Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T01:55:39.051Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prospective Payment and Infection Control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

B. Eugene Beyt Jr. ,
Susan Troxler  and
Joel Cavaness
B. Eugene Beyt Jr.*
Affiliation:
Infection Control and Internal Audit Department, Lafayette General Hospital, Lafayette, Louisiana and the Department of Infectious Diseases, Louisiana State University Medical Center, New Orleans, Louisiana
Susan Troxler
Affiliation:
Infection Control and Internal Audit Department, Lafayette General Hospital, Lafayette, Louisiana and the Department of Infectious Diseases, Louisiana State University Medical Center, New Orleans, Louisiana
Joel Cavaness
Affiliation:
Infection Control and Internal Audit Department, Lafayette General Hospital, Lafayette, Louisiana and the Department of Infectious Diseases, Louisiana State University Medical Center, New Orleans, Louisiana
*
Louisiana State University School of Medicine, University Medical Center, P.O. Box 4016-C, Lafayette, LA 70502
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Under prospective payment utilizing the diagnostic related groups (DRG) classification, hospital administrators have begun to rethink accepted hospital procedures. It is now necessary to consider every factor that contributes to the cost of care, because those costs will be borne more and more by the hospital rather than the patient. Administrators must determine if an expenditure really improves the quality of care and shortens the length of stay. Unfortunately, in many cases there are no mechanisms or criteria for such an evaluation. The health care industry is in danger of cutting away tissue when the fat is being trimmed away. An effort tojustify and quantify the benefit of an infection control program in a 270-bed acute care general hospital led to eye-opening results, and a decision to expand the program rather than reduce it. The expanded program is expected to recover cost two-fold.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , April 1985 , pp. 161 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Haley, RW, Schaberg, DR, Crossley, KB, et al: Extra charges and prolongation of stay attributable to nosocomial infections: A prospective interhospital comparison. Am J Med 1981; 70:51–58.Google Scholar
2.Brachman, PS: Nosocomial infection control: An overview. Rev Infect Dis 1981; 3:640–648.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.McGowan, JE Jr: Cost and benefit in control of nosocomial infection: Methods of analysis. Rev Infect Dis 1981; 3:790–797.Google Scholar
4.Freeman, J, McGowan, JE Jr: Methodologic issues in hospital epidemiology III. Investigating the modifying effect of time and severity of underlying illness on estimates of cost of nosocomial infections. Rev Infect Dis 1984; 6:285–300.Google Scholar
5.Beyt, BE Jr, Troxler, SH, Guidry, JL, et al: Computer assisted hospital surveillance and control of nosocomial infections. Clinical Research 1984; 32:291A.Google Scholar
6.Gross, PA, Rapuano, C, Adrignolo, A, et al: Nosocomial infections: Decade-specific risk. Infect Control 1983; 4:145–147.Google Scholar
7.Kunin, CM, Tupasi, T, Craig, WA: Use of antibiotics: A brief exposition of the problem and some tentative solutions. Ann Intern Med 1973; 79:555–560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Nottebart, HC Jr: Legal aspects of antibiotic audit. Infect Control 1984; 5:93–94.Google Scholar
9.Gross, PA: The new prospective payment system and antibiotic utilization. Infect Control 1984; 5:319–320.Google Scholar