A Wenke1, D Franz, G Pühse, B Volkmer, N Roeder. 1. Geschäftsbereich Medizinisches Management - Medizincontrolling, DRG-Research-Group, Universitätsklinikum, Domagkstrasse 20, 48129 Münster. andreas.wenke@ukmuenster.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 2009 version of the German DRG system brought significant changes for urology concerning coding of diagnoses, medical procedures and the DRG structure. In view of the political situation and considerable economic pressure, a critical analysis of the 2009 German DRG system is warranted. Analysis of relevant diagnoses, medical procedures and G-DRGs in the versions 2008 and 2009 based on the publications of the German DRG-institute (InEK) and the German Institute of Medical Documentation and Information (DIMDI). RESULTS: The relevant diagnoses, medical procedures and German DRGs in the versions 2008 and 2009 were analysed based on the publications of the German DRG Institute (InEK) and the German Institute of Medical Documentation and Information (DIMDI). Changes for 2009 focus on the development of the DRG structure, DRG validation and codes for medical procedures to be used for very complex cases. The outcome of these changes for German hospitals may vary depending in the range of activities. CONCLUSION: The German DRG system again gained complexity. High demands are made on correct and complete coding of complex urology cases. The quality of case allocation in the German DRG system was improved. On the one hand some of the old problems (e.g. enterostomata) still persist, while on the other hand new problems evolved out of the attempt to improve the case allocation of highly complex and expensive cases. Time will tell whether the increase in highly specialized DRG with low case numbers will continue to endure and reach acceptable rates of annual fluctuations.
BACKGROUND: The 2009 version of the German DRG system brought significant changes for urology concerning coding of diagnoses, medical procedures and the DRG structure. In view of the political situation and considerable economic pressure, a critical analysis of the 2009 German DRG system is warranted. Analysis of relevant diagnoses, medical procedures and G-DRGs in the versions 2008 and 2009 based on the publications of the German DRG-institute (InEK) and the German Institute of Medical Documentation and Information (DIMDI). RESULTS: The relevant diagnoses, medical procedures and German DRGs in the versions 2008 and 2009 were analysed based on the publications of the German DRG Institute (InEK) and the German Institute of Medical Documentation and Information (DIMDI). Changes for 2009 focus on the development of the DRG structure, DRG validation and codes for medical procedures to be used for very complex cases. The outcome of these changes for German hospitals may vary depending in the range of activities. CONCLUSION: The German DRG system again gained complexity. High demands are made on correct and complete coding of complex urology cases. The quality of case allocation in the German DRG system was improved. On the one hand some of the old problems (e.g. enterostomata) still persist, while on the other hand new problems evolved out of the attempt to improve the case allocation of highly complex and expensive cases. Time will tell whether the increase in highly specialized DRG with low case numbers will continue to endure and reach acceptable rates of annual fluctuations.