Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T10:06:24.534Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diagnosis-Related Groups: Past and Future

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2016

Laurence F. McMahon Jr.
Laurence F. McMahon Jr.*
Affiliation:
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
*
Division of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, 3116 Taubman Center, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-0376
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Introduction of the diagnosis-related group (DRG)-based Medicare Prospective Payment System is one of a series of major innovations that has occurred in the payment and delivery of health care over the past ten years. Changes such as the increased prevalence of health maintenance organizations, preferred provider organizations, third-party utilization review programs, and the peer review organizations for Medicare patients have all altered the way health care is financed and delivered. The DRG-based Medicare Prospective Payment System is the most visible of these changes, given its breadth of application and its radical departure from the previous retrospective reimbursement for hospital care. The Medicare Prospective Payment System has been in effect since October, 1983. As we approach the fifth anniversary of this program, it is a good time to review its history and to make some judgments as to its future.

Type
Special Sections
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 9 , Issue 10 , October 1988 , pp. 471 - 474
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Vladeck, B: Medicare hospital payment by diagnosis related groups. Ann Intern Med 1984; 100:576–591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Fetter, RB, Shin, Y, Freeman, JL, et al: Case-mix definition by diagnosis related groups. Med Care 1980; 18(suppl):1–53.Google ScholarPubMed
3. McMahon, LJF Jr: The development of diagnosis related groups, in Bardsley, M, Coles, J, Jenkins, L(eds): DRGs and Health Care. The Management of Case-Mix. London, King Edward's Hospital Fund for London, 1987, pp 28–41.Google Scholar
4. Thompson, JD, Fetter, RB, Mross, CS: Case-mix and resource use. Inquiry 1987; 12:300–312.Google Scholar
5. Commission on Professional and Hospital Activity: Hospital Adaption of ICDA. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Commission on Professional and Hospital Activity, 1976.Google Scholar
6. Commission on Professional and Hospital Activity: Length of Stay in PAS Hospitals, by Diagnosis. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Commission on Professional and Hospital Activity, 1976.Google Scholar
7. Mills, R, Fetter, RB, Riedel, DC, et al: AUTOGRP: An interactive computer system for the analysis of health care data. Med Care 1976; 14:603–615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Sonquist, JA, Morgan, JN: The Detection of Interaction Effects. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 1964.Google Scholar
9. Riedel, DC, Fetter, RB, Mills, RE, et al: Basic Utilization Review Program (BURP). New Haven, Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Center for the Study of Health Services, Yale University, 1973.Google Scholar
10. Dunham, AB, Morone, JA: DKG Evaluation, Volume IV-A. The Politics of Innovation. Princeton, New jersey, Health Research and Educational Trust of New Jersey. 1983.Google Scholar
11. Health Systems Management Group: The New ICD-9-CM Diagnosis Related Group Classification Scheme. Final Report. United Slates Department of Health and Human Services, Health Care Financing Administration publication #03167, 1984.Google Scholar
12. Gornick, M, Greenberg, JN, Eggers, PW, et al: Twenty years of Medicare and Medicaid: Covered populations use of benefits and program expenditures. Health Care Financing Rev 1985; (suppl):13–59.Google Scholar
13. Schweiker, RS: Report to Congress. Hospital Prospective Payment for Medicare. Department of Health and Human Services. 1982; Dec:1–107.Google Scholar
14. Prospective Payment Assessment Commission: Report to the Congress. Medicare Prospective Payment and the American Health Care System. February, 1986.Google Scholar
15. Schramm, CJ, Gabel, J: Prospective payment: Some retrospective observations (sounding board). N Engl J Med 1988; 318:1681–1682.10.1056/NEJM198806233182509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Des Harnais, S, Kobrinski, E, Chesney, J, et al: The early effects of the prospective payment system on inpatient utilization and quality of care. Inquiry 1987; 24:7–16.Google Scholar
17. Jencks, SF, Dobson, A: Refining case-mix adjustment: The research evidence. N Engl J Med 1987: 317:679–686.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. McCarthy, CM: DRGs—Five years later (sounding board). N Engl J Med 1988; 318:1683–1686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Eggers, PW: Prospective payment system and quality. Early results and research strategy. Health Care Financing Rev 1987; (suppl):29–37.Google Scholar
20. McMahon, LF Jr, Billil, JE: The measurement of severity of illness and the Medicare Prospective Payment System: State of the art and future directions. Journal of General Medicine (in press).Google Scholar
21. Freeman, J: DRG Refinement Project. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on DRGs for the Management and Financing of Hospital Services. February 18-20, 1988. Sydney, Australia. Health Systems Management Group, Yale School of Organization and Management. New Haven, Connecticut (in press).Google Scholar
22. Sorian, R (edd): Medicine and Health. Washington, DC. McGraw Hill, 1988.Google Scholar