Medicare intensive care unit use: Analysis of incidence, cost, and payment*

Objective:To determine the incidence, cost, and payment for intensive care unit services among Medicare beneficiaries. Design:Retrospective observational database cohort study. Setting:All nonfederal hospitals with intensive care unit beds (n = 5003) paid through the inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS). Patients:We used all fiscal year 2000 Medicare IPPS hospitalizations with consistent payment information (n = 10,657,587). Interventions:None. Measurements and Main Results:We examined the distribution of cost and payments overall, by hospital type, and by diagnosis related group. Intensive care was used in 2,353,208 cases (21.1%). The overall incidence was 59.8 cases per thousand beneficiaries in the aged (65+) population, increasing with age from 36.2 (65–69) to 91.6 (85+). Intensive care unit patients cost nearly three times floor patients ($14,135 vs. $5,571), with two thirds of costs associated with the intensive care unit portion of the stay, $2,278 per intensive care unit day. However, intensive care unit cases were paid at a rate only twice floor cases ($11,704 vs. $5,835). Only 83% of costs were paid for intensive care unit patients, compared with 105% for floor patients, generating a $5.8 billion loss to hospitals when intensive care unit care is required. There was a linear association between the percent intensive care unit in a diagnosis related group and the percent paid, with payment >90% of cost only in diagnosis related groups with ≥60% intensive care unit cases. We found that teaching hospitals were better paid than nonteaching hospitals (87% vs. 78% of costs, respectively), but this was only due to indirect medical education payments. Conclusions:Intensive care is common, expensive, and poorly paid in the Medicare population. Few diagnosis related groups have a large enough intensive care unit population to ensure adequate payment. Additional diagnosis related groups for conditions common to the intensive care unit would improve payment and enable incentives for efficiency.

[1]  L. Greenfield,et al.  Paying a premium: how patient complexity affects costs and profit margins. , 1999, Annals of surgery.

[2]  C J Coulton,et al.  Implications of DRG Payments for Medical Intensive Care , 1985, Medical care.

[3]  I. L. Cohen,et al.  Clinical and economic outcome of mechanically ventilated patients in New York State during 1993: analysis of 10,473 cases under DRG 475. , 1998, Chest.

[4]  Hhs Centers for Medicare Medicare Services Medicare program; changes to the hospital inpatient prospective payment systems and fiscal year 2006 rates. Final rule. , 2005, Federal register.

[5]  H. Saranchak,et al.  Outcome and cost of prolonged stay in the surgical intensive care unit. , 1984, Archives of surgery.

[6]  E. Sivak,et al.  Impact of diagnosis-related groups' prospective payment on utilization of medical intensive care. , 1988, Chest.

[7]  S. Surgenor,et al.  The cost of providing intensive care to Diagnosis Related Groups , 2001 .

[8]  C. Bekes,et al.  Reimbursement for intensive care services under diagnosis-related groups. , 1988, Critical care medicine.

[9]  D C Angus,et al.  Caring for the critically ill patient. Current and projected workforce requirements for care of the critically ill and patients with pulmonary disease: can we meet the requirements of an aging population? , 2000, JAMA.

[10]  M. Chatfield Technology in Hospitals: Medical Advances and Their Diffusion , 1979 .

[11]  D. Gracey The problem with diagnosis related group 475. , 2002, Chest.

[12]  L. Wise,et al.  Diagnosis-related groups, costs, and outcome for patients in the intensive care unit. , 1989, Heart & lung : the journal of critical care.