Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2012 Aug;47(4):1719-38.
doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2012.01379.x. Epub 2012 Feb 22.

Development of peer-group-classification criteria for the comparison of cost efficiency among general hospitals under the Korean NHI program

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Development of peer-group-classification criteria for the comparison of cost efficiency among general hospitals under the Korean NHI program

Hee-Chung Kang et al. Health Serv Res. 2012 Aug.

Abstract

Objectives: To classify general hospitals into homogeneous systematic-risk groups in order to compare cost efficiency and propose peer-group-classification criteria.

Data sources: Health care institution registration data and inpatient-episode-based claims data submitted by the Korea National Health Insurance system to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service from July 2007 to December 2009.

Study design: Cluster analysis was performed to classify general hospitals into peer groups based on similarities in hospital characteristics, case mix complexity, and service-distribution characteristics. Classification criteria reflecting clustering were developed. To test whether the new peer groups better adjusted for differences in systematic risks among peer groups, we compared the R(2) statistics of the current and proposed peer groups according to total variations in medical costs per episode and case mix indices influencing the cost efficiency.

Data collection: A total of 1,236,471 inpatient episodes were constructed for 222 general hospitals in 2008.

Principal findings: New criteria were developed to classify general hospitals into three peer groups (large general hospitals, small and medium general hospitals treating severe cases, and small and medium general hospitals) according to size and case mix index.

Conclusions: This study provides information about using peer grouping to enhance fairness in the performance assessment of health care providers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study Hospitals and Analytical Process
Figure 2
Figure 2
Characterization of Each Cluster Using Cluster and Decision-Tree Analyses

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ament RP, Kobrinski EJ, Wood WR. “Case Mix Complexity Differences between Teaching and Nonteaching Hospitals”. Journal of Medical Education. 1981;56(11):894–903. - PubMed
    1. Austin PC, Alter DA, Anderson GM, Tu JV. “Impact of the Choice of Benchmark on the Conclusions of Hospital Report Cards”. American Heart Journal. 2004;148(6):1041–6. - PubMed
    1. Becker ER, Steinwald B. “Determinants of Hospital Case Mix Complexity”. Health Service Research. 1981;16(4):439–58. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bindman AB. “Can Physician Profiles Be Trusted?”. Journal of American Medical Association. 1999;281(22):2142–3. - PubMed
    1. Byrne MM, Daw CN, Nelson HA, Urech TH, Pietz K, Petersen LA. “Method to Develop Health Care Peer Groups for Quality and Financial Comparisons across Hospitals”. Health Services Research. 2009;44(2):577–92. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources