The debate over diagnosis related groups.
ABSTRACT With the advent of the Prospective Payment System (PPS) using Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) as a classification method, the pros and cons of that mechanism have been sharply debated. Grouping the comments into categories related to administration/management, DRG system and quality of care, a review of relevant literature highlights the pertinent attitudes and views of professionals and organizations. Points constantly argued include data utilization, meaningful medical classifications, resource use, gaming, profit centers, patient homogeneity, severity of illness, length of stay, technology limitations and the erosion of standards.
- SourceAvailable from: informahealthcare.comExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 04/2004; 4(2):127-30. · 1.67 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study first aimed to determine the adequacy of the Diagnosis Related Grouping (DRG) model's ability to explain (1) the variance in the actual length of stay (LOS) of elderly medical inpatients and (2) the LOS difference in the same cohort between the departments of Geriatric Medicine (GRM) and General Medicine (GM). We then looked at how these explanatory abilities of the DRG changed when patients' function-linked variables (ignored by DRG) were incorporated into the model. Basic demographic data of a consecutively hospitalised cohort of elderly medical inpatients from GRM and GM, as well as their actual LOS, discharge DRG codes [with their corresponding trimmed average length of stay (ALOS)] and selected function-linked variables (including premorbid functional status, change in functional profile during hospitalisation and number of therapists seen) were recorded. Beginning with ALOS, function-linked variables that were significantly associated with LOS were then added into two multiple liner regression models so as to quantify how the functional dimension improved the DRGs' abilities to explain LOS variances and interdepartmental LOS differences. Forward selection procedure was employed to determine the final models. For the interdepartmental analysis, the study sample was restricted to patients who shared common DRG codes. 114 GRM and 118 GM patients were studied. Trimmed ALOS alone explained 8% of the actual LOS variance. With the addition of function-linked variables, the adjusted R2 of the final model increased to 28%. Due to common code restrictions, the data of 79 GRM and 78 GM patients were available for the analysis of interdepartmental LOS differences. At the unadjusted stage, the median stay of GRM patients was 4.3 days longer than GM's and with adjustments made for the DRGs, this difference was reduced to 3.9 days. Additionally adjusting for the patients' functional features diminished the interdepartmental LOS discrepancy even further, to 2.1 days. This study demonstrates that for elderly medical inpatients, the incorporation of patients' functional status significantly improves the DRG model's ability to predict the patients' actual LOS as well as to explain interdepartmental LOS differences between GRM and GM.Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore 10/2004; 33(5):614-22. · 1.36 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The major trends in the growth of prospective payment and the corporatization of medical practice in the United States are examined. In particular, the ethical implications of these changes in the context of the multiple system goals of access, cost containment, and quality are considered. Considerable concern is being expressed that with the dominant emphasis on cost containment, the principles of access and quality might be compromised. This paper formulates a research agenda to address this question, based on a review and synthesis of empirical evidence and hypotheses about the probable or actual impact of these changes on the multiple health system goals. A basic premise is that ethical judgments should be grounded in empirical evidence about what actually is or will be.Social Justice Research 01/1987; 1(3):275-296. · 0.89 Impact Factor