Evaluation of Severity-Adjusted DRG Systems
Addendum to the Interim Report
Published Jul 29, 2007
Addendum to the Interim Report
Published Jul 29, 2007
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) asked RAND to evaluate five “off-the-shelf” severity-adjusted DRG systems that might be considered for Medicare’s inpatient prospective payment system (PPS). RAND released an interim report evaluating the five systems as a working paper in March 2007(WR-434-CMS). Shortly thereafter, CMS proposed in the Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08) proposed rule to adopt a different system (Medicare-Severity or MS-DRGs. This addendum reports our findings with respect how the MS-DRGs compare to the other severity-adjusted systems. It addresses three questions:(1) How well does the MS-DRG system explain variation in resource usage? (2) How would the classification system affect a hospital’s patient mix? (3) Are the groupings manageable, administratively feasible, and understandable?
The research described in this report was prepared for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and performed under the auspices of RAND Health.
This publication is part of the RAND working paper series. RAND working papers are intended to share researchers' latest findings and to solicit informal peer review. They have been approved for circulation by RAND but may not have been formally edited or peer reviewed.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND 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.