Dataset Information

Assessing the performance of a method for case-mix adjustment in the Korean Diagnosis-Related Groups (KDRG) system and its policy implications.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To evaluate the performance of the patient clinical complexity level (PCCL) mechanism, which is the patient-level complexity adjustment factor within the Korean Diagnosis-Related Groups (KDRG) patient classification system, in explaining the variation in resource consumption within age adjacent diagnosis-related groups (AADRGs).

Methods

We used the inpatient claims data from a public hospital in Korea from 1 January 2017 to 30 June 2019, with 18 846 claims and 138 AADRGs. The differences in the total average payment between the four PCCL levels for each AADRG was tested using ANOVA and Duncan's post hoc test. The three patterns of differences with R-squared were as follows: the PCCL reflected the complexity well (valid); the average payment for PCCL 2, 3, and 4 was greater than PCCL 0 (partially valid); the PCCL did not reflect the complexity (not valid).

Results

There were 9 (6.52%), 26 (18.84%), and 103 (74.64%) ADRGs included in the valid, partially valid, and not valid categories, respectively. The average R-squared values were 32.18, 40.81, and 35.41%, respectively, with an average R-squared for all patterns of 36.21%.

Conclusions

Adjustment using the PCCL in the KDRG classification system exhibited low performance in explaining the variation in resource consumption within AADRGs. As the KDRG classification system is used for reimbursement under the new DRG-based prospective payment system (PPS) pilot project, with plans for expansion, there should be an overall review of the validity of the complexity and rationality of using the KDRG classification system.

SUBMITTER: Kim S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8243480 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextImproving contraceptive method choice is a goal of international family planning. Method mix-the percentage distribution of total contraceptive use across various methods-reflects both supply (availability of affordable methods) and demand (client preferences). We analyze changes in method mix, regional contrasts, and the relationship of the mix to contraceptive prevalence.MethodsWe use 789 national surveys from the 1960s through 2019, from 113 developing countries with at least 1 million people and with data on use of 8 contraceptive methods. Two measures assess the "evenness" of the mix: method skew (more than 50% use is by 1 method), and the average deviation (AD) of the 8 methods' shares from their mean value. Population weighted and unweighted results are compared because they can differ substantially.ResultsUse of traditional methods has declined but still represents 11% of all use (population weighted) or 17% (unweighted country average). Vasectomy's share was historically low with the exception of a few countries but is now even lower. The previous trend toward greater overall evenness in the mix has slowed recently. Sub-Saharan Africa shows a hormonal method progression from oral contraceptives to injectables to implants in a substantial number of countries. In some countries with high HIV prevalence, the condom share has increased. The leading method's share differs by region: female sterilization in Asia (39%) and in Latin America (31%), the pill in the Middle East/North Africa (32%), and the injectable in sub-Saharan Africa (36%). Method skew persists in 30% of countries. "Evenness" of mix is not related to contraceptive prevalence.ConclusionThe marked diversity in predominant methods underscores the conclusion that no single method mix is ideal or appropriate everywhere. But that diversity across countries, coupled with the persisting high degree of extreme skewness in many of them, argues for continued concerted efforts for programs to increase method choice.

Project description:To compare hospitals' hip fracture patient mortality in a quality of care registry, correction for patient characteristics is needed. This study evaluates in 39,374 patients which characteristics are associated with 30 and 90-day mortality, and showed how using these characteristics in a case mix-model changes hospital comparisons within the Netherlands.PurposeMortality rates after hip fracture surgery are considerable and may be influenced by patient characteristics. This study aims to evaluate hospital variation regarding patient demographics and disease burden, to develop a case-mix adjustment model to analyse differences in hip fracture patients' mortality to calculate case-mix adjusted hospital-specific mortality rates.MethodsData were derived from 64 hospitals participating in the Dutch Hip Fracture Audit (DHFA). Adult hip fracture patients registered in 2017-2019 were included. Variation of case-mix factors between hospitals was analysed, and the association between case-mix factors and mortality at 30 and 90 days was determined through regression models.ResultsThere were 39,374 patients included. Significant variation in case-mix factors amongst hospitals was found for age ≥ 80 (range 25.8-72.1% p < 0.001), male gender (12.0-52.9% p < 0.001), nursing home residents (42.0-57.9% p < 0.001), pre-fracture mobility aid use (9.9-86.7% p < 0,001), daily living dependency (27.5-96.5% p < 0,001), ASA-class ≥ 3 (25.8-83.3% p < 0.001), dementia (3.6-28.6% p < 0.001), osteoporosis (0.0-57.1% p < 0.001), risk of malnutrition (0.0-29.2% p < 0.001) and fracture types (all p < 0.001). All factors were associated with 30- and 90-day mortality. Eight hospitals showed higher and six showed lower 30-day mortality than expected based on their case-mix. Six hospitals showed higher and seven lower 90-day mortality than expected. The specific outlier hospitals changed when correcting for case-mix factors.ConclusionsDutch hospitals show significant case-mix variation regarding hip fracture patients. Case-mix adjustment is a prerequisite when comparing hospitals' 30-day and 90-day hip fracture patients' mortality. Adjusted mortality may serve as a starting point for improving hip fracture care.