Comparing Outcomes of Care Before and After Implementation of the DRG-based Prospective Payment System

Published In: JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association, v. 264, no. 15, Oct. 17, 1990, p. 1984-1958

Posted on on January 01, 1990

by Katherine L. Kahn, Emmett B. Keeler, Marjorie J. Sherwood, William H. Rogers, David Draper, Stanley S. Bentow, Ellen J. Reinisch, Lisa V. Rubenstein, Jacqueline Kosecoff, Robert H. Brook

Read More

Access further information on this document at

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

The authors compared patient outcomes before and after the introduction of the diagnosis related groups (DRG)-based prospective payment system (PPS) in a nationally representative sample of 14,012 Medicare patients hospitalized in 1981 through 1982 and 1985 through 1986 with one of five diseases. For the five diseases combined, length of stay dropped 24% and in-hospital mortality declined from 16.1% to 12.6% after the PPS was introduced. Thirty-day mortality adjusted for sickness at admission was 1.1% lower than before, and 180-day adjusted mortality was essentially unchanged at 29.6% pre- vs. 29.0% post-PPS. For patients admitted to the hospital from home, 4% more patients were not discharged home post-PPS than pre-PPS, and an additional 1% of patients had prolonged nursing home stays. The introduction of the PPS was not associated with a worsening of outcome for hospitalized Medicare patients. However, because the post-PPS data are from 1985 and 1986, the authors recommend that clinical monitoring be maintained to ensure that changes in prospective payment do not negatively affect patient outcome.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.