Abstract

Hong Kong's internal resource allocation system for public inpatient care changed from a global budget system to one based on diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) in 2009 and returned to a global budget system in 2012. Changes in patient and hospital outcomes associated with moving from a DRG-based system to a global budget system for inpatient care have rarely been evaluated. To examine associations between the introduction and discontinuation of DRGs and changes in length of stay, volume of care, in-hospital mortality rates, and emergency readmission rates in the inpatient population in acute care hospitals overall, stratified by age group, and across 5 medical conditions. This cross-sectional study included data from patients aged 45 years or older who were hospitalized in public acute care settings in Hong Kong before the introduction (April 2006 to March 2009), during implementation (April 2009 to March 2012), and after discontinuation (April 2012 to November 2014) of the DRG scheme. Data analysis was conducted from January to June 2021. Public hospitals transitioned from a global budget payment system to a DRG-based system in April 2009 and returned to a global budget system in April 2014. The main outcome was the association of use of DRGs with patient-level length of stay, in-hospital mortality rate, 1-month emergency readmission rate, and population-level number of admissions per month. An interrupted time series design was used to estimate changes in the level and slope of outcome variables after introduction and discontinuation of DRGs, accounting for pretrends. This study included 7 604 390 patient episodes. Overall, the mean (SD) age of patients was 68.97 (13.20) years, and 52.17% were male. The introduction of DRGs was associated with a 1.77% (95% CI, 1.23%-2.32%) decrease in the mean length of stay, a 2.90% (95% CI, 2.52%-3.28%) increase in the number of patients admitted, a 4.12% (95% CI, 1.89%-6.35%) reduction in in-hospital mortality, and a 2.37% (95% CI, 1.28%-3.46%) decrease in emergency readmissions. Discontinuation of the DRG scheme was associated with a 0.93% (95% CI, 0.42%-1.44%) increase in the mean length of stay and a 1.82% (95% CI, 1.47%-2.17%) reduction in the number of patients treated after adjusting for covariates; no statistically significant change was observed in in-hospital mortality (-0.14%; 95% CI, -2.29% to 2.01%) or emergency readmission rate (-0.29%; 95% CI, -1.30% to 0.71%). In this cross-sectional study, the introduction of DRGs was associated with shorter lengths of stay and increased hospital volume, and discontinuation was associated with longer lengths of stay and decreased hospital volume. In-hospital mortality and emergency readmission rates did not significantly change after discontinuation of DRGs.

Highlights

  • A diagnosis-related group (DRG) system is a patient classification system that categorizes clinical cases according to the total resources used for treatment.[1]

  • The introduction of DRGs was associated with a 1.77% decrease in the mean length of stay, a 2.90% increase in the number of patients admitted, a 4.12% reduction in in-hospital mortality, and a 2.37% decrease in emergency readmissions

  • Discontinuation of the DRG scheme was associated with a 0.93% increase in the mean length of stay and a 1.82% reduction in the number of patients treated after adjusting for covariates; no statistically significant change was observed in in-hospital mortality (−0.14%; 95% CI, −2.29% to 2.01%) or emergency readmission rate (−0.29%; 95% CI, −1.30% to 0.71%)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

A diagnosis-related group (DRG) system is a patient classification system that categorizes clinical cases according to the total resources used for treatment.[1]. Other health care systems have since adopted DRGs to improve transparency or efficiency.[3]. The introduction of DRGs has been widely associated with changes in key outcomes that potentially affect patients and health care systems.[4-8]. Reductions in length of stay have generally been observed after the introduction of DRGs, whereas evidence on volume of care and other quality indicators is mixed.[2,6,9,10]. Some studies have attributed variations in the consequences of DRGs to health care system factors. Busse et al[2] suggested that DRGs were associated with an increase in volume of care when replacing a global budget system but with a decrease when replacing a fee-forservice system. More robust estimations are needed worldwide to determine the circumstances in which DRG-based systems are likely to produce positive or negative outcomes

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.