{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016587677725118485, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001184834123222749, 'mean_word_length': 5.5, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The implementation of casemix in Victoria — a clinician's view

Although a number of concerns remain, casemix ‐based funding is seen by clinicians in Victoria to be a more equitable way of determining public hospital inpatient budgets than historical allocation, and will provide a valuable source of data for service provision planning. The concerns in particular are the inadequacy of the current Australian national diagnosis‐related groups 2 system to classify modern clinical practice and describe complex patients; the absence of adequate baseline data to allow an accurate assessment of the impact of casemix‐based funding on quality of care; the lack of direct recognition within diagnosis‐related groups of the training, research and development roles of public hospitals; and the instability of a funding system which is in evolution.