PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10127456

How recalibration method, pricing, and coding affect DRG weights.

Abstract

We compared diagnosis-related group (DRG) weights calculated using the hospital-specific relative-value (HSRV) methodology with those calculated using the standard methodology for each year from 1985 through 1989 and analyzed differences between the two methods in detail for 1989. We provide evidence suggesting that classification error and subsidies of higher weighted cases by lower weighted cases caused compression in the weights used for payment as late as the fifth year of the prospective payment system. However, later weights calculated by the standard method are not compressed because a statistical correlation between high markups and high case-mix indexes offsets the cross-subsidization. HSRV weights from the same files are compressed because this methodology is more sensitive to cross-subsidies. However, both sets of weights produce equally good estimates of hospital-level costs net of those expenses that are paid by outlier payments. The greater compression of the HSRV weights is counterbalanced by the fact that more high-weight cases qualify as outliers.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G M Carter, J A Rogowski. 1992. How recalibration method, pricing, and coding affect DRG weights.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10127456/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Purchasing oncology services. Kerr L. White Institute/American Cancer Society Task Force on Purchasing Oncology Services.

BACKGROUND: A multidisciplinary panel representing various stakeholders in the health care delivery and oncology services marketplace was convened to develop specific criteria for healthcare purchasers to consider when evaluating the structures and processes of health plans. These rank ordered criteria also can be used by oncologic service providers and health plan designers as a yardstick for the services they offer. METHODS: A multidisciplinary 31-member Task Force was assembled by the Kerr L. White Institute and the American Cancer Society in March 1997. Task Force members were selected for their ability to offer expert insight as purchasers, suppliers, policymakers, consumers, or stakeholders in the health care marketplace. A preference-weighted majority voting rule was used to identify the three most important recommendations of the 10 that were generated through a modified Delphi technique. To test the practicality of the top three recommendations, leaders of large managed care organizations (MCOs) were surveyed; the results of this survey then were compared with the results of the Task Force survey. RESULTS: The three most important recommendations from the Task Force were that health plans provide access to: 1) comprehensive cancer care, 2) preventive and screening services, and 3) second opinions and treatment options supported by scientific evidence. The difference between the responses of the Task Force and the MCOs was that MCOs placed the highest importance on evidence-based decision-making, with their next three rankings coinciding with those identified by the Task Force. CONCLUSIONS: The value of these summary recommendations will be realized through their use by both purchasers and suppliers to influence the structure and content of the delivery of oncologic services.

Costs and Cost Analysis↗