Development of peer-group-classification criteria for the comparison of cost efficiency among general hospitals under the Korean NHI program.

Review & Assessment Research Division, Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, Seoul, Korea.
Health Services Research (Impact Factor: 2.49). 02/2012; 47(4):1719-38. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01379.x
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To classify general hospitals into homogeneous systematic-risk groups in order to compare cost efficiency and propose peer-group-classification criteria.
Health care institution registration data and inpatient-episode-based claims data submitted by the Korea National Health Insurance system to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service from July 2007 to December 2009.
Cluster analysis was performed to classify general hospitals into peer groups based on similarities in hospital characteristics, case mix complexity, and service-distribution characteristics. Classification criteria reflecting clustering were developed. To test whether the new peer groups better adjusted for differences in systematic risks among peer groups, we compared the R(2) statistics of the current and proposed peer groups according to total variations in medical costs per episode and case mix indices influencing the cost efficiency.
A total of 1,236,471 inpatient episodes were constructed for 222 general hospitals in 2008.
New criteria were developed to classify general hospitals into three peer groups (large general hospitals, small and medium general hospitals treating severe cases, and small and medium general hospitals) according to size and case mix index.
This study provides information about using peer grouping to enhance fairness in the performance assessment of health care providers.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Issues regarding healthcare disparity continue to increase in connection with access to quality care for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), even though the case-fatality rate (CFR) continues to decrease.We explored regional variation in AMI CFRs and examined whether the variation was due to disparities in access to quality medical services for AMI patients.A dataset was constructed from the Korea National Health Insurance Claims Database to conduct a retrospective cohort study of 95,616 patients who were admitted to a hospital in Korea from 2003 to 2007 with AMI. Each patient was followed in the claims database for information about treatment after admission or death.The procedure rate decreased as the region went "down" from Seoul to the county level, whereas the AMI CFR increased as the county level as a function of proximity to the county level (30-day AMI CFRs: Seoul, 16.4%; metropolitan areas, 16.2%, cities; 18.8%, counties, 39.4%). Even after adjusting for covariates, an identical regional variation in the odds of patients receiving treatment services and dying was identified. After adjusting for invasive and medical management variables in addition to earlier covariates, the death risk in the counties remained statistically significantly higher than in Seoul; however, the degree of the difference decreased greatly and the significant differences in metropolitan areas and cities disappeared.Policy interventions are needed to increase access to quality AMI care in county-level local areas because regional differences in the AMI CFR are likely caused by differences in the performance of medical and invasive management among the regions of Korea. Additionally, a public education program to increase the awareness of early symptoms and the necessity of visiting the hospital early should be established as the first priority to improve the outcome of AMI patents, especially in county-level local areas.
    Medicine 12/2014; 93(28):e287. DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000000287 · 4.87 Impact Factor


Available from
Aug 12, 2014