Literature DB >> 16003652

Medicare funding for inpatient rehabilitation: How did we get to this point and what do we do now?

Randall L Braddom1.   

Abstract

This edited transcript of the 2004 Zeiter Lecture is intended to underscore the current plight of inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) and the attempt to deliver services to patients while coping with the limitations of the federal "75% rule." The history of federal funding for inpatient rehabilitation is traced from the first attempt to nationalize health insurance in 1916 to the funding status at the time of the lecture in October 2004. Important events along the way are highlighted, including the signing of the Medicare Act in 1965, permitting those on Social Security disability income to be eligible for Medicare after being disabled for 24 months (1972); onset of the hospital inpatient prospective payment system and IRF exemption in 1982; advent of the original 75% rule in 1983; impact of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997; and negative impact of the final 75% rule of 2004. The critical need for members of the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and their patients to be involved in eliminating or changing the 75% rule is stressed in a "call to action."

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16003652     DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2005.01.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil        ISSN: 0003-9993            Impact factor:   3.966


  8 in total

1.  James J. Peters Memorial Lecture. Carrying the torch: a call to build on the progress of the past 25 years.

Authors:  Rory A Cooper
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 1.985

2.  Does depression, apathy or cognitive impairment reduce the benefit of inpatient rehabilitation facilities for elderly hip fracture patients?

Authors:  Eric J Lenze; Elizabeth R Skidmore; Mary Amanda Dew; Meryl A Butters; Joan C Rogers; Amy Begley; Charles F Reynolds; Michael C Munin
Journal:  Gen Hosp Psychiatry       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.238

3.  Representativeness of the Traumatic Brain Injury Model Systems National Database.

Authors:  John D Corrigan; Jeffrey P Cuthbert; Gale G Whiteneck; Marcel P Dijkers; Victor Coronado; Allen W Heinemann; Cynthia Harrison-Felix; James E Graham
Journal:  J Head Trauma Rehabil       Date:  2012 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.710

4.  Discharge setting for patients with hip fracture: trends from 2001 to 2005.

Authors:  Tracy U Nguyen-Oghalai; Yong-fang Kuo; Dong D Zhang; James E Graham; James S Goodwin; Kenneth J Ottenbacher
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2008-04-18       Impact factor: 5.562

5.  Disparities in utilization of outpatient rehabilitative care following hip fracture hospitalization with respect to race and ethnicity.

Authors:  Tracy U Nguyen-Oghalai; Kenneth J Ottenbacher; Yong-Fang Kuo; Helen Wu; Michael Grecula; Karl Eschbach; James S Goodwin
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 3.966

6.  Prevalence and treatment patterns of physical impairments in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Andrea L Cheville; Andrea B Troxel; Jeffrey R Basford; Alice B Kornblith
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-06-01       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Race, Rehabilitation, and 30-Day Readmission After Elective Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Erik S Jorgenson; Diane M Richardson; Arwin M Thomasson; Charles L Nelson; Said A Ibrahim
Journal:  Geriatr Orthop Surg Rehabil       Date:  2015-12

8.  Underutilisation of Physical Rehabilitation Therapy by Cancer Patients in Korea: a Population-based Study of 958,928 Korean Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Songhee Cho; Seung Hyun Chung; Minjoo Kang; Aejeong Jo; Sung Hoon Sim; Yu Jung Kim; Eun Joo Yang
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2021-11-29       Impact factor: 2.153

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.