Fortschr Röntgenstr 2018; 190(04): 348-358
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-121471
Interventional Radiology
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

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

Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Florian M. Vogt
Clinic for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Germany
,
Peter Hunold
Clinic for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Germany
,
Julian Haegele
Clinic for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Germany
,
Erik Stahlberg
Clinic for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Germany
,
Jörg Barkhausen
Clinic for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Germany
,
Jan Peter Goltz
Clinic for Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Germany
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

17 December 2016

19 September 2017

Publication Date:
01 March 2018 (eFirst)

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