The EuroDRGproject: DRG systemsanddeterminantsof hospitalcareacrosseurope

Transcription

1 ihea Congress 2011 The EuroDRGproject: DRG systemsanddeterminantsof hospitalcareacrosseurope Reinhard Busse, Prof. Dr. med. MPH FFPH Department of Health Care Management, Berlin University of Technology (WHO Collaborating Centre for Health Systems Research and Management) on behalf of the EuroDRG team 1

2 Suomi Finland Countries covered by EuroDRG project

3 Austria EuroDRG project partners Department for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Health Economics, Innsbruck Medical University England/ UK Centre for Health Economics, University of York Estonia Europe Finland France Germany Ireland Netherlands Poland Portugal Spain Sweden PRAXIS Center for Policy Studies, Tallinn European Health Management Association, Brussels National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki École des hautes études en santé publique, Rennes & Institut de recherche et documentation en économie de la santé, Paris Department of Health Care Management, Technische Universität Berlin Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin Institute for Health Policy & Management, Erasmus Universitair Medisch Centrum Rotterdam National Health Fund, Warsaw Avisory board member Céu Mateus Institut Municipal d Assistència Sanitària, Barcelona Centre for Patient Classification, National Board of Health and Welfare, Stockholm 3

4 The research programme phase I (2009/10) Description of DRG systems, updates and usage for patient classification and reimbursement across countries Detailed description of grouping algorithm and cost weights for 10 episodes of care Analysis of commonalities and differences Literature review on effects in regard to quality and efficiency Book on DRGs in Europe (Open University Press Nov. 2011) with chapters on patient classification systems, cost accounting, DRGs for reimbursement/ avoiding unintended consequences, efficiency, quality, innovations in DRG systems + country chapters 4

5 For what types of activities? Scope of DRGs the DRG house Excluded costs, e.g. investments e.g. teaching, research Other activities e.g. psychiatric or foreign patients Patients excluded from DRG system e.g. high-cost services or innovations Unbundled activities for DRG patients Possibly mixed with global budget or FFS DRGs for acute Inpatient care Day cases Outpatient clinics 5

6 The growing scope of DRGs in Europe Country Inpatient Outpatients Psychiatry Rehabilitation Austria X??? England X X starting 2012? Estonia X starting 20xx?? Finland X X?? France X X starting 20xx starting 20xx Germany X - starting The Netherlands X X?? Ireland X X -? Poland X starting 20xx starting 20xx starting 20xx Portugal X? starting 20xx? Spain X starting 20xx?? Sweden X X?? 6

7 Essential building blocks of DRG systems Data collection 2 Demographic data Clinical data Cost data Sample size, regularity Price setting 3 Actual reimbursement 4 Import Patient classification 1 system Diagnoses Procedures Severity Frequency of revisions Cost weights Base rate(s) Prices/ tarifs Average vs. best Volume limits Outliers High cost cases Negotiations Patient classification Hospital payment 7

8 Choosing a PCS: copied, further developed or self-developed? Patient classification system Diagnoses Procedures Severity Frequency of revisions The great-grandfather The grandfathers The fathers

9 Basic characteristics of DRG-like PCS in Europe Patient classification system Diagnoses Procedures Severity Frequency of revisions AP-DRG AR-DRG G-DRG GHM NordDRG HRG JGP LKF DBC DRGs / DRG-like groups ,200 2, , ,000 MDCs / Chapters Partitions * 2* 2* - 9

10 MDC differences across DRG systems Patient classification system Diagnoses Procedures Severity Frequency of revisions 11 July2011

11 Data collection Demographic data Clinical data Cost data Sample size, regularity Cost calculation and price setting selected country experience Price setting Cost weights Base rate(s) Prices/ tarifs Average vs. best England France Germany Netherlands Cost data collection methodology to determine payment rate Sample size (% of all hospitals) AllNHS hospitals 99 hospitals (5%) 253 hospitals (13%) Resource use:all hospitals; unit costs: hospitals (24%) Cost accounting Top down Mix of top-down Mainly bottom-up Mainly bottom-up methodology and bottom-up Calculation of hospital payment Payment calculation Applicability Volume/ expenditure limits Direct (price) Nationwide(but adjusted for market-forcesfactor) No (plans exist for volume cap) Indirect (cost-weight) Nationwide (with adjustments and separate for public and private hospitals) Indirect (cost-weight) Cost-weights nationwide; monetary conversion statewide Direct (price) List A: nationwide List B: hospital specific List A: List B: /No 11

12 The two elements of DRG prices selected countries Price setting Cost weights Base rate(s) Prices/ tarifs Average vs. best costweight, tariff or score England 2500 France 3000 Germany, Ireland, Sweden 1.0 X X X base rate or adjustment (varies by hospital) 1.0 (+/-) (varies by region and hospital) 3000 (+/-) (variesslightlybystate/ hospital group/ county) Poland 100 points PLN 40 (uniform) X 12

13 How DRG systems adjust for quality Actual reimbursement Volume limits Outliers High cost cases Negotiations England & Germany: no extra payment if patient readmitted within 30 days Germany: deduction for not submitting quality data England: up 1.5% reduction if quality standards are not met Netherlands: insurers may include quality in negotiations about list-b -DBCs France: extra payments for quality improvement (e.g. regarding MRSA) 13

14 Finland - THL England - CHE Austria - MSIG Netherlands - ibmg Poland - NHF Spain - IMAS Germany - TUB Sweden - CPK Selection of episodes of care Can you differentiate the Recommended for inclusion? Recommended for inclusion? Recommended for inclusion? Recommended for inclusion? Recommended for inclusion? Recommended for inclusion? Recommended for inclusion? Recommended for inclusion? EoC and related questions following items? Remarks (/no) (/no) (/no) (/no) (/no) (/no) (/no) (/no) (/no) 1. Breast cancer Types of carcinoma (invasive and not invasive) no NO -CANNOT IDENTIFY DISEASE STAGE,, however we should explicitly in-or exclude We could have a clear picture of breast cancer. YES, but cannot identify disease stage SO COMPARABILITY PROBLEMATIC certain treatments. ICD10 Stages of the disease (TNM, IUCC ), grade of the disease (G1-G4) No Protein and gene expression status (oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and HER2/neu proteins) No Types of treatment: surgery, radiation, hormone immune and chemotherapy excluding hormone immune Types of surgery: tumourectomy, mastectomy -with or without lymph-adenectomy and reconstruction ICD9 2. Colorectal cancer Location of the cancer, i.e. in the colon (possibly further specified), no NO -CANNOT IDENTIFY DISEASE STAGE,, but a detailed definition is required We could have a clear picture of colorectal cancer. YES, but cannot identify disease stage rectum and caecum SO COMPARABILITY PROBLEMATIC However, we can not identify patients who had both surgery and chemotherapy. ICD10 Stages of the cancer (TNM, IUCC, Dukes classification ), grade of the disease (G1-G4) No Types of treatment: surgery, radiation, chemotherapy ICD9 Extent of surgery (both within colon/ rectum and other organs) ICD9 3. Diabetes mellitus Types of diabetes (type 1 and type 2), NO It is rather difficult to get a clear picture of diabetes YES although is complicated mellitus, predominantly owing to the many departments involved and the inability to link them. Reason for admission (e.g. hyperglycaemic or hypoglycaemic shock; other complications), Procedures related to the main diagnosis diabetes (e.g. amputation) 4. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) Type of acute myocardial infarction (both ST-elevated MI [STEMI] YES We could have a clear picture of acute myocardial YES and non-st-elevated MI [NSTEMI]) infarction, except when it comes to CABG procedures. Treatment (PTCA, stent, CABG/bypass) ICD9 5. Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) Indications for PCI, YES We could have a clear picture of PCI procedures. NO or maybe we think about redefining requires exact definition of procedure However, the number of diagnosis-codes may turn parameters of the episode Treatment (PTCA, stent) codes in order to secure comparability out to be too extensive/ complex to work with. ICD9 between countries Location of intervention (number of vessels treated, affected coronary artery, bifurcation ) ICD9 Details of stent (bare metal vs. drug-eluting; number of stents, affected coronary artery, type of drug on DES ) ICD9 6. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) Indications for CABG, YES We could have a clear picture of CABG procedures. NO or maybe we think about redefining, but some difficulties requires exact definition of procedure However, we can not distinguish the underlying parameters of the episode Grafting of both types of blood vessels: arteries and veins codes in order to secure comparability diagnoses (such as acute myocardial infarction). between countries No Type of surgery: with the usage of cardiopulmonary bypass or socalled off-pump surgery 7. Stroke Cause (due to ischemia (thrombosis or embolism) or YES We could have a clear picture of stroke. YES haemorrhage) ICD10 Treatment settings (ICU, stroke unit or medical/ neurological ward) Rehabilitation within operating hospital or associated settings (vs. rehabilitation after transfer, i.e. after end of episode) No 8. Community-acquired pneumonia Hospital-acquired pneumonia (nosocomial)(e.g. by special codeor no NO It is rather difficult to get a clear picture of, but no information on type of antibiotics used present on admission code) community-acquired pneumonia, because we can not for treatment distinguish between hospital and community-acquired No pneumonia. Treatment settings (ICU or medical ward) No Type of treatment (especially antibiotics) No 9. Inguinal hernia repair Type of inguinal hernia (bilateral unilateral, direct indirect) YES, should we define a minimal age? It is rather difficult to get a clear picture of inguinal YES but not possible to identify direct/indirect hernia repair, because we can not distinguish between hernia femoralis and inguinalis. Type of surgical repair (with or without graft or prosthesis implant) Treatment setting (inpatient, outpatient) inpatient only 10. Appendectomy Type of surgery (laparoscopic or open) YES We could have a clear picture of appendectomy. YES Treatment setting (inpatient, outpatient) inpatient only 11. Cholecystectomy Type of surgery (laparoscopic or open) YES It is rather difficult to get a clear picture of YES cholecystectomy. However, we could have a clear picture of cholecystitis. Treatment setting (inpatient, outpatient) inpatient only 12. Hip replacement Indication (osteoarthritis, other types of arthritis, protrusio YES We could have a clear picture of hip replacement. YES, but difficult to know numbers for acetabuli, avascular necrosis, hip fractures and benign and However, we can not always distinguish the rehabilitation malignant bone tumours) underlying diagnoses. ICD10 Type of replacement (e.g. hemiprosthesis, total endoprosthesis, resurfacing) Type of surgery (cemented, cementless and hybrid prosthesis) First replacement vs. revision Rehabilitation within operating hospital or associated settings (vs. rehabilitation after transfer, i.e. after end of episode) No Selected episodes of care: Breast cancer AMI Bypass (CABG) Stroke Inguinal hernia Appendectomy Cholecystectomy Hip replacement Knee replacement Childbirth Dropped: Colorectal cancer Diabetes Com.-acq. Pneumonia Urolithiasis Traumatic brain injury 14

15 Patient classification for appendectomy 15

16 Understanding the role of 3 factors in cost differences and price setting (1) patient variables medical and management decision variables gender, age, main diagnosis, other diagnoses, severity mix and intensity of procedures, technologies and human resource use Group of patients with homogenous resource consumption = DRG unbundled services, innovative technologies... 16

17 Understanding the role of 3 factors in cost differences and price setting (2) patient variables medical and management decision variables gender, age, main diagnosis, other diagnoses, severity mix and intensity of procedures, technologies and human resource use DRG reimbursement = cost weight + adjusted for actual costs/ length of stay additional payments 17

18 Understanding the role of 3 factors in cost differences and price setting (3) patient variables medical and management decision variables structural variables on hospital/ regional/ national level gender, age, main diagnosis, other diagnoses, severity mix and intensity of procedures, technologies and human resource use e.g. size, teaching status; urbanity; wage level DRG reimbursement = cost weight + adjusted for actual costs/ length of stay X base rate adjusted for quality additional payments 18

19 The research programme phase II (2010/11) determinants of hospital costs for 10 episodes of care patient variables medical and management decision variables structural variables on hospital/ regional/ national level gender, age, main diagnosis, other diagnoses, severity mix and intensity of procedures, technologies and human resource use e.g. size, teaching status; urbanity; wage level DRG reimbursement = cost weight Hospital Benchmarking Club explores this with individual hospital data + adjusted for actual costs/ length of stay additional payments X base rate adjusted for quality DRGs and quality 19

20 Final conferenceregardingpolicyconclusionson 17 November 2011 in Berlin: Are hospitalservicesandcostsacrosseuropean countries really so different to justify different systems for patient classification and cost weights? Could cost differences not be handled through base rate adjustments(as in the US)? What do we know regarding the effects on hospital efficiency and quality of service delivery under DRGs? 20