In consideration of a relative DRG weight of 1,177 and a base rate of EUR 2723.79 in Bavaria for 2005 and 2006, perforating eye injuries were compensated within the C01Z DRG at EUR 3205,96. Thus, for ppVs no costs are recovered, whereas "pure suture" procedures are overweighted. Due to this inhomogeneity, a split in the C01Z DRG is necessary.

The reimbursement for inpatient ppVs in a University environment is not covered for complex procedures requiring more cost-effective material and personnel time. To consider an adequate cost recovery for these procedures a DRG split for both DRGs (C03Z and C17Z) in basic ppVs and complex ppVs is required. We recommend this proposal for the InEK.

In this study we evaluated for the first time different radiological scenarios of a c-ceMRI at a university hospital. Considering the present reimbursement situation, all outpatients covered by statutory health insurance resulted in a deficit for the hospital. Particularly high costs for patients in intensive care units as well as for children under anesthesia have to be taken into account and are currently not adequately covered by care providers.

The quality of the G-DRG system is measured by its ability to obtain adequate funding for highly complex and heterogeneous cases. Specific modifications of the G-DRG structures could increase the appropriateness of case allocation for patients with open eye injuries within the G-DRG C01B of the German DRG system 2009. As a result of the present study, cases with amniotic membrane transplantation should not be allocated to the G-DRG C01B. A petition has been presented by the German Association of Ophthalmology (DOG) to the German DRG Institute to restructure the G-DRG C01B. Data-based analysis is an essential prerequisite for a constructive development of the G-DRG system and a necessary tool for the active participation of medical societies in this process.

Our aim was to make a detailed evaluation and cost analysis of the 10 most frequent angiography interventions in outpatients and inpatients at a university hospital. Based on a detailed process-oriented model we calculated the cost and income for port and dialysis catheter implantation, PTA at the upper (UL) and lower leg (LL), TACE, SIRT, stent angioplasty (pelvis, visceral and supra-aortal vessels) and cerebral coil embolisation for the situations mentioned above. Various income models (DRG, GOÄ) were considered. A comprehensive evaluation of the overhead and personnel costs was performed. The calculated data (in €) were as follows (overall, material, personnel costs, DRG income, GOÄ income inpatients, outpatients): port catheter: 375, 266, 59, 328, 260, 612; dialysis catheter: 456, 349, 59, 272, 343, 807; PTA UL: 595, 445, 99, 1 240, 425, 1 077; PTA LL: 732, 552, 129, 1 082, 425, 1 184; stent pelvis: 1 523, 1 338, 135, 1 323, 815, n/a; stent visceral: 2 124, 1 875, 199, 1 326, 912, n/a; stent supra-aortal: 1 901, 1 713, 138, 6 705, 1 138, n/a; TACE: 1 359, 1 120, 188, 2 588, 598, n/a; SIRT: 1 251, 1 054, 147, 2 289, 1 107, n/a; intracranial embolisation: 6 684, 6 367, 266, 6 531, n/a, n/a. Depending on the income model applied, most procedures caused a deficit, especially using GOÄ calculations. Outpatients covered by the private health insurance caused earnings for the procedures applied. Only TACE, SIRT and stent angioplasty of supra-aortal vessels caused profits in inpatients using InEK calculations.