Healthc Inform Res.  2017 Oct;23(4):322-327. 10.4258/hir.2017.23.4.322.

Association between Health Information Technology and Case Mix Index

• Park YT
• Lee J
• Lee J

• KMID: 2396424
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4258/hir.2017.23.4.322

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
Health information technology (IT) can assist healthcare providers in ordering medication and adhering to guidelines while improving communication among providers and the quality of care. However, the relationship between health IT and Case Mix Index (CMI) has not been thoroughly investigated; therefore, this study aimed to clarify this relationship.
METHODS
To examine the effect of health IT on CMI, a generalized estimation equation (GEE) was applied to two years of California hospital data.
RESULTS
We found that IT was positively associated with CMI, indicating that increased IT adoption could lead to a higher CMI or billing though DRG up-coding. This implies that hospitals' revenue could increase around $40,000 by increasing IT investment by 10%.
CONCLUSIONS
The positive association between IT and CMI implies that IT adoption itself could lead to higher patient billings. Generally, a higher CMI in a hospital indicates that the hospital provides expensive services with higher coding and therefore receives more money from patients. Therefore, measures to prevent upcoding through IT systems should be implemented.

Keyword

Diagnosis Related Group; Health Infomration Technology

MeSH Terms

California
Clinical Coding
Diagnosis-Related Groups*
Health Personnel
Humans
Investments
Medical Informatics*

Reference

1. Murphy EV. Clinical decision support: effectiveness in improving quality processes and clinical outcomes and factors that may influence success. Yale J Biol Med. 2014; 87(2):187–197.

2. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the quality chasm a new health system for the 21st century. Washington (DC): National Academies Press;2001.

3. El-Kareh R, Hasan O, Schiff GD. Use of health information technology to reduce diagnostic errors. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013; 22:Suppl 2. ii40–ii51.

4. Garg AX, Adhikari NK, McDonald H, Rosas-Arellano MP, Devereaux PJ, Beyene J, et al. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005; 293(10):1223–1238.

5. Jones SS, Rudin RS, Perry T, Shekelle PG. Health information technology: an updated systematic review with a focus on meaningful use. Ann Intern Med. 2014; 160(1):48–54.

6. Agha L. The effects of health information technology on the costs and quality of medical care. J Health Econ. 2014; 34:19–30.

7. Kuperman GJ, Gibson RF. Computer physician order entry: benefits, costs, and issues. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 139(1):31–39.

8. Lainer M, Mann E, Sönnichsen A. Information technology interventions to improve medication safety in primary care: a systematic review. Int J Qual Health Care. 2013; 25(5):590–598.

9. Yu FB, Menachemi N, Berner ES, Allison JJ, Weissman NW, Houston TK. Full implementation of computerized physician order entry and medication-related quality outcomes: a study of 3364 hospitals. Am J Med Qual. 2009; 24(4):278–286.

10. Himmelstein DU, Wright A, Woolhandler S. Hospital computing and the costs and quality of care: a national study. Am J Med. 2010; 123(1):40–46.

11. Lee J, Dowd B. Effect of health information technology expenditure on patient level cost. Healthc Inform Res. 2013; 19(3):215–221.

12. Li B. Cracking the codes: do electronic medical records facilitate hospital revenue enhancement. Evanston (IL): Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University;2014.

13. Ganju KK, Atasoy H, Pavlou PA. Do electronic medical record systems inflate Medicare reimbursements? Philadelphia (PA): Fox school of Business, Temple University;2016. Fox School of Business Research Paper No. 16-008.

14. Adler-Milstein J, Jha AK. No evidence found that hospitals are using new electronic health records to increase Medicare reimbursements. Health Aff (Millwood). 2014; 33(7):1271–1277.

15. Schulte F, Eaton J, Donald D. Doctors, others billing Medicare at higher rates [Internet]. Washington (DC): The Washington Post;2012. cited at 2017 Oct 1. Available from: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-15/national/35496252_1_data-codes-medicare.

16. Health Information Management Systems Society (HIMSS) Analytics [Internet]. Burlington (VT): HIMSS Analytics;2016. cited at 2017 Oct 1. Available from: http://www.himssanalytics.org/.

17. Gowrisankaran G, Town RJ. Estimating the quality of care in hospitals using instrumental variables. J Health Econ. 1999; 18(6):747–767.

18. Lave JR, Pashos CL, Anderson GF, Brailer D, Bubolz T, Conrad D, et al. Costing medical care: using Medicare administrative data. Med Care. 1994; 32:7 Suppl. JS77–JS89.

19. Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. Case Mix Index [Internet]. Sacramento (CA): Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development;2016. cited at 2017 Oct 1. Available from: https://www.oshpd.ca.gov/HID/Case-Mix-Index.asp.

20. Lee J. Impact of hospitalist care on hospital malpractice premiums using California hospital data. Appl Econ Lett. 2017; 24(11):742–752.

21. Lee J, McCullough JS, Town RJ. The impact of health information technology on hospital productivity. RAND J Econ. 2013; 44(3):545–568.

22. McCullough JS. The adoption of hospital information systems. Health Econ. 2008; 17(5):649–664.

23. Hayes KJ, Pettengill J, Stensland J. Getting the price right: Medicare payment rates for cardiovascular services. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007; 26(1):124–136.

24. Gibbons RD, Hedeker D, DuToit S. Advances in analysis of longitudinal data. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2010; 6:79–107.

25. Cui J. QIC program and model selection in GEE analyses. Stata J. 2007; 7(2):209–220.

26. Association of Clinical Documentation Improvement Specialists. What does case-mix index mean to you? [Internet]. Middleton (MA): HCPro;2010. cited at 2017 Oct 1. Available from: http://www.hcpro.com/HOM-250674-5728/What-does-casemix-index-mean-to-you.html.

27. Mendez CM, Harrington DW, Christenson P, Spellberg B. Impact of hospital variables on case mix index as a marker of disease severity. Popul Health Manag. 2014; 17(1):28–34.

28. American Hospital Association. AHA hospital statistics. Chicago (IL): Health Forum LLC;2017.

29. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. For-profit enterprise in health care. Washington (DC): National Academies Press;1986.