| | Trends in the Supply of Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities Services: 1996 to 2004Presented to the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine, September 30, 2006, Boston, MA; Academy Health, June 25, 2006, Seattle, WA; and Academy Health, June 4, 2007, Orlando, FL. Abstract Mallinson TR, Manheim LM, Almagor O, DeMark HM, Heinemann AW. Trends in the supply of inpatient rehabilitation facilities services: 1996 to 2004. ObjectivesDescribe the supply of inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) services in 1996 and examine changes between 1996 and 2004, including the impact of the IRF prospective payment system (PPS) in 2002 on organizational trends. DesignRetrospective pre-post design. SettingFreestanding and subprovider (distinct-part units) IRFs. ParticipantsIRFs (N=1424), including 257 freestanding IRFs and 1167 IRF units reported in the Healthcare Cost Report Information System database, from years 1996 to 2004. InterventionsNot applicable. Main Outcome MeasuresNumber of IRF openings, IRF closures, beds, and inpatient days. ResultsThe number of IRFs grew from 1037 to 1183 between 1996 and 2001 and grew to 1235 between 2001 and 2004. The likelihood of IRF closures trended lower after PPS, and there was a significant increase in the likelihood of openings when PPS was introduced. For-profit, rural, and small IRFs were more likely to open over the entire period. There was a 12.9% increase in the number of total inpatient days, somewhat less than the 15.7% growth in IRF beds over the period. There was no impact of PPS on beds available but a significant decline in total inpatient days after PPS. ConclusionsInpatient days rose under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act and declined after 2002. Yet the likelihood of openings and closures did not appear to respond to these changes, perhaps because they were modest compared with changes in local IRF markets. The IRF PPS did little to affect service distribution in less well-served areas, although we did find growth in rural areas. Occupancy rates in 2004 were close to rates at the start of the period (70%). This observation implies that IRFs were implementing strategies to recruit a sufficient number of patients, even though bed numbers were increasing and length of stay was declining. Consequently, policy that limits the potential of IRFs to increase patient admissions, such as the limits on admissions to IRFs of patients with conditions other than those included in the 75% rule, is likely to produce substantial decreases in total inpatient days. List of Abbreviations: BBA, Balanced Budget Act, CON, certificate of need, HCRIS, Healthcare Cost Report Information System, HMO, health maintenance organization, ID, identification, IRF, inpatient rehabilitation facility, IQR, interquartile range, LOS, length of stay, LTCH, long-term care hospital, MIS, minimally invasive surgery, ORMC, Orlando Regional Medical Center, PAC, postacute care, PPS, prospective payment system, SNF, skilled nursing facility, TEFRA, Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act a Center for Rehabilitation Outcomes Research, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL b Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL c Institute for Healthcare Studies, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL Correspondence to Trudy R. Mallinson, PhD, OTR/L, NZROT, Center for Rehabilitation Outcomes Research, Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago, 345 E Superior St, Onterie 960, Chicago, IL 60611-2654
Supported by the National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (grant no. H133A030807). No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit on the authors or on any organization with which the authors are associated. Reprints not available from the author. PII: S0003-9993(08)00790-9 doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2008.05.014 © 2008 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine and the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | |
|