Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government

Health Services Research & Development

Go to the ORD website
Go to the QUERI website

HSR&D Citation Abstract

Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title

The effect of cost construction based on either DRG or ICD-9 codes or risk group stratification on the resulting cost-effectiveness ratios.

Chumney EC, Biddle AK, Simpson KN, Weinberger M, Magruder KM, Zelman WN. The effect of cost construction based on either DRG or ICD-9 codes or risk group stratification on the resulting cost-effectiveness ratios. Pharmacoeconomics. 2007 Nov 14; 22(18):1209-16.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.
   Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions



Abstract:

BACKGROUND: As cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) are increasingly used to inform policy decisions, there is a need for more information on how different cost determination methods affect cost estimates and the degree to which the resulting cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) may be affected. The lack of specificity of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) could mean that they are ill-suited for costing applications in CEAs. Yet, the implications of using International Classification of Diseases-9th edition (ICD-9) codes or a form of disease-specific risk group stratification instead of DRGs has yet to be clearly documented. OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the implications of different disease coding mechanisms on costs and the magnitude of error that could be introduced in head-to-head comparisons of resulting CERs. METHODS: We based our analyses on a previously published Markov model for HIV/AIDS therapies. We used the Healthcare Cost and Utilisation Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample (HCUP-NIS) data release 6, which contains all-payer data on hospital inpatient stays from selected states. We added costs for the mean number of hospitalisations, derived from analyses based on either DRG or ICD-9 codes or risk group stratification cost weights, to the standard outpatient and prescription drug costs to yield an estimate of total charges for each AIDS-defining illness (ADI). Finally, we estimated the Markov model three times with the appropriate ADI cost weights to obtain CERs specific to the use of either DRG or ICD-9 codes or risk group. RESULTS: Contrary to expectations, we found that the choice of coding/grouping assumptions that are disease-specific by either DRG codes, ICD-9 codes or risk group resulted in very similar CER estimates for highly active antiretroviral therapy. The large variations in the specific ADI cost weights across the three different coding approaches was especially interesting. However, because no one approach produced consistently higher estimates than the others, the Markov model's weighted cost per event and resulting CERs were remarkably close in value to one another. CONCLUSION: Although DRG codes are based on broader categories and contain less information than ICD-9 codes, in practice the choice of whether to use DRGs or ICD-9 codes may have little effect on the CEA results in heterogeneous conditions such as HIV/AIDS.





Questions about the HSR&D website? Email the Web Team.

Any health information on this website is strictly for informational purposes and is not intended as medical advice. It should not be used to diagnose or treat any condition.