Siok Swan Tan1, Pietro Chiarello, Wilm Quentin. 1. Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, P. O. Box 1738, 3000 DR, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, tan@bmg.eur.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Researchers from 11 countries (Austria, England, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and Sweden) compared how their Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) systems deal with knee replacement cases. The study aims to assist knee surgeons and national authorities to optimize the grouping algorithm of their DRG systems. METHODS: National or regional databases were used to identify hospital cases treated with a procedure of knee replacement. DRG classification algorithms and indicators of resource consumption were compared for those DRGs that together comprised at least 97 % of cases. Five standardized case scenarios were defined and quasi-prices according to national DRG-based hospital payment systems ascertained. RESULTS: Grouping algorithms for knee replacement vary widely across countries: they classify cases according to different variables (between one and five classification variables) into diverging numbers of DRGs (between one and five DRGs). Even the most expensive DRGs generally have a cost index below 2.00, implying that grouping algorithms do not adequately account for cases that are more than twice as costly as the index DRG. Quasi-prices for the most complex case vary between euro 4,920 in Estonia and euro 14,081 in Spain. CONCLUSIONS: Most European DRG systems were observed to insufficiently consider the most important determinants of resource consumption. Several countries' DRG system might be improved through the introduction of classification variables for revision of knee replacement or for the presence of complications or comorbidities. Ultimately, this would contribute to assuring adequate performance comparisons and fair hospital reimbursement on the basis of DRGs.
PURPOSE: Researchers from 11 countries (Austria, England, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and Sweden) compared how their Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) systems deal with knee replacement cases. The study aims to assist knee surgeons and national authorities to optimize the grouping algorithm of their DRG systems. METHODS: National or regional databases were used to identify hospital cases treated with a procedure of knee replacement. DRG classification algorithms and indicators of resource consumption were compared for those DRGs that together comprised at least 97 % of cases. Five standardized case scenarios were defined and quasi-prices according to national DRG-based hospital payment systems ascertained. RESULTS: Grouping algorithms for knee replacement vary widely across countries: they classify cases according to different variables (between one and five classification variables) into diverging numbers of DRGs (between one and five DRGs). Even the most expensive DRGs generally have a cost index below 2.00, implying that grouping algorithms do not adequately account for cases that are more than twice as costly as the index DRG. Quasi-prices for the most complex case vary between euro 4,920 in Estonia and euro 14,081 in Spain. CONCLUSIONS: Most European DRG systems were observed to insufficiently consider the most important determinants of resource consumption. Several countries' DRG system might be improved through the introduction of classification variables for revision of knee replacement or for the presence of complications or comorbidities. Ultimately, this would contribute to assuring adequate performance comparisons and fair hospital reimbursement on the basis of DRGs.
Authors: Kevin J Bozic; Sridar Durbhakula; Daniel J Berry; James M Naessens; Karen Rappaport; Miriam Cisternas; Khaled J Saleh; Harry E Rubash Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.757