臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

目的：
中央健保局於2001年10月推行「全民健康保險糖尿病醫療給付改善方案試辦計畫」嘗試從醫療過程面指標，以增加給付的方式，鼓勵醫療提供者給予更好的照護品質。計畫實施後的成效評估目前以短期及區域性比較居多，因此本研究主要目的是分析病醫療給付改善方案實施五年後，對糖尿病患的醫療利用和費用是否改善，以實證資料來分析其中長期影響，提供試辦計畫未來政策改善之參考。
方法：
本研究使用中央健康保險局1999~2006年特別需求醫療申報檔，為次級資料分析。以準實驗研究設計，定義2002年第一次加入試辦計畫之糖尿病患2,134人為研究組，用傾向分數配對出(propensity score matching)從未加入計畫之對照組8,536人，再利用差異中之差異法(difference in difference)及複迴歸以比較前測期(2001年)及追蹤各年(2002~2006年)之糖尿病七項相關檢驗檢查次數變化及門診、急診與住院次數和費用變化情形。本研究再將研究組個案再分為兩組，分別為僅有2002年當年納入計畫者(單一介入組) 581人與連續五年皆納入者(持續介入組)共1,393人。比較其納入試辦計畫時間的長短，對糖尿病患醫療利用和費用影響的差異。
結果：
(1)糖尿病患在加入試辦計畫後，完成糖尿病相關七項檢驗檢查的種類數從2001年的3.51次，提高到平均皆有5次以上。但尿液及眼底檢查方面，卻都未達平均每年一次的標準。(2)在差異中的差異分析上，控制了兩組前測的差異後，門診次數、急診次數和急診費用其成長幅度，研究組皆小於對照組。(3)多變項迴歸分析上，研究組除了2006年外，急診次數及急診費用在追蹤各年度都顯著比對照組低；而住院日數及費用研究組各年皆比對照組顯著的低。(4)比較納入計畫時間長短，發現單一介入組造成各項檢驗檢查完成種類數的增加、急診次數及費用的降低、住院日數及費用的降低，這些效果都只能維持當年度或下年度；每年持續納入計畫者，才能維持有其影響。
結論：
本研究發現糖尿病醫療給付改善方案能持續為糖尿病患者帶來糖尿病相關之急診及住院利用的改善，且相關費用的成長得到控制。同一病患在不同年度是否能持續納入試辦計畫，才是影響試辦計畫是否持續發揮效果的關鍵。包裹給付之尿液及眼底檢查率，五年間仍持續未達標準，未來計畫在修訂時應考慮對於未持續進步的指標，在支付上修正或訂立懲罰辦法，同時應加強糖尿病自主管理教育(Diabetes Self-management Education) 落實和獎勵。未來研究可朝病患臨床檢驗值分析及計畫之成本效益分析上進行。

Background: The Bureau of the National Health Insurance (BNHI) implemented ''The Pay for Performance Program for Diabetes'' in October 2001. This program aimed to encourage medical provider to supply better quality of health care through additional incentive payments. The effects of this program are mostly evaluated on short-term and regional levels. The main objective of this study is to investigate whether there is continuous improvement on patient’s medical utilization and expenses after doing this program for five years. This study can also provide the long-term effect of this program via evidence-based data and give suggestions for the government in the future.

Methods: This study used BNHI claim data during 1999 to 2006 and a quasi-experimental design was used to assess the impact of the program. Diabetic patients who participated in this program fist time in 2001 were identified as the study group and diabetic patients who never participated in this program were defined as the control group. A propensity score method was used to match cases and controls. Finally, 2,134 cases and 8,536 controls were recruited in this study. Difference in difference method and multiple regression models were used to analyze the difference of healthcare utilization and expenses between baseline data in 2001 and follow-up data during 2002 to 2006. Furthermore, the case group was separated into two sub-groups. 581 cases who just participated in the program in 2002 were classed as the single intervention group and 1,393 cases who participated in every year from 2002 to 2006 were classed as the continuous intervention group. We evaluated the program’s effect on medical utilization and expenses in diabetes patients by comparing the length of intervention.

Results: Several significant findings of this study were summarized as follows. (1) Patients in the case group tented to have higher frequency in completeness of the 7 important examinations for diabetes. The frequency was from 3.51 times in 2001 to more than about 5 times in following year. However, Urinalysis and Ophthalmoscopic examination did not reach the standard which should be examined at least one time per year. (2)After controlling the baseline difference in the model, we found that patients in the case group had smaller growing slope on the number of outpatient visits、the number of emergency visits and emergency expenditure by using difference in difference analysis.(3)The multiple regression model analysis showed that the case group had fewer emergency visits and emergency expenditure than the control group during observation period except 2006. Similarly, the number of inpatient visits and inpatient expenditure were fewer in the case group than the control group during observation period. (4) We found that the program effect on increasing frequency of completing the 7 important examinations for diabetes, decreasing of emergency visit and expenditure, decreasing of inpatient length and expenditure of single intervention group maintained for one or two years. Oppositely, program effect on continuous intervention group has been preserved during observation period.

Conclusions: This study suggest that the ''The Pay for Performance Program for Diabetes'' continually have improvement on diabetes-related emergency and inpatient utilization, and make the growing expenditure under control. The key point of the program sustained its effect on patients is that whether the same patient could enroll the program in the successive years or not. We suggest that program should adjust the payment on some indicators, Urinalysis and Ophthalmoscopic examination, which didn’t make progress to the standard over years. The program can be revised on providing incentives to promote the implement of Diabetes Self-management Education. Further study can focus on analyzing the program effect of patient’s clinical examination value and cost-benefit analysis for the program.

第一章 緒 論............................................. 1
第一節 研究背景與動機........................ 1
第二節 研究目的.................................. 2
第二章 文獻探討.........................................3
第一節 糖尿病現況............................... 3
第二節 糖尿病醫療照護概況.................... 6
第三節 糖尿病疾病管理和評估.................. 7
第四節 糖尿病疾病管理照護介入之實證研究..... 13
第三章 材料與方法.................................17
第一節 研究設計與假說....................... 17
第二節 研究對象與材料....................... 18
第三節 研究變項與操作型定義................. 20
第四節 資料處理............................. 26
第五節 統計方法............................. 36
第四章 研究結果...................................40
第一節 研究樣本描述性統計................... 40
第二節 研究樣本醫療利用和費用之比較......... 42
第三節 研究樣本醫療利用和費用之多變項分析... 46
第四節 研究組納入醫療給付改善方案時間長短之醫療耗用多變項分析.. 52
第五章 討論與建議.................................57
參考文獻列表：....................................65
附錄一：研究結果圖表..............................69
附錄二：糖尿病診斷標準...........................130
附錄三：DQIP 測量指標............................131
附錄四：台灣地區糖尿病照護參考指標........132
附錄五：DSCI 分類細目............................133
附錄六：全民健康保險糖尿病醫療服務改善方案試辦計畫第一版.135

英文部分：
American Diabetes Association (2008). Economic costs of diabetes in the U.S. in 2007. Diabetes Care, 31(3), 596-615.
American Diabetes Association (2009). Diagnosis and classification of diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Care, 32(Supplement_1), S62-67.
Bjo¨rk, S. (2001). The cost of diabetes and diabetes care. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 54(Suppl. 1), S13– S18.
Campbell, S., Reeves, D., Kontopantelis, E., Middleton, E., Sibbald, B., & Roland, M. (2007). Quality of primary care in England with the introduction of pay for performance. The New England Journal of Medicine, 357(2), 181-190.
Chuang, L. M., Tsai, S. T., Huang, B. Y., & Tai, T. Y. (2001). The current state of diabetes management in Taiwan. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 54(Supplement 1), 55-65.
Coffey, J. T., Brandle, M., Zhou, H., Marriott, D., Burke, R., Tabaei, B. P., et al. (2002). Valuing health-related quality of life in diabetes. Diabetes Care, 25(12), 2238-2243.
Couch, J. B. (1998). The health care professional''s guide to disease management: patient-centered care for the 21st century. . Gaithersburg,MD: Aspen Publishers.
Cutler, T. W., Palmieri, J., Khalsa, M., & Stebbins, M. (2007). Evaluation of the relationship between a chronic disease care management program and california pay-for-performance diabetes care cholesterol measures in one medical group. Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy, 13(7), 578-588.
Donabedian, A. (1980). The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment. Michigan: Health Administration Press.
Fireman, B., Bartlett, J., & Selby, J. (2004). Can disease management reduce health care costs by improving quality? [Article]. HEALTH AFFAIRS, 23, 63-75.
Fleming, B. B., Greenfield, S., Engelgau, M. M., Pogach, L. M., Clauser, S. B., & Parrott, M. A. (2001). The diabetes quality improvement project: moving science into health policy to gain an edge on the diabetes epidemic. Diabetes Care, 24(10), 1815-1820.
Gu, X. S., & Rosenbaum, P. R. (1993). Comparison of multivariate matching methods: structures, distances and algorithms. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 2, 405-420.
Heckman, Ichimura, & Todd (1998). Matching as an econometric evaluation estimator. Review of Economic Studies 65, 261-294.
Hickman, M., Drummond, N., & Grimshaw, J. (1994). The operation of shared care for chronic disease. Health Bull, 52, 118-126.
Hill, R. D. (1976). Community care service for diabetics in the Poole area. British Medical Journal, 1, 1137-1139.
Joffe, M. M., & Rosenbaum, P. R. (1999). Invited commentary: propensity scores. American Journal of Epidemiology, 150(4), 327-333.
Klein, R. (1995). Hyperglycemia and microvascular and macrovascular disease in diabetes. Diabetes Care, 18, 258-268.
Lai, M. S., & Chiou, S. T. (2002). Concept and content of diabetes shared care. Formosan Journal of Medicine, 16(4), 560-568.
Laura A. Petersen, L. D. W., Tracy Urech, Christina Daw, Supicha Sookanan (2006). Does pay-for-performance improve the quality of health care? Annals of Internal Medicine, 145(4), 265-272.
Lin, B. J., & Department of Endocrinology of Cardinal Tien Hospital (2002). Monitoring the quality of diabetes care. Formosan Journal of Medicine, 6(4), 574-580.
Lin, T., Chou, P., Lai, M. S., Tsai, S. T., & Tai, T. Y. (2001). Direct cost-of-illness of patients with diabetes mellitus in Taiwan. Diabetes Research and Clinical practice, 54 suppl, S43-S46.
Mangano, D. T., Tudor, I. C., & Dietzel, C. (2006). The risk associated with aprotinin in cardiac surgery. The New England Journal of Medicine, 354(4), 353-365.
Narayan, K. M. V., Zhang, P., Kanaya, A. M., Williams, D. E., Engelgau, M. M., Imperatore, G., et al. (2006). Diabetes: The pandemic and potential solutions Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries (2nd Edition),ed. (pp. 591-604): New York: Oxford University Press.
Peter K. Lindenauer, D. R., Sheila Roman, Michael B. Rothberg,Evan M. Benjamin, Allen Ma, Dale W. Bratzler, D.O. (2007). Public reporting and pay for performance in hospital quality improvement. The New England Journal of Medicine, 356(5), 486-496.
Peters, A. L. (2001). Diabetes disease management: past, present, and future. Endocrinologist, 11(2), 86-93.
Redekop, W. K., Koopmanschap, M. A., Stolk, R. P., Rutten, G. E. H. M., Wolffenbuttel, B. H. R., & Niessen, L. W. (2002). Health-related quality of life and treatment satisfaction in Dutch patients with type 2 Diabetes. Diabetes Care, 25(3), 458-463.
Sidorov, J., Shull, R., Tomcavage, J., Girolami, S., Lawton, N., & Harris, R. (2002). Does diabetes disease management save money and improve outcomes? A report of simultaneous short-term savings and quality improvement associated with a health maintenance organization-sponsored disease management program among patients fulfilling health employer data and information set criteria. Diabetes Care, 25(4), 684-689.
Suh, D. C. (1999). Disease management program for diabetes mellitus: principles and components. Endocrinologist, 9(5), 379-388.
The Committee on Quality of Health Care in America of the Institute of Medicine (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
The Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group (1993). The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the development and progression of long-term complications in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. The New England Journal of Medicine, 329(14), 977-986.
The Expert Committee on the Diagnosis Classification of Diabetes Mellitus (2003). Follow-up Report on the Diagnosis of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care, 26(11), 3160-3167.
United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group (1998a). Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). The Lancet, 352(9131), 854-865.
United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group (1998b). Intensive blood-glucose control with sulphonylureas or insulin compared with conventional treatment and risk of complications in patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 33). The Lancet, 352(9131), 837-853.
Venkat Narayan, K. M., Zhang, P., Kanaya, A. M., Williams, D. E., Engelgau, M. M., Imperatore, G., et al. (2006). Diabetes: The pandemic and potential solutions. Disease control priorities in developing countries. Second ed. Washington DD: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, 591-603.
Viliagra, V. G., & Ahmed, T. (Writer) (2004). Effectiveness of a disease management program for patients with diabetes [Article], Health Affairs: Project HOPE/HEALTH AFFAIRS.
Walker, J. B. (1953). Field of work of a diabetic clinic. The Lancet, 2, 445-447.
Weng, R., Hsieh, Y. C., Shiu, R. S., & Bureau of Health Promotion Department of Health (2002). Current status of diabetes shared care in Taiwan. Formosan Journal of Medicine, 6(5), 569-573.
Wild, S., Roglic, G., Green, A., Sicree, R., & King, H. (2004). Global prevalence of diabetes：estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care,27, 1047-1053.
World Health Organization (2005). Preventing CHRONIC DISEASES a vital investment.
Young, B. A., Lin, E., Korff, M. V., Simon, G., Ciechanowski, P., Ludman, E. J., et al. (2008). Diabetes complications severity index and risk of mortality, hospitalization, and healthcare utilization. The American Journal of Managed Care, 14, 15-24.


中文部分：

李待弟 (2007)。 全民健康保險糖尿病醫療給付改善方案初步影響評估。未出版博碩士論文，國立台灣大學，台北。

徐慧君、翁慧卿、林育慈、陳淑銘、李佩儒、李集美等(2004)。糖尿病患介入疾病管理在經濟面、臨床面及滿意度成效評估之初探－以南部某區域醫院糖尿病病患為例。醫務管理期刊，5(2)，222-242。

郝立智、馬瀰嘉、趙海倫、簡崇仁、楊純宜、林興中等(2007)。某地區教學醫院糖尿病門診病患個案管理照護之成效探討。內分泌暨糖尿病學會會刊，20(4)，11-33。

陳明君、陳啟禎、錢慶文 (2003)。論質計酬制度對糖尿病患門診醫療費用之可能影響評估。醫務管理期刊，4(4)，14-26。

黃三桂、王悅萍、錢慶文 (2002)。疾病管理對糖尿病患醫療資源耗用之影響。醫務管理期刊，3(2)，35-48。

戴東原 (2008)。 糖尿病在台灣的現況。內分泌暨糖尿病學會會刊，21，8-9。

魏榮男、宋鴻樟、林瑞雄、李中一、莊明雄、王博仁等(2002)。各級醫院糖尿病慢性合併症住院現況探討。臺灣公共衛生雜誌，21(2)，115-122。

魏榮男、莊立民、林瑞雄、趙嘉玲、宋鴻樟 (2002)。1996~2000年台灣地區糖尿病盛行率與住院率。臺灣公共衛生雜誌，21(3)，173-180。

羅健銘、陳素秋、賴允亮、林家瑾、陳建仁 (2007)。住院癌末病患照護型態對住院醫療費用與住院天數之影響。台灣衛誌，26(4)，270-282。