OBJECTIVES: To describe the modifications made to the FIM instrument when it was incorporated into the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility-Patient Assessment Instrument (IRF-PAI), and to compare FIM data collected before and after the IRF prospective payment system (IRF-PPS) was implemented in 2002 for patients with stroke. DESIGN: Year-by-year comparison of data of Medicare patients with stroke discharged in 1998-2003 from 411 IRFs that submitted data to the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation for each of those years. RESULTS: In the pre-PPS period, admission motor FIM ratings decreased slightly, and discharge motor, admission cognitive, and discharge cognitive ratings remained stable. Between 2001 and 2003, all four ratings decreased: admission motor by 1.8 FIM units, discharge motor by 3.3 FIM units, and admission and discharge cognitive each by 1.0 FIM unit. The lower admission FIM ratings led to an increase in the mean case-mix index from 1.39 to 1.49. CONCLUSIONS: The decrease in FIM ratings in the IRF-PAI/PPS years may reflect alterations in coding practices as a result of changed rules for rating the FIM instrument, "downcoding" leading to assignment into higher-paying categories, changes in the IRF patient population, and/or changes in IRF patient outcomes. Coding changes should be considered when comparing pre-PPS and PPS FIM data.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the modifications made to the FIM instrument when it was incorporated into the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facility-Patient Assessment Instrument (IRF-PAI), and to compare FIM data collected before and after the IRF prospective payment system (IRF-PPS) was implemented in 2002 for patients with stroke. DESIGN: Year-by-year comparison of data of Medicare patients with stroke discharged in 1998-2003 from 411 IRFs that submitted data to the Uniform Data System for Medical Rehabilitation for each of those years. RESULTS: In the pre-PPS period, admission motor FIM ratings decreased slightly, and discharge motor, admission cognitive, and discharge cognitive ratings remained stable. Between 2001 and 2003, all four ratings decreased: admission motor by 1.8 FIM units, discharge motor by 3.3 FIM units, and admission and discharge cognitive each by 1.0 FIM unit. The lower admission FIM ratings led to an increase in the mean case-mix index from 1.39 to 1.49. CONCLUSIONS: The decrease in FIM ratings in the IRF-PAI/PPS years may reflect alterations in coding practices as a result of changed rules for rating the FIM instrument, "downcoding" leading to assignment into higher-paying categories, changes in the IRFpatient population, and/or changes in IRFpatient outcomes. Coding changes should be considered when comparing pre-PPS and PPS FIM data.
Authors: Carl V Granger; Amol M Karmarkar; James E Graham; Anne Deutsch; Paulette Niewczyk; Margaret A Divita; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Addie Middleton; James E Graham; Yu-Li Lin; James S Goodwin; Janet Prvu Bettger; Anne Deutsch; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-07-20 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Carl V Granger; Samuel J Markello; James E Graham; Anne Deutsch; Timothy A Reistetter; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.159
Authors: Allen Walter Heinemann; Anne Deutsch; David Cella; Karon Frances Cook; Linda Foster; Ana Miskovic; Katharine Davis; Arielle Goldsmith Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Kristen Dams-OʼConnor; Dave Mellick; Laura E Dreer; Flora M Hammond; Jeanne Hoffman; Alexandra Landau; Ross Zafonte; Christopher Pretz Journal: J Head Trauma Rehabil Date: 2017 May/Jun Impact factor: 2.710