Dataset Information

Appendectomy and diagnosis-related groups (DRGs): patient classification and hospital reimbursement in 11 European countries.

ABSTRACT:

Background

As part of the EuroDRG project, researchers from 11 countries (i.e., Austria, England, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and Spain) compared how their diagnosis-related groups (DRG) systems deal with appendectomy patients. The study aims to assist surgeons and national authorities to optimize their DRG systems.

Methods

National or regional databases were used to identify hospital cases with a diagnosis of appendicitis treated with a procedure of appendectomy. DRG classification algorithms and indicators of resource consumption were compared for those DRGs that together comprised at least 97% of cases. Six standardized case vignettes were defined, and quasi prices according to national DRG-based hospital payment systems were ascertained.

Results

European DRG systems vary widely: they classify appendectomy patients according to different sets of variables (between two and six classification variables) into diverging numbers of DRGs (between two and 11 DRGs). The most complex DRG is valued 5.1 times more resource intensive than an index case in France but only 1.1 times more resource intensive than an index case in Finland. Comparisons of quasi prices for the case vignettes show that hypothetical payments for the most complex case vignette amount to only 1,005 in Poland but to 12,304 in France.

Conclusions

Large variations in the classification of appendectomy patients raise concerns whether all systems rely on the most appropriate classification variables. Surgeons and national DRG authorities should consider how other countries' DRG systems classify appendectomy patients in order to optimize their DRG system and to ensure fair and appropriate reimbursement.

SUBMITTER: Quentin W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3261402 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Appendectomy and diagnosis-related groups (DRGs): patient classification and hospital reimbursement in 11 European countries.

Quentin Wilm W Scheller-Kreinsen David D Geissler Alexander A Busse Reinhard R

Langenbeck's archives of surgery 20111224 2

<h4>Background</h4>As part of the EuroDRG project, researchers from 11 countries (i.e., Austria, England, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and Spain) compared how their diagnosis-related groups (DRG) systems deal with appendectomy patients. The study aims to assist surgeons and national authorities to optimize their DRG systems.<h4>Methods</h4>National or regional databases were used to identify hospital cases with a diagnosis of appendicitis treated with ...[more]

PMID: 22194037

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe prospective reimbursement of hospitals through the grouping of patients into a finite number of categories (Diagnosis Related Groups, DRGs), is common to many European countries. However, the specific categories used vary greatly across countries, using different characteristics to define group boundaries and thus those characteristics which result in different payments for treatment. In order to assist in the construction and modification of national DRG systems, this study analyses the DRG systems of 10 European countries.AimsTo compare the characteristics used to categorise patients receiving a coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery into DRGs. Further, to compare the structure into which DRGs are placed and the relative price paid for patients across Europe.MethodPatients with a procedure of CABG surgery are analysed from Austria, England, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Poland, Spain and Sweden. Diagrammatic algorithms of DRG structures are presented for each country. The price in Euros of seven typical case vignettes, each made up of a set of a hypothetical patient's characteristics, is also analysed for each country. In order to enable comparisons across countries the simplest case (index vignette) is taken as baseline and relative price levels are calculated for the other six vignettes, each representing patients with different combinations of procedures and comorbidities.ResultsEuropean DRG payment structures for CABG surgery vary in terms of the number of different DRGs used and the types of distinctions which define patient categorisation. Based on the payments given to hospitals in different countries, the most resource intensive patient, relative to the index vignette, ranges in magnitude from 1.37 in Poland to 2.82 in Ireland. There is also considerable variation in how much different systems pay for particular circumstances, such as the occurrence of catheterisation or presence of comorbidity.ConclusionPast experience of the construction of DRG systems for CABG patients demonstrates the variety of options available. It also highlights the importance of updating systems as frequently as possible, to incentivise best practice.

Project description:Objective: To review the reimbursement recommendations issued by selected European health technology assessment agencies for orphan drugs and the reimbursement status of these drugs; to assess the relationship between the type of recommendation and reimbursement status. Methods: The list of orphan drugs to be included in the analysis was obtained from the European Medicines Agency and Orphanet. Seven European states were included in the analysis: Belgium, England, France, Germany, Poland, Scotland, and Spain. For all identified orphan drugs, relevant data on the reimbursement status and type of recommendation were collected for each country. The relationship between the type of recommendation and reimbursement status was evaluated separately for each considered country, using Cohen's kappa coefficient for the measurement of agreement; sub-analyses for oncology and metabolic drugs were performed. Results: Most reimbursement recommendations for orphan drugs were positive (71%), while approximately 17% were negative and almost 13% were conditional. The highest percentage of positive reimbursement recommendations was observed in Spain (97%) and France (95%) and the highest percentage of negative reimbursement recommendations was revealed for Poland (49%). On average, 65% of the 163 analyzed orphan drugs were reimbursed from public funds. The highest number of reimbursed orphan drugs was observed in Germany (n = 148), while the lowest, in Poland (n = 41). Considering all analyzed drugs, the highest agreement between recommendations and reimbursement status was observed for Spain (value of 1), and the lowest, for Germany (? = -0.03). Conclusions: On average, more than 60% of identified orphan drugs were reimbursed from public funds in the included countries, and the majority of reimbursement recommendations were found to be positive. The agreement between reimbursement recommendations and reimbursement status differed between the countries, but overall, it did not show any patterns, as it ranged from -0.03 to 1 (? coefficient).

Project description:BackgroundHospital 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.MethodsTwo-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.ResultsBetween 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.ConclusionsRelated 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.

Project description:Objectives: The aim of this study was to characterize the reimbursement policy for orphan drugs (ODs) in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries in relation to the availability and impact of clinical evidence, health technology assessment (HTA) procedure, selected economic indicators, and the drug type according to indications. Materials and methods: A list of authorized medicines with orphan designation and information about active substance, Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification, and therapeutic area was extracted from the web-based register of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A country-based questionnaire survey was performed between September 2021 and January 2022 in a group of selected experts from nine CEE countries (an invitation was sent to 11 countries). A descriptive and statistical analysis was conducted to determine statistical significance, correlations, between the drug or country characteristic and the positive recommendation or reimbursement of ODs. Results: The proportion of reimbursed orphan drugs differed between countries, ranging from 17.7% in Estonia to 49.6% in Hungary (p < 0.001). The odds that ODs were reimbursed were reduced in countries with a "strong" level of impact of drug safety and efficacy on reimbursement decisions (p=0.018), the presence of other additional specific clinical aspects (e.g., genomic data) considered in the reimbursement decision (p < 0.001) and mandatory (without exception) safety assessments (p=0.004). The probability that ODs were reimbursed was increased in countries with a "moderate" level of impact of drug safety and efficacy on reimbursement decisions (p=0.018), when reimbursement decisions are dependent on the EMA registration status and orphan drug designation (p < 0.001), the presence of the "positive HTA recommendation guarantees reimbursement" policy (p < 0.001), higher GDP per inhabitant (p=0.003), and higher healthcare expenditure (p < 0.001). Conclusion: We found that there are differences among CEE countries in the reimbursement of orphan drugs, and we identified aspects that may influence these differences. Safety, efficacy, and specific clinical aspect issues significantly influenced reimbursement decisions. Antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents drugs were the largest group of ODs and increased the chance of getting a positive recommendation. The higher GDP per inhabitant and healthcare expenditures per inhabitant were positively linked to the chance that an OD receives reimbursement.

Project description:BackgroundThe adoption of digital health care within health systems is determined by various factors, including pricing and reimbursement. The reimbursement landscape for digital health in Europe remains underresearched. Although various emergency reimbursement decisions were made during the COVID-19 pandemic to enable health care delivery through videoconferencing and asynchronous care (eg, digital apps), research so far has primarily focused on the policy innovations that facilitated this outside of Europe.ObjectiveThis study examines the digital health reimbursement strategies in 8 European countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) and Israel.MethodsWe mapped available digital health reimbursement strategies using a scoping review and policy mapping framework. We reviewed the literature on the MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health, and Web of Science databases. Supplementary records were identified through Google Scholar and country experts.ResultsOur search strategy yielded a total of 1559 records, of which 40 (2.57%) were ultimately included in this study. As of August 2023, digital health solutions are reimbursable to some extent in all studied countries except Poland, although the mechanism of reimbursement differs significantly across countries. At the time of writing, the pricing of digital health solutions was mostly determined through discussions between national or regional committees and the manufacturers of digital health solutions in the absence of value-based assessment mechanisms. Financing digital health solutions outside traditional reimbursement schemes was possible in all studied countries except Poland and typically occurs via health innovation or digital health-specific funding schemes. European countries have value-based pricing frameworks that range from nonexistent to embryonic.ConclusionsStudied countries show divergent approaches to the reimbursement of digital health solutions. These differences may complicate the ability of patients to seek cross-country health care in another country, even if a digital health app is available in both countries. Furthermore, the fragmented environment will present challenges for developers of such solutions, as they look to expand their impact across countries and health systems. An increased emphasis on developing a clear conceptualization of digital health, as well as value-based pricing and reimbursement mechanisms, is needed for the sustainable integration of digital health. This study can therein serve as a basis for further, more detailed research as the field of digital health reimbursement evolves.

Project description:BackgroundThe Canadian government has committed to developing a national strategy for drugs for rare diseases starting in 2022. Considering this announcement, we conducted a comparative analysis to examine patient access to therapies for rare disease in Canada relative to Europe and the U.S.MethodsGiven its similarity to the Canadian health care system, we used Europe as the reference point to analyze all of the therapies with an orphan drug designation approved by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) from 1 January 2015 to 31 March 2020. We then contrasted access to these drugs in Canada (Health Canada) and the U.S. (Food and Drug Administration, FDA). We focused on: (1) the number of therapies for rare diseases entering the Canadian market; (2) the percentage of these therapies that are publicly available to Canadians; and (3) the timelines for patients to access these therapies in Canada.ResultsSixty-three approved therapies with an orphan drug designation from the EMA were identified. Fifty-three (84%) of these drugs had also been submitted to the FDA for approval, and 41 (65%) were submitted to Health Canada for approval. In Europe, Germany, Denmark, and the U.K. had the highest percentage of publicly reimbursed orphan drugs (84%, 70%, 68%, respectively). In comparison, Ontario (32%), Quebec (25%), and Alberta (25%) had the highest percentage of drugs reimbursed among the Canadian provinces. The shortest median duration (in months) from EMA approval to jurisdictional decision on reimbursement was in Austria (3.2), followed by Germany (4.1), and Finland (6.0). In Canada, the shortest median duration (in months) from regulatory approval to reimbursement was in British Columbia (17.3), Quebec (19.6) and Manitoba (19.6), while the longest duration was in P.E.I (38.5), followed by Nova Scotia (25.9), and Newfoundland (25.1).ConclusionsOur comparative analysis found that relative to the EU Canadians had less frequent and timely access to therapies for rare diseases. This highlights the need for a rare disease strategy in Canada that allows for clear identification and transparent tracking of the pathway for rare disease drugs, and ultimately optimizes the number of patients with access to these therapies.

Dataset Information

Appendectomy and diagnosis-related groups (DRGs): patient classification and hospital reimbursement in 11 European countries.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Appendectomy and diagnosis-related groups (DRGs): patient classification and hospital reimbursement in 11 European countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets