Original Article: The impacts of DRG payment system on financial balance of multiple trauma: Experiences of three trauma centers in Taiwan.

INTRODUCTION: There are concerns regarding the adequacy of applying the diagnosis-related groups (DRG) payment system for multiple traumas (i.e., major diagnostic category 24, MDC-24) patients in Taiwan. Therefore, this study used a multi-center dataset to assess the influence of the DRG payment system on the cost and outcome of multiple trauma care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected data of all multiple trauma patients from the Trauma Registry of three hospitals from 2014 - 2017. Next, we selected patients who met the criteria of MDC-24 and calculated the corresponding DRG payment. Subsequently, we combined the clinical care information with health insurance information to analyze the problems of applying the DRG payment system to multiple trauma care. RESULTS: Overall, of 465 cases, 367 met the criteria of MDC-24, and the mean injury severity score (ISS) was high (average 20.1). The total deficit of the polytrauma DRG cases amounted to 131,445 USD, and the average deficit in each case was 397 USD. In the multivariable analysis, higher revised trauma score and specific lower abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) scores in certain body regions resulted in profits, while increased length of stay in intensive care units, longer operative time, and higher AIS score in the thorax were significantly correlated with deficits in medical costs. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed that the current DRG payment system results in financial losses for hospitals. Further, the payment grouping of MDC-24 should consider adding more disease severity factors to reduce the financial constraints faced by trauma centers.

Is robotic hepatectomy cost-effective? In view of patient-reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Robotic hepatectomy has been accepted as an alternative for patients needing surgery. However, few reports addressed the patient-reported outcomes and long-term quality of life (QoL) of patients having undergone robotic liver surgery. METHODS: This study presented the QoL and cost-effectiveness associated with robotic and open hepatectomy by performing a comparative survey using two standardized questionnaires (Short Form-36 and Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index). RESULTS: One hundred patients completed the study. The robotic group tended to experienced longer operation time but shorter length of hospital stay compared to open group. Moreover, the robotic group had faster return to daily activities, less need of patient-controlled anesthesia, and less wound-related complaints in long-term follow-up. The robotic group incurred higher peri-operative expenses; however, the cost of inpatient care was lower. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggested that robotic hepatectomy provided good post-operative QoL and recovery of daily activity. However, efforts for lowering the financial burden of medical care by reducing the cost of robotic surgery is necessary for further application.