Advertisement

The European Journal of Health Economics

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 919–927 | Cite as

Explaining length of stay variation of episodes of care in the Netherlands

  • Siok Swan TanEmail author
  • Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen
  • B. Martin van Ineveld
  • W. Ken Redekop
Original Paper

Abstract

Objectives

Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) systems aim to classify patients into mutually exclusive groups of patients, with the patients in each group having the same expected length of stay (LOS). We examined the ability of current classification variables to explain LOS variation between DRG-like Diagnosis Treatment Combination (DBC)s for ten episodes of care in the Netherlands, including breast cancer, stroke and inguinal hernia repair. Additionally, we assessed the predictive ability of some other classification variables.

Methods

For each episode of care, the relevant DBC codes of all hospitalizations in 2008 were identified and all available determinants that may serve as classification variables were acquired from the national database. Ordinary least squares regression was used to examine the predictive ability of these classification variables.

Results

The current classification variables are not sufficiently distinct to classify patients into mutually exclusive groups of patients. ICU admissions and hospital type may serve as valuable classification variables. Additionally, episode-specific variables may improve the Dutch grouping algorithm.

Conclusions

Although it may not be feasible in the short term, grouping algorithms would benefit greatly from the introduction of classification variables tailored to the needs of specific episodes of care. A first step would be to focus on ‘general’ classification variables meaningful for specific episodes of care.

Keywords

Diagnosis related group Grouping algorithm Episode of care Classification variable Hospital efficiency 

JEL Classification

B41 C51 D61 H11 P51 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The results presented in this paper were generated as part of the project ‘Diagnosis-Related Groups in Europe: Towards Efficiency and Quality (EuroDRG)’, which was funded by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework Research Program (Grant Agreement Number FP7-223300). We are grateful to all our project partners who made this work possible.

References

  1. 1.
    Busse, R.: Do diagnosis-related groups explain variations in hospital costs and length of stay? Analyses from the EuroDRG project for 10 episodes of care across 10 European countries. Health Econ. 21(Suppl. 2), 1–5 (2012)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cylus, J., Irwin, R.: The challenges of hospital payment systems. EuroObserver 12(3), 1–4 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dasta, J.F., McLaughlin, T.P., Mody, S.H., Piech, C.T.: Daily cost of an intensive care unit day: the contribution of mechanical ventilation. Crit. Care Med. 33(6), 1266–1271 (2005)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    DBC Onderhoud. http://www.dbconderhoud.nl/ (2008)
  5. 5.
    Dormont, B., Milcent, C.: The sources of hospital cost variability. Health Econ. 13(10), 927–939 (2004)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evans, E., Imanaka, Y., Sekimoto, M., Ishizaki, T., Hayashida, K., Fukuda, H., Oh, E.H.: Risk adjusted resource utilization for AMI patients treated in Japanese hospitals. Health Econ. 16(4), 347–359 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hakkinen, U., Chiarello, P., Cots, F., Peltola, M., Ratto, H.: Patient classification and hospital costs of care for acute myocardial infarction in nine European countries. Health Econ. 21(Suppl. 2), 19–29 (2012)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hvenegaard, A., Street, A., Sorensen, T.H., Gyrd-Hansen, D.: Comparing hospital costs: what is gained by accounting for more than a case-mix index? Soc. Sci. Med. 69(4), 640–647 (2009)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kimberly, J.R., de Pouvourville, G., D’Aunno, T.A.: The globalization of managerial innovation in health care. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kobel, C., Thuilliez, J., Bellanger, M.M., Pfeiffer, K.P.: DRG Systems and Similar Patient Classification Systems in Europe. Department für Medizinische Statistik, Informatik und Gesundheitsökonomie Medizinische Universität Innsbruck (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oostenbrink, J.B., Rutten, F.F.: Cost assessment and price setting of inpatient care in the Netherlands. The DBC case-mix system. Health Care Manag. Sci. 9(3), 287–294 (2006)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Quentin, W., Scheller-Kreinsen, D., Geissler, A., Busse, R., on behalf of the EuroDRG group: Appendectomy and diagnosis-related groups (DRGs): patient classification and hospital reimbursement in 11 European countries. Langenbecks Arch. Surg. 397(2), 317–326 (2012)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rothen, H.U., Stricker, K., Einfalt, J., Bauer, P., Metnitz, P.G., Moreno, R.P., Takala, J.: Variability in outcome and resource use in intensive care units. Intensive Care Med. 33(8), 1329–1336 (2007)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schreyogg, J., Stargardt, T., Tiemann, O., Busse, R.: Methods to determine reimbursement rates for diagnosis related groups (DRG): a comparison of nine European countries. Health Care Manag. Sci. 9(3), 215–223 (2006)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Soderlund, N., Gray, A., Milne, R., Raftery, J.: Case mix measurement in English hospitals: an evaluation of five methods for predicting resource use. J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 1(1), 10–19 (1996)PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Street, A., Kobel, C., Renaud, T., Thuilliez, J. and on behalf of the Eurodrug Group.: How well do diagnosis-related groups explain variations in costs or length of stay among patients and across hospitals? Methods for analysing routine patient data. Health Econ. 21, 6–18. (2012) doi: 10.1002/hec.2837 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Street, A., Scheller-Kreinsen, D., Geissler, A., Busse, R.: Determinants of hospital costs and performance variation: methods, models and variables for the EuroDRG project. Working Papers in Health Policy and Management 2010 May, vol. 3 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tan, S.S., Serdén, L., Geissler, A., van Ineveld, B.M., Redekop, W.K., Heurgren, M., et al. DRGs and Cost Accounting: Which is Driving Which? In: Busse., R., Geissler, A., Quentin, W., Wily, M. (Eds.) Diagnosis-related groups in Europe: moving towards transparency, efficiency and quality in hospitals. Buckingham, Open University Press and WHO Regional Office for Europe, (2011a), pp. 59–74Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tan, S.S., van Ineveld, B.M., Redekop, W.K., Hakkaart-van Roijen, L.: The Netherlands: The Diagnose Behandeling Combinaties (DBCs) In: Busse., R., Geissler, A., Quentin, W., Wily, M. (Eds.) Diagnosis-related groups in Europe: moving towards transparency, efficiency and quality in hospitals. Buckingham, Open University Press and WHO Regional Office for Europe, (2011b), pp. 425–446Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tan, S.S., van Ineveld, B.M., Redekop, W.K., Hakkaart-van Roijen, L.: Structural reforms, hospital payment in the Netherlands. EuroObserver 12(3), 7–9 (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    The Healthcare Inspectorate (IGZ): Basic set of hospital performance indicators 2004. The Healthcare Inspectorate, The Hague (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Siok Swan Tan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Leona Hakkaart-van Roijen
    • 1
  • B. Martin van Ineveld
    • 1
  • W. Ken Redekop
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Medical Technology AssessmentErasmus Universiteit RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations