Elsevier

Health Policy

Volume 115, Issues 2–3, April 2014, Pages 157-164
Health Policy

Systematically evaluating the impact of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) on health care delivery: A matrix of ethical implications

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2013.11.014Get rights and content

Abstract

Swiss hospitals were required to implement a prospective payment system for reimbursement using a diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) classification system by the beginning of 2012. Reforms to a health care system should be assessed for their impact, including their impact on ethically relevant factors. Over a number of years and in a number of countries, questions have been raised in the literature about the ethical implications of the implementation of DRGs. However, despite this, researchers have not attempted to identify the major ethical issues associated with DRGs systematically. To address this gap in the literature, we have developed a matrix for identifying the ethical implications of the implementation of DRGs. It was developed using a literature review, and empirical studies on DRGs, as well as a review and analysis of existing ethics frameworks. The matrix consists of the ethically relevant parameters of health care systems on which DRGs are likely to have an impact; the ethical values underlying these parameters; and examples of specific research questions associated with DRGs to illustrate how the matrix can be applied. While the matrix has been developed in light of the Swiss health care reform, it could be used as a basis for identifying the ethical implications of DRG-based systems worldwide and for highlighting the ethical implications of other kinds of provider payment systems (PPS).

Introduction

From the beginning of 2012, Swiss hospitals were required to implement a diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) based prospective reimbursement system for in-patient hospital care. Many hospitals had already been operating under a DRG system for several years, although this was the first time that a specific Swiss DRG system (developed from the German system)–‘SwissDRG’–was made obligatory for acute somatic care in most hospitals [1], [2]. Under the DRG-based system, hospitals are reimbursed a standard amount according to the number and type of cases they treat, rather than, for example, being reimbursed in the form of fee-for-service or per diem payment [1], [3], [4]. The Swiss system was implemented as part of a wider reform of hospital financing constituting a partial revision of the Federal Health Insurance Law (‘KVG’) [5].

After they were first introduced as a payment system for medicare in the US in 1983, a range of DRG-based systems have been implemented worldwide, including many European countries [6]. This kind of payment system is often implemented with the expectation that it will increase the transparency of hospital performance and resource consumption by standardizing reimbursement, and result in greater efficiency by encouraging appropriate care and discouraging unnecessary care [4], [7]. Indeed, in Switzerland a primary goal of the implementation of DRGs has been cited as an increase in efficiency and cost control by improving transparency and by increasing comparability between Swiss hospitals [1], [8].

Any health care reform can have a significant impact on health care delivery and, as such, needs to be assessed [9], [10]. Since their introduction, DRGs have generated research to determine their impact on, for example, cost and efficiency, the quality of health care, access to health care and the work satisfaction of health care practitioners [1], [3], [7], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Despite the literature that DRGs have already generated, it is essential to understand precisely how DRGs work within the context of a particular country and its health care system. As part of a multidisciplinary group, we are conducting empirical and normative research in understanding the impact of DRGs in the Swiss context: the IDoC Project (Assessing the impact of DRGs on patient care and professional practice) [26]. There are also important gaps in the international literature that we aim to address. While concern has been raised about the impact of DRGs, for example, on ethically relevant factors such as the quality of health care and access to care, no systematic attempt has been made to identify the potential ethical implications of the implementation of DRG-based systems.

When we claim that something is ‘ethically relevant’ or has ‘ethical implications’ we mean that it is relevant to or has implications for significant social values, such as justice, for example. The problem with literature on DRGs and their ethical implications is that where DRGs and ethics are discussed at all, they are often discussed in relation to only one or two ethical values. What would be useful, particularly to policy-makers, would be to attempt to identify systematically which ethical values may be relevant to DRG-based systems overall.

With this in mind, we have developed the matrix presented in this paper. The matrix has helped us to group our research questions into categories according to the underlying ethical values, which enables us to understand the ethical implications of our research. However, it is not only intended as a means for our specific research. We have also explicitly developed this matrix for other researchers and policy-makers to help them to identify the ethical implications of DRG-based provider payment systems (PPS) and potentially other PPS, as well as to understand how their research or policies fit into a wider framework of ethics.

Section snippets

Material & methods

The research culminating in the matrix can be divided into three parts: (1) a literature review and empirical research on DRGs, (2) a review and analysis of ethical frameworks and (3) the analysis and systematization of steps 1 and 2.

Literature review and empirical research on DRGs

Our literature review and empirical research identified three major parameters of health care on which DRGs are most likely to impact: (1) the cost of health care and the efficiency with which it is provided, (2) the quality of care, and (3) equitable access to care. For example, DRGs are often expected to reduce patients’ average length of stay at hospitals (LOS) [18], [31], and subsequently, health care provisions might become more efficient. However, while some studies have indicated that

Systematizing the results

Systematizing the results from steps 1 to 2, led to the development of our matrix for identifying the ethical values associated with DRG-based PPS (see Table 1 below).

The matrix consists of 3 primary columns:

  • (1)

    The ethical values underlying the potential effects of the implementation of DRGs.

  • (2)

    The primary and secondary ethically relevant parameters of health care systems on which DRGs are likely to have an effect, as well as the processes of decision-making leading to the implementation of DRGs.

  • (3)

Discussion

Developing a matrix for the ethical assessment of DRGs has several advantages. We believe that our framework can help researchers and policy-makers in health care to identify and address in a systematic manner the ethical implications of the implementation of DRGs. It can also be used to guide future research by indicating gaps in research on some of the ethical implications of DRGs. Additionally, this research and its classification according to the matrix can help to indicate areas of concern

Conclusion

Research on the ethical implications of DRGs tends to focus on isolated, ethically relevant parameters, for example, the focus is on how, if at all, a DRG-based PPS affects quality of care, and by implication, the ethical value underlying the quality of care. While this research is indeed very desirable, only having such research means that we lack scope—the focus on isolated ethically relevant issues does not indicate how research and policy questions on DRGs fit into a broader context of

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Caroline Clarinval, Margrit Fässler and the other members of the IDoC research group for valuable comments. We thank Pingyue Jin for participating in several rounds of the development of the ethical matrix and for her feedback on the paper. We would also like to thank Daniel Strech and members of the Institute of Biomedical Ethics, Zurich, for their feedback. We are also grateful to an anonymous reviewer and the editors of Health Policy for providing feedback,

References (58)

  • M. Wiley

    From the origins of DRGs to their implementation in Europe

  • D. Scheller-Kreinsen et al.

    The ABC of DRGs

    European Observation

    (2009)
  • SwissDRG AG Ziele [Goals]

    Swiss DRG AG

    (2012)
  • N. Daniels et al.

    Benchmarks of fairness for health care reform

    (1996)
  • N. Daniels et al.

    Benchmarks of fairness for health care reform: a policy tool for developing countries

    Bulletin of the World Health Organization

    (2000)
  • U. Brügger

    Impact of DRGs: introducing a DRG reimbursement system: a literature review

    (2010)
  • R. Busse et al.

    Hospital case payment systems in Europe

    Health Care Management Science

    (2006)
  • R. Busse et al.

    Determining the health benefit basket of the statutory health insurance scheme in Germany: methodologies and criteria

    The European Journal of Health Economics

    (2005)
  • K.H. Chuang et al.

    Diagnosis-related group-adjusted hospital costs are higher in older medical patients with lower functional status

    Journal of American Geriatrics Society

    (2003)
  • M.J. Long et al.

    Profitable and unprofitable DRGs: the implications for access

    Health Services Management Research: an official journal of the Association of University Programs in Health Administration, HSMC AUPHA

    (1993)
  • R.F. Averill et al.

    A study of the relationship between severity of illness and hospital cost in New Jersey hospitals

    Health Services Research

    (1992)
  • C.J. Dougherty

    Ethical perspectives on prospective payment

    Hastings Center Report

    (1989)
  • E. Muñoz et al.

    Race and diagnostic related group prospective hospital payment for medical patients

    Journal of the National Medical Association

    (1989)
  • K.E. Powderly et al.

    The Impact of DRGs on health care workers and their clients

    Hastings Center Report

    (1989)
  • G.H. Sands et al.

    Neurology age, hospital costs, and DRGs

    Neurology

    (1988)
  • L.M. Fleck

    DRGs: justice the invisible rationing of health care resources

    Journal of Medicine and Philosophy

    (1987)
  • IDoC Project, Institute of Biomedical Ethics, University of Zurich:...
  • E. Pfister, Die Rolle der Ethik im Gesundheitswesen, In Press, Zürich; LIT Verlag...
  • E. Pfister Lipp et al.

    Was ist für Sie eigentlich gute Medizin?. Eine qualitative Interviewstudie im Kontext der Schweizer DRG-Einführung

    Bioethica Forum

    (2013)
  • Cited by (25)

    • The impact of improving the quality of coding in the utilities of Diagnosis Related Groups system in a private healthcare institution. 14-year experience

      2019, International Journal of Medical Informatics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Canada has developed their Case Mix Groups national classification systems primarily as epidemiological and health service planning tools for describing inpatient activity [11]. At the beginning of 2012, Switzerland made obligatory the use of Swiss DRG system [13] as well as Kazakhstan, both for seeking improve the efficiency and transparency in the health system reimbursement [14]. While many countries are focused in the development of their own classification to justify the complexity and explain the variability in the resource use between patients and to increase the transparency in the management and resource consumption [11], because under the system of DRG hospitals is reimbursed a standard amount according to the number and type of case [13],

    • The suitability of a DRG casemix system in the Maltese hospital setting

      2018, Health Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      The formulation of DRGs would encourage administrators to view the use and costs of hospital services along product lines based on DRGs and, in so doing, to provide information on whether resources used for particular episodes of care are in line with what is expected for an average case within a particular DRG group. DRG-based systems have now been implemented worldwide, including in many European Countries [8] with the aim of increasing transparency of hospital performance and resource consumption thus achieving greater efficiency by encouraging appropriate care and discouraging unnecessary care [3,11,12]. In countries where the inpatient sector is dominated by the public sector, and where most health sector workers are on fixed salaries, the incentives of introducing DRGs tend to differ from most others based on funding and payment objectives [3].

    • Did hospitals respond to changes in weights of Diagnosis Related Groups in Norway between 2006 and 2013?

      2016, Health Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      By using a system of DRG-payments instead of fixed transfers, policy makers want to increase the number of treatments, reduce unit costs and stimulate innovation [1]. At the same time, it is often claimed that the incentives produce undesirable consequences [2]. For example, it has been argued that the system encourages up-coding of patients into the DRGs that are most profitable [3], that it makes hospitals select patients who are relatively easy to treat [4,5] and that it makes hospitals focus too much on the DRGs with the highest financial rewards [6,7].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text