Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Prospective Payment Assessment Commission”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1988

Prospective payment assessment commission. A commissioner's perspective.

The function and priorities of the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission (ProPAC) are discussed. The ProPAC's priorities include (1) safeguarding the quality of care; (2) encouraging hospital productivity and long-term cost-effectiveness; (3) facilitating innovation and appropriate technological change; (4) maintaining stability for providers, consumers, and other payers; and (5) making decisions based on reliable, timely data and information.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed1997

Termination of the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission and the Physician Payment Review Commission--GAO. Notice of termination of commissions.

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 requires the Comptroller General, after the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission has been established, to provide for the termination of the Prospective Payment Assessment Commission and the Physician Payment Review Commission. This notice announces the termination of the two commissions.

Government Agencies↗
PubMed1988

Financial risk, hospital cost, complications and comorbidities (CCc) in non-CC stratified urology diagnostic related groups.

The federal Medicare Diagnosis Related Group payment mechanism is undergoing constant change. Significant interest has been generated at the health policy level regarding reimbursement for patients with complications and comorbidities. The purpose of this study was to analyze hospital resource consumption for patients in the seventeen urology non-complicating condition (CC) stratified Diagnostic Related Groups (DRGs), currently 45 percent of urology DRGs. We analyzed 185 Medicare patients in these non-CC stratified urology DRGs and found that patients with more CCs per patient had higher total hospital costs per patient, financial risk under DRGs, a greater percentage of outliers, and a higher mortality, than patients in these same DRGs with fewer CCs per patient. These findings suggest that the current DRG system is inequitable to some patients and certain hospitals vis-a-vis non-CC stratified urology DRGs. The Health Care Financing Administration has not significantly changed the complicating condition urology DRG classification, as of its recent May, 1988 legislation. Financial disincentives to treat these patients may affect both their access and quality of care in the future.

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S.↗