Cover: Prospective Payment System and Impairment at Discharge

Prospective Payment System and Impairment at Discharge

The 'Quicker-And-Sicker' Story Revisited

Published in: JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association, v. 264, no. 15, Oct. 17, 1990, p. 1980-1983

by Jacqueline Kosecoff, Katherine L. Kahn, William H. Rogers, Ellen J. Reinisch, Marjorie J. Sherwood, Lisa V. Rubenstein, David Draper, Carol P. Roth, Carole Chew, Robert H. Brook

View related products

Read More

Access further information on this document at jama.ama-assn.org

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

Abstract

Since the introduction of the prospective payment system (PPS), anecdotal evidence has accumulated that patients are leaving the hospital quicker and sicker. The authors of this study developed valid measures of discharge impairment and measured these levels in a nationally representative sample of patients with one of five conditions prior to and following the PPS implementation. Instability at discharge (important clinical problems usually first occurring prior to discharge) predicted the likelihood of postdischarge deaths. At 90 days postdischarge, 16% of patients discharged unstable were dead vs. 10% of patients discharged stable. After the PPS introduction, instability increased primarily among patients discharged home. Prior to the PPS, 10% of patients discharged home were unstable; after the PPS was implemented, 15% were discharged unstable, a 43% relative change. Efforts to monitor the effect of this increase in discharge instability on health should be implemented.

Research conducted by

This report is part of the RAND Corporation external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.