Talk:Diagnosis-related group

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge

Case Mix Index doesn't make much sense to the uninitiated (see the current context tag on that article) separate from the information contained in the 'Diagnosis-related group' article. It would seem that the subject would be better served by incorporating the text of the current 'Case Mix Index' article as it's own section in 'Diagnosis-related group'. -- 12.106.111.10 21:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to an extent, but a layperson really wouldn't get anything from reading the DRG article as well. They should be linked, but not merged.65.82.105.98 16:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they should be linked but the scope of case mix adjustment is broader than DRG. Case mix adjustment is used in provider comparison reports all the time....and is unrelated to DRG's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.103.179 (talk) 01:23, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Grouper v25

Could someone flesh out the V25 grouper section please? I put in about as much as I know definitely. - Denimadept 22:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More DRG systems

Shouldn't we just flesh these out in their own sections of THIS article? - Denimadept (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US Bias in this Article

While DRGs were "invented" in the US, they are in much wider use. However, this article only addresses the US situation. Considerable expansion is needed to remove this bias. The countries I know of that are using forms of DRG are Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Germany, Eire, UK, the Nordic block & some of the Pacific Islands. I'm sure that there are more.

Also, an example of how a DRG is derived from the ICD codes would be useful - as would continuing the example to the funding received.

Further, some DRG systems are not based on ICD codes and this needs to be covered as well.

Is there a Wikipedian who is a nosologist who could help with these expansions? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what a "nosologist" (note the redlink) is, but I've written an MS-DRG (DRG v25) grouper, so I can help some with that. What I can't help with are previous releases, other countries, and other kinds of DRG, such as APR-DRG. If you want stuff from other systems and other countries, you'll need to get more people (note the plural) to help. - Denimadept (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I know what a "nosologist" is. - Denimadept (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added some information about the "New Jersey experiment" (1980-83) with DRGs. In 1981, I joined the medical staff of one of the hospitals in the second cadre of New Jersey's imposition of DRGs. Our institution was in the "surplus" category. It went from roughly a million dollars in the black the year before to about one million dollars in the red. As a Quality Assurance (QA) subcommittee chairman on the medical staff, I was assigned the job of examining - among other things - proximal readmissions for Medicare patients, and found even then that DRGs were pressing a "discharge quicker and sicker" imperative upon attending physicians that tended reliably to result in these patients "rubber-banding" back into the house within 30 days. No surprise to discover that Medicare patient readmissions are costing quite a bit (estimated at $17.4 billion in 2004)[1] and have been ever since DRGs went nationwide in '83. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.138.216 (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRGs are in an advanced state of adoption in Russia by the state medical insurance system. However the state of adoption varies by region.

Grouper 26?

Should we add this grouper? - Denimadept (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnosis-related group or Diagnosis-related groupS ?

In the article's main text and on german wikipedia, "DRG" is defined in plural form ("... groups"), but the article is called "Diagnosis-related group" (singular form). This should be fixed. Either one uses "DRG are ..." or "DRG is ..." (the former of which will correspond to "DRGs are ...") and obviously only one can be right. 79.253.44.175 (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are various classifications that are called "DRG". The unit of classification is a DRG, which is pluralised to DRGs. This means that DRG is used both as a group noun (the classification) and a countable noun (the units of classification). So, "DRG is a system ..." refers to the classification, but "DRGs are assigned ..." refers to the units within the classification. Therefore, both are right and the article is correctly at the singular. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OIG at the HHS reports

Office of Evaluation and Inspections DRG has some reports which might be useful here. II | (t - c) 23:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tutorials / navigating details

A lot of the sources out there jump into the details without explaining the basics first. And it's pretty hard to navigate the CMS webiste on this. Verywell has a couple good basics articles: "Diagnostic Related Grouping and How It Works and "How a DRG Determines How Much a Hospital Gets Paid". The site itself is on the local spam blacklist but I found these were good start for anyone confused and wanting to learn. II | (t - c) 00:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]