How Denmark, England, Estonia, France, Germany, and the USA Pay for Variable, Specialized and Low Volume Care: A Cross-country Comparison of In-patient Payment Systems.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis-related group (DRG)-based hospital payment can potentially be inadequately low (or high) for highly variable, highly specialized, and/or low volume care. DRG-based payment can be combined with other payment mechanisms to avoid unintended consequences of inadequate payment. The aim of this study was to analyze these other payment mechanisms for acute inpatient care across six countries (Germany, Denmark, England, Estonia, France, the United States [Medicare]). METHODS: Information was collected about elements excluded from DRG-based payment, the rationale for exclusions, and payment mechanisms complementing DRG-based payment. A conceptual framework was developed to systematically describe, visualise and compare payment mechanisms across countries. RESULTS: Results show that the complexity of exclusion mechanisms and associated additional payment components differ across countries. England and Germany use many different additional mechanisms, while there are only few exceptions from DRG-based payment in the Medicare program in the United States. Certain areas of care are almost always excluded (eg, certain areas of cancer care or specialized pediatrics). Denmark and England use exclusion mechanisms to steer service provision for highly complex patients to specialized providers. CONCLUSION: Implications for researchers and policy-makers include: (1) certain areas of care might be better excluded from DRG-based payment; (2) exclusions may be used to incentivize the concentration of highly specialized care at specialized institutions (as in Denmark or England); (3) researchers may apply our analytical framework to better understand the specific design features of DRG-based payment systems.

The cost of treating patients with COPD in Denmark--a population study of COPD patients compared with non-COPD controls.

This paper describes a population-based study of health care resource use of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) compared to non-COPD controls. Through a screening of the Danish Patient Registry for patients admitted with COPD diagnoses for a 5-year period, 1998-2002, 66,000 individuals with COPD still alive at the beginning of 2002 were identified. Their use of health care resources in 2002 were compared with equivalent data, stratified for age, sex and mortality rates, for a control population without COPD based on data for the 300,000 remaining patients on the Danish Patient Registry in 2002. Results indicated that the gross cost of treating patients with COPD in the Danish somatic hospital and primary health care sector corresponded to 10% of the total cost of treating patients of 40 years or more. The net cost for COPD patients was 1.9 billion DKK (256 million euro), 6% of the total annual costs of treating the population of 40 years or more. The gross cost related to any disease and the net cost reflected the resource use which could be attributed to COPD and its related diagnoses. The incidence of inpatient hospital admissions was almost four times higher in the COPD population than in the control group. COPD patients contacted their general practitioner 12 times more per year than non-COPD controls, but for specialist and paramedic treatment in the primary care sector there was no significant difference between COPD patients and non-COPD controls. Only one third of the COPD costs were due to treatment of COPD as the primary diagnosis. The remaining two-thirds of the COPD-related costs were mainly due to admissions for other diseases such as cardio-vascular diseases, other respiratory diseases, and cancer.

Cost-effectiveness of the Danish smoking cessation interventions: subgroup analysis based on the Danish Smoking Cessation Database.

The cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions is well documented. However, most studies are based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and provide little information on the differences between subgroups. This study assessed the relative cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions offered to various subgroups of smokers, based on real-life data. Regression analyses provided information on the factors determining abstinence and costs and led to the formation of relevant subgroups of smokers. Probabilistic Markov modeling was then used to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions for the entire database population and for the subgroups compared to a no-intervention case. The ICER for the base case population was estimated at 1,358 euro. This is consistent with results from the existing literature. Group simulations showed lower ICERs for men, hospitals, and light smokers and falling ICERs with increasing age. Despite differences in the cost-effectiveness ratios between subgroups our results do not justify any kind of subgroup differentiation in a smoking prevention policy.

The "Health Benefit Basket" in Denmark: a description of entitlements, actors, and decision-making processes in the curative health sector.

Until 2007, when the new legislation on health care becomes effective, the right to receive free health care services in Denmark, or "health benefits," are described in a comprehensive set of legislation, including laws, executive orders and legal guidelines. This contribution provides an overview of the current main legislation regulating the Danish "health benefit basket" and describes the regulatory mechanisms for the provision of curative care at Danish hospitals and primary health care offices. Although the services are both financed and planned by the counties, they differ substantially in the way that benefits are regulated.

Variable prospective financing in the Danish hospital sector and the development of a Danish case-mix system.

This article aims to describe and assess the Danish case-mix system, the cost accounting applied in setting national tariffs and the introduction of variable, prospective payment in the Danish hospital sector. The tariffs are calculated as a national average from hospital data gathered in a national cost database. However, uncertainty, mainly resulting from the definition of cost centres at the individual hospital, implies that the cost weights may not fully reflect the hospital treatment cost. As variable prospective payment of hospitals currently only applies to 20% of a hospital's budget, the incentives and the effects on productivity, quality and equality are still limited.