[The challenge of adequate reimbursement for the seriously injured patient in the German DRG system].

BACKGROUND: Critically injured patients are a very heterogeneous group, medically and economically. Their treatment is a major challenge for both the medical care and the appropriate financial reimbursement. Systematic underfunding can have a significant impact on the quality of patient care. In 2009 the German Trauma Society and the DRG-Research Group of the University Hospital Muenster initialised a DRG evaluation project to analyse the validity of case allocation of critically injured patients within the German DRG system versions 2008 and 2011 with additional consideration of clinical data from the trauma registry of the German Trauma Society. Severe deficits within the G-DRG structure were identified and specific solutions were designed and realised.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken of standardised G-DRG data (§ 21 KHEntgG) including case-related cost data from 3 362 critically injured patients in the periods 2007 and 2008 from 10 university hospitals and 7 large municipal hospitals. For 1 241 cases of the sample, complementary detailed information was available from the trauma registry of the German Trauma Society to monitor the case allocation of critically injured patients within the G-DRG system. Analyses of coding and grouping, performance of case allocation, and the homogeneity of costs in the G-DRG versions 2008 and 2011 were done.
RESULTS: The following situations were found: (i) systematic underfunding of trauma patients in the G-DRG-Version 2008, especially trauma patients with acute paraplegia; (ii) participation in the official G-DRG development for 2011 with 13 proposals which were largely realised; (ii) the majority of cases with cost-covering in the G-DRG version 2011; (iv) significant improvements in the quality of statistical criteria; (v) overfunded trauma patients with high intensive care costs; (vi) underfunding for clinically relevant critically injured patients not identified in the G-DRG system.
CONCLUSION: The quality of the G-DRG system is measured by the ability to obtain adequate case allocations for highly complex and heterogeneous cases. Specific modifications of the G-DRG structures could increase the appropriateness of case allocation of critically injured patients. Additional consideration of the ISS clinical data must be further evaluated. Data-based analysis is an essential prerequisite for a constructive development of the G-DRG system and a necessary tool for the active participation of medical societies in this process. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.