Search

Background: The therapy of urinary stones in Germany is mostly a domain of hospitals even now. With the introduction of the German diagnosis-related groups (G-DRG) system in the years 2003/2004 an attempt was made to realize an ever-increasing fair representation and remuneration of treatment costs. Simultaneously, a declared target was to transfer all forms of treatment which did not necessitate hospital admission to the outpatient department., Results: Analysis of the D-DRG data on running invoicing from all German hospitals from 2004/2005 to 2012/2013 showed an increase in case numbers of around 12% with a parallel increase in the volume of revenues of around 37%. A special feature was a reduction in the proportion of extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ESWL) as inpatient treatment with a parallel increase in the proportion of ureteroscopic and percutaneous interventions.

The permanent adjustments ​​since 2003 to the G-DRG system have made the system even less understandable, so that many users have the feeling of feeding data into a black box which gives them a result without them being able to actively use the system itself. While chief physicians, senior physicians, and nursing managers are responsible to management for the results of the billing, they are in most cases not involved in the steps of DRG coding and billing. From this situation, a common question arises: "How well does my department code?" This uncertainty is exploited by many commercial vendors, who offer a wide variety of approaches for DRG optimization. The goal of this work is to provide advice as to how coding quality can be determined.

The objective of the German DRG (diagnosis-related groups) system is to adequately reimburse hospital costs using flat rate payments. The goal is to thereby achieve the most adequate representation of hospital costs in flat rate payments. The DRG for 2014 is based on the actual number of cases treated and the costs determined from 2012. For 2014, the current changes of the DRG system for the specialty urology concerning the coding and recording of secondary diagnoses are presented and discussed.

The remuneration system of German diagnosis-related groups (G-DRG) is updated every year in a clearly defined process. This article presents all changes relevant for urologists in 2012.

Cystectomy and urinary diversion is an excellent example for the growing complexity of the G-DRG (German diagnosis-related groups) system. Based on different diagnoses (malignant tumor of the urinary tract, benign disease of the urinary tract, malignant tumor of the female genital tract, or malignant tumor of the male genital tract), identical cases may lead to very different codes, resulting in even more differences in reimbursement.

Background: The 2009 version of the German DRG system brought significant changes for urology concerning coding of diagnoses, medical procedures and the DRG structure. In view of the political situation and considerable economic pressure, a critical analysis of the 2009 German DRG system is warranted. Analysis of relevant diagnoses, medical procedures and G-DRGs in the versions 2008 and 2009 based on the publications of the German DRG-institute (InEK) and the German Institute of Medical Documentation and Information (DIMDI)., Results: The relevant diagnoses, medical procedures and German DRGs in the versions 2008 and 2009 were analysed based on the publications of the German DRG Institute (InEK) and the German Institute of Medical Documentation and Information (DIMDI). Changes for 2009 focus on the development of the DRG structure, DRG validation and codes for medical procedures to be used for very complex cases. The outcome of these changes for German hospitals may vary depending in the range of activities., Conclusion: The German DRG system again gained complexity. High demands are made on correct and complete coding of complex urology cases. The quality of case allocation in the German DRG system was improved. On the one hand some of the old problems (e.g. enterostomata) still persist, while on the other hand new problems evolved out of the attempt to improve the case allocation of highly complex and expensive cases. Time will tell whether the increase in highly specialized DRG with low case numbers will continue to endure and reach acceptable rates of annual fluctuations.

KTP or GreenLight laser vaporization of the prostate has increasingly become an established approach in the last 5 years. Since the additional costs for this treatment were initially not included in the DRG system, there was an extra possibility in 2000-2007 for billing these services as so-called new methods of examination and treatment. Since 2008 there is a new DRG (M11Z) for this procedure, but it does not cover the costs incurred. The reasons for this are to be found in the inhomogeneous assignment of costs by the clinics conducting the calculations. An improved cost reflection can only be expected by concerted action on the part of those hospitals designated as calculators that administer GreenLight laser therapy.

New diagnostic or therapeutic options (NDTOs) are remunerated separately in the German DRG system. The Institute for Remuneration in Hospitals decides which proposed NDTOs are accepted for separate remuneration for 1 year. With this acceptance, hospitals can enter negotiations with insurance companies for an individual price of the NDTO. Because there are no general recommendations for these negotiations, we present a scheme for how to calculate an NDTO, based on the example of the NDTO for transurethral resection of bladder tumors using photodynamic diagnostic with hexaminolevulinic acid.

Since the G-DRG system was established for remuneration of inpatient treatment, hospitals may offer the cost data of their cases as a database for the calculation of new DRGs. Therefore, the DRGs will be only as good as the cost data offered. These hospitals must be interested in offering perfect data, since this is the only option to optimize the DRG system.

The terminology of lower urinary tract dysfunction was recommended by the AWMF and the German Society of Urology in 2004. However, there is no transfer of this terminology to diagnoses according to the classification of the ICD-10-GM catalogue. This catalogue is of major relevance for remuneration of inpatient and outpatient treatment in the German diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system. This article presents a table showing the correspondence between the current terminology and the ICD-10-GM classification. The correct coding can change the DRG remuneration by a factor of 2 to 3.

Background: The German diagnosis-related group (G-DRG) system is based on the belief that there is only one specific coding for each case. The aim of this study was to compare coding results of identical cases coded by different coding specialists., Material and Methods: Charts of six anonymous cases -- except final letter and coding -- were sent to 20 German departments of urology. They were asked to let their coding specialists do a DRG coding of these cases. The response rate was 90%., Results: Each case was coded in a different way by each coding specialist. The DRG refunding varied by 6-23%. The coding differences were caused by different interpretations of definitions in the DRG system and also by inaccurate chart analysis., Conclusion: The present DRG system allows a wide range of interpretation, leading to aggravation of the ongoing disputes between hospitals and insurance companies.

In January 2003 a new system to charge inpatient treatment was established in Germany: the G-DRGs. This system is based on the thought that equal medical service causes equal costs all over Germany. Hospitals offering a broad spectrum of diagnostics and therapies and being unable to select their patients according to economical aspects are put at disadvantage: Despite a perfect documentation the G-DRGs reflect their medical service only in an insufficient way. Tools for an optimized coding must be a coding manual created for the specific needs of urologists and an infrastructure that allows a permanent quality control for all persons involved.