Search

Background: Germany has the highest per capita health care spending among EU member states, but its hospitals face pressure to generate profits independently due to the government's withdrawal of investment cost coverage. The diagnosis related groups (DRG) payment system was implemented to address the cost issue, challenging hospital physicians to provide services within predefined prices and an economic target corridor to reduce costs. This study examines the extent of cost awareness among medical personnel in German hospitals and its influencing factors. Methods: We developed an online survey in which participants across all specialties in hospitals estimated the prices in euros of four common interventions and answered questions about their human capital and perceived stress on the workplace. As a measure of cost awareness, we used the probability of estimating the prices correctly within a reasonable margin. We employed logit logistic regression estimators to identify influencing factors in a sample of 86 participants. Results: The results revealed that most of the respondents were unaware of the costs of common interventions. General human capital, acquired through prior education, and job-specific human capital had no influence on cost awareness, whereas domain-specific human capital, that is, gaining economic knowledge based on self-interest, had a positive nonlinear effect on cost awareness. Furthermore, an increased stress level negatively influenced cost awareness. Conclusions: This paper is the first of its kind for the German health care sector that contributes responses to the question whether health care professionals in German hospitals have cost awareness and if not, what reasons lie behind this lack of knowledge. Our findings show that the cost awareness desired by the introduction of the DRG system has yet to be achieved by medical personnel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Integrative Medicine (IM) combines conventional and complementary therapies. It aims to address biological, psychological, social, spiritual and environmental aspects of patients' health. During the past 20 years, the use and request of IM in children and adults has grown. Anthroposophic Medicine (AM) is an IM approach frequently used in children in Germany. From both public health and health economic perspectives, it is relevant to investigate whether there are differences in the resource utilization between integrative pediatric departments (IPD) and the entirety of all pediatric departments.Methods: Standard ward documentation data from all German integrative anthroposophic pediatric departments (2005-2016; N = 29,956) is investigated and systematically compared to data of the entirety of all pediatric departments in Germany derived from the Institute for the Hospital Reimbursement System (2005-2016, N = 8,645,173). The analyses focus on: length of stay, Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG), Major Diagnosis Categories (MDC), and effective Case Mix Index (CMI).Results: The length of stay in the IPD (M = 5.38 ± 7.31) was significantly shorter than the DRG defined length of stay (M = 5.8 ± 4.71; p < .001; d = - 0.07) and did not exceed or undercut the DRG covered length of stay. Compared to the entirety of all pediatric departments (M = 4.74 ± 6.23) the length of stay was significantly longer in the in the IPD (p <. 001; d = 0.12). The effective CMI in IPD and all pediatric departments were identical (M = 0.76). The frequencies of DRG and MDC differed between IPD and all pediatric departments, with higher frequencies of DRGs and MDCs associated with chronic and severe illnesses in the IPD.Conclusions: Treatment within integrative anthroposophic pediatric departments fits well in terms of the DRG defined conditions concerning length of stay, even though integrative pediatric patients has an increased length of stay of averagely 1 day, which is most likely associated to time consuming, complex integrative treatment approaches and to a certain extend to higher amount of chronic and severe diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Hospital costs and cost drivers in palliative care are poorly analysed. It remains unknown whether current German Diagnosis-Related Groups, mainly relying on main diagnosis or procedure, reproduce costs adequately. The aim of this study was therefore to analyse costs and reimbursement for inpatient palliative care and to identify relevant cost drivers. Methods: Two-center, standardised micro-costing approach with patient-level cost calculations and analysis of the reimbursement situation for patients receiving palliative care at two German hospitals (7/2012–12/2013). Data were analysed for the total group receiving hospital care covering, but not exclusively, palliative care (group A) and the subgroup receiving palliative care only (group B). Patient and care characteristics predictive of inpatient costs of palliative care were derived by generalised linear models and investigated by classification and regression tree analysis. Results: Between 7/2012 and 12/2013, 2151 patients received care in the two hospitals including, but not exclusively, on the PCUs (group A). In 2013, 784 patients received care on the two PCUs only (group B). Mean total costs per case were € 7392 (SD 7897) (group A) and € 5763 (SD 3664) (group B), mean total reimbursement per case € 5155 (SD 6347) (group A) and € 4278 (SD 2194) (group B). For group A/B on the ward, 58%/67% of the overall costs and 48%/53%, 65%/82% and 64%/72% of costs for nursing, physicians and infrastructure were reimbursed, respectively. Main diagnosis did not significantly influence costs. However, duration of palliative care and total length of stay were (related to the cost calculation method) identified as significant cost drivers. Conclusions: Related to the cost calculation method, total length of stay and duration of palliative care were identified as significant cost drivers. In contrast, main diagnosis did not reflect costs. In addition, results show that reimbursement within the German Diagnosis-Related Groups system does not reproduce the costs adequately, but causes a financing gap for inpatient palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]