[DRGs in psychiatric hospital financing exemplified by Hungary. A model for Germany?].
One of the most important provisions incorporated in the reform of the German health sector has been the introduction of a per case prospective payment system for hospitals with the exception of admissions to psychiatric care. The reasons for the exclusion of psychiatric care are unclear, but it is as a result all the more interesting to look at the experience of Hungary, where in-patient psychiatric care has been financed on the basis of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) for the past seven years. The article describes how in the early 1990's the funding of the Hungarian health service was reorganized from being a state-financed system with a set budget to a system financed by contributions. Parallel to this development, service-related financing was introduced. In the hospital sector this involved DRGs. At the beginning of 1993 the Hungarian DRGs comprised only 437 categories, but this has since increased to 758. Furthermore, other characteristics are listed which, apart from the number of groups, differentiate the Hungarian DRGs from the AP-DRGs. Among other things, service-related financing includes non-typical areas such as psychiatry. In this case, it covers in-patient psychiatric care in an unusual combination of DRGs in the acute case category (50% of all beds in psychiatric units in Hungary are for acute cases) with daily nursing charges in the chronic case category. An analysis is given in the article of 16 homogeneous diagnostic categories in psychiatric care, followed by experiences gathered in conjunction with the application of this approach in this particular sphere, with special reference to three problem areas. These are as follows: the trend towards diagnoses with a relatively high weighting; the practice of charging for psychiatric DRGs in somatic wards; and, finally, the perpetuation of poor service structures and practices through DRGs. In general, evidently the introduction of psychiatric DRGs may also be recommended in Germany because of the danger that otherwise psychiatry might be marginalized and isolated in a corner for chronic medical cases. As the only discipline or specialist sphere with a non-service based budget there is a real threat that funding would be kept low. Thus, under the superior financial conditions in Germany, the disadvantages registered in Hungary would not occur or would become manifest only in a milder form. However, it is important that prior to implementation costing is done with extreme care to determine the relative weighting and duration of treatment for each of the categories and that following introduction of DRGs there is a regular control of coding practices, structure of diagnoses and case-mix changes.
Maylath
E
E
Medizinischer Dienst, Krankenversicherung Hamburg. Dr.Eszter.Maylath@mdkhh.de
D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis / Q000639:trends; D003953:Diagnosis-Related Groups / Q000191:economics*; D005377:Financial Management, Hospital / Q000191:economics*; D005380:Financing, Government / Q000639:trends*; D005381:Financing, Organized / Q000639:trends*; D005544:Forecasting; D005858:Germany; D006778:Hospitals, Psychiatric / Q000191:economics*; D006801:Humans; D006814:Hungary; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000191:economics*; D009313:National Health Programs / Q000191:economics*
DRGs in der psychiatrischen Krankenhausfinanzierung am Beispiel Ungarns. Ein Modell für Deutschland?