Search

This study analysed the outstanding homogeneity of the German Diagnosis-Related Groups (G-DRG) using the reduction in variance (R²) of costs. Arbitrary increase in case groups, definition of additional charges and combination of several case groups in one DRG were considered as potential confounders. In 2009, the G-DRG-system offers an outstanding homogeneity with R² of 83.5% in comparison to 2004 with R² of 70.2%. The effect of an arbitrary increase in case groups is negligible. However, a simulation of the other confounders explains three-fourth of the increase in R² between 2004 and 2009. The definition of additional charges attributes in particular to the outstanding homogeneity. The assessment of DRG-systems with R² should be complemented with measures that are independent from a trimming of costs, e.g. relating actual costs with prospective payment. The G-DRGs left medical ground in order to achieve optimal economical homogeneity.

About three years ago, the German Government initiated a complete change in the reimbursement system for costs of the in-hospital treatment of patients. A commission of representatives from every component of the German health system decided to adapt the Australian refined Diagnosis Related Groups (AR-DRG system). The AR-DRG system was selected as it would fit best to the German system and because of its high flexibility and preciseness reflecting severity of diseases and treatments. In October 2002, the first German Diagnosis Related Groups (G-DRGs) were calculated from the data of about 116 hospitals. These data now allow first analyses in how far a correct and precise grouping of patients in specific hospital settings is indeed performed and corresponds to the actual costs. Thus, we thoroughly calculated all costs for material and personnel during the in-hospital stay for each patient discharged during the first 4 months of 2002 from our cardiological department. After performing the grouping procedure for each patient, we analyzed in how far inhomogeneous patient distribution in the DRGs occurred and which impact this had on costs and potential reimbursements. Several different problems were identified which should be outlined in this work regarding three G-DRGs: costs of patients who received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (F01Z) were markedly influenced by multimorbidity and additional expensive interventions which were not reflected by this G-DRG. Use of numerous catheters and expensive drugs represented a major factor for costs in patients with coronary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction (F10Z) but seemed to be not sufficiently included in the cost weight. A specific area of patient management in our department is high frequency ablation of tachyarrhythmias which is included in other percutaneous interventions (F19Z). Complex procedures such as ablation of ventricular tachycardia or new innovative procedures as ablation of atrial fibrillation were associated with high costs leading to inadequate reimbursement. Furthermore, problems in the associated codes for diseases and procedures became apparent. Opportunities for future optimization such as specific new DRGs, splitting of DRGs, or the impact of changes in reimbursement for high-outliers were discussed.