Akos Csomos1, Szilard Varga2, Guido Bertolini3, Clare Hibbert4, Janos Sandor5, Maurizia Capuzzo6, Bertrand R Guidet7. 1. Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Institute of Surgery, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary. acsomos@t-online.hu. 2. Institute of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, University of Pecs, Pecs, Hungary. 3. Instituto di Riserche Farmacologiche, Unita di Epidemiologica Clinica, Ranica (Bergamo), Italy. 4. Health Economics and Decision Science, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. 5. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Faculty of Public Health, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary. 6. Department of Surgical, Anaesthetic and Radiologic Sciences, Section of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, University Hospital of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy. 7. Faculte de Medicine, Universite Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess patterns of intensive care reimbursement practices. METHODS: A detailed questionnaire about basic intensive care unit (ICU) characteristics and ICU reimbursement practices was created, and then members of the European Society of Intensive Care (ESICM) were asked by e-mail to participate in the survey and complete the web-based questionnaire. RESULTS: There were a total of 447 responses analyzed. Of respondents, 51.5% stated that their ICU received detailed financial information; however, only 15.4% of respondents could identify each cost item for each patient. A majority of respondents (77.6%) stated that their unit's reimbursement system was included in the hospital reimbursement. ICU reimbursement systems were most commonly based on previous year's ICU expenditure (51.0%) and diagnosis-related group weights (36%). Selecting European respondents (n = 306) showed that supplying detailed financial information makes ICU doctors significantly more satisfied (p = 0.019) with their reimbursement system. Regarding ICU funding elements, the most satisfied with their ICU reimbursement system were those respondents from ICUs where nursing workload score was used (p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Our result indicates that ICU physicians who receive detailed financial information about their units are more satisfied with their reimbursement system than those not receiving this information. Nursing workload score may have advantage over other forms of reimbursement practices. ICU physicians would like to be more involved in their unit's financial aspects and would prefer separate funding from hospital.
OBJECTIVE: To assess patterns of intensive care reimbursement practices. METHODS: A detailed questionnaire about basic intensive care unit (ICU) characteristics and ICU reimbursement practices was created, and then members of the European Society of Intensive Care (ESICM) were asked by e-mail to participate in the survey and complete the web-based questionnaire. RESULTS: There were a total of 447 responses analyzed. Of respondents, 51.5% stated that their ICU received detailed financial information; however, only 15.4% of respondents could identify each cost item for each patient. A majority of respondents (77.6%) stated that their unit's reimbursement system was included in the hospital reimbursement. ICU reimbursement systems were most commonly based on previous year's ICU expenditure (51.0%) and diagnosis-related group weights (36%). Selecting European respondents (n = 306) showed that supplying detailed financial information makes ICU doctors significantly more satisfied (p = 0.019) with their reimbursement system. Regarding ICU funding elements, the most satisfied with their ICU reimbursement system were those respondents from ICUs where nursing workload score was used (p = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Our result indicates that ICU physicians who receive detailed financial information about their units are more satisfied with their reimbursement system than those not receiving this information. Nursing workload score may have advantage over other forms of reimbursement practices. ICU physicians would like to be more involved in their unit's financial aspects and would prefer separate funding from hospital.
Authors: D Negrini; L Sheppard; G H Mills; P Jacobs; J Rapoport; R S Bourne; B Guidet; A Csomos; T Prien; G Anderson; D L Edbrooke Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 2.105
Authors: C Colin; L Geffroy; H Maisonneuve; J Ménard; B Guiraud-Chaumeil; F Fourquet; J Drucker; Y Matillon; J Goldberg; C Griscelli Journal: Lancet Date: 1997-03-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: G Iapichino; D Radrizzani; G Bertolini; L Ferla; G Pasetti; A Pezzi; F Porta; D R Miranda Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Massimo Antonelli; Elie Azoulay; Marc Bonten; Jean Chastre; Giuseppe Citerio; Giorgio Conti; Daniel De Backer; Herwig Gerlach; Goran Hedenstierna; Michael Joannidis; Duncan Macrae; Jordi Mancebo; Salvatore M Maggiore; Alexandre Mebazaa; Jean-Charles Preiser; Jerôme Pugin; Jan Wernerman; Haibo Zhang Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 17.440