[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.

[Costs of potentially outpatient endoscopic procedures in cases with a 1-day hospital stay versus a longer stay]. / Kosten potenziell ambulant erbringbarer endoskopischer Leistungen in Fällen mit 1-Tages-Verweildauer gegenüber einer längeren Verweildauer.

INTRODUCTION: The transfer of patient care and medical interventions that was previously provided on an inpatient basis to outpatient settings is a stated goal of health politics. It is unclear to what extent costs of an endoscopic procedure and the disease severity depend on the duration of inpatient treatment. We therefore examined whether endoscopic services for cases with a one-day length of stay (VWD) are comparably expensive to cases with a longer VWD. METHODS: Outpatient services were selected from the DGVS service catalog. Day cases with exactly one such gastroenterological endoscopic (GAEN) service were compared with cases with VWD>1 day regarding their patient clinical complexity levels (PCCL) and mean costs. Data from the DGVS-DRG project with §21-KHEntgG cost data from a total of 57 hospitals from 2018 and 2019 served as the basis. Endoscopic costs were taken from cost center group 8 of the InEK cost matrix and plausibility checked. RESULTS: A total of 122,514 cases with exactly one GAEN service were identified. Statistically equal costs were shown in 30 of 47 service groups. In 10 groups, the cost difference was not relevant (<10%). Cost differences >10% existed only for EGD with variceal therapy, insertion of a self-expanding prosthesis, dilatation/bougienage/exchange with PTC/PTCD in place, non-extensive ERCP, endoscopic ultrasound in the upper gastrointestinal tract, and colonoscopy with submucosal or full thickness resection, or foreign object removal. PCCL differed in all but one group. CONCLUSION: Gastroenterology endoscopy services provided as part of inpatient care but potentially performable on an outpatient basis are predominantly equally expensive for day cases as for patients with a length of stay greater than one day. The disease severity is lower. Calculated §21-KHEntgG cost data thus form a reliable basis for the calculation of appropriate reimbursement for hospital services to be provided as outpatient services under the AOP in the future.

[Prognostic significance and economic burden of hepatic encephalopathy in liver cirrhosis in German hospitals based on G-DRG data]. / Mortalität und ökonomische Auswirkungen der hepatischen Enzephalopathie bei Leberzirrhose in deutschen Krankenhäusern auf der Basis von G-DRG-Kostendaten.

INTRODUCTION: Hepatic encephalopathy (HE) represents a frequent complication of liver cirrhosis with negative effects on patients' lives. The prevalence of clinical HE is estimated to be between 30-45 %. Regardless of its clinical and prognostic relevance HE is considered to be underdiagnosed. METHODS: Beyond a systematic analysis of mortality of HE, we investigated the economic impact and reimbursement situation for HE in patients with liver cirrhosis in Germany. For the retrospective analysis, anonymized data (2011-2015) concerning expenses and diagnoses (§â€Š21-4 KHEntgG) were obtained from 74 participating hospitals of the Diagnosis Related Groups (DRG) Project of the German Gastroenterological Association (DGVS). Furthermore, results were compared with case data from all German hospitals provided by the German Federal Authority on Statistics (Statistische Bundesamt (Destatis), Wiesbaden). RESULTS: In participating hospitals 59 093 cases with liver cirrhosis were identified of which 14.6 % were coded as having HE. Hospital mortality was threefold increased compared to cirrhosis-patients without HE (20.9 versus 7.5 %). Cases with cirrhosis as well as the proportion with HE increased over time. Compared to all patients with cirrhosis, reimbursement for HE patients produced a deficit (of up to 634 € for HE grade 4). DISCUSSION: Mortality is threefold increased in patients with cirrhosis when an additional HE is diagnosed. Hospitals participating in the DGVS-DRG-project coded 2 % more HE cases among their cirrhosis cases than the rest of hospitals either because of a selection bias for greater disease severity or because of better coding quality. At present, reimbursement for HE patients on the basis of F-DRG-system produced a deficit.

[Cost assessment for endoscopic procedures in the German diagnosis-related-group (DRG) system - 5 year cost data analysis of the German Society of Gastroenterology project]. / Kosten endoskopischer Leistungen der Gastroenterologie im deutschen DRG-System ­ 5-Jahres-Kostendatenanalyse des DGVS-Projekts.

Background In the German hospital reimbursement system (G-DRG) endoscopic procedures are listed in cost center 8. For reimbursement between hospital departments and external providers outdated or incomplete catalogues (e. g. DKG-NT, GOÄ) have remained in use. We have assessed the cost for endoscopic procedures in the G-DRG-system. Methods To assess the cost of endoscopic procedures 74 hospitals, annual providers of cost-data to the Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System (InEK) made their data (2011 - 2015; §â€Š21 KHEntgG) available to the German-Society-of-Gastroenterology (DGVS) in anonymized form (4873 809 case-data-sets). Using cases with exactly one endoscopic procedure (n = 274 186) average costs over 5 years were calculated for 46 endoscopic procedure-tiers. Results Robust mean endoscopy costs ranged from 230.56 € for gastroscopy (144 666 cases), 276.23 € (n = 32 294) for a simple colonoscopy, to 844.07 € (n = 10 150) for ERCP with papillotomy and plastic stent insertion and 1602.37 € (n = 967) for ERCP with a self-expanding metal stent. Higher costs, specifically for complex procedures, were identified for University Hospitals. Discussion For the first time this catalogue for endoscopic procedure-tiers, based on §â€Š21 KHEntgG data-sets from 74 InEK-calculating hospitals, permits a realistic assessment of endoscopy costs in German hospitals. The higher costs in university hospitals are likely due to referral bias for complex cases and emergency interventions. For 46 endoscopic procedure-tiers an objective cost-allocation within the G-DRG system is now possible. By international comparison the costs of endoscopic procedures in Germany are low, due to either greater efficiency, lower personnel allocation or incomplete documentation of the real expenses.

Health care for osteoporosis in inflammatory bowel disease: unmet needs in care of male patients?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Osteoporosis is a frequent complication of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). It may be related to IBD itself or to its therapy. In this study, the quality of care regarding diagnosis and treatment of osteoporosis was examined. METHODS: In this retrospective, monocentric study 293 consecutive patients with IBD (98 ulcerative colitis, 195 Crohn's disease) were included. Information on age, gender, weight, nicotine abuse, course, disease pattern and medication was assessed, results of dual X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA-scan) were evaluated. RESULTS: DEXA-scan was performed in 174 patients (59 male, 115 female). Bone mineral density (BMD) was impaired in 38.5% of these patients. Male patients were diagnosed more often with osteopenia or osteoporosis than females (55.9% vs. 29.6%, p=0.03) and had a risk of bone disease comparable to postmenopausal women. Additionally, duration of corticosteroid treatment and IBD were identified as risk factors for osteoporosis. Follow up DEXA-scan demonstrated an overall deterioration of BMD in patients with normal baseline results. CONCLUSIONS: While in general, women are considered at higher risk for osteoporosis, male patients had a higher risk of impaired BMD, especially when under treatment with corticosteroids. The high incidence of reduced BMD supports the recommendation to screen patients with IBD at an early stage of disease, although a possible bias has to be considered for patients at a tertial referral centre for IBD. Patients with normal baseline DEXA-scan were still at risk to develop bone disease and it seems advisable to monitor patients with IBD for reduced BMD continually.

Minimizing procedural cost in diagnosing small bowel bleeding: comparison of a strategy based on initial capsule endoscopy versus initial double-balloon enteroscopy.

INTRODUCTION: Capsule endoscopy (CE) and double-balloon enteroscopy (DBE) detect small bowel bleeding with equal diagnostic yield. We aimed to detect factors that influence procedural cost of CE and DBE in diagnosing and treating small bowel bleeding, and to compare them with reimbursement. METHODS: A cost model analysed procedural cost for diagnostic CE versus diagnostic, unidirectional DBE(scenario 1) and CE plus directed therapeutic DBE(positive findings in CE) versus unidirectional diagnostic plus therapeutic DBE (scenario 2). The frequency of investigations per annum (p.a.) at which cost per procedure is equalized (break-even point) was determined for CE versus DBE. A retrospectively collected cohort of patients was used to validate the cost model and to compare procedural costs with reimbursement (German diagnosis related groups, G-DRG). RESULTS: The break-even point at which cost per procedure is equalized for CE versus DBE was reached at 100 procedures p.a. in scenario 1 and 79 in scenario 2 for a rate of therapeutic enteroscopy of 14%, and 27 for a therapeutic enteroscopy rate of 30%. Personnel cost, procedure time,procedures p.a. and the rate of therapeutic enteroscopy had a major influence on procedural cost. In this patient cohort, the 'CE-first' and the 'DBE-first' strategies produced procedural costs of pound sterling 830 and pound sterling 1,076 per patient to attain a diagnosis, and pound sterling 1,042 versus pound sterling 1,181 to achieve therapeutic enteroscopy, respectively. For this cohort, potential reimbursement was pound sterling 2,320 and pound sterling 3,047 for the 'CE-first' and the 'DBE-first' strategies, respectively (G-DRG). CONCLUSION: Workflow management of CE versus DBE should consider frequency of investigations p.a. and probability for therapeutic enteroscopy to minimize procedural costs. The cost of DBE increases with less frequent or time-consuming investigations; CE is more robust with regard to these factors. From a third-party payer perspective, a strategy incorporating CE seems to minimize costs in G-DRG.