Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

JPMPH : Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Articles

Page Path
HOME > J Prev Med Public Health > Volume 37(3); 2004 > Article
Original Article Impacts of Implementing Case Payment System to Medical Aid Hemodialysis Patients on Dialysis Frequencies and Expenditure.
Sunhee Lee, Hanjoong Kim, Seungho Shin, Woohyun Cho, Hye Young Kang
Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health 2004;37(3):260-266
DOI: https://doi.org/
  • 1,978 Views
  • 37 Download
  • 0 Crossref
  • 0 Scopus
1Health Insurance Review Agency, Korea.
2Department of Preventive Medicine, College of Medicine, Yonsei University, Korea.
3Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, Pochon Cha University, Korea.
4Graduate School of Public Health, Yonsei University, Korea. hykang@yumc.yonsei.ac.kr

OBJECTIVES
To assess the impacts of implementing case payment system (CPS) to Medical Aid (MA) hemodialysis patients on the frequencies and expenditure of dialysis. METHODS: Fifty-eight clinics and 35 tertiary care hospitals were identified as having a minimum of 10 hemodialysis patients for each of the MA and Medical Insurance (MI) programs, who received hemodialysis from the same dialysis facilities for both periods of July 2001 and July 2002. From these facilities, a total of 2, 167 MA and 2, 928 MI patients were identified as the study subjects. Using electronic claims data, the changes in the total number of monthly treatments and charges for outpatient hemodialysis treatments for each patient after the introduction of the CPS were compared between the MA and MI patients. Multiple regression analyses were performed to examine the independent impact of the CPS on the utilization and expenditure of dialysis treatments among the MA patients. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in the total charges for the hemodialysis treatments of the MA patients, 3.4% (p< 0.05), whereas a significant increase was observed for the MI patients, 2.5% (p< 0.05). For both the MA and MI patients, the frequency of the monthly hemodialysis treatments were significantly increased, 5.5 (from 12.1 to 12.7) and 7.8% (from 11.6 to 12.5), for the MA and MI patients, respectively. However, a multivariate regression analysis showed no significant difference in the changes in the total number of monthly hemodialysis treatments between the MA and MI patients after implementation of the CPS. Another regression model, regressing on the changes in the monthly claims of dialysis treatments, showed a significant negative coefficient for the MA ( (=-70725, p< 0.05). CONCLUSION: The significant decrease in the total charges for hemodialysis treatments among MA as compared to MI patients suggests that there was a cost reduction in the MA program following the introduction of the CPS.

Related articles

JPMPH : Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health