Journal of Community Health

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 81–92 | Cite as

The debate over Diagnosis Related Groups

  • Allen D. Spiegel
  • Florence Kavaler


With the advent of the Prospective Payment System (PPS) using Diagnosis Related Groups (DRGs) as a classification method, the pros and cons of that mechanism have been sharply debated. Grouping the comments into categories related to administration/management, DRG system and quality of care, a review of relevant literature highlights the pertinent attitudes and views of professionals and organizations. Points constantly argued include data utilization, meaningful medical classifications, resource use, gaming, profit centers, patient homogenieity, severity of illness, length of stay, technology limitations and the erosion of standards.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Federal Register.Medicare Program: Prospective Payment for Medicare Inpatient Hospital Services: Final Rule. Part VI, January 3, 1984, p. 235.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Meyer JA: Increased Consumer Cost-Conscious and Competition.Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine.60(1):98–105, 1984.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wallace AG, Ellenbogen PS: DRGs: A Positive Side of the Ledger.North Carolina Medical Journal.45(4):232–233, 1984.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Neuhauser D: A Message to Physicians.The Internist.24(6):23–25, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kaemmerer C: A New Reimbursement System. DRGs Are Coming.Connecticut Medicine 47(11):677–679, 1983.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rajani K, Dally AD: Medicare DRGs: Facts and Fallacies.Wisconsin Medical Journal 82(12):11–13, 1983.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yasko JM, Fleck A: Prospective Payment (DRGs): What Will Be the Impact on Cancer Care?Oncology Nursing Forum.33(3):63–72, 1984.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bird S, Mailhot C: DRGs: A New Way to Reimburse Hospital Costs.AORN Journal.38(5):773–777, 1983.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beth Israel Hospital, Newark, N.J. Outline notes for address on DRGs. Undated.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Powers DK: Presentation to Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Washington, D.C., November 22, 1982.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bradley D: Per-Case Prospective Payment Under the DRG Methodology. A Three Year Experience in New Jersey. Morristown Memorial Hospital, Morristown, N.J. Undated.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Riddick Jr. FA: The Doctor and the DRG.The Internist.24(6):17–18, 1983.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hospital Peer Review. Officials Spot Inequities in DRG Cost Control Program.6(2):13–15, 1981.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Health Research and Educational Trust of New Jersey.DRG Evaluation. Volume III Case-Mix Classification, Data, and Management. Princeton, N.J., February 1984, p. 22.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Richards Jr. JF: Prospective Reimbursement and DRGs.Journal of the Florida Medical Association.70(5):363–366, 1983.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bentley JD, Butler PW:The DRG Case Mix of a Sample of Teaching Hospitals: A Technical Report. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Medical Colleges, December 1981.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Henry L: Hospital Concern Shown With New Pay Method Based on Case-Mix, Diagnosis Related Groups.Hospitals.54(14):22–24 (July 16), 1980.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    New Jersey Hospital Association.The DRG Maze. Unravelling the Mysteries of Hospital Reimbursement in New Jersey. Princeton, N.J., 1980.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Friedman E: Getting to Know Us. Hospitals May Finally Learn the True Cost and Pricing.Hospitals.57(6):74, 78–82 (March 16), 1983.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Keith SN: Prospective Payment for Hospital Costs Using Diagnosis Related Groups: Will Cost Inflation Be Reduced?Journal of the National Medical Association.75(6):609–622, 1983.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grimaldi PL: Can State Rate Review Programs Curb Costs Without Harming Quality?Hospital Progress.60(2):6, 10–22, 22, 1981.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Levey GS: Government Revamp of the Health Care System: Effect on Patient Care and Research.The Pharos.46(4):23–27, 1983.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Williams SV, Kominski GF, Dowd BE, Soper KA: Methodological Limitations in Case Mix Hospital Reimbursement, With a Proposal for Change.Inquiry.21:17–31 (Spring), 1984.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    American Medical News. DRG Programs Should Be Approached Cautiously. Cautiously. (Editorial).26(24):4 (June 24), 1983.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Fuchs VR:Who Shall Live? Health, Economics, and Social Choice. N.Y.: Basic Books, Inc., 1974.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Doremus HD: DRGs May Be Raising False Expectations.Hospitals.54(15):47–51 (August 1), 1980.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Healthcare Financial Management Association. Analysis of Department of Health and Human Services Prospective Payment Proposal. Washington, D.C., January 14, 1983.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Burick D, Nackel J: Diagnosis Related Groups: Tool for Management.Hospital & Health Services Administration.26(1):25–40, 1981.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ernst, Whinney:The Revised DRGs. Their Importance in Medicare Payments to Hospitals. E&W No. J58442. May 1983, p. 3.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Johnson AN, Appel GL: Hospitals Will Fight Biased DRG System.Modern Healthcare.13(7):192–194, 1983.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hughes Jr. GS: Diagnosis-Related Groups (letter).Annals of Internal Medicine.101(1):138, 1984.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Alper PR: Moderating Hospital Costs.Medical World News.25(10):76 (May 28), 1984.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    McIllrath S: Revised Grace Panel Report: No DRGs for Physician.American Medical News.27(4):1, 25–26 (January 27), 1984.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    American Medical News. DRGs Raise Questions for Medicine, Council Says.26(18):32 (May 13), 1983.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allen D. Spiegel
    • 1
  • Florence Kavaler
  1. 1.Department of Preventive Medicine and Community HealthDownstate Medical CenterBrooklyn

Personalised recommendations