Risk-adjusted capitation funding models for chronic disease in Australia: alternatives to casemix funding

K. M. Antioch and M.K. Walsh

The European Journal of Health Economics, 2002, vol. 3, issue 2, 83-93

Abstract: Under Australian casemix funding arrangements that use Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRGs) the average price is policy based, not benchmarked. Cost weights are too low for State-wide chronic disease services. Risk-adjusted Capitation Funding Models (RACFM) are feasible alternatives. A RACFM was developed for public patients with cystic fibrosis treated by an Australian Health Maintenance Organization (AHMO). Adverse selection is of limited concern since patients pay solidarity contributions via Medicare levy with no premium contributions to the AHMO. Sponsors paying premium subsidies are the State of Victoria and the Federal Government. Cost per patient is the dependent variable in the multiple regression. Data on DRG 173 (cystic fibrosis) patients were assessed for heteroskedasticity, multicollinearity, structural stability and functional form. Stepwise linear regression excluded non-significant variables. Significant variables were ‘emergency’ (1276.9), ‘outlier’ (6377.1), ‘complexity’ (3043.5), ‘procedures’ (317.4) and the constant (4492.7) (R 2 =0.21, SE=3598.3, F=14.39, Prob>0.0001. Regression coefficients represent the additional per patient costs summed to the base payment (constant). The model explained 21% of the variance in cost per patient. The payment rate is adjusted by a best practice annual admission rate per patient. The model is a blended RACFM for in-patient, out-patient, Hospital In The Home, Fee-For-Service Federal payments for drugs and medical services; lump sum lung transplant payments and risk sharing through cost (loss) outlier payments. State and Federally funded home and palliative services are ‘carved out’. The model, which has national application via Coordinated Care Trials and by Australian States for RACFMs may be instructive for Germany, which plans to use Australian DRGs for casemix funding. The capitation alternative for chronic disease can improve equity, allocative efficiency and distributional justice. The use of Diagnostic Cost Groups (DCGs) is a promising alternative classification system for capitation arrangements. Copyright Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Keywords: Keywords Capitation funding model; Casemix funding; Diagnostic Cost Groups; Diagnosis-Related Groups; Health Maintenance Organization (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2002
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10198-002-0096-7 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:3:y:2002:i:2:p:83-93

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... cs/journal/10198/PS2

DOI: 10.1007/s10198-002-0096-7

Access Statistics for this article

The European Journal of Health Economics is currently edited by J.-M.G.v.d. Schulenburg

More articles in The European Journal of Health Economics from Springer, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ) Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().