Diagnosis-related group

Last updated

Diagnosis-related group (DRG) is a system to classify hospital cases into one of originally 467 groups, [1] with the last group (coded as 470 through v24, 999 thereafter) being "Ungroupable". This system of classification was developed as a collaborative project by Robert B Fetter, PhD, of the Yale School of Management, and John D. Thompson, MPH, of the Yale School of Public Health. [2] The system is also referred to as "the DRGs", and its intent was to identify the "products" that a hospital provides. One example of a "product" is an appendectomy. The system was developed in anticipation of convincing Congress to use it for reimbursement, to replace "cost based" reimbursement that had been used up to that point. DRGs are assigned by a "grouper" program based on ICD (International Classification of Diseases) diagnoses, procedures, age, sex, discharge status, and the presence of complications or comorbidities. DRGs have been used in the US since 1982 to determine how much Medicare pays the hospital for each "product", since patients within each category are clinically similar and are expected to use the same level of hospital resources. [3] DRGs may be further grouped into Major Diagnostic Categories (MDCs). DRGs are also standard practice for establishing reimbursements for other Medicare related reimbursements such as to home healthcare providers. [4]

Contents

Purpose

The original objective of diagnosis-related groups (DRG) was to develop a classification system that identified the "products" that the patient received. Since the introduction of DRGs in the early 1980s, the healthcare industry has evolved and developed an increased demand for a patient classification system that can serve its original objective at a higher level of sophistication and precision. [5] To meet those evolving needs, the objective of the DRG system had to expand in scope.

Several different DRG systems have been developed in the United States. They include: [6]

Other DRG systems have been developed for markets such as Latin America and ASIA, for example:

APS-DRGs

The CMS DRGs designate approximately 3,000 diagnosis codes as substantial comorbid conditions or complications (CCs). These diagnoses cover a broad spectrum of disease conditions, ranging from major acute illnesses (e.g., heart attack and stroke) to minor illnesses (e.g., otitis media and urinary tract infections). The CMS SDRGs improved upon the original DRG definitions by dividing all diagnoses into three categories: not a CC, a CC, or a Major CC. When compared to CCs, treatment of patients with Major CCs required a substantial amount of additional resources. [7]

Statistics

As of 2003, the top 10 DRGs accounted for almost 30% of acute hospital admissions. [8] : 6 

In 1991, the top 10 DRGs overall were: normal newborn (vaginal delivery), heart failure, psychoses, Caesarean section, neonate with significant problems, angina pectoris, specific cerebrovascular disorders, pneumonia, and hip/knee replacement. These DRGs comprised nearly 30 percent of all hospital discharges. [9]

In terms of geographic variation, as of 2011 hospital payments varied across 441 labor markets. [10]

History

The system was created in the early 1970s by Robert Barclay Fetter and John D. Thompson at Yale University with the material support of the former Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), now called the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). [2] [11]

DRGs were first implemented in New Jersey, beginning in 1980 at the initiative of NJ Health Commissioner Joanne Finley [8] : 13  with a small number of hospitals partitioned into three groups according to their budget positions — surplus, breakeven, and deficit — prior to the imposition of DRG payment. [12] The New Jersey experiment continued for three years, with additional cadres of hospitals being added to the number of institutions each year until all hospitals in New Jersey were dealing with this prospective payment system. [12]

DRGs were designed to be homogeneous units of hospital activity to which binding prices could be attached. A central theme in the advocacy of DRGs was that this reimbursement system would, by constraining the hospitals, oblige their administrators to alter the behaviour of the physicians and surgeons comprising their medical staffs. Hospitals were forced to leave the "nearly risk-free world of cost reimbursement" [13] and face the uncertain financial consequences associated with the provision of health care. [14] DRGs were designed to provide practice pattern information that administrators could use to influence individual physician behaviour. [12]

DRGs were intended to describe all types of patients in an acute hospital setting. DRGs encompassed elderly patients as well as new born, pediatric and adult populations. [15]

The prospective payment system implemented as DRGs had been designed to limit the share of hospital revenues derived from the Medicare program budget. [12] In 1982 the US Congress passed Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act with provisions to reform Medicare payment, and in 1983, an amendment was passed to use DRGs for Medicare, [8] : 16  with HCFA (now CMS) maintaining the definitions.

In 1987, New York state passed legislation instituting DRG-based payments for all non-Medicare patients. This legislation required that the New York State Department of Health (NYS DOH) evaluate the applicability of Medicare DRGs to a non-Medicare population. This evaluation concluded that the Medicare DRGs were not adequate for a non-Medicare population. Based on this evaluation, the NYS DOH entered into an agreement with 3M to research and develop all necessary DRG modifications. The modifications resulted in the initial APDRG, which differed from the Medicare DRG in that it provided support for transplants, high-risk obstetric care, nutritional disorders, and pediatrics along with support for other populations. One challenge in working with the APDRG groupers is that there is no set of common data/formulas that is shared across all states as there is with CMS. Each state maintains its own information.[ citation needed ]

The history, design, and classification rules of the DRG system, as well as its application to patient discharge data and updating procedures, are presented in the CMS DRG Definitions Manual (Also known as the Medicare DRG Definitions Manual and the Grouper Manual). A new version generally appears every October. The 20.0 version appeared in 2002.[ citation needed ]

In 2007, author Rick Mayes described DRGs as:

...the single most influential postwar innovation in medical financing: Medicare's prospective payment system (PPS). Inexorably rising medical inflation and deep economic deterioration forced policymakers in the late 1970s to pursue radical reform of Medicare to keep the program from insolvency. Congress and the Reagan administration eventually turned to the one alternative reimbursement system that analysts and academics had studied more than any other and had even tested with apparent success in New Jersey: prospective payment with diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). Rather than simply reimbursing hospitals whatever costs they charged to treat Medicare patients, the new model paid hospitals a predetermined, set rate based on the patient's diagnosis. The most significant change in health policy since Medicare and Medicaid's passage in 1965 went virtually unnoticed by the general public. Nevertheless, the change was nothing short of revolutionary. For the first time, the federal government gained the upper hand in its financial relationship with the hospital industry. Medicare's new prospective payment system with DRGs triggered a shift in the balance of political and economic power between the providers of medical care (hospitals and physicians) and those who paid for it - power that providers had successfully accumulated for more than half a century. [16]

United States state-based usage

DRGs were originally developed in New Jersey before the federal adoption for Medicare in 1983. [8] : 16  After the federal adoption, the system was adopted by states, including in Medicaid payment systems, with twenty states using some DRG-based system in 1991; however, these systems may have their own unique adjustments. [8] : 17 

In 1992, New Jersey repealed the DRG payment system after political controversy. [8] : 21 

Example calculation

Hypothetical patient at Generic Hospital in San Francisco, CA, DRG 482, HIP & FEMUR PROCEDURES EXCEPT MAJOR JOINT W/O CC/MCC (2001) [17] : 8 
DescriptionValue
Average length of stay3.8 [18]
Large urban labor-related rate$2,809.18
Large urban non-labor-related$1,141.85
Wage index1.4193
Standard Federal Rate: labor * wage index + non-labor rate$5,128.92
DRG relative weight (RW) factor1.8128
Weighted payment: Standard Federal Rate * DRG RW$9,297.71
Disproportionate Share Payment (DSH)0.1413
Indirect medical education (IME)0.0744
Total cost outlier reimbursement$0
Total operating payment: Weighted payment * (1 + IME + DSH)$11,303.23

DRG changes

NameVersionStart dateNotes
MS-DRG25October 1, 2007Group numbers resequenced, so that for instance "Ungroupable" is no longer 470 but is now 999.[ citation needed ] To differentiate it, the newly resequenced DRG are now known as MS-DRG.[ citation needed ]

Before the introduction of version 25, many CMS DRG classifications were "paired" to reflect the presence of complications or comorbidities (CCs). A significant refinement of version 25 was to replace this pairing, in many instances, with a trifurcated design that created a tiered system of the absence of CCs, the presence of CCs, and a higher level of presence of Major CCs. As a result of this change, the historical list of diagnoses that qualified for membership on the CC list was substantially redefined and replaced with a new standard CC list and a new Major CC list.[ citation needed ]

Another planning refinement was not to number the DRGs in strict numerical sequence as compared with the prior versions. In the past, newly created DRG classifications would be added to the end of the list. In version 25, there are gaps within the numbering system that will allow modifications over time, and also allow for new MS-DRGs in the same body system to be located more closely together in the numerical sequence.[ citation needed ]

MS-DRG26October 1, 2008One main change: implementation of Hospital Acquired Conditions (HAC). Certain conditions are no longer considered complications if they were not present on admission (POA), which will cause reduced reimbursement from Medicare for conditions apparently caused by the hospital.[ citation needed ]
MS-DRG27October 1, 2009Changes involved are mainly related to Influenza A virus subtype H1N1.[ citation needed ]
MS-DRG31October 1, 2013
MS-DRG32October 1, 2014
MS-DRG33October 1, 2015Convert from ICD-9-CM to ICD-10-CM. [19]
MS-DRG34October 1, 2016Address ICD-10 replication issues introduced in Grouper 33. [20] As of March 2017 NTIS.gov no longer lists MS-DRG software, and Grouper 34 can now be directly downloaded from CMS. [21] Version 34 was revised twice to address replication issues, making the final release for fiscal year 2017 version 34 R3.
MS-DRG35October 1, 2017MS-DRGs 984 through 986 deleted and reassigned to 987 through 989. [22] Diagnosis codes relating to swallowing eye drops moved from DRGs 124-125 (Other Disorders of the Eye) to 917-918 (Poisoning and Toxic Effects of Drugs). [23] Grouper 34 issue addressed relating to the 7th character of prosthetic/implant diagnosis codes in the T85.8-series indicating "initial encounter", "subsequent encounter" and "sequel". [24] Numerous other changes.". [25]

International

DRGs and similar systems have expanded internationally; for example, in Europe some countries imported the scheme from US or Australia, and in other cases they were developed independently. [26] In England, a similar set of codes exist called Health Resource Groups. [27] : 199  As of 2018, Asian countries such as South Korea, Japan, and Thailand have limited adoption of DRGs. [28] Latin American countries use a DRG system adapted to regionally extended medical classifications and nomenclatures. This DRG system is called AVEDIAN DRG GROUPER (LAT-GRC).

See also

Related Research Articles

The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) is a globally used medical classification used in epidemiology, health management and for clinical purposes. The ICD is maintained by the World Health Organization (WHO), which is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations System. The ICD is originally designed as a health care classification system, providing a system of diagnostic codes for classifying diseases, including nuanced classifications of a wide variety of signs, symptoms, abnormal findings, complaints, social circumstances, and external causes of injury or disease. This system is designed to map health conditions to corresponding generic categories together with specific variations, assigning for these a designated code, up to six characters long. Thus, major categories are designed to include a set of similar diseases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Medicare (United States)</span> U.S. government health insurance for the old and disabled

Medicare is a government national health insurance program in the United States, begun in 1965 under the Social Security Administration (SSA) and now administered by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). It primarily provides health insurance for Americans aged 65 and older, but also for some younger people with disability status as determined by the SSA, including people with end stage renal disease and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

The Major Diagnostic Categories (MDC) are formed by dividing all possible principal diagnoses into 25 mutually exclusive diagnosis areas. MDC codes, like diagnosis-related group (DRG) codes, are primarily a claims and administrative data element unique to the United States medical care reimbursement system. DRG codes also are mapped, or grouped, into MDC codes.

Case mix, also casemix and patient mix, is a term used within healthcare as a synonym for cohort; essentially, a case mix groups statistically related patients. An example case mix might be male patients under the age of 50, who present with a myocardial infarction and also undergo emergency coronary artery bypass surgery.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mark McClellan</span> American health economist (born 1963)

Mark Barr McClellan is the director of the Robert J Margolis Center for Health Policy and the Margolis Professor of Business, Medicine and Health Policy at Duke University. Formerly, he was a senior fellow and director of the Health Care Innovation and Value Initiative at the Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform at The Brookings Institution, in Washington, D.C. McClellan served as commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration under President George W. Bush from 2002 through 2004, and subsequently as administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from 2004 through 2006.

A Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) is a reimbursement designation from the Bureau of Primary Health Care and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. This designation is significant for several health programs funded under the Health Center Consolidation Act.

A medical classification is used to transform descriptions of medical diagnoses or procedures into standardized statistical code in a process known as clinical coding. Diagnosis classifications list diagnosis codes, which are used to track diseases and other health conditions, inclusive of chronic diseases such as diabetes mellitus and heart disease, and infectious diseases such as norovirus, the flu, and athlete's foot. Procedure classifications list procedure code, which are used to capture interventional data. These diagnosis and procedure codes are used by health care providers, government health programs, private health insurance companies, workers' compensation carriers, software developers, and others for a variety of applications in medicine, public health and medical informatics, including:

Case mix index (CMI) within health care and medicine, is a relative value assigned to a diagnosis-related group of patients in a medical care environment. The CMI value is used in determining the allocation of resources to care for and/or treat the patients in the group.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">ICD-10</span> World Health Organization medical codes

ICD-10 is the 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD), a medical classification list by the World Health Organization (WHO). It contains codes for diseases, signs and symptoms, abnormal findings, complaints, social circumstances, and external causes of injury or diseases. Work on ICD-10 began in 1983, became endorsed by the Forty-third World Health Assembly in 1990, and was first used by member states in 1994. It was replaced by ICD-11 on January 1, 2022.

A case mix group (CMG) is used in patient classification system to group together patients with similar characteristics. This provides a basis for describing the types of patients a hospital or other health care provider treats. Case mix groups are used as the basis for the Health Insurance Prospective Payment System (HIPPS) rate codes used by Medicare in its prospective payment systems.

Severity of illness (SOI) is defined as the extent of organ system derangement or physiologic decompensation for a patient. It gives a medical classification into minor, moderate, major, and extreme. The SOI class is meant to provide a basis for evaluating hospital resource use or to establish patient care guidelines.

APCs or Ambulatory Payment Classifications are the United States government's method of paying for facility outpatient services for the Medicare program. A part of the Federal Balanced Budget Act of 1997 made the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services create a new Medicare "Outpatient Prospective Payment System" (OPPS) for hospital outpatient services -analogous to the Medicare prospective payment system for hospital inpatients known as Diagnosis-related group or DRGs. This OPPS, was implemented on August 1, 2000. APCs are an outpatient prospective payment system applicable only to hospitals. Physicians are reimbursed via other methodologies for payment in the United States, such as Current Procedural Terminology or CPTs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rural health clinic</span>

A rural health clinic (RHC) is a clinic located in a rural, medically under-served area in the United States that has a separate reimbursement structure from the standard medical office under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. RHCs were established by the Rural Health Clinic Services Act of 1977, . The RHC program increases access to health care in rural areas by

  1. creating special reimbursement mechanisms that allow clinicians to practice in rural, under-served areas
  2. increasing utilization of physician assistants (PA) and nurse practitioners (NP)

A hospital-acquired condition (HAC) is an undesirable situation or condition that affects a patient and that arose during a stay in a hospital or medical facility. It is a designation used by Medicare/Medicaid in the US for determining MS-DRG reimbursement beginning with version 26. Not only hospital-acquired infections but also any other situation or condition, such as pressure ulcers, blood type mismatch, or iatrogenic injury, can be a HAC.

Current Dental Terminology (CDT) is a code set with descriptive terms developed and updated by the American Dental Association (ADA) for reporting dental services and procedures to dental benefits plans. Prior to 2010 many of the codes were published by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as HCPCS D-codes under arrangement with the ADA. Ownership and copyright of CDT remained with the ADA. In 2010 the ADA ended the CMS distribution of CDT codes, which can now be purchased from the ADA.

A long-term acute care hospital (LTACH), also known as a long-term care hospital (LTCH), is a hospital specializing in treating patients requiring extended hospitalization. Hospitals specializing in long-term care have existed for decades in the form of sanatoriums for patients with tuberculosis and other chronic diseases. The modern hospital known as an LTACH came into existence as a result of the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999. The Act defines an LTACH as “a hospital which has an average inpatient length of stay of greater than 25 days.” Traditionally, LTACHs provide care for patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation.

The Expanding Medical and Behavioral Resources with Access to Care for Everyone (EMBRACE) plan is a healthcare system reform proposal introduced by a group called Healthcare Professionals for Healthcare Reform (HPfHR). The plan incorporates elements of private health insurance, single-payer and fee-for-service models in one comprehensive system. It has been referred to as a "Single System" healthcare system. First published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in April 2009, the plan got some early discussion in the healthcare community, but appeared to have come out too late to have had any impact in the development of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the 111th Congress’ landmark health insurance reform legislation. A book outlining the EMBRACE plan in more detail was authored in 2016 by Dr. Gilead Lancaster, a cofounder of HPfHR.

A prospective payment system (PPS) is a term used to refer to several payment methodologies for which means of determining insurance reimbursement is based on a predetermined payment regardless of the intensity of the actual service provided.

Clinical documentation improvement (CDI), also known as "clinical documentation integrity", is the best practices, processes, technology, people, and joint effort between providers and billers that advocates the completeness, precision, and validity of provider documentation inherent to transaction code sets sanctioned by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act in the United States.

A hospital readmission is an episode when a patient who had been discharged from a hospital is admitted again within a specified time interval. Readmission rates have increasingly been used as an outcome measure in health services research and as a quality benchmark for health systems. Generally, higher readmission rate indicates ineffectiveness of treatment during past hospitalizations. Hospital readmission rates were formally included in reimbursement decisions for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010, which penalizes health systems with higher than expected readmission rates through the Hospital Readmission Reduction Program. Since the inception of this penalty, there have been other programs that have been introduced, with the aim to decrease hospital readmission. The Community Based Care Transition Program, Independence At Home Demonstration Program, and Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative are all examples of these programs. While many time frames have been used historically, the most common time frame is within 30 days of discharge, and this is what CMS uses.

References

  1. ↑ Mistichelli, Judith Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) and the Prospective Payment System: Forecasting Social Implications
  2. 1 2 Fetter RB, Shin Y, Freeman JL, Averill RF, Thompson JD (1980) Case mix definition by diagnosis related groups. Medical Care 18(2):1–53
  3. ↑ Fetter RB, Freeman JL (1986) Diagnosis related groups: product linemanagement within hospitals. Academy of Management Review 11(1):41–54
  4. ↑ "MS-DRG Classifications and Software | CMS". www.cms.gov. Retrieved 2023-06-28.
  5. ↑ Baker JJ (2002) Medicare payment system for hospital inpatients: diagnosis related groups. Journal of Health Care Finance 28(3):1–13
  6. ↑ "Definitions Manuals". support.3mhis.com.
  7. ↑ HSS, Inc. "Definitions Manual for All-Payer Severity-adjusted DRG (APS-DRGs) Assignment" (PDF).
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kimberly, John; Pouvourville, Gerard de; d'Aunno, Thomas; D'Aunno, Thomas A. (2008-12-18). "Origins of DRGs in the United States: A technical, political and cultural story". The Globalization of Managerial Innovation in Health Care . Cambridge University Press. ISBN   9780521885003.
  9. ↑ "Most Frequent Diagnoses and Procedures for DRGs, by Insurance Status". Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Retrieved 2006-04-22.
  10. ↑ Geographic Adjustment in Medicare Payment: Phase I: Improving Accuracy, Second Edition. Committee on Geographic Adjustment Factors in Medicare. National Academies Press (US). 2011-06-01.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  11. ↑ Bielby, Judy A. (March 2010). "Evolution of DRGs". Journal of Ahima. The American Health Information Management Association. Retrieved 30 August 2016.
  12. 1 2 3 4 Hsiao, William C.; Sapolsky, Harvey M.; Dunn, Daniel L.; Weiner, Sanford L. (1986-01-01). "Lessons of the New Jersey DRG Payment System". Health Affairs. 5 (2): 32–43. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.5.2.32 . ISSN   0278-2715. PMID   3091466.
  13. ↑ Eastaugh, S. R. (1999). "Managing risk in a risky world". Journal of Health Care Finance. 25 (3): 10–16. ISSN   1078-6767. PMID   10094052.
  14. ↑ Kuntz L, Scholtes S, Vera A (2008) DRG Cost Weight Volatility and Hospital Performance. OR Spectrum 30(2): 331-354
  15. ↑ Nancy Bateman (2012). The Business of Nurse Management: A Toolkit for Success. ISBN   9780826155733.
  16. ↑ Mayes, Rick (January 2007). "The Origins, Development, and Passage of Medicare's Revolutionary Prospective Payment System" (abstract). Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences. Oxford University Press. 62 (1): 21–55. doi:10.1093/jhmas/jrj038. ISSN   1468-4373. PMID   16467485. S2CID   11465036 . Retrieved 2009-04-06.
  17. ↑ "Medicare Hospital Prospective Payment System: How DRG Rates Are Calculated and Updated" (PDF). Office of Inspector General: Office of Evaluation and Inspections. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2019-04-04.
  18. ↑ From Details for title: FY 2018 Final Rule, Correction Notice, and Notice Tables Archived 2019-04-28 at the Wayback Machine Table 5.
  19. ↑ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2015-08-18). "ICD-10 MS-DRG Conversion Project".
  20. ↑ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. "Federal Register Vol. 81, No. 162 Monday, August 22, 2016" (PDF).
  21. ↑ "March 7, 2017 CMS ICD-10 Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting" (PDF).
  22. ↑ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. "Federal Register Vol. 82, No. 155 Monday, August 14, 2017" (PDF).
  23. ↑ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. "Federal Register Vol. 82, No. 155 Monday, August 14, 2017" (PDF).
  24. ↑ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. "Federal Register Vol. 82, No. 155 Monday, August 14, 2017" (PDF).
  25. ↑ Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. "Federal Register Vol. 82, No. 155 Monday, August 14, 2017" (PDF).
  26. ↑ Quentin, Wilm; Tan, Siok Swan; Street, Andrew; Serdén, Lisbeth; O’Reilly, Jacqueline; Or, Zeynep; Mateus, Céu; Kobel, Conrad; Häkkinen, Unto (2013-06-07). "Diagnosis related groups in Europe: moving towards transparency, efficiency, and quality in hospitals?". BMJ. 346: f3197. doi:10.1136/bmj.f3197. ISSN   1756-1833. PMID   23747967. S2CID   78293.
  27. ↑ "Diagnosis-related groups in Europe (2011)". www.euro.who.int. 2017-03-18. Archived from the original on July 15, 2017. Retrieved 2019-06-14.
  28. ↑ Annear, Peter Leslie; Kwon, Soonman; Lorenzoni, Luca; Duckett, Stephen; Huntington, Dale; Langenbrunner, John C.; Murakami, Yuki; Shon, Changwoo; Xu, Ke (2018-07-01). "Pathways to DRG-based hospital payment systems in Japan, Korea, and Thailand". Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 122 (7): 707–713. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.04.013. ISSN   1872-6054. PMID   29754969. S2CID   21665769.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.