PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15508416

Structural problems in the German hospital system.

Abstract

The German health care system has been based on the Hospital Financing Act, which the German government introduced in 1972. According to that, the federal states plan hospitals and make investments. The health insurance funds finance the operating costs. But now the Hospital Financing Act is obsolete, because both the health insurance funds and the federal states are in financial trouble and try to avoid the costs, which are nevertheless rising. In order to freeze costs, the legislators have introduced a new remuneration system, called DRGs (Diagnosis Related Groups), which will be mandatory from 2007 onwards. In this system, the treatment provided will be coded and remunerated on the basis of the primary diagnosis. Periods of hospitalisation and different remuneration systems will no longer be relevant. Transparency and quality will thus be promoted, and the upshot will be more competition among the hospitals. Hospitals that cannot meet quality standards will lose patients and will ultimately have to close. Other participants in the health care system, such as, for example, nursing staff, physicians, pharmacies, rehabilitaion centres and patients, will also be concerned in many ways. The consequences of the DRGs for the health care system, its future development and possible alternatives are discussed in this article.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M G Krukemeyer. 2004. Structural problems in the German hospital system.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15508416/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Cancer care, money, and the value of life: whose justice? Which rationality?

Cost-containment in oncology is a moral issue. While economists use the word "rationing" to describe all limitations on resource utilization that result from human choice, the ordinary language distinction between allocation and rationing is morally meaningful and can help oncologists to determine their proper moral role in cost-containment. It is argued that oncologists should not be required to ration at the bedside, nor should they be given financial incentives to practice frugally, nor should they be subjected to a variety of bureaucratic mechanisms to control costs indirectly. In addition, it is argued that the fact that treatments have a price does not logically imply that patients have a price. Cost-effectiveness analysis is often suggested as a means of deciding how best to allocate resources, but some of its many ethical limitations are discussed. The alternative is an open, public, participatory process about how to ration care, abandoning the formulaic pretenses of cost-effectiveness analysis, but with a commitment to reason, good will, and common sense. Oncologists would then be free to advocate for their patients within the constraints imposed by this public process.

Cost Control↗

Documentation of pharmacists' interventions in an emergency department and associated cost avoidance.

PURPOSE: An analysis was conducted of pharmacist interventions and resuscitation experiences, including pharmacist participation in a hospital emergency department (ED), and the potential cost avoidance associated with the interventions made by the pharmacists. METHODS: All pharmacists working in the ED prospectively documented the pharmacist interventions that were accepted by physicians and nursing staff and entered into a spreadsheet on a weekly basis, between September 1, 2003, and December 31, 2003. Intervention categories included the provision of drug information; recommendations for dosage adjustment, formulary interchange, initiation of medications, alternative drug therapy, discontinuation of drug therapy, changes in medication therapy due to allergy notification, drug therapy duplication prevention, or changes in the route of drug administration; questions from nursing staff; order clarifications; drug compatibility issues; patient information; toxicology; and drug interaction identification. Intervention data were analyzed and the likelihood of harm was scored; interventions were classified and analyzed by calculating average cost, probability of harm, and potential cost avoidance. RESULTS: During the study, 2150 pharmacist interventions were documented. Pharmacists participated in the care of 1042 patients triaged to the resuscitation area of the ED. Cost avoidance during the study was determined to be 1,029,776 dollars. CONCLUSION: The most commonly documented interventions made by pharmacists involved in the care of patients visiting the ED included provision of drug information, dosage adjustment recommendations, responses to questions from nursing staff, formulary interchanges, and suggestions regarding initiation of drug therapy. The potential cost avoidance attributable to the pharmacist interventions during the study period was over 1 million dollars.

Cost Control↗