Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Söderlund, N.
Right arrow Articles by Raftery, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Söderlund, N.
Right arrow Articles by Raftery, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1995 Faculty of Public Health Medicine of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of the United Kingdom

research-article

Differences in hospital casemix, and the relationship between casemix and hospital costs


Neil Söderlund
, Research Fellow
Ruairidh Milne
, Consultant in Public Health Medicine
Alastair Gray
, Research Associate
James Raftery
, Health Economist

Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Oxford Gibson Building, Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford OX2 6HE
Department of Public Health, Oxford Regional Health Authority
Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford
National Casemix Office, NHS Management Executive Winchester


Address correspondence to Dr N. Söderlund

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to examine the relationship between hospital costs and casemix, and after adjustment for casemix differences, between cost and institutional size, number of specialties, occupancy and teaching status.

METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all admissions to nine acute-care NHS hospitals in the Oxford region during the 1991–1992 financial year was undertaken. All episodes were assigned to a diagnosis-related group (DRG) and a cost weight assigned accordingly. Costs per finished consultant episode, before and after adjustment for casemix differences, were analysed at the hospital and specialty level.

RESULTS: Casemix differences were significant, and accounted for approximately 77 per cent of the difference in costs between providers. Costs per casemix-adjusted episode were not significantly associated with differences in hospital size, scope, occupancy levels or teaching status, but sample size was insufficient to investigate these relationships adequately. Specialty costs were poorly correlated with specialty casemix. This was probably due to poor apportionment of specialty costs in hospital accounting returns.

CONCLUSIONS: Casemix differences need to be taken into account when comparing providers for the purposes of contracting, as unadjusted unit costs may be misleading. Although the methods used may currently be applied to most NHS hospitals, widespread use would be greatly facilitated by the development of indigenous cost weights and better routine hospital data coding and collection.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
HeartHome page
C J Currie, C L Morgan, and J R Peters
Patterns and costs of hospital care for coronary heart disease related and not related to diabetes
Heart, December 1, 1997; 78(6): 544 - 549.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BMJHome page
N. Soderlund, I. Csaba, A. Gray, R. Milne, and J. Raftery
Impact of the NHS reforms on English hospital productivity: an analysis of the first three years
BMJ, November 1, 1997; 315(7116): 1126 - 1129.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
StrokeHome page
C. J. Currie, C. L. Morgan, L. Gill, N. C. H. Stott, and J. R. Peters
Epidemiology and Costs of Acute Hospital Care for Cerebrovascular Disease in Diabetic and Nondiabetic Populations
Stroke, June 1, 1997; 28(6): 1142 - 1146.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
Journal of SociologyHome page
F. Collyer and K. White
Enter the market: competition, regulation and hospital funding in Australia
Journal of Sociology, January 1, 1997; 33(3): 344 - 363.
[Abstract] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.