Diagnosis-Related Groups for Stroke in Europe: Patient Classification and Hospital Reimbursement in 11 Countries

Abstract

Background: Diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) are increasingly being used for various purposes in many countries. However, there are no studies comparing different DRG systems in the care of stroke. As part of the EuroDRG project, researchers from 11 countries (i.e. Austria, England, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Sweden and Spain) compared how their DRG systems deal with stroke patients. The study aims to assist clinicians and national authorities to optimize their DRG systems. Methods: National or regional databases were used to identify hospital cases with a diagnosis of stroke. DRG classification algorithms and indicators of resource consumption were compared for those DRGs that individually represent at least 1% of stroke cases. In addition, 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 stroke patients according to different sets of variables (between 1 and 7 classification variables) into diverging numbers of DRGs (between 1 and 10 DRGs). In 6 of the countries more than half of the patients are concentrated within a single DRG. The countries’ systems also vary with respect to the evaluation of different kinds of stroke patients. The most complex DRG is considered 3.8 times more resource intensive than an index case in Finland. By contrast, in England, the DRG system does not account for complex cases. Comparisons of quasi prices for the case vignettes show that hypothetical payments for the index case amount to only EUR 907 in Poland but to EUR 7,881 in Ireland. Conclusions: Large variations in the classification of stroke patients raise concerns whether all systems rely on the most appropriate classification variables and whether the DRGs adequately reflect differences in the complexity of treating different groups of patients. Learning from other DRG systems may help in improving the national systems. Clinicians and national DRG authorities should consider how other countries’ DRG systems classify stroke patients in order to optimize their DRG system and to ensure fair and appropriate reimbursement. In future, quantitative research is needed to verify whether the most important determinants of cost are considered in different patient classification systems, and whether differences between systems reflect country-specific differences in treatment patterns and, most importantly, what influence they have on patient outcomes.

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

“…Comparison of our results with SE‐related inpatient costs of €14,946 per admission are higher as compared to inpatient costs for the treatment of a first‐ever‐in‐a‐lifetime ischemic stroke in Germany (€6,731 in 2004) or in The Netherlands (€5,328 in 2012). The EuroDRG project compared reimbursement systems using DRG for care of stroke in Germany and 10 other countries. Despite large variations in the disease classification, reimbursement for stroke with thrombolysis and 10 days of stroke unit treatment was similar to Germany in Austria, England, Finland, France, Ireland, The Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden, whereas prices were much lower in Estonia and Poland.…”

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

“…For example, England has two groups for stroke but 14 for hip replacement. In Germany, where patients with stroke are classified into 10 groups, stroke unit care, systemic thrombolysis, intracranial haemorrhage, and death, among other things, are taken into account, 24 whereas in 2008 England distinguished between only cerebral infarction and intracranial haemorrhage, although stroke unit care has since been incorporated into the best practice tariff. 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.…”

High Total Hospitalization Cost but Low Cost of Imaging Studies in Recurrent Acute Ischemic Stroke Patients

“…For example, diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) are increasingly being adopted in many countries, even in the care of stroke [22]. The aim of DRG system is to give a concise measure of what hospitals provide to patients and to classify a sufficiently homogenous group of patients.…”