Search

Objectives: This study compared the cost and in-hospital mortality of hospital care for two major diseases, acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke, by pooling patient-level data from five European countries (Finland, France, Germany, Spain, and Sweden). We examined whether a cost-quality trade-off existed in these countries by comparing hospital-level costs and survival rates, and whether hospitals which performed well in terms of cost or quality in treating one patient group (AMI) performed well also in treating the other patient group (stroke)., Methods: A fixed-effect probit regression model for survival and the linear model for log costs were used to calculate indicators for hospital quality and cost, which were plotted against each other., Findings: Both with AMI and stroke there were remarkable differences between hospitals and countries in (both crude and adjusted) rates of patients discharged alive. Swedish and French hospitals had lower mortality than hospitals in Germany, Finland and Spain in the care of AMI patients. However, a longer length of stay in Spanish and German hospitals may bias the results in the two countries. The Finnish hospitals seemed to have lower mortality than the other countries' hospitals in the care of stroke patients. There was no correlation at either the national or hospital level in the quality of treatment of these two diseases. We did not find a clear cost-quality trade-off. The only notable exception was Sweden, where the costs for AMI patients were higher in hospitals with the highest quality of care., Conclusions: Countries should identify the best performing hospitals both in terms of cost and quality in order to learn from hospitals that demonstrate better practice. It is equally important to better understand the reasons behind the observed differences between hospitals in costs and quality., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This study contributes to the literature on the performance of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients by evaluating in nine countries the factors--in addition to DRGs--that affect costs or length of stay and comparing the variation that can be explained with or without DRGs. We evaluate whether the existing DRGs for AMI patients would benefit from additional patient-related and treatment-related factors that are found in administrative data across countries. In most countries, the set of patient and quality variables performed better than the DRG variables. Our results suggest that DRG systems in all countries could be improved by including additional explanatory factors or by refining the existing DRGs. Our results suggest that for AMI and possibly for other related episodes, a refinement of DRGs to include information on patient severity, procedures and levels of complications could improve the ability of DRGs to explain resource use. It seems possible to improve DRG-like hospital payment systems through the inclusion of episode-specific variables., (Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Knee replacement is a common surgical procedure performed to relieve pain and disability from degenerative osteoarthritis. This study evaluates the ability of ten European diagnosis-related group (DRG) systems to explain variations in costs or in length of stay for knee replacements. We assessed three different models in predicting variation of cost and length of stay. The first model, M(D), included only DRG groups as explanatory variables; the second, M(P), used a set of patient-level variables; and the third, M(F), included all variables from both M(D) and M(P). The total number of DRGs used to group knee replacement is low, ranging from two to six. All DRG systems except one differentiate between primary knee replacement and revision surgery. Considerable differences exist in the rate of revision surgery. There is also high variation in mean cost (from € 3809 to € 8158) and in mean length of stay (LoS) (from 4.2 to 13.6 days). The explanatory power of DRGs varies from 21.5 to 72.5% with values of around 40% in most countries of the study. Findings suggest that DRG systems could be enhanced either by the inclusion of patient-level variables, by the use of measures of clinical outcome or by improving cost and administrative information., (Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)