DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

KDRG를 이용한 건강보험 외래 진료비 분류 타당성

On Feasibility of Ambulatory KDRGs for the Classification of Health Insurance Claims

  • 박하영 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 예방의학교실) ;
  • 박기동 (서울대학교 의과대학 의료관리학교실) ;
  • 신영수 (서울대학교 의과대학 의료관리학교실)
  • 발행 : 2003.03.01

초록

Concerns about growing health insurance expenditures became a national Issue in 2001 when the National Health Insurance went into a deficit. Increases in spending for ambulatory care shared the largest portion of the problem. Methods and systems to control the spending should be developed and a system to measure case mix of providers is one of core components of the control system. The objectives of this article is to examine the feasibility of applying Korean Diagnosis Related Groups (KDRGs) to classify health insurance claims for ambulatory care and to identify problem areas of the classification. A database of 11,586,270 claims for ambulatory care delivered during January 2002 was obtained for the study, and the final number of claims analyzed was 8,319,494 after KDRG numbers were assigned to the data and records with an error KDRG were excluded from the study. The unit of analysis was a claim and resource use was measured by the sum of charges incurred during a month at a department of a hospital of at a clinic. Within group variance was assessed by th coefficient of variation (CV), and the classification accuracy was evaluated by the variance reduction achieved by the KDRG classification. The analyses were performed on both all and non-outlier data, and on a subset of the database to examine the validity of study results. Data were assigned to 787 KDRGs among 1,244 KDRGs defined in the classification system. For non-outlier data, 77.4% of KDRGs had a CV of charges from tertiary care hospitals less than 100% and 95.43% of KDRGs for data from clinics. The variance reduction achieved by the KDRG classification was 40.80% for non-outlier claims from tertiary care hospitals, 51.98% for general hospitals, 40.89% for hospitals, and 54.99% for clinics. Similar results were obtained from the analyses performed on a subset of the study database. The study results indicated that KDRGs developed for a classification of inpatient care could be used for ambulatory care, although there were areas where the classification should be refined. Its power to predict tile resource utilization showed a potential for its application to measure case mix of providers for monitoring and managing delivery of ambulatory care. The issue concerning the quality of diagnostic information contained in insurance claims remains to be improved, and significance of future studies for other classification systems based on visits or episodes is guaranteed.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 건강보험심사평가원. 2001 건강보험심사통계지표. 2002
  2. 박종구, 김기순, 김춘배 등. 의료보험청구자료중 뇌혈관질환 상병기호의 정확도에 관한 연구. 예방의학회지 2000: 33(1) : 76-82
  3. 이건세. 의무기록과 의료보험 청구명세서의 진단 코드 일치에 관한 연구. 서울대학교 대학원 의학석사학위논문, 1995
  4. 신영수, 이영성, 박하영, 염용권. 한국 진단명기준 환자군의 개발과 평가: 입원환자의 의료서비스 이용을 중심으로. 예방의학회지 1993 ; 26 : 293-309
  5. 신의철, 박용문, 박용규 등. 의료보험자료 상병기호의 정확도 추정 및 관련 특성 분석 - 법정 전염병을 중심으로. 예방의학회지 1998 ; 31(3) : 471-80
  6. 한국보건산업진흥원, KADRG 분류집, 한학문학사, 2001
  7. 한국보건산업진흥원. 종합전문요양기관평가기준 개발 연구, 2002
  8. 한국보건의료관리연구원, KADRG 분류집, 한학문화사, 1998
  9. Averill RF, Muldoon JH, Vertrees JC, Goldfield NI, et al. The evolution of casemix measurement using DRGs, 3M HIS Working Paper 5-98, 1997. Accessed at http://www.3mhis.com/us/documents/reports/evolcasemix5-98.pdf
  10. Averill RF, Goldfield NI, Gregg LW, Grant TM, et al. Development of a prospective payment system for hospital-based outpatient care, 3M HIS Research Report 12-97, 1997. Accessed at http://www.3mhis.com/us/documents/reports/apg-article.pdf
  11. Brewster AC, Karlin BG, Hyde LA, jacobs CM, et al. MEDISGRPS: A clinically based approach to classifying hospital patients at admission. Inquiry 1985 ; 22 : 377-387
  12. Coffey RM, Louis DZ. Case mix in the USA: Fifteen years of DRG-based hospital financing in the United States. In Case mix: Global views, Roger France FH et al. (eds), Amsterdam, Netherlands, IOS Press, 2001 : 159-172
  13. Culler S, Ehrenfried D. On the feasibility and usefulness of physician DRGs. Inquiry 1986 ; 23 : 40-55
  14. Fetter RE, Averill RF, Lichtenstein JL, Freeman JL. Ambulatory Visit Groups: A framework for measuring productivity in ambulatory care. Health Services Research 1984 ; 19 : 415-437
  15. Fetter RB (ed). DRGs: Their design and development. Ann Arbor, MI, Health Administration Press. 1991
  16. Fetter RB, Schneider K. Lichtenstein JL, Freeman J, et al. Development of an ambulatory classification systems (final report to Health Care Financing Administration grant nos. 19-P-98361/1-01 and 18-C98361/1-02). New Haven, CT. Health Systems Management Group, Yale University, 1987
  17. Freeman J. Fetter RB, Park H. Schneider K. et al. Diagnosis-Related Group refinement with diagnosis and procedure-specific comorbidities and complications. Medical Care 1995 ; 33 : 806-827 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199508000-00006
  18. Gonella JS, Hornbrook MC, Louis DZ. Staging of disease: A case-mix measurement. Journal of the American Medical Association 1984 ; 251 : 637-644 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.251.5.637
  19. Horn SJ, Horn RA. The computerized severity index: A new tool for case-mix management. Journal of Medical Systems 1986 ; 10 : 73-78 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992953
  20. Jenks SF, Dobson A, Strategies for reforming Medicare's physician payments. The New England Journal of Medicine 1985 ; 312 : 1492-1499 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198506063122306
  21. Mitchell JB. Physician DRGs. The New England Journal of Medicine 1985 ; 313 : 670-676 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198509123131106
  22. Palmer G, Reid B. Evaluation of the performance of diagnosis-related groups and similar casemix systems: methodological issues. Health Services Management Research 2001 ; 14 : 71-81 https://doi.org/10.1258/0951484011912564
  23. Roger France FH, Mertens I, Closon M-C, Hofdijk J (eds). Case mix: Global views, Amsterdam, Netherlands, IOS Press, 2001
  24. Schneider D. An ambulatory care classification system: Design, development and evaluation. Health Services Research 1979 ; 14 : 77-87
  25. Shin Y, Yoem YK. Development of a claim review and payment model utilizing Diagnosis Related Groups Under the Korean Health Insurance. Health Services Management Research 1993 ; 6 : 2-11
  26. Stimson DH, Charles G, Rogerson CL. Ambulatory care classification systems. Health Services Research 1986 ; 20 : 683-703
  27. Thomas JW, Ashcraft MLF. Measuring severity of illness: Case severity systems and their ability to explain cost variations. Inquiry 1991 ; 28 : 39-55
  28. Young WW. Incorporating severity of illness and comorbidity in case-mix measurement. Health Care Financing Review 1984 ; 6 : 23-31

피인용 문헌

  1. Evaluation of the Homogeneity of Korean Diagnosis Related Groups vol.23, pp.1, 2013, https://doi.org/10.4332/KJHPA.2013.23.1.044
  2. Revision and Evaluation of Korean Outpatient Groups-Korean Medicine vol.35, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.13048/jkm.14033