title: Using a public hospital funding model to strengthen a case for improved nutritional care in a cancer setting.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This study aimed to measure the prevalence of malnutrition risk and assessed malnutrition in patients admitted to a cancer-specific public hospital, and to model the potential hospital funding opportunity associated with implementing routine malnutrition screening.
  
  
  METHODS
  A point-prevalence audit of malnutrition risk and diagnosable malnutrition was conducted. A retrospective audit of hospital funding associated with documented cases of malnutrition was conducted. Audit results were used to estimate annual malnutrition prevalence, associated casemix-based reimbursement potential and the clinical support resources required to adequately identify and treat malnutrition.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Sixty-four percent of inpatients were at risk of malnutrition. Of these, 90% were assessed as malnourished. Twelve percent of malnourished patients produced a positive change in the diagnosis-related group (DRG) and increased allocated financial reimbursement. Identifying and diagnosing all cases of malnutrition could contribute an additional AU$413644 reimbursement funding annually.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Early identification of malnutrition may expedite appropriate nutritional management and improve patient outcomes in addition to contributing to casemix-based reimbursement funding for health services. A successful business case for additional clinical resources to improve nutritional care was aided by demonstrating the link between malnutrition screening, hospital reimbursements and improved nutritional care. What is known about the topic? It is known that between 20 and 50% of hospital patients are malnourished and oncology patients are 1.7 times more likely to be malnourished than are other hospitalised patients. Despite the existence of practice guidelines for malnutrition screening of at-risk oncology patients, these are not routinely implemented. Identification of malnutrition in hospitalised patients is linked to casemix funding via DRG. Casemix reimbursement for malnutrition can be enhanced if: (1) malnutrition risk is identified; (2) malnutrition is diagnosed; (3) the word 'malnutrition' and an associated action plan is documented in the medical record; and (4) malnutrition is recognised and recorded by the clinical coder. Amendments to the ICD-10-AM in 2008 allowing malnutrition to be recognised as a complication for coding when it is documented by a dietitian in the medical history has hospital reimbursement implications for dietetic practice. Reimbursement potential for malnutrition has been calculated in public hospitals in Australia with varying results. What does this paper add? This paper reports the components of a successful business case made to enhance resources for identification and treatment of malnutrition on the basis of improved treatment as well as enhanced reimbursement potential resulting from changes to the ICD-10-AM. The present study adds to the body of literature showing that malnutrition coding contributes to casemix funding in Australian public hospitals, as well as internationally, and highlights the previously unreported opportunity for a cancer-specific health service. This work demonstrated that reassignment of a DRG based on a diagnosis of malnutrition altered the overall casemix funding value for 12% of audited patients. This compares with the findings of other authors who demonstrated hypothetical DRG changes and financial reallocation. What are the implications for practitioners? This paper highlights that practitioner-centred strategies are needed to enhance malnutrition identification, diagnosis, documentation and coding to maximise casemix reimbursement and better treat malnutrition in hospitals. Strategies include education of the dietetics, medical and health-information workforce. This manuscript provides a description of the conduct of quality-improvement activities that may support successful business cases for increased dietetic resources in future.
authors.affiliation: Department of Cancer Experiences Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia. anna.boltong@petermac.org
authors.forename: Anna G
authors.initials: AG
authors.lastname: Boltong
authors.forename: Jenelle M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Loeliger
authors.forename: Belinda L
authors.initials: BL
authors.lastname: Steer
mesh_terms: D001315:Australia; D002173:Cancer Care Facilities / Q000191:economics* / Q000592:standards; D059019:Clinical Coding / Q000191:economics / Q000592:standards / Q000639:trends; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D003953:Diagnosis-Related Groups / Q000191:economics; D005375:Financial Audit; D006779:Hospitals, Public / Q000191:economics; D006801:Humans; D038801:International Classification of Diseases / Q000191:economics / Q000592:standards / Q000639:trends; D044342:Malnutrition / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000178:diet therapy / Q000191:economics* / Q000453:epidemiology; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000191:economics* / Q000592:standards; D017059:Models, Econometric; D009369:Neoplasms / Q000150:complications / Q000178:diet therapy / Q000191:economics*; D018529:Nutritional Support / Q000191:economics*; D015995:Prevalence; D058996:Quality Improvement / Q000191:economics / Q000592:standards; D012051:Reimbursement Mechanisms; D018570:Risk Assessment