Underfunding of German university-based high-performance medicine exemplified by the treatment of varices in cirrhosis.

Facing increasing economization in the health care sector, clinicians have to adapt not only to the ever-growing economic challenges, but also to a patient-oriented health care. Treatment costs are the most important variable for optimizing success when facing scarce human resources, increasing material- and infrastructure costs in general, as well as low revenue flexibility due to flat rates per case in Germany, the so-called Diagnosis-Related Groups (DRG). University hospitals treat many patients with particularly serious illnesses. Therefore, their share of complex and expensive treatments, such as liver cirrhosis, is significantly higher. The resulting costs are not adequately reflected in the DRG flat rate per case, which is based on an average calculation across all hospitals, which increases this economic pressure. Thus, the aim of this manuscript is to review cost and revenue structures of the management of varices in patients with cirrhosis at a university center with a focus on hepatology. For this monocentric study, the data of 851 patients, treated at the Gastroenterology Department of a University Hospital between 2016 and 2020, were evaluated retrospectively and anonymously. Medical services (e.g., endoscopy, radiology, laboratory diagnostics) were analyzed within the framework of activity-based-costing. As part of the cost unit accounting, the individual steps of the treatment pathways of the 851 patients were monetarily evaluated with corresponding applicable service catalogs and compared with the revenue shares of the cost center and cost element matrix of the German (G-) DRG system. This study examines whether university-based high-performance medicine is efficient and cost-covering within the framework of the G-DRG system. We demonstrate a dramatic underfunding of the management of varicose veins in cirrhosis in our university center. It is therefore generally questionable whether and to what extent an adequate care for this patient collective is reflected in the G-DRG system.

[Impact Analysis of a new, Cross-sector Service Provision of Gastroenterologic Endoscopic Services in Accordance with 115f SGB V (Hybrid-DRG): Allocation Matrix and Cost Analysis]. / Auswirkungsanalyse einer neuen, sektorenübergreifenden Erbringung bisher stationärer endoskopischer gastroenterologischer Leistungen entsprechend §115f SGB V (Hybrid-DRG): Zuordnungsmatrix und Kostenanalyse.

BACKGROUND: With the introduction of §115f SGB V, the prerequisites for "sector-equal remuneration" ('Hybrid DRG') have been created. In an impact analysis, we assigned inpatient gastroenterological endoscopic (GAEN) cases in a matrix of future hybrid DRG versus outpatient surgery (AOP) or inpatient treatment. METHODS: In selected DRGs (G47B, G67A, G67B, G67C, G71Z, H41D, H41E) an allocation matrix of GAEN cases was created on medical grounds. For this purpose, service groups from the DGVS service catalog ('Leistungskatalog') were assigned to the groups: 'Hybrid-DRG', 'AOP' and 'Inpatient' by a group of experts based on the DGVS position paper. Cost data from the DGVS-DRG project for the 2022 data year from 36 InEK calculation hospitals with a total of 232,476 GAEN cases were evaluated. RESULTS: 26 service groups from the DGVS service catalog were assigned to a "Hybrid-DRG", 24 to the "inpatient" group, and 12 to the "AOP" group. 7 performance groups were splitted "depending on the OPS code" and classified at this level. Cases with additional fees were excluded from a hybrid DRG because these cannot be agreed there.The cost analysis shows that services that are already in the AOP have a similar cost level to services that have been classified as 'Hybrid-DRG'. With the cost calculation, a cost level could be presented for the hybrid DRGs formed. CONCLUSION: Based on clearly defined structural, procedural and personnel requirements, services from suitable DRGs can be transferred to a hybrid DRG. Assigning services without the involvement of clinical experts seems extremely difficult. Case assignment based on arbitrary contextual factors increases complexity without demonstrably increasing the quality of the assignment and needs to be further developed. A cost analysis can be derived from the known inpatient costs and must serve as the basis for the 2025 Hybrid DRG catalog.