Acute myocardial infarction and diagnosis-related groups: patient classification and hospital reimbursement in 11 European countries

Abstract

AimsAs part of the diagnosis related groups in Europe (EuroDRG) project, researchers from 11 countries (i.e. Austria, England, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and Sweden) compared how their DRG systems deal with patients admitted to hospital for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The study aims to assist cardiologists and national authorities to optimize their DRG systems.Methods and resultsNational or regional databases were used to identify hospital cases with a primary diagnosis of AMI. Diagnosis-related group classification algorithms and indicators of resource consumption were compared for those DRGs that individually contained at least 1% of cases. Six standardized case vignettes were defined, and quasi prices according to national DRG-based hospital payment systems were ascertained. European DRG systems vary widely: they classify AMI patients according to different sets of variables into diverging numbers of DRGs (between 4 DRGs in Estonia and 16 DRGs in France). The most complex DRG is valued 11 times more resource intensive than an index case in Estonia but only 1.38 times more resource intensive than an index case in England. Comparisons of quasi prices for the case vignettes show that hypothetical payments for the index case amount to only €420 in Poland but to €7930 in Ireland.ConclusionsLarge variation exists in the classification of AMI patients across Europe. Cardiologists and national DRG authorities should consider how other countries' DRG systems classify AMI patients in order to identify potential scope for improvement and to ensure fair and appropriate reimbursement.

Costs and cost‐driving factors for acute treatment of adults with status epilepticus: A multicenter cohort study from Germany

“…The authors pointed out that the German system provides a comparably high level of differentiation accounting for main diagnoses, procedures (including systemic thrombolysis, rehabilitation and artificial ventilation), death during admission, complications (i.e., motor dysfunction), stroke unit treatment, and LOS . Similar results were also shown by the EuroDRG project for the reimbursement of hospital treatment due to acute myocardial infarction . This might indicate that clinical entities in need of intensive care support might show a comparable DRG reimbursement distribution across large parts of Europe.…”

Diagnosis related groups in Europe: moving towards transparency, efficiency, and quality in hospitals?

“…For acute myocardial infarction, eight countries differentiate between patients with and without certain complications and comorbidities (such as diabetes and heart failure) but three countries (Austria, England, and the Netherlands) do not. 25 The reasons why DRG systems were established in the way they were-and the reasons for revising them-are rarely made public, and the processes are not completely objective. Usually, the process relies on input from medical specialist associations or expert consultants and the decisions are made by a national authority.…”

“…The length of the bars indicates the range of the price index, which compares country specific DRG weights (relative weights, tariffs, or scores) with the weight of an index DRG (price index = 1) for the episode of care (that into which a standard case without complications would be classified). 25 The size of the circles represents the number of DRGs used to classify patients …”

Impact of new health care policies on the quality of acute myocardial infarction treatment in Swiss hospitals: A before and after observational study

“…The EuroDRG group, who identified the difficulty to match AMI clinical patterns with an appropriate DRGs classification for costs and performance comparison, has already recognized this issue. [29] With regard to the subgroup of patients with Killip class 3 or 4 at admission, their worse in-hospital mortality could reflect a stochastic variation, but also the emergence of difficulties for clinical teams to cope with patients demanding extra care and time under cost constraints. Even an incorrectly perceived loss of quality by clinical teams has been associated with an increase of patient mortality.…”