Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Hernia
Published in: Hernia 2/2014

01-04-2014 | Original Article

Patient classification and hospital reimbursement for inguinal hernia repair: a comparison across 11 European countries

Authors: L. Serdén, J. O’Reilly

Published in: Hernia | Issue 2/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

This comparative study examines the categorisation of patients undergoing surgical repair of inguinal hernia in the diagnosis-related group (DRG) systems of 11 European countries (Austria, England, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Sweden). Understanding the design and operation of DRG systems for this common surgical procedure is important, given their increasing use internationally for hospital reimbursement and performance measurement.

Methods

A common definition was used to identify inguinal hernia patients and the corresponding data were extracted from national databases. The analysis compared the variables and algorithms for classifying these patients to DRGs across the participating countries, as well as the number, composition and relative resource intensity of groups. An index case and six standardised vignettes were grouped using each country’s DRG system and the associated quasi-prices were calculated.

Results

The number of groups to which inguinal hernia patients are assigned is typically three or four, but ranges from two in Poland to ten in France. In most systems, categorising patients is contingent on procedure, principal and secondary diagnoses, and age, with treatment setting (day case/inpatient) being less common. Added to these, the French system also incorporates length of stay and whether the patient died. More resource intensive DRGs generally contained patients who were older, treated as inpatients, did not die, had (more severe) complications and/or co-morbidities, and/or underwent laparoscopic repair. There are cross-country disparities in day case rates and the use of laparoscopic repairs.

Conclusions

The categorisation of inguinal hernia patients varies across the 11 European DRG systems under study. By highlighting the main differences across these systems, this comparative analysis allows the relevant decision makers to assess the adequacy and specificity of their own DRG systems.
Footnotes
1
Further details on the EuroDRG project, funded under the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Commission, are available at www.​eurodrg.​eu.
 
2
In contrast, there are proposals to reduce the number of diagnose behandeling combinaties (DBCs) in the Netherlands from approximately 30,000–4,000 [8].
 
3
The other EoCs were breast cancer surgery, acute myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft, stroke, appendectomy, cholecystectomy, hip replacement, knee replacement and childbirth. Using a similar approach to that adopted in this paper, Quentin et al. [11] discuss the classification of appendectomy patients across the 11 participating countries.
 
4
Further detailed information on each country’s DRG system is contained in Kobel et al. [6].
 
5
Outliers generally refer to particularly complex and resource-intensive patients, whose costs are typically shared between the provider and the funder. See Cots et al. [23] for a discussion of the identification and reimbursement of outliers in the EuroDRG countries.
 
6
For a broader discussion of the implications of the EuroDRG project, see Busse et al. [25].
 
Literature
1.
Fetter RB, Shin Y, Freeman JL, Averill RF, Thompson JD (1980) Case mix definition by diagnosis-related groups. Med Care 18(2):1–53
2.
Goldfield N (2010) The evolution of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs): from its beginnings in case-mix and resource use theory, to its implementation for payment and now for its current utilization for quality within and outside the hospital. Qual Manag Health Care 19(1):3–16PubMedCrossRef
3.
Fetter RB (1991) Diagnosis related groups: understanding hospital performance. Interfaces 21(1):6–26CrossRef
4.
Kimberly JR, de Pouvourville G, D’Aunno T (2008) The Globalization of Managerial Innovation in Health Care. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRef
5.
Busse R, Geissler A, Quentin W, Wiley M (eds) (2011) Diagnosis-related groups in Europe. Moving towards transparency, efficiency and quality in hospitals. Open University Press, Maidenhead
6.
Kobel C, Thuilliez J, Bellanger M, Pfeiffer K-P (2011) DRG systems and similar patient classification systems in Europe. In: Busse R, Geissler A, Quentin W, Wiley M (eds) Diagnosis-Related Groups in Europe. Moving Towards Transparency, Efficiency and Quality in Hospitals. Open University Press, Maidenhead
7.
O’Reilly J, Busse R, Häkkinen U, Or Z, Street A, Wiley M (2012) Paying for hospital care: the experience with implementing activity-based funding in five European countries. Health Econ Policy Law 7(01):73–101PubMedCrossRef
8.
Tan SS, van Ineveld M, Redekop K, Hakkaart-van Roijen L (2011) The Netherlands: The Diagnose Behandeling Combinaties. In: Busse R, Geissler A, Quentin W, Wiley M (eds) Diagnosis-Related Groups in Europe. Moving Towards Transparency, Efficiency and Quality in Hospitals. Open University Press, Maidenhead
9.
Busse R, Schreyögg J, Smith PC (2006) Editorial: hospital case payment systems in Europe. Health Care Manage Sci 9(3):211–213CrossRef
10.
Jenkins JT, O’Dwyer PJ (2008) Inguinal hernias. Br Med J 336(7638):269–272CrossRef
11.
Quentin W, Scheller–Kreinsen D, Geissler A, Busse R (2012) Appendectomy and diagnosis-related groups (DRGs): patient classification and hospital reimbursement in 11 European countries. Langenbecks Arch Surg 397(2):317–326PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
12.
Roger France FH (2003) Case mix use in 25 countries: a migration success but international comparisons failure. Int J Med Inf 70(2–3):215–219CrossRef
13.
Geissler A, Quentin W, Scheller–Kreinsen D, Busse R (2011) Introduction to DRGs in Europe: common objectives across difference hospital systems. In: Busse R, Geissler A, Quentin W, Wiley M (eds) Diagnosis-Related Groups in Europe. Moving Towards Transparency, Efficiency and Quality in Hospitals. Open University Press, Maidenhead
14.
Koechlin F, Lorenzoni L, Schreyer P (2010) Comparing price levels of hospital services across countries: Results of pilot study. OECD Health Working Papers No. 53. OECD Publishing
15.
Czach K, Klonowska K, Świderek M, Wiktorzak K (2011) Poland: The Jednorodne Grupy Pacjentów-Polish experiences with DRGs. In: Busse R, Geissler A, Quentin W, Wiley M (eds) Diagnosis-Related Groups in Europe. Moving Towards Transparency, Efficiency and Quality in Hospitals. Open University Press, Maidenhead
16.
Geissler A, Scheller-Kreinsen D, Busse R (2011) Germany: Understanding G-DRGs. In: Busse R, Geissler A, Quentin W, Wiley M (eds) Diagnosis Related Groups in Europe. Moving Towards Transparency, Efficiency and Quality in Hospitals. Open University Press, Maidenhead
17.
O’Reilly J, McCarthy B, Wiley M (2011) Ireland: a review of case mix applications within the acute public hospital system. In: Busse R, Geissler A, Quentin W, Wiley M (eds) Diagnosis Related Groups in Europe. Moving Towards Transparency, Efficiency and Quality in Hospitals. Open University Press, Maidenhead
18.
Kautianen K, Häkkinen U, Lauharanta J (2011) Finland: DRGs in a decentralized health care system. In: Busse R, Geissler A, Quentin W, Wiley M (eds) Diagnosis Related Groups in Europe. Moving Towards Transparency, Efficiency and Quality in Hospitals. Open University Press, Maidenhead
19.
Serdén L, Heurgen M (2011) Sweden: the history, development and current use of DRGs. In: Busse R, Geissler A, Quentin W, Wiley M (eds) Diagnosis-Related Groups in Europe. Moving Towards Transparency, Efficiency and Quality in Hospitals. Open University Press, Maidenhead
20.
Kobel C, Pfeiffer K-P (2011) Austria: inpatient care and the LKF framework. In: Busse R, Geissler A, Quentin W, Wiley M (eds) Diagnosis-Related Groups in Europe. Moving towards transparency, efficiency and quality in hospitals. Open University Press, Maidenhead
21.
McCormack K, Wake B, Perez J, Fraser C, Cook J, McIntosh E, Vale L, Grant A (2005) Laparoscopic surgery for inguinal hernia repair: systematic review of effectiveness and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 9(14):1–203PubMed
22.
O’Reilly J, Serdén L, Talbäck M, McCarthy B (2012) Performance of 10 European DRG systems in explaining variation in resource utilisation in inguinal hernia repair. Health Econ 21(Supplement 2):89–101PubMedCrossRef
23.
Cots F, Chiarello P, Salvador X, Castells X, Quentin W (2011) DRG-based hospital payment: Intended and unintended consequences. In: Busse R, Geissler A, Quentin W, Wiley M (eds) Diagnosis-Related Groups in Europe. Moving Towards Transparency, Efficiency and Quality in Hospitals. Open University Press, Maidenhead
24.
25.
Busse R, Geissler Alex, Aaviksoo A, Cots F, Häkkinen U, Kobel C, Mateus C, Or Z, O’Reilly J, Serdén L, Street A, Tan SS, Quentin W (submitted) Diagnosis-related groups in twelve European countries: Experiences, trends and options for future collaboration. Br Med J
26.
Street A, Maynard A (2007) Activity based financing in England: the need for continual refinement of payment by results. Health Econ Policy Law 2(04):419–427PubMed
27.
Street A, Kobel C, Renaud T, Thuilliez J (2012) How well do diagnosis-related groups explain variations in costs or length of stay among patients and across hospitals? Methods for analysing routine patient data. Health Econ 21(Supplement 2):6–18PubMedCrossRef
28.
Tan SS, Serdén L, Geissler A, van Ineveld M, Redekop K, Heurgren M, Hakkaart-van Roijen L (2011) DRGs and cost accounting: which is driving which? In: Busse R, Geissler A, Quentin W, Wiley M (eds) Diagnosis-Related Groups in Europe. Moving Towards Transparency, Efficiency and Quality in Hospitals. Open University Press, Maidenhead
29.
Stausberg J, Kiefer E (2010) Homogeneity of the German diagnosis-related groups. Health Serv Manage Res 23(4):154–159PubMedCrossRef
30.
Simons MP, Aufenacker T, Bay–Nielsen M, Bouillot JL, Campanelli G, Conze J, de Lange D, Fortelny R, Heikkinen T, Kingsnorth A, Kukleta J, Morales–Conde S, Nordin P, Schumpelick V, Smedberg S, Smietanski M, Weber G, Miserez M (2009) European Hernia Society guidelines on the treatment of inguinal hernia in adult patients. Hernia 13(4):343–403PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Patient classification and hospital reimbursement for inguinal hernia repair: a comparison across 11 European countries
Authors
L. Serdén
J. O’Reilly
Publication date
01-04-2014
Publisher
Springer Paris
Published in
Hernia / Issue 2/2014
Print ISSN: 1265-4906
Electronic ISSN: 1248-9204
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-013-1158-8

Other articles of this Issue 2/2014

Hernia 2/2014 Go to the issue

Original Article

Prospective, randomized-controlled trial comparing postoperative pain after plug and patch open repair with totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernia repair

Original Article

Assessment of 126,913 inguinal hernia repairs in the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy: analysis of 10 years

Original Article

Hernia sac of indirect inguinal hernia: invagination, excision, or ligation?

Original Article

Laparoscopic inguinal hernioplasty after radical prostatectomy: is it safe? Prospective clinical trial

Original Article

A new preperitoneal technique for the repair of inguinal hernia during prostatic surgery: first 153 procedures

Original Article

Randomized clinical trial comparing lightweight or heavyweight mesh for mesh plug repair of primary inguinal hernia