The report is available in English with a French summary - KCE
The report is available in English with a French summary - KCE
The report is available in English with a French summary - KCE
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>KCE</strong> <strong>report</strong>s 57 Musculoskeletal & Neurological Rehabilitation 83<br />
Figure 5.16: Cost model centres 5 to 7 (7.71 conventions)<br />
Source: RIZIV/INAMI 2006<br />
Center 5<br />
Equivalent 1 (6h) 0,5 (3h)<br />
Cost Hosp. 117 62<br />
Cost Amb. 102 54<br />
Center 6<br />
Equivalent 1 (6h) 0,5 (3h)<br />
Cost Hosp. 119 63<br />
Cost Amb. 103 56<br />
Center 7<br />
Equivalent 1 (6h) 0,5 (3h)<br />
Cost Hosp. 122 66<br />
Cost Amb. 106 58<br />
Centres 5, 6 & 7 do not have to limit production capacity and are as a consequence not<br />
directly subjected to limited expenses. Nevertheless they have to <strong>report</strong> production<br />
data for follow up to the RIZIV/INAMI.<br />
BOTH TYPES OF 7.71 CONVENTIONS<br />
Overall, the 7.71 system lacks transparency and important differences ex<strong>is</strong>t between<br />
pric<strong>in</strong>g structures for the different centres.<br />
Treatment sessions, even for the same underly<strong>in</strong>g pathologies, <strong>is</strong> reimbursed differently<br />
for each centre (Figure 5.17). <strong>The</strong> compar<strong>is</strong>on <strong>is</strong> based on theoretical (hourly)<br />
equivalents as stated <strong>in</strong> the different conventions.<br />
Figure 5.17: Compar<strong>is</strong>on of the cost per session for the 7.71 centres<br />
Centre 1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
7<br />
Basel<strong>in</strong>e (1h)<br />
1h<br />
50 60 40 36 21 21 22<br />
2h 101 119<br />
3h 153 180 120 109 62 63 66<br />
6h 239 219 117 119 122<br />
Source: RIZIV/INAMI 2006<br />
One can argue that th<strong>is</strong> might be justified by the complexity of the treatment, personnel<br />
<strong>in</strong>volved and <strong>in</strong>frastructure used but these differences ma<strong>in</strong>ly seem to be the result of<br />
h<strong>is</strong>torical negotiations rather than based on objective quality <strong>in</strong>dicators.<br />
Other m<strong>in</strong>or differences ex<strong>is</strong>t between the <strong>in</strong>dividual conventions:<br />
• Centres 3 & 4 accept only outpatients. Centres 1 and 2 (and 5, 6 and<br />
7) treat <strong>in</strong>- and out patients. <strong>The</strong> price of the outpatients conventions<br />
<strong>is</strong> significantly higher than for <strong>in</strong>patient. <strong>The</strong> assumption <strong>is</strong> that the<br />
f<strong>in</strong>anc<strong>in</strong>g <strong>is</strong> supposed to be partly covered by hospital<strong>is</strong>ation ‘day-price’.<br />
• <strong>The</strong> total number of expected work<strong>in</strong>g days (used for calculat<strong>in</strong>g the<br />
required staff<strong>in</strong>g levels) <strong>is</strong> different for centres 1-2 (250 days) versus<br />
centres 3-4 (236 days); they are not specified for the centres 5-7;<br />
• <strong>The</strong> percentage of the costs that are <strong>in</strong>dexed vary between the<br />
<strong>in</strong>stitutions (Centres 1 to 4) because of: