Comparing financing models for supplementary healthcare in appendectomy: activity-based costing (fee-for-service) vs. diagnosis related group remuneration (bundled payment) - a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: In Brazil, healthcare services traditionally follow a fee-for-service (FFS) payment system, in which each medical procedure incurs a separate charge. An alternative reimbursement with the aim of reducing costs is diagnosis related group (DRG) remuneration, in which all patient care is covered by a fixed amount. This work aimed to perform a systematic review followed by meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of the Budled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) versus FFS. METHODS: Our work was performed following the items of the PRISMA report. We included only observational trials, and the primary outcome assessed was the effectiveness of FFS and DRG in appendectomy considering complications. We also assessed the costs and length of hospital stay. Meta-analysis was performed with Rev Man version 5.4. RESULTS: Out of 735 initially identified articles, six met the eligibility criteria. We demonstrated a shorter hospital stay associated with the DRG model (mean difference = 0.39; 95% confidence interval - 95%CI - 0.38-0.40; p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%), however the hospital readmission rate was higher in this model (odds ratio = 1.57; 95%CI 1.02-2.44, p = 0.04; I2 = 90%). CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals a potential decrease in the length of stay for appendectomy patients using the DRG approach. However, no significant differences were observed in other outcomes analysis between the two approaches.

Comparing financing models for supplementary healthcare in appendectomy: activity-based costing (fee-for-service) vs. diagnosis related group remuneration (bundled payment): a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose: In Brazil, healthcare services traditionally follow a fee-for-service (FFS) payment system, in which each medical procedure incurs a separate charge. An alternative reimbursement with the aim of reducing costs is diagnosis related group (DRG) remuneration, in which all patient care is covered by a fixed amount. This work aimed to perform a systematic review followed by meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of the Budled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) versus FFS. Methods: Our work was performed following the items of the PRISMA report. We included only observational trials, and the primary outcome assessed was the effectiveness of FFS and DRG in appendectomy considering complications. We also assessed the costs and length of hospital stay. Meta-analysis was performed with Rev Man version 5.4. Results: Out of 735 initially identified articles, six met the eligibility criteria. We demonstrated a shorter hospital stay associated with the DRG model (mean difference = 0.39; 95% confidence interval ­ 95%CI ­ 0.38­0.40; p < 0.00001; I2 = 0%), however the hospital readmission rate was higher in this model (odds ratio = 1.57; 95%CI 1.02­2.44, p = 0.04; I2 = 90%). Conclusions: This study reveals a potential decrease in the length of stay for appendectomy patients using the DRG approach. However, no significant differences were observed in other outcomes analysis between the two approaches.