Comparison of the Revenue Situation in Interventional Radiology Based on the Example of Peripheral Artery Disease in the Case of a DRG Payment System and Various Internal Treatment Charges

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose Calculation of process-orientated costs for inpatient endovascular treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD) from an interventional radiology (IR) perspective. Comparison of revenue situations in consideration of different ways to calculate internal treatment charges (ITCs) and diagnosis-related groups (DRG) for an independent IR department.

Materials and Methods Costs (personnel, operating, material, and indirect costs) for endovascular treatment of PAD patients in an inpatient setting were calculated on a full cost basis. These costs were compared to the revenue situation for IR for five different scenarios: 1) IR receives the total DRG amount. IR receives the following DRG shares using ITCs based on InEK shares for 2) “Radiology” cost center type, 3) “OP” cost center type, 4) “Radiology” and “OP” cost center type, and 5) based on DKG-NT (scale of charges of the German Hospital Society).

Results 78 patients (mean age: 68.6 ± 11.4y) with the following DRGs were evaluated: F59A (n = 6), F59B (n = 14), F59C (n = 20) and F59 D (n = 38). The length of stay for these DRG groups was 15.8 ± 12.1, 9.4 ± 7.8, 2.8 ± 3.7 and 3.4 ± 6.5 days Material costs represented the bulk of all costs, especially if new and complex endovascular procedures were performed. Revenues for neither InEK shares nor ITCs based on DKG-NT were high enough to cover material costs. Contribution margins for the five scenarios were 1 = € 1,539.29, 2 = € –1,775.31, 3 = € –2,579.41, 4 = € –963.43, 5 = € –2,687.22 in F59A, 1 = € –792.67, 2 = € –2,685.00, 3 = € –2,600.81, 4 = € –1,618.94, 5 = € –3,060.03 in F59B, 1 = € –879.87, 2 = € –2,633.14, 3 = € –3,001.07, 4 = € –1,952.33, 5 = € –3,136.24 in F59C and 1 = € 703.65, 2 = € –106.35, 3 = € –773.86, 4 = € 205.14, 5 = € –647.22 in F59 D. InEK shares return on average € 150 – 500 more than ITCs based on the DKG-NT catalog.

Conclusion In this study positive contribution margins were seen only if IR receives the complete DRG amount. InEK shares do not cover incurred costs, with material costs representing the main part of treatment costs. Internal treatment charges based on the DKG-NT catalog provide the worst cost coverage.

Key points 

• Internal treatment charges based on the DKG-NT catalog provide the worst cost coverage for interventional radiology at our university hospital.

• Shares from the InEK matrix such as the cost center “radiology” or “OP” as revenue for IR are not sufficient to cover incurred costs. A positive contribution margin is achieved only in the case of a compensation method in which IR receives the total DRG amount.

Citation Format

• Vogt FM, Hunold P, Haegele J et al. Comparison of the Revenue Situation in Interventional Radiology Based on the Example of Peripheral Artery Disease in the Case of a DRG Payment System and Various Internal Treatment Charges. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2017; 190: 348 – 357

• References

• 1 Mendelson G, Aronow WS, Ahn C. Prevalence of coronary artery disease, atherothrombotic brain infarction, and peripheral arterial disease: associated risk factors in older Hispanics in an academic hospital-based geriatrics practice. J Am Geriatr Soc 1998; 46: 481-483
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Kroger K, Stang A, Kondratieva J. et al. Prevalence of peripheral arterial disease – results of the Heinz Nixdorf recall study. Eur J Epidemiol 2006; 21: 279-285
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Bundesregierung D. Finanzierung, Versorgungsstrukturen und Versorgungsqualität im Krankenhausbereich nach Einführung der diagnosebezogenen Fallpauschalen (DRG). In. Berlin: Deutscher Bundestag; 2007
  Google Scholar
• 4 Forbes JF, Adam DJ, Bell J. et al. Bypass versus Angioplasty in Severe Ischaemia of the Leg (BASIL) trial: Health-related quality of life outcomes, resource utilization, and cost-effectiveness analysis. J Vasc Surg 2010; 51: 43S-51S
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Nolte-Ernsting C, Abel K, Krupski G. et al. Economic evaluation of angiographic interventions including a whole-radiology in- and outpatient care. Fortschr. Röntgenstr 2006; 178: 78-89
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Chase MR, Friedman HS, Navaratnam P. et al. Comparative Assessment of Medical Resource Use and Costs Associated with Patients with Symptomatic Peripheral Artery Disease in the United States. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 2016; 22: 667-675
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Strotzer M, Volk M, Lenhart M. et al. Cost analysis of radiological interventional procedures and reimbursement within a clinic. Fortschr. Röntgenstr 2002; 174: 761-766
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Strotzer M, Feuerbach S, Volk M. Reimbursement of radiologically guided vascular interventions within the DRG-system: what will change?. Fortschr. Röntgenstr 2004; 176: 1319-1325
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Goltz JP, Kleemann M. Complex recanalization techniques for complex femoro-popliteal lesions: how to optimize outcomes. J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino) 2015; 56: 31-41
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Rautio R, Keski-Nisula L, Paakkala T. Activity-based cost analysis in catheter-based angiography and interventional radiology. Eur Radiol 2003; 13: 1937-1945
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Pietzsch JB, Geisler BP, Garner AM. et al. Economic analysis of endovascular interventions for femoropopliteal arterial disease: a systematic -review and budget impact model for the United States and Germany. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2014; 84: 546-554
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar