Analytical methods to assess the impacts of activity-based funding (ABF): a scoping review

Country-level effects of diagnosis-related groups: evidence from Germany's comprehensive reform of hospital payments

Hospitals account for about 40% of all healthcare expenditure in high-income countries and play a central role in healthcare provision. The ways in which they are paid, therefore, has major implications for the care they provide. However, our knowledge about reforms that have been made to the various payment schemes and their country-level effects is surprisingly thin. This study examined the uniquely comprehensive introduction of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) in Germany, where DRGs function as the sole pricing, billing, and budgeting system for hospitals and almost exclusively determine hospital revenue. The introduction of DRGs, therefore, completely overhauled the previous system based on per diem rates, offering a unique opportunity for analysis. Using aggregate data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and recent advances in econometrics, we analyzed how hospital activity and efficiency changed in response to the reform. We found that DRGs in Germany significantly increased hospital activity by around 20%. In contrast to earlier studies, we found that DRGs have not necessarily shortened the average length of stay.

Hospital response to Activity-Based Funding and price incentives: Evidence from Ireland

Activity-Based Funding (ABF) is a funding policy incentivising hospitals to deliver more efficient care. ABF can be complemented by additional price incentives to further drive hospital efficiency. In 2016, ABF was introduced for public patients admitted to Irish public hospitals. Additionally, a price incentive to perform laparoscopic cholecystectomy as day-case surgery was introduced in 2018. Private patient activity in public hospitals was subject to neither ABF nor price incentive. Using national Hospital In-Patient-Enquiry activity data 2013-2019, we evaluated the impact of ABF and the price incentive for laparoscopic cholecystectomy surgery in Ireland. We exploit variation in hospital payment for public and private patients treated in public acute Irish hospitals and employ a Propensity Score Matching Difference-in-Differences approach. We estimate the funding change impacts across outcomes measuring the proportion of day-case admissions and length of stay. We found no significant impact for either outcomes linked to ABF introduction. Similarly, no impacts linked to the price incentive were observed. It appears providers of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in Irish public hospitals did not react to the new funding mechanisms. The implementation of the funding policies did not improve hospital efficiency. Further strengthening of these new funding mechanisms are required to deliver more efficient care.

A comparison of four quasi-experimental methods: an analysis of the introduction of activity-based funding in Ireland

Background

Health services research often relies on quasi-experimental study designs in the estimation of treatment effects of a policy change or an intervention. The aim of this study is to compare some of the commonly used non-experimental methods in estimating intervention effects, and to highlight their relative strengths and weaknesses. We estimate the effects of Activity-Based Funding, a hospital financing reform of Irish public hospitals, introduced in 2016.

Methods

We estimate and compare four analytical methods: Interrupted time series analysis, Difference-in-Differences, Propensity Score Matching Difference-in-Differences and the Synthetic Control method. Specifically, we focus on the comparison between the control-treatment methods and the non-control-treatment approach, interrupted time series analysis. Our empirical example evaluated the length of stay impact post hip replacement surgery, following the introduction of Activity-Based Funding in Ireland. We also contribute to the very limited research reporting the impacts of Activity-Based-Funding within the Irish context.

Results

Interrupted time-series analysis produced statistically significant results different in interpretation, while the Difference-in-Differences, Propensity Score Matching Difference-in-Differences and Synthetic Control methods incorporating control groups, suggested no statistically significant intervention effect, on patient length of stay.

Conclusion

Our analysis confirms that different analytical methods for estimating intervention effects provide different assessments of the intervention effects. It is crucial that researchers employ appropriate designs which incorporate a counterfactual framework. Such methods tend to be more robust and provide a stronger basis for evidence-based policy-making.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08657-0.

Demystifying the role of anaesthetists in clinical coding in the Australian healthcare system

Despite the self-evident importance of hospital funding, many anaesthetists remain unsure of exactly how their daily work relates to hospital reimbursement. A lack of awareness of the nuances of the Australian hospital activity-based funding system has the potential to affect anaesthetic department reimbursement and thus resourcing. Activity-based funding relies on clinical coders reviewing clinical documentation and quantifying the care given to a patient during an admission. Errors in funding allocation may arise when there is a disconnect between the work performed and the information coded. In anaesthesia, there are several factors impeding this process, including clinical understanding of coding, system setup and coders' understanding of anaesthesia. This article explores these factors from the clinical anaesthetist's point of view and suggests solutions, such as awareness and education, clinician-coder cooperation and redesign of documentation systems at a systems level that anaesthetic departments can incorporate.