OBJECTIVE: The changing healthcare environment world-wide is leading to extensive use of per case payment systems based on diagnosis-related groups (DRG). The aim of this study was to examine the impact of application of different DRG systems used in the German healthcare system. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 2334 clinical data sets of inpatients discharged from an academic dermatological inpatient unit in 2003. Data were regarded as providing high coding quality in compliance with the diagnosis and procedure classifications as well as coding standards. The application of the Australian AR-DRG version 4.1, the German G-DRG version 1.0, and the German G-DRG version 2004 was considered in detail. To evaluate more specific aspects, data were broken down into 11 groups based on the principle diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: DRG cost weights and case mix index were used to compare coverage of inpatient dermatological services. Economic impacts were illustrated by case mix volumes and calculation of DRG payments. RESULTS: Case mix index results and the pending prospective revenues vary tremendously from the application of one or another of the DRG systems. The G-DRG version 2004 provides increased levels of case mix index that encourages, in particular, medical dermatology. CONCLUSIONS: The AR-DRG version 4.1 and the first German DRG version 1.0 appear to be less suitable to adequately cover inpatient dermatology. The G-DRG version 2004 has been greatly improved, probably due to proceeding calculation standards and DRG adjustments. The future of inpatient dermatology is subject to appropriate depiction of well-established treatment standards.
OBJECTIVE: The changing healthcare environment world-wide is leading to extensive use of per case payment systems based on diagnosis-related groups (DRG). The aim of this study was to examine the impact of application of different DRG systems used in the German healthcare system. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed 2334 clinical data sets of inpatients discharged from an academic dermatological inpatient unit in 2003. Data were regarded as providing high coding quality in compliance with the diagnosis and procedure classifications as well as coding standards. The application of the Australian AR-DRG version 4.1, the German G-DRG version 1.0, and the German G-DRG version 2004 was considered in detail. To evaluate more specific aspects, data were broken down into 11 groups based on the principle diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: DRG cost weights and case mix index were used to compare coverage of inpatient dermatological services. Economic impacts were illustrated by case mix volumes and calculation of DRG payments. RESULTS: Case mix index results and the pending prospective revenues vary tremendously from the application of one or another of the DRG systems. The G-DRG version 2004 provides increased levels of case mix index that encourages, in particular, medical dermatology. CONCLUSIONS: The AR-DRG version 4.1 and the first German DRG version 1.0 appear to be less suitable to adequately cover inpatient dermatology. The G-DRG version 2004 has been greatly improved, probably due to proceeding calculation standards and DRG adjustments. The future of inpatient dermatology is subject to appropriate depiction of well-established treatment standards.
Authors: Sina Shams; Kai Lippold; Jens Uwe Blohmer; Robert Röhle; Friedrich Kühn; Maria Margarete Karsten Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: S A Zafirah; Amrizal Muhammad Nur; Sharifa Ezat Wan Puteh; Syed Mohamed Aljunid Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 2.655