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.

1.
Busse R, Geissler A, Quentin W, Wiley 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, 2011.
2.
Kimberly JR, de Pouvourville G, D’Aunno TA: The Globalization of Managerial Innovation in Health Care. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008.
3.
Fetter RB: Diagnosis related groups: understanding hospital performance. Interfaces 1991;21:6–26.
4.
NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care. The Casemix Service. HRG 4 Design Concepts. Leeds, NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care, 2007.
5.
Institut für das Entgeltsystem im Krankenhaus gGmbH (InEK): Vorschlagsverfahren zur Einbindung des medizinischen, wissenschaftlichen und weiteren Sachverstandes bei der Weiterentwicklung des G-DRG-Systems für das Jahr 2012 (Procedure to allow for the systematic incorporation of medical, scientific, and other expertise for the development of the G-DRG system). Siegburg, Institut für das Entgeldsystem im Krankenhaus gGmbH, 2011.
6.
Patris A, Blum D, Girardier M: A change in the French patient classification system. Casemix Q 2001;3:128–138.
7.
Quentin W, Scheller-Kreinsen D, Geissler A, Busse R, EuroDRG Group: Appendectomy and diagnosis-related groups (DRGs): patient classification and hospital reimbursement in 11 European countries. Langenbecks Arch Surg 2012;397:317–326.
8.
BMGFJ: Krankenanstaltenfinanzierung – LKF – Modell 2008. Vienna, Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Familie und Jugend, 2008.
9.
NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care: The Casemix Service. HRG4 Reference Cost Grouper – Guide to File Preparation. Leeds, NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care, 2008.
10.
ATIH: Manuel des GHM, version 11. Lyon, Agence de l’Information sur l’Hospitalisation, 2009.
11.
Nordic Centre for Classifications in Health Care: NordDRG Users’ Manual. Uppsala, Nordic Centre for Classifications in Health Care, 2007.
12.
Institut für das Entgeltsystem im Krankenhaus gGmbH (InEK): G-DRG German Diagnosis Related Groups Version 2008: Definitionshandbuch. Siegburg, Institut für das Entgeldsystem im Krankenhaus gGmbH, 2007.
13.
Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing: Australian Refined Diagnosis Related Groups Version 6.0: Definitions Manuals. Canberra, Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, 2008.
14.
DBC Onderhound. Diagnose Behandeling Combinaties. Utrecht, DBC Onderhound, 2008.
15.
The National Health Fund: Jednorodne Grupy Pacjentów – Technical Material. Warsaw, National Health Fund, 2008.
16.
3M: All Patients Diagnosis Related Groups Definitions Manual version 23.0. Wallingford, 3M, 2005.
17.
Koechlin F, Lorenzoni L, Schreyer P: Comparing Price Levels of Hospital Services across Countries. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECD Health Working Papers, 2010.
18.
OECD: OECD Health Data 2010: Statistics and Indicators. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 2010.
19.
ECB: Statistical Data Warehouse: National Currency per Euro, Annual Bilateral Exchange Rates Time Series. 2011.
20.
Cots F, Chiarello P, Salvador X, Quentin W: DRG-based hospital payment: intended and unintended consequences; in Busse R, Geissler A, Quentin W, Wiley M (eds): Diagnosis Related Groups in Europe: Moving towards Transparency, Efficiency and Quality in Hospitals? Buckingham, Open University Press, 2011.
21.
Schreyögg J, Tiemann O, Busse R: Cost accounting to determine prices: how well do prices reflect costs in the German DRG-system? Health Care Manag Sci 2006;9:269–279.
22.
Busse R, Quentin W: Moving towards transparency, efficiency and quality in hospitals: conclusions and recommendations; in Busse R, Geissler A, Quentin W, Wiley 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, 2011.
23.
Roeder N, Fiori W, Ringelstein EB: Stroke treatment in the 2006 German diagnosis-related group system. Nervenarzt 2006;77:221–228.
24.
HDP2: Hospital Data Project Phase 2: Final report. The equal need for metadata and data. Prismant, 2008.
25.
NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care. The Casemix Service. Unbundled HRGs by Chapter in HRG4. Leeds, NHS Information Centre for Health and Social Care, 2007.
26.
European Stroke Organisation (ESO) Executive Committee, ESO Writing Committee: Guidelines for management of ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack 2008. Cerebrovasc Dis 2008;25:457–507.
27.
Adams HP Jr, del Zoppo G, Alberts MJ, Bhatt DL, Brass L, Furlan A, et al: Guidelines for the early management of adults with ischemic stroke: a guideline from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association Stroke Council, Clinical Cardiology Council, Cardiovascular Radiology and Intervention Council, and the Atherosclerotic Peripheral Vascular Disease and Quality of Care Outcomes in Research Interdisciplinary Working Groups. The American Academy of Neurology affirms the value of this guideline as an educational tool for neurologists. Circulation 2007;115:e478–534.
28.
Saka O, Serra V, Samyshkin Y, McGuire A, Wolfe CC: Cost-effectiveness of stroke unit care followed by early supported discharge. Stroke 2009;40:24–29.
29.
Epifanov Y, Dodel R, Haacke C, Schaeg M, Schoffski O, Hennerici M, et al: Costs of acute stroke care on regular neurological wards: a comparison with stroke unit setting. Health Policy 2007;81:339–349.
30.
Department of Health: Payment by Results. Guidance for 2011–2012. Leeds, Department of Health, 2011.
31.
Ehlers L, Andersen G, Clausen LB, Bech M, Kjolby M: Cost-effectiveness of intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase within a 3-hour window after acute ischemic stroke. Stroke 2007;38:85–89.
32.
Cipriano LE, Steinberg ML, Gazelle GS, Gonzalez RG: Comparing and predicting the costs and outcomes of patients with major and minor stroke using the Boston Acute Stroke Imaging Scale neuroimaging classification system. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:703–709.
33.
Diringer MN, Edwards DF, Mattson DT, Akins PT, Sheedy CW, Hsu CY, et al: Predictors of acute hospital costs for treatment of ischemic stroke in an academic center. Stroke 1999;30:724–728.
34.
Epstein D, Mason A, Manca A: The hospital costs of care for stroke in nine European countries. Health Econ 2008;17:S21–S31.
35.
Grieve R, Hutton J, Bhalla A, Rastenytë D, Ryglewicz D, Sarti C, et al: A comparison of the costs and survival of hospital-admitted stroke patients across Europe. Stroke 2001;32:1684–1691.
36.
Koton S, Bornstein NM, Tsabari R, Tanne D, NASIS Investigators: Derivation and validation of the prolonged length of stay score in acute stroke patients. Neurology 2010;74:1511–1516.
37.
Moon L, Moïse P, Jacobzone S, ARD-Stroke Experts Group: Stroke Care in OECD Countries: A Comparison of Treatment, Costs and Outcomes in 17 Countries. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECD Health Working Papers 2003.
38.
Dodel RC, Haacke C, Zamzow K, Pawelzik S, Spottke A, Rethfeldt M, et al: Resource utilization and costs of stroke unit care in Germany. Value Health 2004;7:144–152.
39.
Luengo-Fernandez R, Gray AM, Rothwell PM: Population-based study of determinants of initial secondary care costs of acute stroke in the United Kingdom. Stroke 2006;37:2579–2587.
40.
Busse R, Schreyögg J, Smith PC: Hospital case payment systems in Europe. Health Care Manag Sci 2006;9:211–213.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.