NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Hussey PS, Mulcahy AW, Schnyer C, et al. Closing the Quality Gap: Revisiting the State of the Science (Vol. 1: Bundled Payment: Effects on Health Care Spending and Quality). Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012 Aug. (Evidence Reports/Technology Assessments, No. 208.1.)

Cover of Closing the Quality Gap: Revisiting the State of the Science (Vol. 1: Bundled Payment: Effects on Health Care Spending and Quality)

Closing the Quality Gap: Revisiting the State of the Science (Vol. 1: Bundled Payment: Effects on Health Care Spending and Quality).

Show details

Appendix CStudies Excluded at Full-Text Review

Table C1Primary studies excluded from the general review

No.CitationReason for Exclusion
1.Herwartz H, Strumann C. On the effect of prospective payment on local hospital competition in Germany. Health Care Manag Sci. 2012;15:48-62Does not report an outcome of interest
2.Tung, Y.C. and G.M. Chang, The effect of cuts in reimbursement on stroke outcome: a nationwide population-based study during the period 1998 to 2007. Stroke, 2010. 41(3): p. 504-9.Intervention not bundled payment
3.Rinere O'Brien, S., Trends in inpatient rehabilitation stroke outcomes before and after advent of the prospective payment system: a systematic review. J Neurol Phys Ther, 2010. 34(1): p. 17-23.Review article
4.Zinn, J., et al., Determinants of performance failure in the nursing home industry. Soc Sci Med, 2009. 68(5): p. 933-40.Does not report an outcome of interest
5.Weech-Maldonado, R., A. Qaseem, and W. Mkanta, Operating environment and USA nursing homes' participation in the subacute care market: a longitudinal analysis. Health Serv Manage Res, 2009. 22(1): p. 1-7.Does not report an outcome of interest
6.Ngo, L., et al., Use of physical and occupational therapy by Medicare beneficiaries within five conditions: 1994-2001. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 2009. 88(4): p. 308-21.Looks at BBA in aggregate, not a single bundled payment intervention
7.Choi, S. and J.K. Davitt, Changes in the Medicare home health care market: the impact of reimbursement policy. Med Care, 2009. 47(3): p. 302-9.Does not report an outcome of interest
8.Nguyen-Oghalai, T.U., et al., Discharge setting for patients with hip fracture: trends from 2001 to 2005. J Am Geriatr Soc, 2008. 56(6): p. 1063-8.Does not report an outcome of interest
9.Qaseem, A., R. Weech-Maldonado, and W. Mkanta, The Balanced Budget Act (1997) and the supplyof nursing home subacute care. J Health Care Finance, 2007. 34(2): p. 38-47.Does not report an outcome of interest
10.Lee, K. and S. Lee, Effects of the DRG-based prospective payment system operated by the voluntarily participating providers on the cesarean section rates in Korea. Health Policy, 2007. 81(2-3): p. 300-8.Intervention of interest was price change associated with PPS, not bundling
11.Dobrez, D.G., A.T. Lo Sasso, and A.W. Heinemann, The effect of prospective payment on rehabilitative care. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2004. 85(12): p. 1909-14.Does not report an outcome of interest
12.Zinn, J.S., et al., The impact of the prospective payment system for skilled nursing facilities on therapy service provision: a transaction cost approach. Health Serv Res, 2003. 38(6 Pt 1): p. 1467-85.Does not report an outcome of interest
13.Phillips, V.L., et al., Changes in the nursing facility-hospital interface after the prospective payment system: the effects on patients with infections in the post-acute care setting. J Am Med Dir Assoc, 2003. 4(3 Suppl): p. S105-9.Does not report an outcome of interest
14.McCall, N., et al., Utilization of home health services before and after the Balanced Budget Act of 1997: what were the initial effects? Health Serv Res, 2003. 38(1 Pt 1): p. 85-106.Intervention is IPS (cost-based with hard caps) not PPS/bundled
15.Leonard, K.J., et al., The effect of funding policy on day of week admissions and discharges in hospitals: the cases of Austria and Canada. Health Policy, 2003. 63(3): p. 239-57.Does not report an outcome of interest
16.Khaliq, A.A., R.W. Broyles, and M. Roberton, The use of hospital care: do insurance status, prospective payment, and the unit of payments make a difference? J Health Hum Serv Adm, 2003. 25(4): p. 471-96.Intervention is Medicare IPPS
17.Matarelli, S.A., The impact of the rehabilitation prospective payment system on case management. Case Manager, 2001. 12(2): p. 53-6.Does not report an outcome of interest
18.Cromwell, J., D.A. Dayhoff, and A.H. Thoumaian, Cost savings and physician responses to global bundled payments for Medicare heart bypass surgery. Health Care Financ Rev, 1997. 19(1): p. 41-57.More complete findings in final report
19.Averill, R.F., et al., Evaluation of a prospective payment system for hospital-based outpatient care. J Ambul Care Manage, 1997. 20(3): p. 31-48.Does not report an outcome of interest
20.Weaver, F.M., et al. (1996) Evaluation of a prospective payment system for VA contract nursing homes. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 423-442.Per diem payment before and after intervention - intervention did not change unit of payment
21.Easton, L.S., R. Cogen, and M. Fulcomer (1991) Effect of Medicare prospective payment system on a home health agency: changes in patient population and services provided. Applied Nursing Research, 107-112.Intervention is Medicare IPPS
22.Desai, A., et al., Is there “Cherry Picking” in the ESRD Program? Perceptions from a Dialysis Provider Survey. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol, 2009. 4: p. 772-777.Intervention not bundled payment
23.Lin, H., S. Xirasagar, and C. Tang, Costs per discharge and hospital ownership under prospective payment and cost-based reimbursement systems in Taiwan. Health Policy and Planning, 2004. 19(3): p. 166-176.Does not directly compare bundled payment to alternative

Table C2Review studies excluded from the Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System review

No.CitationReason for Exclusion
1.Braunstein C, Schlenker R. The impact of change in Medicare payment for acute care. Geriatr Nurs. 1985 Sep-Oct;6(5):266-70. PMID 3935520.Not a review article
2.Eccles Martin P, Shepperd S, Scott A, et al. An overview of reviews evaluating the effects of financial incentives in changing healthcare professional behaviours and patient outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2010.Not a review article
3.Iezzoni LI. Changes in payment policies: impact on physicians' office testing. Med Clin North Am. 1987 Jul;71(4):751-62. PMID 3295424.Not a review article
4.Lerner WM. The differential effects of a change in reimbursement on public and private university hospitals. Med Care Rev. 1990 Winter;47(4):503-23. PMID 10113014.Does not examine an outcome of interest
5.Manton KG, Vertrees JC, Wrigley JM. Changes in health service use and mortality among U.S. elderly in 1980-1986. J Aging Health. 1990 May;2(2):131-56. PMID 10106584.Not a review article
6.Muller A. Medicare prospective payment reforms and hospital utilization. Temporary or lasting effects? Med Care. 1993 Apr;31(4):296-308. PMID 8464247.Not a review article
7.Sloan FA, Morrisey MA, Valvona J. Effects of the Medicare prospective payment system on hospital cost containment: an early appraisal. Milbank Q. 1988;66(2):191-220. PMID 3054469.Not a review article
8.Varney RA, Schroeder DJ. “Trade-off” between medical cost controls and quality of care? Maybe, maybe not! Part II. J Qual Assur. 1990 Apr-Jun;12(2):14-7, 43. PMID 10170552.Not focused on IPPS

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page
  • PDF version of this title (1.0M)

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...