↓ Skip to main content

Assessing DRG cost accounting with respect to resource allocation and tariff calculation: the case of Germany

Overview of attention for article published in Health Economics Review, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessing DRG cost accounting with respect to resource allocation and tariff calculation: the case of Germany
Published in
Health Economics Review, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/2191-1991-2-15
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthias Vogl

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the German diagnosis related groups (G-DRG) cost accounting scheme by assessing its resource allocation at hospital level and its tariff calculation at national level. First, the paper reviews and assesses the three steps in the G-DRG resource allocation scheme at hospital level: (1) the groundwork; (2) cost-center accounting; and (3) patient-level costing. Second, the paper reviews and assesses the three steps in G-DRG national tariff calculation: (1) plausibility checks; (2) inlier calculation; and (3) the "one hospital" approach. The assessment is based on the two main goals of G-DRG introduction: improving transparency and efficiency. A further empirical assessment attests high costing quality. The G-DRG cost accounting scheme shows high system quality in resource allocation at hospital level, with limitations concerning a managerially relevant full cost approach and limitations in terms of advanced activity-based costing at patient-level. However, the scheme has serious flaws in national tariff calculation: inlier calculation is normative, and the "one hospital" model causes cost bias, adjustment and representativeness issues. The G-DRG system was designed for reimbursement calculation, but developed to a standard with strategic management implications, generalized by the idea of adapting a hospital's cost structures to DRG revenues. This combination causes problems in actual hospital financing, although resource allocation is advanced at hospital level.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sweden 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Ghana 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 79 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 14%
Other 10 12%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 10%
Lecturer 5 6%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 27 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 27%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 12%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 29 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 August 2022.
All research outputs
#15,597,131
of 23,189,371 outputs
Outputs from Health Economics Review
#264
of 437 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,918
of 170,520 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Economics Review
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,189,371 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 437 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 170,520 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.