Technological innovation in DRG-based hospital payment system across Europe
Technological innovation in health care is highly valued by
patients, clinicians and politicians, as advances in medical technology have
greatly improved the ability to prevent, diagnose and treat a large number of
diseases and conditions, leading to reduced mortality and better quality of
life in many countries. At the same time, technological innovation is a major
driver of increasing health care costs, and policies have been devised with the
aim of balancing technological innovation and affordability. Technological
innovation may be incremental – consisting of small improvements of existing
services, or it may comprise radical changes (e. g. replacing surgical therapy
with new medical therapy.) They may also occur as a transfer or adaptation of
existing technology from one setting to another (e. g. the shift of certain
procedures from inpatient settings to day care.) Quality in health care can be
defined as any aspect of health services that benefits patients during the
process of treatment or improves health outcome after treatment. Whether or not
the incentives of DRG-based hospital payment systems produce socially desirable
effects depends on the specific combination of costs and quality. The effects
(especially long-term effects) of technological
innovation on quality (and on costs) are often difficult to
identify at
the time, when innovations are first introduced into hospital practice. A
variety of technologies have been found to be ineffective or even harmful after having been
widely adopted and used.
The dominant incentives of a basic DRG-based hospital payment system
encourage hospitals to reduce cost per admission and increase the number of
admissions. Hospitals are likely to make use of economic evaluations before introducing
certain technological innovations. They are mainly required in cases in which cost-decreasing technological
innovations are accompanied by decreases in quality, as it should be
determined whether the decrease in quality outweighs the reduction in costs. Problems with DRG-based
hospital payment occur when technological innovations improve quality but are associated
with increased
costs per
admission. When technological innovations are introduced, hospitals are paid
according to historical cost patterns that do not reflect the higher costs of using
technological innovations. Several
countries provide additional funding for capital costs, thus exempting a significant
proportion of hospital costs (particularly relevant in the context of
innovations that increase capital costs) from the incentives of DRG-based
hospital payment. The availability of funding from sources other than the DRG-based
hospital payment system may modify the incentives of DRG-based hospital payment
systems (e. g. extra funding for teaching or research.)
Long-term mechanisms ensure that technological innovations are
eventually formally incorporated into the DRG-based hospital payment system, either through updates of the DRG
system,
or through updates
of the payment rate. The hospital payment systems in most countries are updated at
regular intervals. Almost all countries have developed certain short-term payment
instruments that
encourage the use of quality-increasing technological innovations that also
increase costs, within the time period during which the DRG-based hospital
payment system does not yet account for the technological innovation. All extra
payments provide strong incentives to hospitals to apply technological
innovations, as they exempt the selected technologies from the incentives of DRG-based hospital
payment. Countries with frequent updates of their DRG system and of the payment rate – and with a short time-lag between data
collection and using the information collected for DRG-based hospital payment —
are clearly in a better position to incorporate technological innovations into
their systems.
Moving towards transparency, efficiency and quality in hospitals
Transparency of hospital services and costs has substantially
improved in all countries. Today, the vast majority of hospitals in all
countries are required to prepare detailed activity reports that specify the
number and type of DRGs provided. Prior to the introduction of DRGs, hospital
activity was reported either on the basis of highly aggregated measures or on the basis of very detailed measure.
None of these measures could meaningfully reflect hospital activity. DRGs
aggregate large number of patients treated by hospitals into a small number of
groups of patients with similar clinical characteristics and similar resource-consumption
patterns. Regulators, payers and hospital managers in most countries are
starting to use DRGs for hospital performance comparisons. Hospitals receive higher DRG-based
payments if they "code" (input) all relevant diagnoses and
procedures. Almost all countries find that information about diagnoses and
procedures in hospitals has improved considerably since the introduction of DRGs.
Improving hospital efficiency is generally a key motivation for
introducing DRG-based hospital payment systems. There are relatively few
studies that have explicitly identified and quantified the impact of these
systems on efficiency using established data-driven methods. The studies
reported that the introduction of DRG-based hospital payment was associated
with improved technical efficiency in Portugal, Sweden and Norway, but that no
positive impact was observed in the United States and in an Austrian study.
Most research has concentrated on indicators of efficiency – such as activity
and length of stay – which are more easily measured, but by definition provide
only a partial picture of efficiency. There is generally agreement in the
literature that the introduction of DRGbased hospital payment systems has led
to increased activity and reduced length of stay, and it is consequently often
assumed that hospital efficiency has improved.
There have been major concerns on the part of health professionals
in many countries that DRG-based hospital payment systems might compromise
quality of care because hospitals are incentivized to reduce costs. Pro-ponents
of the use of DRGs have argued that quality of care could in fact be improved,
because DRGs contribute to increased transparency in the quality of care and
because hospitals are incentivized to invest in quality improvements that lead
to reduced costs. Some studies found that processes of care (e. g. as measured
by physician and nurse cognitive performance) improved, but at the same time, a
larger proportion of patients were found to have been discharged in unstable
conditions after the implementation of DRG-based payment. In Europe, the
available research evaluating the impact on care quality and patient outcomes
is too limited to draw any firm conclusions, in particular because evidence is
available only from a limited number of countries.
Countries planning to introduce DRG systems have two options. They
can either develop a new DRG system from scratch or they can import one of the
already-existing DRG systems fromabroad. Historically, most countries that introduced
DRG systems initially did so for the classification of acute hospital
inpatients. The reason for excluding outpatients, day cases, rehabilitation and
psychiatric care from DRGs was that diagnoses were found to be a bad predictor
of resource consumption. In recent years many countries have extended their DRG
systems to account for day cases and sometimes have even included outpatient
activity. Because the goals of European countries and the problems they face
are highly similar, it is at least worth considering the benefits of increased
cooperation, coordination and harmonization of DRG systems in Europe. The benefits of
European DRG system would include avoiding duplication of work, improving
knowledge exchange in the refinement of DRG systems, increasing transparency of
hospital services across countries and also facilitating cross-border movements
of patients and payments.