patients represent a significant and increasing institutional cost. Per patient ICU costs were the largest single category, suggesting that cost control efforts should focus heavily on critically ill patients. Nontrauma patients who require critical care have the highest per patient ICU costs and may represent a previously underappreciated opportunity for cost control.