Introduction of DRG-based reimbursement in inpatient psychosomatics--an examination of cost homogeneity and cost predictors in the treatment of patients with eating disorders.

OBJECTIVE: Various western countries are focusing on the introduction of reimbursement based on diagnosis-related groups (DRG) in inpatient mental health. The aim of this study was to analyze if psychosomatic inpatients treated for eating disorders could be reimbursed by a common per diem rate. METHODS: Inclusion criteria for patient selection (n=256) were (1) a main diagnosis of anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN) or eating disorder-related obesity (OB), (2) minimum length of hospital stay of 2 days, (3) and treatment at Charité Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Germany during the years 2006-2009. Cost calculation was executed from the hospital's perspective, mainly using micro-costing. Generalized linear models with Gamma error distribution and log link function were estimated with per diem costs as dependent variable, clinical and patient variables as well as treatment year as independent variables. RESULTS: Mean costs/case for AN amounted to 5,251€, 95% CI [4407-6095], for BN to 3,265€, 95% CI [2921-3610] and for OB to 3,722€, 95% CI [4407-6095]. Mean costs/day over all patients amounted to 208€, 95% CI [198-218]. The diagnosis AN predicted higher costs in comparison to OB (p=.0009). A co-morbid personality disorder (p=.0442), every one-unit increase in BMI in OB patients (p=.0256), every one-unit decrease in BMI in AN patients (p=.0002) and every additional life year in BN patients (p=.0455) predicted increased costs. CONCLUSION: We see a need for refinements to take into account considerable variations in treatment costs between patients with eating disorders due to diagnosis, BMI, co-morbid personality disorder and age.

[DRGs and daily rates of pay in psychosomatics: 2002-2005]. / DRGs und Pflegesätze in der Psychosomatik: 2002-2005.

OBJECTIVES: Over the last years the use of diagnosis-related groups (G-DRG) was introduced into most areas of the German health care system, which led to changed compensation for departments outside the G-DRG system as well. We evaluated the development of revenues in 17 different psychosomatic departments over the last three years. METHODS: Our analyses were based on official daily rates for each of the clinics included. If daily rates changed within one year, we used the average daily rate for that year. RESULTS: Together all departments provided 547 in-patient beds for the treatment of acute psychosomatic patients. With 85% occupancy all departments would achieve a revenue of 62.5 million euro in 2005, two million euro less than three years previously. Due to the introduction of the German DRG system their average income was reduced by approx. 3%. The loss was greater for psychosomatic departments at larger hospitals, which have a higher percentage of departments included in the G-DRG system. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of the G-DRG system leads to reduced revenues for departments outside the G-DRG system, while performance was expected to remain at the same level and costs have increased. Thus, to ensure the spectrum of psychosomatic medicine as it is today, it has become increasingly important to demonstrate the real costs of treatment to political decision makers.