The Role of Critical Access Hospital Status in Mitigating the Effects of New Prospective Payment Systems Under Medicare

Bibliographic Data

ID19431195
AuthorsKathleen Dalton (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, corresponding author), REBECCA T SLIFKIN, Hilda A Howard
Year2000
Volume16
Issue4
Pages357-370
Publication date2000-09-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueThe Journal of Rural Health (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0890-765X • E-ISSN: 1748-0361
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.1748-0361.2000.tb00486.x
PMID11218322
OpenAlexW1987524925
LanguageEN
Citations received6
References cited1

This article examines rural hospitals that potentially qualify as critical access hospitals (CAH) and identifies facilities at substantial financial risk as a result of Medicare's expansion of prospective payment systems (PPS) to nonacute settings. Using Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) cost reports from the federal year ending Sept. 30, 1996, combined with county‐level sociodemographic data from the Area Resource File (ARF), characteristics of potential CAHs were identified and their finances analyzed to determine whether they could benefit from the cost‐based reimbursement rules applicable to CAH status. Rural hospitals were identified as potential CAHs if they met a combination of federal and state criteria for necessary providers. Rural facilities were classified as “at risk” if they had poor financial ratios in conjunction with high levels of dependence on outpatient, home‐care or skilled nursing services. Almost 30 percent of all rural hospitals were identified as potential CAHs. Ninety percent of potential CAH facilities were identified as “at risk” by at least one of five possible risk criteria, and one‐third were identified by at least three. Of those classified “at risk,” 48 percent might not benefit from conversion to CAH because their inpatient Medicare reimbursement would likely be less under CAH payment rules than under their current PPS payment rules. Many potential CAHs were doing well under inpatient PPS because they were sole community hospitals (SCH) and were therefore eligible for special adjustments to the PPS rates. The Rural Hospital Flexibility Act would be more beneficial to the population of isolated rural hospitals if those eligible for both CAH and SCH status were given the option of retaining their SCH inpatient payment arrangements while still qualifying for outpatient cost‐based reimbursement

Actuarial science · Business · Payment · Prospective payment system · Healthcare Policy and Management · Healthcare Systems and Technology · Medicine · Primary Care and Health Outcomes · Emergency Medicine · Finance

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub