PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16484849

[Chemotherapy and DPC, prospective payment].

Abstract

In 2003, the Japanese government introduced a prospective payment methodology into acute inpatient care services by developing a new, national patient grouping, called Diagnosis Procedure Combination(DPC). It raised issues relating to; 1) settling charges for combinations of treatment modalities in a single admission, 2) large practice variations in chemotherapeutic regimens and its pharmaceutical costs, 3) effects of shorter length of stays and outpatient chemotherapy, 4) payment adjustment for hospitals providing care to terminally ill, relapse and metastatic cases. In order to overcome these issues; a) oncologists need to develop treatment guidelines and standardize chemotherapeutic regimens, b) refine DPC to incorporate chemotherapy protocols, c) develop adjustment measures for different densities of care and casemix.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Koichi Benjamin Ishikawa. 2006. [Chemotherapy and DPC, prospective payment].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16484849/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Reliability of diagnoses coding with ICD-10.

OBJECTIVE: Reliability of diagnoses coding is essential for the use of routine data in a national health care system. The present investigation compares reliability of diagnoses coding with ICD-10 between three groups of coding subjects. METHOD: One hundred and eighteen students coded 15 diagnoses lists, 27 medical managers from hospitals 34 discharge letters, and 13 coding specialists 12 discharge letters. Agreement in principal diagnosis was assessed using Cohen's Kappa and the fraction of coincidences over the number of pairs, agreement for the full set of diagnoses with a previously developed measure p(om). RESULTS: Kappa values were fair (managers) or moderate (coders) for terminal codes with 0.27 and 0.42 (agreement 29.2% versus 46.8%), substantial for the chapter level with 0.71 and 0.72 (agreement 78.3% versus 80.8%). p(om) was lower for the full set of diagnoses than for principal diagnoses, for example in case of managers with 0.21 versus 0.29 for terminal codes. Best results were achieved by students coding diagnoses lists. In summary, the results are remarkably lower than in earlier publications. CONCLUSION: The refinement of the ICD-10 accompanied by innumerous coding rules has established a complex environment that leads to significant uncertainties even for experts. Use of coded data for quality management, health care financing, and health care policy requires a remarkable simplification of ICD-10 to receive a valid image of health care reality.

Diagnosis-Related Groups↗