[Cost and Revenue Relationship in Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Patients in Relation to Body Mass Index]. / Kosten-Erlös-Verhältnis orthopädisch-unfallchirurgischer Patienten in Abhängigkeit vom Body-Mass-Index.

BACKGROUND: Growing numbers of patients in orthopaedic and trauma surgery are obese. The risks involved are e.g. surgical complications, higher costs for longer hospital stays or special operating tables. It is a moot point whether revenues in the German DRG system cover the individual costs in relation to patients' body mass index (BMI) and in which area of hospital care potentially higher costs occur. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data related to BMI, individual costs and revenues were extracted from the hospital information system for 13,833 patients of a large hospital who were operated in 2007 to 2010 on their upper or lower extremities. We analysed differences in cost revenue relations dependent on patients' BMI and surgical site, and differences in the distribution of hospital cost areas in relation to patients' BMI by t and U tests. RESULTS: Individual costs of morbidly obese (BMI ≥ 40) and underweight patients (BMI < 18.5) significantly (p < 0.05) exceeded individual DRG revenues. Significantly higher cost revenue relations were detected for all operations on the lower and upper extremities except for ankle joint surgeries in which arthroscopical procedures predominate. Most of the incremental costs resulted from higher spending for nursing care, medication and special appliances. Costs for doctors and medical ancillary staff did not increase in relation to patients' BMI. CONCLUSION: To avoid BMI related patient discrimination, supplementary fees to cover extra costs for morbidly obese or underweight patients with upper or lower extremities operations should raise DRG revenues. Moreover, hospitals should be organisationally prepared for these patients.

[Suggestions for implementation of DRG in the fields of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery for 2004]. / DRG-Anpassungsvorschläge der Fachgebiete Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie für 2004.

OBJECTIVE: The Implementation of a DRG-Variant in Germany - voluntarily since January 1 st, 2003 and obligatory from January 1 st, 2004 - has been leading to uncertainty, particularly in the hospitals, due to fears that currently practised German diagnostic and therapeutic measures will not be financed properly by a DRG-Variant. The G-DRG-Version 1.0 that was drawn up in connection with an executive order law is to a large degree identical to the Australian AR-DRG-Version 4.1. Adjustments to German requirements were made only marginally. Therefore it is necessary for every medical field to investigate by stock-taking to what extent currently practised German diagnostic and therapeutic measures are considered in the G-DRG-Version 1.0 and whether and where modifications and adaptations need to be made. In order to make qualified statements scientific evaluations of possible problems have to be made based German data. Therefore an evaluation was made of the mapping of the medical fields of orthopaedics and trauma surgery. The German Society of Trauma Surgery (DGU), the German Society of Orthopaedy and Orthopaedic Surgery (DGOOC) in cooperation with the DRG-Research-Group of the University Hospital Muenster, the German Hospital Federation (DKG) and the German Medical Association carried out a DRG evaluation project in order to investigate the medical and economical homogeneity of the case groups. METHOD: 12,645 orthopaedic and trauma surgery cases from 23 hospitals - 11 university hospitals and 12 non-university hospitals - were collected within an period of three months and were scientifically evaluated with regard to their performance homogeneity and length of stay homogeneity. RESULTS: The data formed the basis for the proof of suspected deficiencies of mapping of orthopaedic and trauma surgery cases within the G-DRG-Variant. Based on the data and additionally on conclusions of medical experts when the number of cases were small, 14 suggestions for adaptation were proposed and submitted by the deadline of March 31 st, 2003 to the InEK. CONCLUSION: The results of the DRG-Evaluation Project demonstrate the problems of mapping the very heterogenous and complex medical performances of orthopaedy and trauma surgery to a flat rate financing system that is not adapted properly to German conditions. The G-DRG-Variant Version 1.0 does not offer the sufficient possibilities of differentiation that are needed to map the various orthopaedical and trauma surgical measures in Germany.